You're changing the frame of reference for your statements in a
desperate effort to make what you said true. From the point of view
of the hardware, one system is running instructions for an Intel
processor, the other for a PowerPC processor, so at the level of the
'switches', yes, the code is different.
But this is not a discussion of computer science and binary analysis.
The logic expressed by the instructions, the runtime behavior of the
application, is what we were talking about, not the fact that the
binary instruction stream is different.
You will not get any slack on this. Making hugely inaccurate sweeping
generalizations, calling people names to divert attention from the
fact that what you said was incorrect, trying to sidestep the issue
by these attempts at changing the intent of your statement ...
It was not my intent to state that you were ignorant, only that you
were incorrect in your statement. You remain incorrect, and you are
expressing the fact that you are either ignorant or childish with
these continued attempts to weasel your way into a position of
correctness.
Godfrey
On Aug 31, 2005, at 5:40 AM, Graywolf wrote:
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
