Richard Rose - 02:09pm Mar 2, 2001 Pacific (#4 of 14)
OS X is a thoroughly modern OS with full pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection. It's based on a re-worked BSD Unix architecture. It should be very stable and is unlikely itself to ever crash. Native OS X applications, if they ever crash, will exit gracefully and the OS will recover the memory used by the program without harm to the running OS or to other Native OS X applications.
As one of the tasks, running in the multitasking environment, OS X will run a single instance of OS 9.1 (only 9.1, no other earlier Mac OS). This is the Classic environment. In this environemnt, any program that now runs under MacOS will run in the non-pre-emptive multitasking space that OS 9.1 represents.
As now is the case, any program that crashes within that space will probably bring down other programs and the OS running within (and only within) the Classic environment.
...m;o) - 02:12pm Mar 2, 2001 Pacific (#5 of 14)
Well pal, All computers crash, some more than others. Our SGI Quad processor server needs to be restarted every once in a while. Yes OS X will be better, but YOU can test it first for me.
Mike Dicosola - 01:42pm Mar 6, 2001 Pacific (#9 of 14)
Does Adobe plan to come out with an OS X version? I know it runs in classic but do they plan on a carbonized version. I know After Effects just came out and it is currently Classic only but they are saying an OS X version will be out after OS X release. Is adobe going to do this for photoshop? They should since OS X will operate faster w/ Apps created for it, right?
Chris Cox - 03:10pm Mar 6, 2001 Pacific (#10 of 14)
"They should since OS X will operate faster w/ Apps created for it, right?"
No, that's not right.
OSX will be slower than OS9 - it has far more overhead.
Mike Dicosola - 03:51pm Mar 6, 2001 Pacific (#11 of 14)
are you sure? i heard that it is much faster with a G4 and allows for multiprocessing etc..
Mike - I don't know what you heard.
But OSX has a lot more overhead than OS9, and some of it's memory management and security features can slow things down quite a bit.
Anyone expecting OSX to be faster had better step away from the crack pipe....
Jeff Schewe - 08:51pm Mar 6, 2001 Pacific (#13 of 14)
There's several reasons that Photoshop on OS X isn't a good story-despite what some pundants may be saying.
The kernal for OS X is Mach 4.5, basically Unix. Unix has a hard time with complext file formats that have many different components-like Photoshop files. So, without fault to Photoshop, PSD files may be slower opening and saving-unless Apple does something to help.
Mutli-threaded, pre-emptive multi-tasking? Great, so, unlike the Mac where you can lock in resources, OS X system will be able to preempt Photoshop. This is not exactly a good thing for Photoshop. Running multiple apps and stealing processor clicks for some other process or app will slow Photoshop down.
Want more bad news? As far as I know, in order for an application to be Carbon, it must be 100% completely Carbon. . .including ALL EXTENSIONS AND PLUG-INS. Otherwise, the Carbon apps will launch in Classic. So, do you have a lot of Photoshop plug-ins? While Adobe can surely Carbonize their plug-ins quickly, how long do you figure printer, camera and 3rd party plug-in developers will take to Carbonize? Also, some shareware or freeware plug-ins may NEVER be Carbonized. Some companies aren't even around anymore. Also, running Photoshop in 9.1 within OS X isn't a particularly good performance story. CarbonLib is already having problems and Apple has not been very forthcomming with good solutions for the problems developers have been having-including Adobe (all the apps, not just Photoshop).
Add to that that even Apple isn't shipping hardware with OS X installed till July of this year (at the earliest) and it's a pretty wise person who will be clinging to 9.1 for the foreseeable future.
I've only recently switched from 8.6 to 9.1 because of hardware and HD driver issues. And that's the same basic opperating system-let alone an entirely DIFFERENT OS.
Apple needs to be more accomidating with their app developers-particualry their large developers with complicated and deep apps. Sure. . .it'll be simple to carbonize simple apps for OS X, but big complicated apps like Photoshop, which already has to be written for Mac & Windows (along with 17 regionalized versions) will require pretty extensive efforts. Plus. . .Adobe wants to do it right. . .we all depend on that.
Also, since Chris is basically the "optimizations king" for Photoshop, I would think Chris's opinions would be worth listening to. . .I've never won an arguement with him yet when it deals with hardware or software and how Photoshop works on them. .