@ssp: At the end of the day it's Adobe's decision anyway
Of course it is. We're discussing how they reached that decision. Nothing I wrote tries to convince Adobe how many PowerPC users there are.
@Preston: Apple has publicly committed to the Intel platform by releasing Boot Camp and pledging to make the software a part of 10.5
I'm not sure if publicly committed really means much. Today, Apple is on Intel because it makes sense to be. That could change two years from now. Or Apple could add another sort of processor to the lineup without actually phasing out Intel.
Another option is that Apple may add another processor to the existing Intel-based design. Perhaps the GPUs are going to start doing a lot more generalized processing.
so I think that goes beyond simply telling developers to remove their processor assumptions
I disagree.
Adobe supporting only Intel in a new Mac application is news, but I'm not sure if it's as big as it's being made out to be, given when and where
I think you're misreading the point of my post. It's not about PowerPC versus non-PowerPC. It's about shipping apps with a significant amount of processor-specific code. Adobe may have no choice in doing this, but it is risky.
@Ben: Apple won't incur the cost of another complete architecture change for at least another decade
Can I quote you on that? :)
There's no use doing any more planning than is reasonably necessary for future events that are unforseeable and unknowable.
We don't know that processors changes will come, but history suggests they will, and we better hope they do or the industry will have some big problems.
Apple to write a bunch of code up front for a platform that was already on its way out. It was smarter to invest in the future.
I agree with you, but betting on one processor is not (in my opinion) investing in the future. Also, be clear I'm saying they should do this for their benefit.
by Scott Stevenson — Oct 30
Of course it is. We're discussing how they reached that decision. Nothing I wrote tries to convince Adobe how many PowerPC users there are.
@Preston: Apple has publicly committed to the Intel platform by releasing Boot Camp and pledging to make the software a part of 10.5
I'm not sure if publicly committed really means much. Today, Apple is on Intel because it makes sense to be. That could change two years from now. Or Apple could add another sort of processor to the lineup without actually phasing out Intel.
Another option is that Apple may add another processor to the existing Intel-based design. Perhaps the GPUs are going to start doing a lot more generalized processing.
so I think that goes beyond simply telling developers to remove their processor assumptions
I disagree.
Adobe supporting only Intel in a new Mac application is news, but I'm not sure if it's as big as it's being made out to be, given when and where
I think you're misreading the point of my post. It's not about PowerPC versus non-PowerPC. It's about shipping apps with a significant amount of processor-specific code. Adobe may have no choice in doing this, but it is risky.
@Ben: Apple won't incur the cost of another complete architecture change for at least another decade
Can I quote you on that? :)
There's no use doing any more planning than is reasonably necessary for future events that are unforseeable and unknowable.
We don't know that processors changes will come, but history suggests they will, and we better hope they do or the industry will have some big problems.
Apple to write a bunch of code up front for a platform that was already on its way out. It was smarter to invest in the future.
I agree with you, but betting on one processor is not (in my opinion) investing in the future. Also, be clear I'm saying they should do this for their benefit.