Can I Get a Hallelujah?

[Roger Howard]

On Fri, December 15, 2006 8:04 am, Scott Stevenson wrote:
>
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Roger Howard wrote:
>
>> Don't know about the Windows controls though... again, the platform
>> seems
>> more like the Adobe Virtual Machine than OSX or Windows to me.
>
> You can call it whatever you want, but the lowest common denominator
> approach doesn't really resonate with me. Adobe is, of course, free
> to pursue any strategy they like, but ultimately I'm a Mac user who
> currently uses Photoshop, not the other way around.

I guess I don't see it as a lowest-common-denominator approach; if they
only used controls or features available on both platforms then maybe, but
Adobe builds their own UI with their own controls, so it's not limited by
what's available on the lesser platform.

There have been many cases too where the Mac version *did* exceed the
Windows version; SMP support, color management, AppleScript support, etc.
If this was a lowest common denominator approach we wouldn't have seen any
of those capabilities on the Mac version.

> The core engine is fantastic, I just want a UI that is designed with
> the Mac in mind.

Care to give any examples of where it's clearly limited by having to
pander to Windows too, versus just being limited by their own UI concepts?
I don't think the presence of modal dialogs has *anything* to do with
Windows, for instance; you might disagree.

PS, I agree in principle that even as an x-platform product it should
embrace whatever platform it's on. I'm just trying to understand what
specific complains there are. When this subthread first started I thought
we were talking about more than UI - I know when CoreImage first came out
a lot of people thought Adobe should somehow leverage that, for instance,
so I'll grant that as an example (though one I'm not really qualfied to
weigh in on).