I found the update from CS2 to CS3 for Illustrator a disaster & went back. Hopefully CS4 has reverted the app. to 'working' again.
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.
No 64bit for Photoshop CS4 on OS X
- Thread starter sosumi1981
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see. So Photoshop is no good because you're too cheap to buy it and no one will let you steal it.
You hit the nail on the head with this debate here today with your response.
There are two distinct groups out there when it comes to Photoshop:
1) The ones that use it everyday for their careers.
and
2) Those who tinker with it, never had any kind of training and think they are on par with those in the first category.
Adobe's not stupid either.... they have known for years that people shared copies of Photoshop. Why else would they introduce lower prices first with CS1 and then institute the activation with registration in CS2 and CS3?
When you look at the collections that Adobe offers today compared to back in the late 90's, it's almost like they are giving away the programs today. Sure you could be stupid and buy only Photoshop, but why when for a couple hundred dollars more you can get 3-4 more apps with it???
LOL.. XDVirgil, if Photoshop was your spouse perhaps she just wants to leave you for someone who is a bit better equipped?
Annnyway, this news doesnt effect me. I mean, I do some pretty big canvas painting and there's no way I'd need to use that much RAM. I'm on a lowly dual G5 too!
I couldn't care less what UI framework the next upgrade uses providing there are compelling new features, fixes and so-on, and the app's future isn't at risk on the Mac.. I'll skip CS4 if it doesn't offer anything groundbreaking.
I'm all for them adding new stuff too, I've never found it complicated things *at all*, or slowed them down. I put it in a custom/classic viewmode and work as I have since PS5 on windows, PS7 on my G4, etc..
PS7 is *not* bloated.. The reason it's so expensive is because it can do so much, and do it all well. I love how you can carry on learning new tricks and functions after years of use.
Saying PS is outdated doesn't make much sense either.. What else is there?... The Gimp? Fireworks? Pixelmator? Ha.. So, yeah, my PS Spouse analogy would be much more positive, and involve her being incredibly flexible and willing to do anything I ask, however weird.
... women/software analogies are seriously creepy.
Come on, I learnt the basics of Cocoa in a couple of days, its not particularly hard. The major difference is Square brackets instead of dots. Any other differences are just as great as generally moving between languages.
That is a very good point, Aperture too.
The first one generated Adobe a huge amount of money in extra CS3 sales, so they certainly shouldn't be complaining.
So, yeah, my PS Spouse analogy would be much more positive, and involve her being incredibly flexible and willing to do anything I ask, however weird.
... women/software analogies are seriously creepy.
Yeah, but they do explain the situation fairly well.
Because there are people that have to do Engineering.
ANSYS: http://www.ansys.com/products/default.asp
I could go on but you'd get bored with realizing people who do heavy lifting require applications that dwarf Photoshop.
A Pro moving away from Pshop, and using Aperture...
I am a long time photoshop user, since 2.0 or so. I used to say it was one of the best programs around, and even have taught other professionals production & design techniques... but I have to say I am not so much feeling the love quite as much. The extended lag bringing support for the intel macs left me a bit disgusted and unappreciated as a professional user. Furthermore, many of the latter updates have been less than compelling mostly, and the pricing is a bit out of touch. The pricing for upgrades pretty much sucked, imo, and were a bit on the greedy side. I never thought that I would start feeling warm feelings towards Quark over Adobe, but...
Maybe it's a pissing match against Apple, but as an end-user it's me that is getting hurt. I agree that 4gb images of puppies seem a bit bonkers, but it just tells me they are not as committed to supporting the mac design & imaging folks (macs still pretty much rule in my circle). The timing is odd too, as apple has been showing steady increases in market penetration.
I use pshop every single day, but for the last year or so I have been doing a lot more imaging adjustments in Aperture. The program was a bit wonky in some of it's interface assumptions, it is not as intuitive as iPhoto (go figure). However the new 2.0 version is SUBSTANTIALLY better, and the plug-in development is good news. I can simply clean WAY more images more effectively and quicker than in pshop. Plus the non-destructive imaging is killer, and not to mention that once cleaned I can export out and then size as needed.
The only thing I can't do is heaving retouching, render type, and also multilayered masking etc.... but my point is this... I am using it a bit less and less, and loving Adobe a LOT less these days. Is there a way to give the middle finger back to them?? Because that is what I feel like they are doing to us mac folks...
cheers,
michael
I am a long time photoshop user, since 2.0 or so. I used to say it was one of the best programs around, and even have taught other professionals production & design techniques... but I have to say I am not so much feeling the love quite as much. The extended lag bringing support for the intel macs left me a bit disgusted and unappreciated as a professional user. Furthermore, many of the latter updates have been less than compelling mostly, and the pricing is a bit out of touch. The pricing for upgrades pretty much sucked, imo, and were a bit on the greedy side. I never thought that I would start feeling warm feelings towards Quark over Adobe, but...
Maybe it's a pissing match against Apple, but as an end-user it's me that is getting hurt. I agree that 4gb images of puppies seem a bit bonkers, but it just tells me they are not as committed to supporting the mac design & imaging folks (macs still pretty much rule in my circle). The timing is odd too, as apple has been showing steady increases in market penetration.
I use pshop every single day, but for the last year or so I have been doing a lot more imaging adjustments in Aperture. The program was a bit wonky in some of it's interface assumptions, it is not as intuitive as iPhoto (go figure). However the new 2.0 version is SUBSTANTIALLY better, and the plug-in development is good news. I can simply clean WAY more images more effectively and quicker than in pshop. Plus the non-destructive imaging is killer, and not to mention that once cleaned I can export out and then size as needed.
The only thing I can't do is heaving retouching, render type, and also multilayered masking etc.... but my point is this... I am using it a bit less and less, and loving Adobe a LOT less these days. Is there a way to give the middle finger back to them?? Because that is what I feel like they are doing to us mac folks...
cheers,
michael
History repeats.
When OS9 came out, some low-level change to the file system broke Adobe Type Manager. Adobe whined that the change caught them by surprise, and it would take months to fix ATM. I think it did too.
Apple was too polite to say it, but someone else put it well; "The Mac OS is supposed to never change so that Adobe won't have to fix their broken App?"
By the time Adobe fixed ATM, I'd discovered I didn't actually need it any more. My computer is already Adobe-free, as Acrobat reader was too slow for words back when Tiger came out, and I discovered that Preview was good enough. It's also Microsoft-free, as Excel has been nerfed so bad that I can live without it too. Nothing else MS makes is remotely near useful.
When OS9 came out, some low-level change to the file system broke Adobe Type Manager. Adobe whined that the change caught them by surprise, and it would take months to fix ATM. I think it did too.
Apple was too polite to say it, but someone else put it well; "The Mac OS is supposed to never change so that Adobe won't have to fix their broken App?"
By the time Adobe fixed ATM, I'd discovered I didn't actually need it any more. My computer is already Adobe-free, as Acrobat reader was too slow for words back when Tiger came out, and I discovered that Preview was good enough. It's also Microsoft-free, as Excel has been nerfed so bad that I can live without it too. Nothing else MS makes is remotely near useful.
People just don't upgrade the major apps that fast.
This isn't like Office student version.
For most users, the CS suite is investment, and the reason many people switched from CS2 to CS3 is due to intel support.
Do you guys really upgrade major ones whenever new version comes out?
Well I don't.
Unless there is any significant advantage upgrading from CS3 to CS4, majority won't upgrade from CS3 to CS4, and then to CS5. Even not every professionals keep their software up to date.
So this news isn't really the issue. Those who would benefit from 64bit are not as many as you would think.
I don't understand why this is such an issue to talk about?
Perhaps it's not about actual 64bit thing, but rather about Apple vs Adobe fault game?
This isn't like Office student version.
For most users, the CS suite is investment, and the reason many people switched from CS2 to CS3 is due to intel support.
Do you guys really upgrade major ones whenever new version comes out?
Well I don't.
Unless there is any significant advantage upgrading from CS3 to CS4, majority won't upgrade from CS3 to CS4, and then to CS5. Even not every professionals keep their software up to date.
So this news isn't really the issue. Those who would benefit from 64bit are not as many as you would think.
I don't understand why this is such an issue to talk about?
Perhaps it's not about actual 64bit thing, but rather about Apple vs Adobe fault game?
Adobe's Creative Suite has been better on the PC for years
As much as you may think that everyone in the industry works on Macs, that is simply not the case. I use a Mac at home because I love the lifestyle apps. I like Mail, iCal, Safari, iTunes, etc.
I use a PC at work for graphic design. Photoshop and Illustrator on the PC are not only on par with their Mac counterparts; they run better. Toggling through font choices works better on the PC versions, the real full screen metaphor works better for these applications, Wacom's drivers break a lot less on the PC... As much as I love my MacBook Pro, my PC workstation is a better production machine because of Adobe's PC creative suite. Adobe's creative suite has been better on the PC for years.
Before you dismiss me as someone who doesn't "know photoshop", know that I'm an art director who rose through the ranks for an agency of about 100 people. I have done design work for Panasonic, McDonalds, GM, Nokia, NBC, FOX, HBO, Wrigley's, and many others. Our video department still uses Macs, but that's about 7 people. Windows caught up to the Mac's design abilities years ago and Apple has done nothing but tout their pioneering legacy as proof that they're still the machine to use.
As much as you may think that everyone in the industry works on Macs, that is simply not the case. I use a Mac at home because I love the lifestyle apps. I like Mail, iCal, Safari, iTunes, etc.
I use a PC at work for graphic design. Photoshop and Illustrator on the PC are not only on par with their Mac counterparts; they run better. Toggling through font choices works better on the PC versions, the real full screen metaphor works better for these applications, Wacom's drivers break a lot less on the PC... As much as I love my MacBook Pro, my PC workstation is a better production machine because of Adobe's PC creative suite. Adobe's creative suite has been better on the PC for years.
Before you dismiss me as someone who doesn't "know photoshop", know that I'm an art director who rose through the ranks for an agency of about 100 people. I have done design work for Panasonic, McDonalds, GM, Nokia, NBC, FOX, HBO, Wrigley's, and many others. Our video department still uses Macs, but that's about 7 people. Windows caught up to the Mac's design abilities years ago and Apple has done nothing but tout their pioneering legacy as proof that they're still the machine to use.
You actually haven't set forth any facts that CS3 is actually "better" on the PC than on the Mac. Could you actually explain? Every time I go to a bookstore for illustration on how to use the Adobe Creative Suite the books are all full of illustrations using Mac OS X, there are maybe one or two pages showing the Windows interface.
i'm not sure why people keep touting XP64 in this thread. while it's better than it was at release, it's still not a great OS.
edit: oh yeah, you guys are awesome. i love my mac, i love os x, but i'm guessing that 90% of the people complaining in this thread are here because windows is getting 64-bit and the mac isn't, regardless of whether or not it's useful to ANYONE.
My theory on this is because for a long time Photoshop was RISC native and there was a huge preformance difference between the Windows and Apple versions. When CS3 came out, I actually bought a Dell quad core machine instead of a Mac Pro because not only were the performance differences minimal, the Dell was also cheaper after all the discounts, and the windows management software for our laser engravers has more features and all and all works better.
Anyway, I do a lot of work with very high resolution images for laser-marking granite (600DPI), and after you get to a design that is 48" by 48" in size, your image dimensions are 28800 x 28800, and your working file can be 2GB in size at that resolution. Sure, I can break it down into smaller pieces and try and align the files, but it usually doesn't work out as well as doing just one large image.
In this case, it is all about what makes things easier for Apple. They don't have to support Carbon 64 and they don't have to support Java 6 (and if they ever do, it looks like it may be 64 bit only.) Remember Steve Jobs saying he was going to make OS X the premier environment for Java?
I use Photoshop at-least several times a day but to be honest, I don't see Adobe as the bad guys here, I would say this is 50/50 between Apple and Adobe.
My reasons for this are:
1. Adobe is a Business they want to maximise profits and the best way to do that is to re-work what you already have, instead of starting from scratch. If they have a Carbon framework for Photoshop it's much easier to add features to that base then it is to go with Cocoa.
2. Although Apple did say Carbon would be phased out they led developers to believe it still had years left in it by having Intel capable Carbon frameworks in Tiger x86 and with 64-bit support forthcoming top to bottom with Leopard.
3. Apple decided to drop 64-bit support with Carbon in Leopard and instead go with Cocoa only, they didn't give developers a lot of time before Leopards release to drop this bombshell. WWDC' 2006 they say, Carbon + 64-bit = Works. WWDC' 07: Carbon + 64-bit = Not Happening. Which means Developers roadmaps which felt safe staying with Carbon for the future expecting 64-bit support were given just months between WWDC 07 and Leopards release to decide if they are sticking with Carbon or re-code their apps in Cocoa.
So what am I saying? - I'm saying, yes Adobe should have moved to Cocoa, they knew from the start that staying with Carbon was risky with Apple always saying they don't want Carbon around anymore. But on the other hand, Apple should not have led developers along providing 64-bit support and then pulling it at the last minute, possibly screwing a lot of companies roadmaps and pushing back release dates.
Again, I place the blame at 50/50.
Me personally, this doesn't effect me, because even though I use Photoshop daily, I use it on a 8GB RAM, Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition machine. Which will receive a 64-bit build, but this still makes me feel bad for those who bought Mac Pro's with lots of RAM that still are unable to utilise that hardware.
My reasons for this are:
1. Adobe is a Business they want to maximise profits and the best way to do that is to re-work what you already have, instead of starting from scratch. If they have a Carbon framework for Photoshop it's much easier to add features to that base then it is to go with Cocoa.
2. Although Apple did say Carbon would be phased out they led developers to believe it still had years left in it by having Intel capable Carbon frameworks in Tiger x86 and with 64-bit support forthcoming top to bottom with Leopard.
3. Apple decided to drop 64-bit support with Carbon in Leopard and instead go with Cocoa only, they didn't give developers a lot of time before Leopards release to drop this bombshell. WWDC' 2006 they say, Carbon + 64-bit = Works. WWDC' 07: Carbon + 64-bit = Not Happening. Which means Developers roadmaps which felt safe staying with Carbon for the future expecting 64-bit support were given just months between WWDC 07 and Leopards release to decide if they are sticking with Carbon or re-code their apps in Cocoa.
So what am I saying? - I'm saying, yes Adobe should have moved to Cocoa, they knew from the start that staying with Carbon was risky with Apple always saying they don't want Carbon around anymore. But on the other hand, Apple should not have led developers along providing 64-bit support and then pulling it at the last minute, possibly screwing a lot of companies roadmaps and pushing back release dates.
Again, I place the blame at 50/50.
Me personally, this doesn't effect me, because even though I use Photoshop daily, I use it on a 8GB RAM, Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition machine. Which will receive a 64-bit build, but this still makes me feel bad for those who bought Mac Pro's with lots of RAM that still are unable to utilise that hardware.
so i had to at least say something here.
my friend directed me to this post because he knows i get riled up by apple fanboys.
firstly, i work in the visual effects industry. last year i worked for a little known company in San Francisco who has won many Oscars for their VFX work.
I worked in the art department. not a single person was using a Mac.. In fact, I have never met anyone who is a professional visual effects artist who uses a Mac at work.. but i guess that would make the companies i work for "a joke" as someone said here.
i have never forgiven Apple for killing off Shake. i dont know where this arrogance comes from that they can these demands to major software companies.. they are LUCKY to have companies like Adobe writing software for such minor players in the professional world.
I currently run a department comprising 10 Win XP 64 machines. In the year I have been using them, I have had 3 OS crashes. And I have been loving 64bit versions of my 3D software, I am sure I will enjoy 64bit Photoshop too.
When I walk into the Apple store, I dont see any professionals in there. Its full of students... I like Apple, but they are locking things down so much that they are actually keeping themselves in a home user market rather than professional.. mmmm Netflix Instant Viewing.
Oh, and imagine if Microsoft insisted you buy their hardware to run their OS
Oh, and wow.. Apple managed to get a stable OS that runs on.. 10 different machines? Impressive..
Please fanboys.. get a reality check, more artists are using PCs, Adobe knows this, why dont you?
my friend directed me to this post because he knows i get riled up by apple fanboys.
firstly, i work in the visual effects industry. last year i worked for a little known company in San Francisco who has won many Oscars for their VFX work.
I worked in the art department. not a single person was using a Mac.. In fact, I have never met anyone who is a professional visual effects artist who uses a Mac at work.. but i guess that would make the companies i work for "a joke" as someone said here.
i have never forgiven Apple for killing off Shake. i dont know where this arrogance comes from that they can these demands to major software companies.. they are LUCKY to have companies like Adobe writing software for such minor players in the professional world.
I currently run a department comprising 10 Win XP 64 machines. In the year I have been using them, I have had 3 OS crashes. And I have been loving 64bit versions of my 3D software, I am sure I will enjoy 64bit Photoshop too.
When I walk into the Apple store, I dont see any professionals in there. Its full of students... I like Apple, but they are locking things down so much that they are actually keeping themselves in a home user market rather than professional.. mmmm Netflix Instant Viewing.
Oh, and imagine if Microsoft insisted you buy their hardware to run their OS
Oh, and wow.. Apple managed to get a stable OS that runs on.. 10 different machines? Impressive..
Please fanboys.. get a reality check, more artists are using PCs, Adobe knows this, why dont you?
so i had to at least say something here.
my friend directed me to this post because he knows i get riled up by apple fanboys.
firstly, i work in the visual effects industry. last year i worked for a little known company in San Francisco who has won many Oscars for their VFX work.
I worked in the art department. not a single person was using a Mac.. In fact, I have never met anyone who is a professional visual effects artist who uses a Mac at work.. but i guess that would make the companies i work for "a joke" as someone said here.
i have never forgiven Apple for killing off Shake. i dont know where this arrogance comes from that they can these demands to major software companies.. they are LUCKY to have companies like Adobe writing software for such minor players in the professional world.
I currently run a department comprising 10 Win XP 64 machines. In the year I have been using them, I have had 3 OS crashes. And I have been loving 64bit versions of my 3D software, I am sure I will enjoy 64bit Photoshop too.
When I walk into the Apple store, I dont see any professionals in there. Its full of students... I like Apple, but they are locking things down so much that they are actually keeping themselves in a home user market rather than professional.. mmmm Netflix Instant Viewing.
Oh, and imagine if Microsoft insisted you buy their hardware to run their OS
Oh, and wow.. Apple managed to get a stable OS that runs on.. 10 different machines? Impressive..
Please fanboys.. get a reality check, more artists are using PCs, Adobe knows this, why dont you?
Last time i checked PC marketshare was a lot bigger, so it's not a surprize that PC users are the main Adobe's target, but we talk about professional usage here, not home editing, so a lot of Mac users a actualy professionals so it's few milions around the world and Adobe is making a big mistake ignoring them. And what it has to do with 10 different machines while it's not ten actualy
Count G4, G5, Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo. It's an advantage by the way Leopard is just fine, i had 3 kernel panics with Tiger in past three months and none with Leopard. It's fast, stable, but it has problems, it's not perfect. I believe 10.5.5 or 6 will be a candy
Leopard is just fine, i had 3 kernel panics with Tiger in past three months and none with Leopard. It's fast, stable, but it has problems, it's not perfect. I believe 10.5.5 or 6 will be a candy
lucky one
Hardly, the last time I checked Aperture couldn't open a JPEG and clone Ron Jeremy's penis onto my best mates head...
How can toggling through font choices work any differently on either machine? Last I used it it was identical on both.. Put Mac Photoshop CS in full screen and it.. becomes full screen? The OS's metaphors make little difference in practice once you're in the app.. It has a true full-screen mode on osX, no menubar, dock, black around the edges.. just like on windows.
Wacom drivers have been rock solid too, I've never seen them misbehave since Panther (intuos3 user) How can it break less than completely not-broken?
Photoshop is essentially identical on osX to Windows. Why does everyone feel the need to defend their investments (both sides are doing it here) by making it out to be *superior*. PCs make good art machines too.. But they're no better for it than Macs.. Likewise the guys who consider PC users as inferior on "unprofessional" artists or creatives are an absolute laugh-riot.
Buy & use what makes sense to you, the tools don't make the creative.
Who the hell is in charge over there? Why didn't they redo Photoshop from Carbon to Cocoa when they switched to Intel? Afraid somebody's schedule would slip? Now we the consumers have to pay the price for their lack of vision. Everyone knew Carbon was never going to go 64 bit. So Adobe doesn't do their homework, and we the consumers are eternally screwed. Did they think there would never be a demand/market for 64 bit Photoshop?
