As far as I know Adobe is not creating a 64 bit bit operating system but I wish they would. Or at the very least they should make a web browser called Quick Silver. I am writng this because I seen the Mozilla Fire Fox video. I think Moziila will soon write a mobile OS and maybe even a desktop OS. They are even asking for donations. I like Fire Fox because it is free. If they charge for it I would probably just use IE. I know Adobe has the free Acrobat Reader and Flash Player why not a web borwser? I think if Adobe created an OS and gave it away free for 18-19 months it could get a large amount market share. Two years later they could start to charge $35 for the OS. I think within 3 years Adobe could get 50% of the market share for new computers if the OS was only about $35.00 for the download version ($45.00 retail version). I don't doubt that Adobe could get a good 50% of the market share and other multimedia software and hardware vendors would also support the Adobe OS. Before I make the feature request I would like to know your thoughts.
I agree with John here.
Adobe should be directing its attention to improving their major software suites to be able to:
1. Operate in a full 64 bit mode, including Audition, Dreamweaver, etc.
2. Support full HD playback on 3 or 4 monitor setups, without having to revert to third party solutions like BM, Aja or Matrox.
3. Add Open-CL support for hardware MPE.
4. Give us back full firewire support like in CS4 and earlier, without the need to turn off hardware MPE.
5. Get rid of QuiRcktime.
6. Support for render farms in PR.
7. and the list goes on and on...
Keep in mind Android has a mobile OS and from what I have seen at the Fire Fox website they to may implement a mobile OS if not offer a desktop OS as well. Keep in mind the OS known as BeOS did not take 10 years to write. I don't like the fact Windows has so many version. They should only make Ultimate and sell it for $75.00. I think Adobe could do much better than MS.
Perhaps the fact that the GPU can not be used with Fire Wire may be a result of the Windows OS but I am not sure. I like to use my DV converter so I know what you a refering to 100%.
Linux / Unix has been free for decades, yet it has failed to gain traction in the market. I don't think price is the deciding factor here. The main question in most consumers' minds would be compatibility. Is it compatible with their existing apps and if not, does it offer enough to make abandoning their existing software investments worthwhile?
Both Mozilla and Google are creating operating systems that will run web apps and there are is also the open source WebOS. I'm not sure that Adobe can offer much that is not already being offered in these operating systems, and it will be even harder to gain market share when competing alternatives are free.
So while your optimism is admirable, I really wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I agree with you about Linux not getting market share but then again Ubuntu does not make Photoshop or After Effects. Obvioulsy Adobe would make their own software work the their own OS. I don't think Autodesk or Avid could do it but Adobe would indeed have a good chance of success because of all the software titles they have that are used by many people. You could in theory run the Adobe Master Collection on a nice $1400.00 PC and have a $400.00 PC to run MS Office. I don't doubt MS Office and many other software titles such as Lightwave, Carrara, Cakewalk and even Borris FX would make their way to the Adobe OS. I think Adobe could do it provided it was free for about 18-19 months to get market share. If the reatail version was only $45.00 I image a lot of people might make the switch provided they just surfed the internet and checked emails. Some folks don't even use compters they just use their cell phones. I think Adobe could do it and should at least consider it.
3. Add Open-CL support for hardware MPE.
I think it's actually better if they "switch" to OpenCL for hardware acceleration, dropping CUDA altogether. That way it works for both nVidia and ATI cards, and you don't have two different development teams trying to keep both CUDA and OpenCL active.
i remember glide and open glide (openGL ) for gaming use of mem on graphics cards... but whats openCL ??
would that be easy to sorta ' output ' via graphic card to multiple monitors so theres enough to monitor scopes and stuff on separate monitor, live pic on another, playback on another ( maybe via breakout box ? ).
ps.. Jim, you still looking at scarlet ??
OpenCL is an open standard that allows your computer to process non-graphical commands on the GPU. This allows your GPU to act as an additional CPU for your system. The result is that it can speed things up significantly and reduce the load on your CPU. This is essentially what CUDA does already, but only with NVIDIA cards. OpenCL is a standard that is not tied to a particular GPU manufacturer.
I think PP CS 6.0 might make use of Open CL. Adobe stated that they opted for CUDA because at the time they started development for the Mercury Playback Engine the Open CL foundation was not up to par.
Jim, you still looking at scarlet ??
Not since I got the definitive specs (and pricing).
The new Panny 250 is my next purchase, I think. It has everything I want on an event/production camera, except perhaps 1/2" CCDs. But the 20x zoom will help achieve bokeh, and the camera has a flash banding compensation system to overcome the flaws of using CMOS. (I just wish the P2 cards weren't so damned expensive.)
While Jim has been waiting for Prince Charming to come sweep him off his feet, I've bought some HMC150s that made my clients go "wow that's good!" and made a ton of cashola, then sold those for almost what I bought them for, and now I've bought into AC130s and AC160s that make my clients go "wow that's good!" and I'll probably sell those and buy another amazing camera before he ever gets an HPX250.
To paraphrase The Most Interesting Man in the World: "I don't always use AVCHD cameras, but when I do, I finish a lot of projects and make people happy."
I agree. I don't see a need for another OS on the market, or even another browser. It would likely lead to more and different problems for too many people. I'd rather spend my time using my machine than figuring out HOW to use it.
However, my main reason for posting is some confusion I'd like cleared up, please re: CS5.5.
I'm still running CS2 (laugh if you must) on a customized, vendor-built machine:
XP Pro 32-bit, double dual-core AMD Opteron 275 processors in a Tyan mobo, nVidia 1500 graphics card, dual monitors, an internal RAID, a bunch of external disks, ShuttlePro V2, (a "hot" - and expensive - system in its' day), but have reached the point where I think I'll have to upgrade to CS 5.5. (I also use GV Edius Neo for AVCCAM editing/conversion/export).
I work on a variety of projects, but as you might guess, I have lots of legacy work, captured via a JVC SR VS30U mini-DV/VHS deck via firewire. That has become a bit of a workhorse for me, particularly when capturing/editing legal work from others. (The cast majority of the legal work requires capturing from mini-DV tape).
My concern stems from Harm's mention of less than full firewire support in CS 5.5.
I'm considering buying a turnkey system because it seems any optoins for upgrading my hardware are out of date/no longer available. (I've never built a computer, and would rather spend time editing than doing that), But many turnkeys currently available do not come with firewire, and Harm's comment hints that I might have to learn some new "dance steps" in order to edit using firewire capture with CS5.5. (something I don't fully understand about turning off the MPE). In all my reading of CS5, I've never noticed firewire problems mentioned.
If I upgrade from CS2 to CS5.5, am I facing firewire problems I never expected/wasn't aware of?
All input invited. (Even chuckles at using CS2).
Thanks for your patience.
If you are only editing simple DV footage, then you probably don't need the horsepower of the Mercury Playback Engine, which is primarily designed with assisting HD edits, among other things.
The main hangup with FireWire users involves the simultaneous usage of MPE, so if you want to just turn off MPE in the project settings, then you won't have a conflict with using the FireWire for display.
As far as simply ingesting footage via FireWire, there are no problems with or without MPE active...the MPE conflict is display/editing related, not ingest.
So if I understand correctly, MPE gets turned off in Project Settings in CS5.x? When I saw Harm's "complaint", I was afraid it would require more involvement.
Thanks so much. That sets my mind at ease.
Lately I've been doing more legal work than in the past, but still want the render/speed advantages of a faster processor and MPE for editing/uploading/downresing AVCCAM for web content, for DVCPROHD, and other non-legal work, and hopefully/eventually editing for BD. (I'm presuming CS 5.x handles AVCCAM more quickly than GV Edius Neo, especially with a new processor, though I've been impressed with Neo 2.5 and the versatility it provides when converting & exporting.AVCCAM footage.
Now I have to decide if I should go for a high-speed i7 Exteme Edition hex-core processor, or double quad-core Xeon 2.1 processors. I'm not savvy enough about processors to know which would be better.
Thanks again, and Happy holidays.
Europe, Middle East and Africa