Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

No 64bit for Photoshop CS4 on OS X

"We're not going to ship 64-bit native for Mac with CS4," Nack said. "We respect Apple's need to balance their resources and make decisions right for that platform. But it does have an impact on developers."

...

"When they chose not to do Carbon 64, we had to reevaluate our road map for getting there," Nack said. The company immediately assigned new programmers to the Cocoa switch "so we could make this transition as fast as possible, but as the saying goes, nine women can't make a baby in a month. You can only proceed at a certain pace," he said.

Looks more like a resource problem for Adobe, as they've had since 2001 to move from Carbon to Cocoa.

...

"The Carbon-to-Cocoa switch was simply too massive to push back CS4 for a couple months, he added."

Meh. Adobe continues to become more arrogant with each release. I didn't purchase CS2 because it didn't offer anything extraordinary over CS1. The only reason I even purchased CS3 was because I needed Intel compatibility. I think I'll skip CS4 just like I'm skipping Office 2008. :rolleyes:
 
Apple did great! Adobe might have had the idea of Carbon being supported and developed forever, so by not developing it to 64 bits Apple forced Adobe to finally code their software more efficiently. Sure, it takes its time, but they must do it now if they want to stay on OSX platform in the future.

CS4 looks like a version that I'm going to skip over. Hopefully CS5 comes before 2011...
 
Interestingly enough, Lightroom 2 apparently is 64 bit … so they can do it if they want to ;)
I think Apple's move is smart, plus Adobe has had plenty of warning. Now let's see what Quark does :D
 
A word of advice Adobe

Don't turn the pros against you.

Now that Aperture has plugin support, it's just a matter of that line where a given person can shed Photoshop. For some, it may be right around the corner, for others, about the time a 32 bit CS4 comes out. It will take a TON to convince me to buy CS4. Don't get me wrong, i am happy to have CS3, but they are getting a little smug, aren't they?
 
change said:
Don't turn the pros against you.
............................
.......................but they are getting a little smug, aren't they?
Click to expand...

Man Adope really fries my cojones,
can't believe they're still behaving like this.

I've been using PSD since v3.0 and I was so glad I managed to snag it with a Microtek scanner, though the upgrade $ path has been steep.
I'm with you, I doubt very much that I will be moving up? from CS3
 
Adobe Photoshop CS4 to be 64-Bit for Windows, 32-Bit for Mac



Adobe's John Nack writes about the future plans for Adobe Photoshop CS4 and CS5, revealing that Adobe Photoshop CS4 will include 64-Bit support, but for Windows only. The Mac version of CS4 will remain at 32-Bit. The reason for the discrepancy, however, is not due to a lack of interest or support from Adobe, but for more practical reasons.

First off, Nack points out that the 64-bit version of Photoshop will only see modest speed increases (8-12%) unless you are using massive images (a 3.375 gigapixel image is given as an example). With these massive sizes and with enough RAM (32GB given as example), you can see substantial (10x) improvements.

Adobe expects that Mac users will have to wait until CS5 before getting full 64-bit support. The reason for this delay is due to Apple's abrupt dropping of Carbon 64-bit support:
At the WWDC show last June, however, Adobe & other developers learned that Apple had decided to stop their Carbon 64 efforts. This means that 64-bit Mac apps need to be written to use Cocoa (as Lightroom is) instead of Carbon. This means that we'll need to rewrite large parts of Photoshop and its plug-ins (potentially affecting over a million lines of code) to move it from Carbon to Cocoa.
Click to expand...
Nack reports that they started working on the transition immediately after the announcement but due to the scope of the transition are unable to deliver it by CS4. He also tries to dispel the notion that Cocoa alone will produce a higher quality product than Carbon:
Most Mac users don't know Cocoa from Ovaltine, and nor should they: it's just an implementation detail, not a measure of quality. I think Brent Simmons, creator of wonderful Cocoa apps like NetNewsWire, put it most elegantly: "Finder + Cocoa = Finder." That is, rewriting one's app in Cocoa doesn't somehow automatically improve its speed, usability, or feature set.
Click to expand...



Article Link
 
carbon

This is a poor excuse, especially when considering carbon actually took more code for conversion than does
Cocoa.
 
Seeing that Lightroom 2.0 was written in Cocoa and now supports 64-bit, I don't suppose anyone know's what is used for Premiere Pro and Soundbooth, that have just returned to Mac and are Intel only. I would think that the RAM requirements for video editing are even greater than photo editing, so Premiere Pro would be a great candidate for 64-bit support if it is written in Cocoa.
 
Hmm

Well that's crappy... If Apple isn't careful they could lose their fairly strong presence in the upper end of the graphic arts industry if a windows guy can mess around with massive photos 10 times faster than the mac guy.
 
bigmc6000 said:
Well that's crappy... If Apple isn't careful they could lose their fairly strong presence in the upper end of the graphic arts industry if a windows guy can mess around with massive photos 10 times faster than the mac guy.
Click to expand...

But then as soon as he opens Illustrator he gets out of memory warnings :/ And I speak from repeated experience.
 
7on said:
But then as soon as he opens Illustrator he gets out of memory warnings :/ And I speak from repeated experience.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, that's good news for Apple then I suppose. Feeding off the fact that CS still doesn't play as well on windows as it does on X. Still strange they would do something like that to one of their biggest 3rd party developers. I'm sure they had their reasons tho.
 
Seems rather monopolistic, does it not? Acquiring their main competitor (Macromedia) and then not producing their products to the standard expected, out of sheer laziness...:mad:

-Teh Burgeh
 
A good second view of this is from Ars Technica

http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2008/04/02/rhapsody-and-blues
I think it shows the long standing feud Apple and Adobe have had on API development on OSX. I don't think either side has heard clearly what the other has been saying about it's development work for several years. Adobe according to what I read Adobe thought they has until 10.6 to make the switch and maybe 10.7. Apple has been saying it wanted to end carbon development since the start of OSX. Adobe had pushed Apple to make Carbon during the OS9 -> OSX switch I think they could be sure that Apple would listen to them and continue Carbon 64 in 10.5 and 10.6. Microsoft had the same problem with it's legacy code. Odd to Microsoft heard Apple more clearly than Adobe did saying Carbon is old and depreciated API. Now Apple burned Adobe by in 2006 saying Carbon would go 64-bit and then switching the story when leopard was released saying it would not in 2007.
I hope that Adobe bits the bullet and moves up it's date for CS5 and 64-bit support. If it does not I hope Apple does an inhouse photoshop app or buys up on of the smaller Apps like Pixelmator http://www.pixelmator.com/ .
 
It does sound like a decent discrepancy on paper, but in reality it won't impact very many end users immediately. All of us have been working in a 32 bit world up until now and for the most part folks have figured out ways to make that work for them. Moving to 64 bit allows for larger files and better access to huge banks of RAM, but for day-to-day use on a standard professional level, this will most likely have little impact.

As for the extreme high-end users who will benefit most from this upgrade, most of those folks that I know of can comfortably use either platform to suit their needs depending on the job, so for the few times it's critical, they still get a tool that works. In the end on a job, it doesn't matter if your hammer is made by Stanley or the Hello Kitty factory, as long as it drives nails well.
 
newyorkguy said:
Well..Adobe sucks anyway. The CS3 Suite is still full of bugs for Leopard. And Leopard is not brand new. Pfffft...
Click to expand...

Really? Could you elaborate?

I've hard far less problems with CS3 on Leopard than any other variation of OS and Photoshop.
 
Wait... Apple drop support for Carbon and it's Adobe's fault?

Oh come on, guys. That's just silly.
 
DMann said:
This is a poor excuse, especially when considering carbon actually took more code for conversion than does
Cocoa.
Click to expand...

How is this a poor excuse? Unless your "poor excuse" comment refers to Apple somehow then I can't agree with you at all.

Adobe have got their entire program written using Carbon where it's working perfectly well and then they found that they would have to rewrite a large part of it using Cocoa. Do you program? Do you know how long it would take to rewrite and debug over a million lines of code?

Adobe said they started working on it as soon as Apple made the announcement. What more do you want? They're trying as hard as they can and only if Apple had announced the dropping of Carbon's 64 bit support earlier could Adobe have possibly finished the program at the same time as the Windows version.
 
I have to confess: as I still use my 32-bit 1st gen MacBook Pro, my selfish, first response was:

<yes!>

But wait till that 3.8 Gb photo of my dog needs retouching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back