I do know that neither system understands a word of that source code you are
talking about. We tend to abstract ourselfselves from the hardware to the point
we do not understand how it works at all. I was going to say it only
understands binary code, but that is also an abstract to make it easier for us
(humans) to understand. The computers only understand a string of high and low
electrical states. The PC's in intel code, and the Mac in Power PC code. If you
load either with the others code, most likely you will get nothing, if you are
lucky, or smoke, if you are not.
In the days when you entered that string of electrical states into a row of
switches on the front panel it was hard to miss that. In this drag and drop
programing era it is easy to miss.
As I said what runs on the two computers are entirely different programs.
I would also like to point out that it is not I who starts contradicting you
with my ignorance, but the other way around, and it happens over and over and
over. It would be polite to find out if maybe you are misunderstanding someone
before you call them a stupid fool.
Strangely enough I do not doubt your experience or knowledge. I do find I doubt
your understanding of what you know. When talking to the machines you have to
have all your ones and zeros in a row in the proper order. Most humands do not
need you to do that for them to get the gist of things. I usually think I am
talking to humands when I write something here on the list. Maybe I am in err?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
"Every bit goes through that 5% of code and comes out different. The
other 95% is the user interface."
Total nonsense.
I know exactly what languages (multiple) and what programming
environments, tools, compilers, linkers, debuggers etc were used to
build and develop Photoshop for Mac OS. I helped several of the teams
at Apple and Apple third party developers that produced these tools get
the job done, and helped Adobe's development teams as needed also.
"I do not know"
is the truest thing you have written here. Your understanding is faulty
and your condescension denigrating only to yourself.
Godfrey
On Aug 30, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Graywolf wrote:
Hum, how long you been working with computers? Every bit goes through
that 5% of code and comes out different. The other 95% is the user
interface.
Yep, in Unix (Mac x) and XP that means the API. Modern multiuser/
multitasking OS do not properly allow direct access to the hardware.
Nothing I said was incorrect to anyone who understands this stuff.
What we are talking about is how the hardware reacts to the software.
For example PS uses 2 gigabytes max ram in Windows (even if your
system is maxed out with 16 or 32 gigabytes, and whatever the kernel
will allow it in Unix (that can be changed simply in Unix, but not I
think in windows).
And specifically, I do not know exactly how much is common code
between the two platforms. I do not even know what PS is coded in.
The programming language can make more difference than the hardware
does. I figured we were using educated guesses.
I get the feeling I am talking with school kids here (lots of facts,
not much understanding).
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Adam Maas wrote:
You stated they were 'two entirely different programs'. Godfrey, who
is in a position to know, said that you were incorrect. The only
area that you were correct on was how they handle hardware (Actually
how they handle the different API's, I'd suspect the internal VM
code is essentially similar) and even then you were only
peripherally correct. 95% common code in a cross-platform app that's
actually directly using the Win32 and Carbon/Cocoa API's is very
good coding and certainly not 'two entirely different programs' (I'd
expect to see less code commonality for many similar apps). Only
apps which use a 3rd party API like GTK+ or wxWindows to allow them
easy portability will have more than 95% code commonality between
Windows/Mac OS.
-Adam
Graywolf wrote:
Yep, yep, yep....
If anyone else had posted that, I might have figured that I was
mistaken. But since you went off like clockwork, it just prooves my
point. Only 5% difference and that only has to do with the
hardware, you say????
To bad you can't read english!
Why is it when I say something simply you have to prove I am wrong
by saying the same thing in a long winded manner. I had a Math
teacher just like you, "Yes you can do it in 3 steps that way, but
I want you do it this way (spends 15 minutes scribling on the
blackboard outlining the problem in 27 steps). The only real
difference between you and he is I can safely say, I think you are
full of shit.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Graywolf wrote:
Maybe it needs to be mentioned here. Photoshop for Windows, and
Photoshop for Mac X are actually two entirely different
programs. Yes they do have a very similar interface and many of
the techniques used on one work fine on the other. But in other
ways trying to treat them as the same program will lead to
utter confusion, especially with regard to how they us the
hardware they are loaded on.
Sorry Graywolf, but that's absolutely incorrect. There are detail
differences in the user interface and the low level interfaces to
the OS graphics systems and memory management functions, but the
core and Photoshop application binaries are built at Adobe from
at least 95% identical source files.
I worked with these teams at Adobe quite a bit, personally, when
I was involved with Apple's development tools engineering group.
Godfrey
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date:
8/30/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/85 - Release Date: 8/30/2005
