A lot of G4s and all G5s are more than adequate to run CS3 moderatley well...he shouldn't have got a new computer at all.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next Version of Photoshop to be GPU-Accelerated
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A lot of G4s and all G5s are more than adequate to run CS3 moderatley well...he shouldn't have got a new computer at all.
You should always export to Distiller from Quark, even Quark 7.
The damn program can't make a PDF to save its life!
Why on earth would Apple make it easier to run professional applications on their cheapest computer? And a better question, why would people buy a MacBook if they are serious about graphic design and Photoshop use?
Wow, you must have one HELLUVA microscope!
And the most important question of these Photoshop updates are, will it run on the 3G iPhone?
about damn time, there was a huge difference between XP interface interaction (like minimizing windows) and Vista interaction because Vista actually uses the GPU. XP was always sluggish and crappy regardless of the computer you have because it uses the CPU for all GUI stuff.
The downside will be like the downside of Vista, if you dont have the right hardware to run it then youre going to have performance issues. But if you do have the right modern hardware then its going to fly.
The downside will be like the downside of Vista, if you dont have the right hardware to run it then youre going to have performance issues. But if you do have the right modern hardware then its going to fly.
If speed is the primary concern then Pixelmator is already GPU accelerated and damn near a tenth of the price of photoshop.
Photshop CS3
I've been using CS3 since it came out and I find a lot of the upgrades were worth the expense. (for example quick select in Photoshop). But I haven't heard anything for the Mac version of CS4 to justify an expense. Can someone tell me if I skip CS4 and wait for CS5 will I still be able to upgrade or will I have to buy the full version again.
For example if I would have had CS could I have upgraded straight to CS3? (I already had CS2 so I don't remember the rules of the upgrade.)
I've been using CS3 since it came out and I find a lot of the upgrades were worth the expense. (for example quick select in Photoshop). But I haven't heard anything for the Mac version of CS4 to justify an expense. Can someone tell me if I skip CS4 and wait for CS5 will I still be able to upgrade or will I have to buy the full version again.
For example if I would have had CS could I have upgraded straight to CS3? (I already had CS2 so I don't remember the rules of the upgrade.)
Dear Apple,
I know you use the GPU for Quartz Extreme and those wonderful Core foundations. Maybe you should start using it for Quicktime and other decoding work.
~Eidorian
I know you use the GPU for Quartz Extreme and those wonderful Core foundations. Maybe you should start using it for Quicktime and other decoding work.
~Eidorian
Firstly, I'm looking forward to seeing what's in CS4, but it'd take some crazy new features for me to upgrade from CS3. The GPU thing sounds good on paper, providing it's fast enough.
Secondly, anyone who thinks Pixelmator does enough to replace PS in most people's workflows is far off. Streamlined it is, but feature rich it isn't! Its tablet support is bad, its natural media simulation is non-existant, it's colour proofing is almost non-existant, it has no vector stuff, it has no "refine edges" or ability to easily adjust selections, you can't even /save/ selections, do (or proof) animations.. it has no support for PS-compatible layer effects (which a lot of people rely on, especially texture artists).. Etc.. Photoshop has nothing to fear in various pro & amatuer markets if people can be bothered to learn the feature-set, which generally people do when they depend on them. It's not trying to compete in the consumer market, so people complaining about feature bloat should really just quit complaining and buy pixelmator or Photoshop Elements, these "bloat" features are part of what makes Photoshop CS3 great, regardless of whether you personally see a need for them.
Oh, and CS3 runs faster than PM on my setup, by a significant margin, Pixelmator has *terrible* cursor lag, making it a bit useless for high res digital painting, this is on a new iMac with a 8800.. So much for this GPU silver bullet. It'll have to work a *lot* better in CS4. Test for yourself - load an A3 canvas, 300 dpi and scibble circles with your wacom.. On PS you get circles.. On PM you get a jumble of straight lines.
Gimp and Painter are more of a "threat", but neither of them have the flexibility either, and neither of them are competing. There's room in the market for more than one app.. On Windows they have Paint Shop Pro, which is much better as a PS competitor than Pixelmator is, but you don't hear about people setting it up to take down Photoshop. Not going to happen.
Don't begrudge PS, it's a very good app. I've made use of a few of the CS3 new features, and did 7's before that. They don't force you to upgrade.
Secondly, anyone who thinks Pixelmator does enough to replace PS in most people's workflows is far off. Streamlined it is, but feature rich it isn't! Its tablet support is bad, its natural media simulation is non-existant, it's colour proofing is almost non-existant, it has no vector stuff, it has no "refine edges" or ability to easily adjust selections, you can't even /save/ selections, do (or proof) animations.. it has no support for PS-compatible layer effects (which a lot of people rely on, especially texture artists).. Etc.. Photoshop has nothing to fear in various pro & amatuer markets if people can be bothered to learn the feature-set, which generally people do when they depend on them. It's not trying to compete in the consumer market, so people complaining about feature bloat should really just quit complaining and buy pixelmator or Photoshop Elements, these "bloat" features are part of what makes Photoshop CS3 great, regardless of whether you personally see a need for them.
Oh, and CS3 runs faster than PM on my setup, by a significant margin, Pixelmator has *terrible* cursor lag, making it a bit useless for high res digital painting, this is on a new iMac with a 8800.. So much for this GPU silver bullet. It'll have to work a *lot* better in CS4. Test for yourself - load an A3 canvas, 300 dpi and scibble circles with your wacom.. On PS you get circles.. On PM you get a jumble of straight lines.
Gimp and Painter are more of a "threat", but neither of them have the flexibility either, and neither of them are competing. There's room in the market for more than one app.. On Windows they have Paint Shop Pro, which is much better as a PS competitor than Pixelmator is, but you don't hear about people setting it up to take down Photoshop. Not going to happen.
Don't begrudge PS, it's a very good app. I've made use of a few of the CS3 new features, and did 7's before that. They don't force you to upgrade.
Oh, no, I think Photoshop in general is one of the worst designed programs ever made. I literally cringed when I heard that Adobe was buying Flash (and Flash already sucked to begin with).
Anyone who doesn't hate Photoshop hasn't used Final Cut Pro or Express (incredibly powerful programs that I've never felt 'lost' in)
Yeah you've previously been able to jump 3 generations. I'm not sure if they'll change the rules though. I went from PS7 to CS3, skipping the ones between.
I'm with you, the CS3 features have been great.
edit: I'm surprised there are people who find Photoshop that confusing.. (And consider Final Cut pro intuitive in comparison?!) Photoshop is one of the best designed, most intuitive apps I've ever used. Different strokes, etc.. And it's not overladen, it takes <5 secs to load here, and I use a lot of the "power" features. Hmm. And then there's the people who complain about the GUI, when it's painfully easy to set it to be exactly the same as it was in 7 (if you're that scared of change) .. If you're intimidated by options, and want everything set up for you then it might not be ideal, but really, the "bloat" notion is totally overblown.
LivePicture & Painter please Apple
Have said this before, and will keep repeating it with hopes Apple is listening. Acquire code fore LivePicture. Acquire Painter. Integrate into Aperture.
HPC via nVidia or soon Intel chips is coming no matter what now. This is clearly the next big step forward. Awesome to think about how the desktop experience will be enhanced -- not just Pshop big file processing.
Have said this before, and will keep repeating it with hopes Apple is listening. Acquire code fore LivePicture. Acquire Painter. Integrate into Aperture.
HPC via nVidia or soon Intel chips is coming no matter what now. This is clearly the next big step forward. Awesome to think about how the desktop experience will be enhanced -- not just Pshop big file processing.
Because even Apple's "cheapest" computers are much pricier than similar hardware in the PC market. Apple has been doing a shabby job lately of justifying that "Apple premium." I think any machine over $1000 ought to run pro applications at least reasonably well. There's no excuse for that. And if Apple can't provide that, they need to bring their prices down to be more in line with the rest of the computing world.
Painter? I hope not! Millions* of artists depend on Painter staying in reasonable shape, and they dont want it built in to Aperture.. Unless Apple would continue developing Painter standalone, which sounds like a bad idea considering how it's interface is very un-apple-ish. (personally i think painter could do with a GUI overhaul, but i dont think most people would appreciate such a radical change, heh, especially when it probably sells more on Windows anyway.)
* = probably.
On files with 2 gb size? Most certainly, yes.
But I'm sure the nanoseconds saved on regular web & print sized files will earn me millions...
Sounds like they were showcasing it on Windows. Being a Skulltrail system and all.
I know that NVIDIA cards under Mac OS X can run CUDA code just like on Windows and Linux but I'm curious in which way exactly Adobe are going to implement the power of the graphics processors present in systems.
Are they going to use OpenGL with a custom renderer (Or Core Image on OS X) or utilise the General Processing capability present in the latest NVIDIA and ATi cards. The article specifically mentioned GPGPU so I'm going to guess the latter but I'm still curious.
Also I'd like to know why Adobe don't feel its needed to release a 64-bit version for OS X when they feel its needed on Windows Vista.
At the moment I can see myself only getting CS4 for my Vista x64 PC as it has a CUDA supporting 8800GTX, 8GB of RAM and Vista x64. I don't see how I'm going to get much worth out of a CS4 upgrade on the Mac side of things considering I don't have a CUDA processing GPU in my new Intel Mac, it doesn't support 64-bit and wont address more then 4GB of RAM.
Hey Apple, make a Photoshop competitor!
I know that NVIDIA cards under Mac OS X can run CUDA code just like on Windows and Linux but I'm curious in which way exactly Adobe are going to implement the power of the graphics processors present in systems.
Are they going to use OpenGL with a custom renderer (Or Core Image on OS X) or utilise the General Processing capability present in the latest NVIDIA and ATi cards. The article specifically mentioned GPGPU so I'm going to guess the latter but I'm still curious.
Also I'd like to know why Adobe don't feel its needed to release a 64-bit version for OS X when they feel its needed on Windows Vista.
At the moment I can see myself only getting CS4 for my Vista x64 PC as it has a CUDA supporting 8800GTX, 8GB of RAM and Vista x64. I don't see how I'm going to get much worth out of a CS4 upgrade on the Mac side of things considering I don't have a CUDA processing GPU in my new Intel Mac, it doesn't support 64-bit and wont address more then 4GB of RAM.
Hey Apple, make a Photoshop competitor!
Pixelmator does about 10% of what Photoshop can do. But more importantly, it only does about 50% of what most image processing guys use daily of Photoshop. Lots of stuff that require a lot of UI work and can't be done just by filters or Core Image.
Also I'd like to know why Adobe don't feel its needed to release a 64-bit version for OS X when they feel its needed on Windows Vista.
Its been explained before. Goes like this:
Photoshop is Carbon (and Cocoa would do zero to improve Photoshop beyond 64-bit)
Carbon was planned to be 64-bit in Leopard. Apple announced it and shipped it in betas.
Photoshop was running in 64-bit Carbon.
Then WWDC 2007 Apple cans 64-bit Carbon.
So no 64-bit Photoshop.
Now they have to rewrite Photoshop in Cocoa or Lua (which uses Cocoa) and its going to take a few more years.
What makes me mad is even Final Cut is Carbon and is still 32-bit. Apple should've just shipped 64-bit Carbon.
Let's see... When did PS 7.0 come out? Haven't upgraded since.
OTOH, I've been happy with the primitive program.
OTOH, I only have a 1.33ghz g4.
OTOH, I've been happy with the primitive program.
OTOH, I only have a 1.33ghz g4.
Yes please Adobe add more features that are useful about once or twice a year...
How about different sized pages in InDesign? Or gradients to transparency in Illustrator? Guess we'll never see these.
are you kidding? this should of been added already. this is going to affect my everyday use of photoshop. just because it isnt relevant to you doesnt mean there arent industries out there that have been waiting for this.
when you have dead lines you cant sit around and stare at a progress bar (well, we can and we do but we're pulling are hair out because we got dead lines) we need to be able to move that image and go through the creative process of moving, scaling, blurring, whatever...we cant wait ten minutes (sometimes 30 minutes) just to see what something might look like rotated 45 degrees.
if adobe can excellerate this painful process it will be about time.
Actually I already knew all that. My point is, why are they not doing the leg-work to make a 64-bit Mac version like they should be doing. I know it would need a re-write to Cocoa but lets be realistic, they are a company they should be diverse enough to push back the CS4 release date for Mac and release a 64-bit Cocoa version. Also with CS3 they kept going on and on about how it would be a huge re-write to get it Universal on Intel, did they not think to use Cocoa then, they knew all along that Apples legacy transition coding language was Carbon and that they _should_ have been using Cocoa like everyone and there dog is.
I'm just pissed in general at Adobe not giving the Mac community the same as the Windows one. I'm glad I have a nice beefy Windows system to run it on but it's not the same without Expose and Spotlight which I really love to use while I'm doing PS work.
There are two types of graphic designers:
1. Trial and Error; or
2. Visionary and the minimal steps to obtain it.
Which one are you?
BS, theres a bit of RND required when doing complex photo manipulation. especially when there visions that are fresh. exploring and developing the correct approach always takes time.