comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"PeterBP" wrote in message
news:1if784p.d9lu91ptbhjeN%ask@me.com...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> Now, it's not all bad news for WinTrolls. Windows Photoshop is going
>> 64-bit
>> in the next release, but Mac users will have to wait until the one after
>> that. Whenever that is.
>
> 2010 at earliest.

We'll have years of dumping on Apple for this! It's grand!

>> This shows how Windows is doing better at its 64-bit transition: it's got
>> a
>> complete set of 64-bit APIs, which will enable Adobe to make this
>> transition
>> without a rewrite.
>
> Erm...
>
> 1) Cocoa isn't (full) 64 bit?

Cocoa is the one really useful 64-bit environment OS X has. But this whole
"64-bit Photoshop for Windows, but not for OS X" demonstrates that Cocoa is
not the whole story. Not by a long shot.

> 2) How do you go about trnsitioning to 64 without making sure all data
> types are correct and correctly represented and so on?

The best thing is to use a language- or at least a compiler- that is very
strict about such things.

It is not quite so easy when dealing with something that goes back as far as
Carbon, but Apple did it anyway. Then dumped it.

>> Apple hasn't gotten this far; they've got a 32-bit OS
>> with limited 64-bit extensions, and will hold Mac users back.
>
> What help Adobe back was that Apple scrapped Carbon64. Dunno the reasons
> for that but you may want to add the possibilities that there are good
> reasons for it to your considerations before you start berating Apple on
> that account.

Hah! Like a little thing like *that* would stop me!

Anyway, it's quite unlikely Apple *did* have a good reason, because if there
were a serious obstacle, they'd presumably have encountered it well before
WWDC '07, when they suddenly dumped the nearly-finished 64-bit Carbon
effort.

I'm having a lot of difficulty thinking of even one 'good reason' that would
justify that.