×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

For Your Inspection: Source Code For Photoshop 1.0

timothy posted about a year ago | from the time-delay dept.

Graphics 176

gbooch writes "With the permission of Adobe Systems, the Computer History Museum has made available the source code for Photoshop version 1.0.1, comprising about 128,000 lines of code within 179 files, most of which is in Pascal, the remainder in 68000 assembly language. This the kind of code I aspire to write. The Computer History Museum has earlier made available the source code to MacPaint."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

176 comments

What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPaint? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42894997)

I'll just compile and run it to see.

Well, it doesn't seem to show anythALL HAIL STEVE JOBS! STEVE JOBS IS MY MASTER!

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain (2, Interesting)

godunc (1836034) | about a year ago | (#42895249)

Interestingly this code [folklore.org] is supposedly in there. (According to the comments on the page). Somebody should check the Adobe code...

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#42895567)

I don't see anything about Mac Paint (or Adobe or Photoshop) anywhere on that page. And someone modded you up for that?

I found one 0day ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895051)

... in this code.

No server available (5, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#42895059)

503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.

At least they still have servers available to tell us that they don't have servers available.

Re:No server available (4, Funny)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#42895079)

For the sake of consistency, they use the same servers they originally had to deliver photoshop 1.0.1

Re:No server available (1)

del_ctrl_alt (602455) | about a year ago | (#42895195)

what FedEx and UPS ? - serving you 5 1/4 inch bits of plastic or if you were lucky 3 1/2

Re:No server available (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895307)

There were BBSes in those days.
2400 baud over long distance.
Sometimes it'd be cheaper to just pay the shipping.

Actually it's just one text file (4, Funny)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about a year ago | (#42895075)

Here, I'll post it here to save you time:

503 Service Unavailable

No server is available to handle this request.

Not sure what language that's in.

Re:Actually it's just one text file (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895147)

Not sure what language that's in.

My vote would be 'English'...

Re:Actually it's just one text file (1)

telchine (719345) | about a year ago | (#42895151)

Here, I'll post it here to save you time:

503 Service Unavailable

No server is available to handle this request.

Not sure what language that's in.

Have you checked for Whitespace [dur.ac.uk]

Re:Actually it's just one text file (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#42895443)

They cut the download service when they realized they were actually giving away too much of the latest code

Cool story bro. (0)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#42895087)

This the kind of story I aspire to write

Re:Cool story bro. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895309)

And this is the kind of comment I aspire to make. Well done!

Re:Cool story bro. (0)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#42895341)

Heh - I was wondering "who are you, and why would I care what could you aspire to write - what code you actually write, even?".

Pascal ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895091)

Was this a college CS assignment? I wonder who made the choice to use Pascal.

Re:Pascal ? (4, Informative)

biodata (1981610) | about a year ago | (#42895129)

Turbo Pascal was pretty much the first decent IDE for Windows AFAIR.

Re:Pascal ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895189)

PS 1 is from 1990 and was only available for Mac OS.

Re:Pascal ? (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#42895371)

Turbo Pascal was also available for the Mac, although it was... rough might be the right word. I remember using it in high school. Many errors (divide by zero was one I remember well) would bomb the system. You learned to save before running your code pretty fast. I can't imagine writing something this complex in it without throwing a few machines across the room along the way.

Re:Pascal ? (5, Informative)

ImdatS (958642) | about a year ago | (#42895201)

Photoshop 1 was only available on a Mac. I remember receiving the first "public beta" (Photoshop 0.9) some time in 1990 or so and it was awesome - jawdroppping awesome...

In any case, you would use MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) those days, which I think is still one of the best team-development tools. And the language-of-choice (well, in fact, nearly the only choice) for developing on a Mac at those days was Pascal + Assembler.

So, it makes sense that this code is Pascal.

Re:Pascal ? (1)

vilms (106676) | about a year ago | (#42896383)

Yup, remember also having that 'Barneyscan' version around the same time that Letraset introduced ColorStudio. Photoshop 'felt' quicker, so allowed more intuitive working (so, the way these things go, who remembers ColorStudio now?).

Re:Pascal ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42896755)

I have ColorStudio running on Windows 7 via Sheepshaver. I also run Macpaint 1, Illustrator 1, and Quark 1 via Mini vMac. Life is good!
ColorStudio was much more complex than Photoshop (Barneyscan) at the time. People wanted easy I think.

Re:Pascal ? (2)

owlman17 (871857) | about a year ago | (#42895305)

Shouldn't be too much of a stretch since this [wikipedia.org] was written using Free Pascal.

Re:Pascal ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895419)

Yes, and the dialect of Pascal used by Photoshop 1.0.1 is dramatically different than Borland Pascal which Free Pascal is a clone of. You're a moron.

Re:Pascal ? (4, Informative)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#42895759)

Actually it's pretty close (UCSD dialect) until you get to the OBJECT keyword. Apple made full use of their Memory Manager for Object Pascal, which had a linear address space and supported relocatable objects, while Borland had a horrible memory allocator and was stuck with the 80x86 real-mode memory model and 640k limit. So they implemented "Object Pascal" as some kind of horrible C++ish hack. It was really and truly awful compared to the Object Pascal that Apple had already produced, though I hear they filed down some of the worst warts by the time of Delphi.

Oddly, this code didn't make use of the Pascal UNIT system for its own code, instead using multiple levels of include files, with the main code for a unit in "foo.inc1.p". This was probably done to make it work well with makefiles. Back in the day it took long enough to compile that you really didn't want to re-compile anything you didn't have to, and if you did things the "proper" way, code and headers would be in the same file, causing a lot of unnecessary recompilation.

Re:Pascal ? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#42896991)

The macintosh memory manager was based on NewPtr(size) (ie, malloc) and NewHandle(size). Handles were pointets to pointers -- if not locked, the actual pointer could be compacted/relocated to another area of memory (or even purged, depending on the flags). NewHandle was Apple's recommendation since there was no virtual memory/virtual address space so memory fragmentation was a real problem.

Mac Pascal dialects implemented Objects not as pointers but as handles. But they tried to pretend they were still pointers which ended up causing other problems.

Re:Pascal ? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#42896391)

Was this a college CS assignment? I wonder who made the choice to use Pascal.

plenty of stuff from around that time was written in pascal + asm.

Wow (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895117)

I managed to get it, and WOW. It seems programmers in the olden days had a bit higher quality standards than the current league of script kiddies.

There's not a single superfluous abstraction. Every performance trick is applied. And yet, everything is totally readable.

Amazing.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42897147)

Wathchoo talking about? It's bog standard pascal and assembly. And "every trick" apparently doesn't include using good data structures and algorithms. You can optimize your linked list all you want, it's still O(N) for a lookup.

What Functionality? (1)

johnnyb (4816) | about a year ago | (#42895121)

This is a cool piece of history, though I wonder how much real functionality was in the original 1.0 version. Were they doing CMYK back then? Anyway, I want to check it out, but I don't anticipate seeing many technical marvels.

Re:What Functionality? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#42896085)

Were they doing CMYK back then?

If so, maybe the GIMP team could, um, borrow the code?

Re:What Functionality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42896837)

Huh? GIMP does CMYK colors, it's just not default.

Aspirations (-1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#42895123)

So, you aspire to write obsolete code in a dead or dying language, and for a CPU and hardware that is no longer in use?

Or, do you aspire to write tight code that makes precise use of the hardware available without a bajillion API and abstraction layers on top?

If its either, de-install Visual Studio please.

Re:Aspirations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895233)

The Motorola 68000 is still in use, jerkoff. Just because you don't get beyond your pee-cee nonsense doesn't mean that it's not used by someone.
 
Nothing but another idiot wanna be on Slashdot.

Re:Aspirations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895399)

No, sir, you are the idiot if you believe that people are using the 68k in new designs as anything other than a cheap microcontroller. The code in Photoshop 1.0 is pc code, so if you aspire to write code like it, you are not writing for an embedded microcontroller.

Re:Aspirations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895659)

Yeah, C++, C#, VB.NET and F# are ALL dying languages. Fucking moron.

Re:Aspirations (3, Funny)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#42896269)

Yeah, C++, C#, VB.NET and F# are ALL dying languages. Fucking moron.

F# ? I agree it's not dying, but only because it never lived.

apes and monkeys (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895131)

i wish i could run from town to town like an ape or a monkey, swing from trees and telephone wires, urinating all over the ground as I travel.

i like to lean back then forward dozens of times while my penis slaps my belly button, timing it to music beat is great.

i feel refreshed.

when software was fast... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895149)

...and good. I miss those times.

I miss stuff which opened instantly and worked quickly. Where a faster PC actually meant things getting done quicker, rather than an opportunity to shim in another layer of crapware designed by a 3rd party half way across the world to find its way into your ever-less-steady stack of shit.

Windows 95 on a PC from 2000 runs way faster than XP on a 2010 PC, and both are faster than Windows Vista/7/8 on a modern PC. Why don't people make that effort any more? It's not as if using shitty pre-built components saves development time: learning all their quirks and bugs is often more time-consuming than just rewriting from scratch. Is it just that Twenty-First Century Capitalism thing where every useless leech has to take a cut, so it would be Unholy to properly develop in-house and on-shore?

Re:when software was fast... (1)

SpooForBrains (771537) | about a year ago | (#42895449)

Speak for yourself. I'm using Windows 8 on a core 2 duo Dell (so not exactly cutting edge). I've upped the RAM to 8GB and put in a half decent SSD. Everything opens and runs nice and fast.

(no, not a shill, check my comment history)

Re:when software was fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895703)

The SSD was responsible for basically all of that.

Moore's Law might well have resulted in peoples' CPUs getting faster but hard disk access times never followed the same curve, at least, until SSDs showed up.

Re:when software was fast... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895785)

You miss the point. You shouldn't need 8GB of ram and an SSD just so a typical application can seem snappy. It is great that that such technology is available and affordable today, but that may not always be the case.

Having programed on computers with as little as 4k of ram, 8GB just seems insane. Nobody should need that unless they are running something like an enterprise database, doing atomic modeling of a nuclear explosion, or running an FPS that is more realistic than going outside and shooting people.

Re:when software was fast... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#42896335)

Having programed on computers with as little as 4k of ram, 8GB just seems insane. Nobody should need that unless they are running something like an enterprise database, doing atomic modeling of a nuclear explosion, or running an FPS that is more realistic than going outside and shooting people.

Well ignoring the fact that people do run database and do modelling of all sorts of things on PCS, just the last mentioned justifies the high hardware specifications on today's PCs.

Any games on a machine with 4k of RAM are going to be pretty much text only.

Re:when software was fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42896517)

No-one's doubting that there are resource-intensive applications which need powerful hardware.

It's just that most day-to-day usage should require nothing of the sort. On a modern PC, most things should be instant.

Re:when software was fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895537)

In my life I've used (owned or had as a workstation) mid-range machines in a pleasingly broad range of configurations. Excluding low-end boxes I could count the Windows '98 machine from '00, and the XP machines from 2005 and 2007, the Vista/7/8 machines from 2007 and 2012. You could not get me to go back to the Windows 98 machines if you paid me. If apps ran quickly it was because they had to squeeze everything into RAM and I operated one application at a time, two if you count Notepad or Yahoo Messager. The minute anything tried to page the system would grind to a hault.

Re:when software was fast... (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year ago | (#42895623)

Yeah, I had occasion to use machines w/ fairly similar hardware specs (internal-clock multiplied 25MHz bus CPUs) running Windows 95, Mac OS 7 and NeXTstep 3.1 --- only the NeXT Cube would be considered usable by today's standards (and if it were still running, I'd still be using WriteNow to draft written correspondence and poste.app to print envelopes).

I really wish Apple had preserved more of NeXTstep in Mac OS X, or that there were easily accessible options to strip down the features to a parity w/ OPENSTEP 4.2 --- the performance of which on 200MHz+ machines was unbelievable.

William

Re:when software was fast... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895741)

"Windows 95 on a PC from 2000 runs way faster than XP on a 2010 PC"

Bullshit.
Either you are stupid or a liar. Which is it?

Re:when software was fast... (1, Interesting)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#42896003)

He's not, I've personally tried, I tried with 98 because that's what I have retail. The 98 machine boots almost instantly and opening windows are instant, try it yourself, otherwise stay ignorant and in disbelief.

What else? Modern malware doesn't work on 9x systems, they are virtually malware and virus free. Yes nobody uses 9x systems anymore, but it's still the truth. Technically, you are safer running Windows 98, than Windows XP in todays world.

I don't personally use Windows anymore, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Re:when software was fast... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#42896593)

The 98 machine boots almost instantly and opening windows are instant

If you run it on a 2012 machine, you're probably right. It didn't on the hardware around at the time.

Re:when software was fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42896709)

And that's the point. Opening a window today is no more complex a task than opening a window 15 years ago. In fact, thanks to off-loading onto the GPU and the potential for 15 years of algorithm optimisation, it ought to be a quicker task, even assuming no clock speed-ups.

So why don't e.g. Explorer and Word do all but the most complex of operations instantly? Why doesn't Windows boot completely in under 10 seconds? What exactly is the shit which soooo needs doing?

Re:when software was fast... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895837)

There are a number of factors:
* Programmers are lazy. They don't give a damn about quality; they just push for tools to make _their_ jobs easier. Bloat? Not their problem.
* Corporations are lazy. If their software sucks, just throw more hardware at it. Somebody else's problem.
* Users are lazy. Long gone are the days that programmers and users greatly overlapped. And current users continue to be deluded that as their computers get older, they run slower. No, they don't. If they _appear_ to be running slower, it's because of all the crud that the users have allowed to accumulate in the software and operating systems. (And occasionally, the cooling fans.) But they go off and buy a newer, faster computer anyway.

    Early versions of Photoshop were amazing. This was the era before digital cameras; photos had to be scanned, for any quality, at a Service Bureau. $$$ There actually was quite a lot of really good software written back then. Writenow and Hypercard were excellent examples. Even Excel 2.2 was a joy to use. (This was all Mac stuff.) Word 5 was acceptable, 5.1 was much better. Word 6 was absolute crap, and it never has gotten any better.

    Now it's all bloat, and this quarter's profits, and jumping ship, on the corporate side, and spend, spend, spend on the user side.
    Maybe this is no accident.

    I'm currently using a Macbook Air. It is a total jewel. Current uptime is 196 days, and it runs just as if new. There are problems of course, like running Flash will always end up killing whatever browser that I'm using, but this is a well known and long unaddressed problem. Anther problem is that a lot of my favorite old software just won't run on it. Oh, well. Most of the old UNIX games are hidden in emacs now. And Stickies are wonderful. I do practically all my writing in Stickies, and cut and paste when necessary.

    Remember when Flash was really cool? It ran just fine on my 132 MHz mac with 16 MB of RAM. Why did Adobe let it get so incredibly crappy? Oh, MacFortran ran in 16k of memory! It's memory management was superb, easily handling thirty year old code that took an hour to run on an IBM 1410, in just a couple of seconds.
    Maybe you're onto something about that Twenty-First Capitalism thing.

    BTW, you're allowed to stay on my lawn.

Re:when software was fast... (1)

proslack (797189) | about a year ago | (#42896177)

Loading "Pirate Adventure" onto an Atari 800 from a cassette drive in 1980 was neither quick nor instantaneous. Plugging in the Star Raiders ROM, on the other hand, was.

slashdotted ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895209)

by geeks around the world who think $700+ is a bit much for the latest version when they can hack on 1.0's source code for free.

Licensing issues? (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | about a year ago | (#42895213)

Does this put the source code into the public domain - and thus now might it be possible to port it to other architectures?

Re:Licensing issues? (1)

newsdee (629448) | about a year ago | (#42895349)

I googled around and could not find any ports of MacPaint (the earlier source code release).
Has anybody attempted it?

Re:Licensing issues? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#42895555)

Doubtful, unless they wanted to get sued for copyright infringement for violating the source code license. Since its license also is:

Source code in the Museum Collection

Note: This material is Copyright ©1984 Apple Inc. and is made available only for non-commercial use.

Neither of the source code is under a license that allows distributing it or a derivative.

Re:Licensing issues? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#42895471)

To add. Here is the copyright statement in the source files:

{Photoshop version 1.0.1, file: About.r
    Computer History Museum, www.computerhistory.org
This material is (C)Copyright 1990 Adobe Systems Inc.
    It may not be distributed to third parties.

    It is licensed for non-commercial use according to
    www.computerhistory.org/softwarelicense/photoshop/ }

And from the linked license:

1. Grant of License. Conditioned upon your compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Museum grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable license for a single user, solely for your individual, personal and non-commercial purposes, (a) to load and install the Software; (b) to compile, modify and create modifications or enhancements of the Software or any of its components (“Derivative Works”); and (c) to run the Software or Derivative Works on simulators or hardware. The Museum and its licensors reserve all rights in the Software not expressly granted to you in this Agreement.

2. Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Software or Derivative Works to any third party; or (b) make the functionality of the Software or Derivative Works available to multiple users through any means, including, but not limited to, by uploading the Software to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau, software-as-a-service (SaaS) or any other type of services. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Software, including, but not limited to, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of Museum and its licensors.

3. Ownership. The copy of the Software is licensed, not sold. The Museum and its licensors retain ownership of the copy of the Software itself, including all intellectual property rights therein. The Software is protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, confidentiality and other proprietary rights notices or markings or limited or restricted rights legends appearing on the Software as delivered to you.

The only thing you're allowed to do is view and modify it for your own personal use. You cannot distribute the software or derivative works based on it.

Gimp (4, Funny)

Stele (9443) | about a year ago | (#42895351)

Hopefully the Gimp folks can make some use of this.

Re:Gimp (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895401)

Yeah, now this might finally help GIMP become functionally equivalent to Photoshop 1.0.

Re:Gimp (3, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#42895597)

Hopefully the Gimp folks can make some use of this.

Certainly, because GIMP won't be a success until it natively supports CMYK like photoshop.

[ for the impaired, GIMP does and this version of photoshop does not, and noone outside the print industry gives a damn ]

Re:Gimp (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#42895811)

[ for the impaired, GIMP does and this version of photoshop does not, and noone outside the print industry gives a damn ]

From the GIMP FAQ:

When can we see native CMYK support?

It is clear from the product vision that GIMP eventually needs to support CMYK, but it is impossible to say when someone finds the free time and motivation to add it. In the meantime it is possible to work with CMYK to some extent using plug-ins, such as the Separate+ plug-in.

Re:Gimp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895937)

It's the development versions that support CMYK. The GEGL backend which enables it isn't in released GIMP yet.

Re:Gimp (1)

virgnarus (1949790) | about a year ago | (#42896073)

[ for the impaired, GIMP does and this version of photoshop does not, and noone outside the print industry gives a damn ]

You're partially right. I'm part of a genetic research group, and I've had to work with people that need to make CMYK materials to send to publishers because apparently the print industry they work with requests it so the publisher demands it from us. So there is a trickle down effect in some cases. The print industry itself may not be large enough to give CMYK attention, but when you consider all the clients they have...

Re:Gimp (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#42896803)

The print industry itself may not be large enough to give CMYK attention, but when you consider all the clients they have...

And yet nobody has cared enough in the past decade to hire a few developers to add CMYK support. When the motion picture industry wanted more out of GIMP they hired the programmers to get it done (and they forked as well, but that was a matter of governance).

Re:Gimp (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#42896727)

noone outside the print industry gives a damn

Another way of putting it is that "no one outside professionals who want to actually publish their work gives a damn."

You can pretend that everything is just published on the internet and printing is just something old people do all you like, it is simply not the case yet.

Re:Gimp (1, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#42897405)

You can pretend that everything is just published on the internet and printing is just something old people do all you like, it is simply not the case yet.

No, I actually stand by my claim.

Only the people at the high end of the print and design industry actually care about things like colour matching and quality.

There are huge swaths of businesses who print stuff who apparently just do not care one bit. Just look around at all the random signage and posters printed for anything that's not a huge advertising campaign and/or by a very large company. The sort of things produced by the large number of smaller regional and local businesses.

The quality is terrible. The typesetting is terrible. The design is terrible.

Just near where I work, there's a barber with a shop sign out the front in the street. It has a picture of a man getting a shave on it. I CAN SEE THE FUCKING PIXELS. I'm not joking, it's eyebleedingly bad. The pixels are huge, the colours are saturated and the kerning on the sign is bad.

Yet the shop seems to do good business.

There are whole bunch of professional people engaged in nothing bud business responsible for comissioning and producing that sign. Given that they didn't care enough to find a picture with adequate pixel density, I think it is fair to claim that they don't care about CMYK.

Almost all stuff is on the low end like that. That's why shops like VistaPrint are popular and very profitable. Most people, even people who need signs and things for professional purposes just do not care.

Yeah, there are some pro photographers and high end design companies, but most of the world is not like that. Most is cheap and cheerful, and most people wouldn't notice pixellation or bad colour matching even if a blue pixellated dog bit them on the leg.

So yeah, most people just don't care and the web has nothing to do with it.

How much of this is still in use? (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about a year ago | (#42895489)

Would Photoshop CS 6 (or wherever they are these days) still contain code from the 1.0 days?

Re:How much of this is still in use? (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#42895523)

No. Photoshop was long ago rewritten into C++. That's not to say that some of the current code might not have some basis on the original code, but it's doubtful it's that much.

Re:How much of this is still in use? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42896253)

Photoshop was long ago rewritten into C++.

I believe the original Mac version was translated (more or less automatically) to C++ for the first Windows release. At the time, I'd written an Object Pascal --> C++ translator for another company and Adobe was one of the first licensees.

Re:How much of this is still in use? (3, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#42895665)

Highly unlikely. Photoshop 1.0 was 1990 and it was an application. That's like expecting Windows 3.0 to be using the same code as Windows 8 - sure there might be some similarity but most of Windows 3.0 and its features don't even exist in Windows any more (and haven't for many, many years).

With an application, it's also much easier to just rewrite every version - the only "compatibility" you have to worry about is that you can read the old files generated by the program (writing new file formats is common practice, but you need to be able to read the previous ones back in even if just for a one-time conversion). Think the very first Word for Windows versus Word 2013 / 365. The program itself doesn't even open files that old any more (compatibility only goes back to Word 97/2000 at best nowadays), so the likelihood of any code being more than vaguely similar is almost zero.

Plus, given that the original is in Pascal and 68k assembler, the chance is basically zero. At the point that it had to be rewritten for newer languages / platforms (even if they ran 68k code, it's unlikely to be perfectly compatible), the old code would be ditched and used - at best - as a reference to how the program used to work.

Code evolves or dies. This code-drop is pretty ancient in computing terms and won't be of any practical use any more - like when they released the original Prince of Persia source in assembler. At best, you could use it as a reference to make a pixel-for-pixel identical version by rewriting it in a sensible language and making sure it is equivalent to the old code, but that's about the only use of it.

Have a look here:

http://creativebits.org/the_first_version_of_photoshop [creativebits.org]

You could just about put some text into it. It's like looking at the source code to Word for DOS 5 and saying "Is this any good to anyone?" No. Not really. Maybe 20 years ago, but now it's so obsolete we don't even use the program itself, let alone the code that makes it, and haven't for 15 years.

Re:How much of this is still in use? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42895697)

With an application, it's also much easier to just rewrite every version

You're joking right? Rewriting something as complex as Photoshop with every single version? Photoshop that has 10s of millions of lines of code. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I nominate this for the "Most Idiotic Post of the Week".

Re:How much of this is still in use? (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year ago | (#42896771)

You could just about put some text into it. It's like looking at the source code to Word for DOS 5 and saying "Is this any good to anyone?" No. Not really. Maybe 20 years ago, but now it's so obsolete we don't even use the program itself, let alone the code that makes it, and haven't for 15 years.

But wouldn't it be educational for someone who was going to write a word processor to see what you could achieve with 640K RAM and 720K floppy disk storage limits?

Run in emulator (5, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | about a year ago | (#42895673)

Has anybody run it in a 68k Mac emulator? It would be interesting to see a performance comparison between modern PhotoShop running natively and version 1 running on an emulator.

Re:Run in emulator (3, Informative)

sgraesser (579449) | about a year ago | (#42897143)

The Photoshop code can not be compiled/linked without also having a copy of Apple's MacApp framework. Since the code is written in Object Pascal, you would probably need version 2.0 or earlier of the MacApp framework in order to compile the code using MPW.

Homepage Paging URL? (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | about a year ago | (#42895817)

Okay, while we wait for the slag that was the hosts servers to cool and solidify-- why the heck did the paging on the home page change? It used to be going back a "day" would put use unique URL based on the date. So if I reloaded the page a day later, it would still show the same group of articles.

Now it has changed to ?page=1, where 1 means "1 page back from the most recent set of articles". So if I go back a page, then come back later and refresh-- I get a completely different set of articles-- somewhere between where I stopped reading last, and the new ones.

Isn't this a step backwards (no pun intended)?

Re:Homepage Paging URL? (1)

nateb (59324) | about a year ago | (#42896141)

Not to mention that initial site load time has significantly increased lately.

Re:Homepage Paging URL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42896165)

Really, thats hardly a pun..

Build it? (1)

0racle (667029) | about a year ago | (#42895927)

What would be required to actually build it? I already have a 68k Mac, so the hardware is covered.

Re:Build it? (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#42896433)

I have one too, and was wondering the same thing (just dusted off my Powerbook 540c last night. Now I need to find the powerbrick.)

I remember that... (1)

tekrat (242117) | about a year ago | (#42896677)

Ran that sucker on a MacII with 8bit color at SVA's computer lab when it was on the East side 21st street...
Bruce Wands and Burt Monroy were both very excited about this product as it was much more powerful than "Digital Darkroom".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...