![[decorative element]](http://designorati.com/wp-content/themes/d3/images/nav1_topics_OFF.png){kind=small}
Editorial: After Macworld, Will Photoshop Work Well With Apple Intel Macs?
I wasn’t there in person at today’s Macworld Expo, but I heard that during Steve Jobs’ demo of Adobe Photoshop on an Intel Macintosh using Rosetta, the program suffered a hit in performance. (…)
I wasn’t there in person at today’s Macworld Expo, but I heard that during Steve Jobs’ demo of Adobe Photoshop on an Intel Macintosh using Rosetta, the program suffered a hit in performance. Jobs then made a comment that professionals (I have to assume he means “creative professionals”) will not be using Intel Macintosh computers until Photoshop is ported over to the Intel Macs (which Adobe, according to its COO Shantanu Narayan, is in no real rush to make happen).
This all makes me wonder what the following convergence of major events is going to mean for us end users:
- Adobe’s acquisition of Macromedia
- The Apple switch to Intel chips
- Adobe’s commitment to regular product cycles despite industry changes
- Aperture and Apple’s continued development of creative pro applications
- Adobe’s response to Aperture: Lightroom
The problem I see down the road is that at some point our computer gets slow and we need a new one, or we get a client for whom having Creative Suite 2 would come in really handy (let’s say, in order to use Photoshop’s Vanishing Point filter), and we bang our heads on a limitation caused by another computer company (Apple perhaps, with their Intel Macintosh that acts wonky with your copy of Photoshop). The next year, and even the next 18 months, will have major changes in store for all of us.
What do you think? I’m sure many of you have been following Macworld closer than I have and have some ideas about all the hubbub—here’s your opportunity to speak up. I’ll start by giving a few predictions of my own:
Look for a bumpy ride with Apple/Intel machines and Creative Suite 2. It’s an opinion held by many that Adobe CS2 was released perhaps a bit too soon; I worry that some of those loose ends will unravel more once the Intel chips are thrown into the mix.
Apple applications will focus on the prosumer and amateur users, but Apple won’t admit it. Apple is great about bringing creative computer power to those who don’t wear black turtlenecks and strange boxy glasses (the standard designer’s uniform) and iLife ‘06 is another example with its new focus on connectivity with iWeb. They also want to horn in on territory that has been Adobe’s for years; Aperture was only the first step. But I predict that Apple’s focus will still be on the iLifers, even though they’ll still release slick creative pro applications that don’t quite gain traction.
Lightroom will replace Bridge in CS3. I haven’t yet played with the Lightroom beta, but a glimpse of the application shows that it has great promise and some cool features. Bridge, on the other hand, has had mixed reviews and its role in bringing files of all kinds to all applications may not even be helpful to designers and creative pros with entrenched workflows using other applications. If Lightroom becomes a killer app, look for it to replace Bridge and focus on organizing, presenting and outputting photography. Then, 18 months after that, look for it to regain Bridge’s all-files, all-the-time mentality and become an indispensible tool.
But those are just my crazy notions. Put your own comments below, and let me know what you think!
- Discussing the Future of Macs
- QuarkXPress 7 to Run Natively on Intel and Power PC-based Macs
- For Those About to Macworld…
- Macworld Cancelled Due to Steve Jobs’ Declining Health?
- Photoshop Lightroom Review At Macworld.com
- What The Adobe-Macromedia Merger Means For Photoshop
- A Vista Full of Longhorns and Leopards
- The Rush Is On for Safari for Windows
- No Support for Boot Camp Applications… Yet
- Apple Introduces Boot Camp
Jeremy I think that the problem with Photoshop might actually be a drawback for Apple. I personally wouldn’t spend my money on a computer that won’t support one of the applications that I use the most and that really has no comparison on the market. Many will stay loyal o their Macs, others, especially freelancers and inhouse designers, might even switch to PCs if they really need a better computer. That’s my 2 cent.
I agree, though I don’t expect a migration by creative pros to the PC. The Mac computer is still the be-all and end-all for ease of use and aesthetics. More likely is a temporary freeze by some to upgrade their Adobe software or Mac hardware until they know things are working together. A similar situation happened just a few years ago when Quark failed to upgrade XPress for OS X and so many creatives and publishing companies refused to upgrade their Mac OS.
DESIGNORATI
I agree with Jeremy. I think this will be a catch-up game for Adobe, but it won’t eat into their bottom-line at all. I don’t see the bulk of creatives moving to the new Intel-based Macs off the bat. From my experience, most creatives are not early adopters — unless they have the cash/need to do so. With the poor performance of Photoshop at the Keynote, versus other Intel-native applications that seemed to FLY, I’d be averse to dropping cash on a new Intel-Mac.
But if the Intel chips are 4-5 times faster in the iMac and MacBook Pro, imagine 2 or or even 6 Intel chips in a big G5, even running Rosetta surely Photoshop will be faster than it is now?
But if Quark can get off their backsides and port Xpress to the Intel chips so will Adobe. I don’t see Adobe letting Quark beat them to the post.
Peace
Mac Wizard
Vadim, you were there and saw Photoshop’s performance—how was it exactly? Slow? What functions gave it the most trouble? Or was it just all-around performing lousy on the machine?
Re: Mac Wizard’s post, I’m not sure what the logistics would be but I’d think that compatibility issues between the chip and the application would trump the increased speed of the chip itself. That’s just a guess though, I don’t know enough about processor technology to back it up. Maybe another reader will post who has a better idea.
DESIGNORATI
Mac Wizard wrote,
But if Quark can get off their backsides and port Xpress to the Intel chips so will Adobe. I don’t see Adobe letting Quark beat them to the post.
—–
Quark’s porting of XPress 7 to Intel may just be a matter of timing; they’re releasing at the right time, and Adobe is not. In Adobe’s Q4 report, their COO seemed to be pretty clear that they wouldn’t change their release schedule because of what others in the industry are doing, whether it’s Quark or Apple.
But then again, we do see Lightroom suddenly competing with Aperture so maybe they will be more responsive after all.
DESIGNORATI
Jeremy wrote
Jobs demoed Photoshop building a hi-res movie poster (King Kong) on an iMac Core Duo (not sure if this segment shows up in the Quicktime Movie of the Keynote). Jobs opened up PS, quipped to the audience how programs like this take awhile to load, made a face, then ran an Action which rearranged, resized and added effects to a very layered file to finish with this.
In it’s defense, the iMac was going through some intense PS motions, and I’m not sure what Dual/Quad G5 in a similar situation would have done, but with Adobe’s stubborn stance on a strict release schedule I think some of our most used applications will lag a little with the new technology.
Jeremy also said
I totally agree with this. I think Quark was at a point in their development cycle where creating a Universal Binary of the new app made sense. The initial release of the Q7 Public Beta was NOT Universal Binary, though, just PPC optimized — even though Jobs claimed it was from the Keynote stage. I was told there will be a Universal Binary download of Q7 later on (don’t know whether the current download is still PPC).
I’m not sure Adobe is going to speeded up by the release of Quark 7 as a Universal App. That product is already a year late and InDesign has been taking a much bigger slice of Quark’s market than anyone will admit. Though I would urge Adobe to make the change quickly (and I think it will be a lot less trouble than some fear), they have shown no sign that they will do so. After all, most designers are going to wait for Adobe to make the switch before they even start looking at Intel Macs. Since they are already running dual processor G5 destktops, the dual core Intel Macs aren’t as big a speed bump as it is for PowerBook Users. By the time Apple releases desktop machines for creative pros (with two or perhaps four dual core processors?) Adobe should be there even if they take a leisurely pace.
Adobe’s COO said as much in the Q4 report—he pretty clearly stated that Adobe wouldn’t change their schedule due to outside forces. That’s a good point too about Quark 7 being a year behind schedule; the buzz has been building for so long I’d say the creative pro market is kind of tired of holding their breath for this one.
Another good point about the difference between upgrading a PowerBook and upgrading a PowerMac. Does anyone have an idea when the desktop machines will see the switch to Intel?
It’s also worth noting that a large part of the reason QuarkXPress 6.x released for OS X when it did (instead of months or another year later) was the active involvement of Apple. The lack of an OS X-compatible version of QuarkXPress was a major deterent for creative pros and production personnel to upgrade to OS X–and buy the attending new hardware. It was a significant hit to Apple’s projected sales figures. Consequently, Apple sent a handful of its engineers to Quark to assist (goad?) the transition of XPress 6.0 to OS X.
It would not surprise me in the least if XPress 7 was also, in part, the product of Quark-Apple collaboration.
DESIGNORATI