code
Not nearly as many as it took to rewrite 4x the millions for Windows 64 bit.
Not nearly as many as it took to rewrite 4x the millions for Windows 64 bit.
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 thought nobody likes Carbon... carbon can't do all the new stuff that Cocoa can do right? What is the actual difference between Carbon and Cocoa. I thought Cocoa was a native OS X language and Carbon was used to transition OS 9 code into OS X easier.... and that makes me think Carbon is old and dated (Carbon dated?). Anyways... I think it's about time Adobe get's off their freakin' butts and comes out with some GOOD software. Illustrator CS3 is a JOKE and I pretty much HATE Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 on the Mac.
yes and no. Adobe knew this and should have started to work their assess off( their a big company but very lazy). Apple should give their major developers an earlier heads-up.
They are working their arses off. This is millions of lines of code which is why they say it'll be ready for CS5.
Well that's just daft. Every single person that I know who has the misfortune of using Vista uses the 32 bit version. The largest amount of RAM that anyone I know uses with a Vista machine is 2GB. The 64 bit market for Windows is barely existent while the 64 bit market for Macs has been thriving for many years now. The people who would/could actually use this 64 bit version of Photoshop are Mac users, not Windows users!!
This won't affect my PS work - at least not at this time. However it's always disappointing when Apple lags behind on visual apps. I don't usually vote negative/positive on MR stories but this time I did.
Apple is used by so many artists, designers, photographers, etc., that I feel Adobe should really keep that user base a top priority. To have to wait for two upgrades to get 64 bit usability seems almost punitive (as well as expensive).
Question: How does CS3 run on Parallels or Boot Camp?
Apple is used by so many artists, designers, photographers, etc., that I feel Adobe should really keep that user base a top priority. To have to wait for two upgrades to get 64 bit usability seems almost punitive (as well as expensive).
Question: How does CS3 run on Parallels or Boot Camp?
As far as I know, Apple has been keeping Carbon and Cocoa in pretty in sync in terms of functionality until 10.5. It's only now with the move to 64-bit that Carbon is going to be start lagging in terms of features.
I can't put my fingers on the source (WWDC keynote maybe) but it's been clear for a while that carbon is a dead end development-wise and apple is not-so-gently coercing developers into cocoa.
I haven't checked since Tiger, but there were still things that you can't do in cocoa (easily) that you can do in carbon.
Sheldon
I haven't checked since Tiger, but there were still things that you can't do in cocoa (easily) that you can do in carbon.
Sheldon
Now would be the perfect time for Apple to buy Adobe and discontinue the Windows version of Photoshop.
Yes, because cutting off profitable revenue streams is good practice.
While it's a bummer, it's not "laziness" by any stretch of the imagination.
Apple originally said Carbon would support 64 bit apps. They didn't announce that they were dumping this until the dev conference mid 2007.
Adobe isn't the only company hosed by this, there has been a big backlash from many developers. A big side effect of this is that with carbon it's pretty easy to base mac and PC versions from the same code. But since cocoa requires the use of objective C instead of C++, it's much harder to keep a common codebase.
Precisely. MANY apps that probably would be 64 bit by now have been delayed by months since devs have had to switch their codebase to cocoa to take advantage. I suspect some apps may never see 64 bit versions for this reason.
Are you saying that switching to Win64 required going to a different set of APIs and a completely different programming language?
What I'm REALLY pissed about is the fact that APPLE hasn't even updated their OWN apps to 64 bit. Where's 64 bit Logic? Final Cut? Apple's example seems to suggest that going 64 bit isn't an easy job by any stretch of the imagination.
On the one hand, it sucks that there's the discrepancy, but on the other hand, I can understand why it would take so long. Any developers here would know how hard a process it is to rewrite a program, especially one as large as Photoshop. Some people may be happy if Adobe pushed back CS4 so that both Windows & Mac versions were 64-bit, but there will be people who would complain about it being pushed back.
As for Carbon, it is getting old. I don't know how much of a difference going from Carbon to Cocoa would be. Would be interesting to see.
This kinda reminds me of those rumors of Apple dropping PowerPC support in Mac OS X 10.6 (or whatever comes after 10.5). Many people complained that they had a decked out Power Mac G5 and it being more powerful than the first Intel Macs. But I feel that the power of the computer isn't an issue; the kind of processor that it's running is the issue. Any developer who had to write/optimize a program for multiple platforms is a hard task. If you cut down to just one, it's a lot easier. Just my 2¢
As for Carbon, it is getting old. I don't know how much of a difference going from Carbon to Cocoa would be. Would be interesting to see.
This kinda reminds me of those rumors of Apple dropping PowerPC support in Mac OS X 10.6 (or whatever comes after 10.5). Many people complained that they had a decked out Power Mac G5 and it being more powerful than the first Intel Macs. But I feel that the power of the computer isn't an issue; the kind of processor that it's running is the issue. Any developer who had to write/optimize a program for multiple platforms is a hard task. If you cut down to just one, it's a lot easier. Just my 2¢
Time for Apple to come up with the Photoshop alternative as they did with video editing when Premiere was the only game in town outside of the very expensive stuff from Avid and Media 100. I am sure with core technologies and Aperture 2.0 they are pretty much half way along the road anyway. Plus Apple in their usual way could perhaps come up with a paradigm shift in the approach to picture editing, the Photoshop model (based on the original Mac Plus applications) is getting long in the tooth.
In defense of Adobe...
In defense of Adobe, what makes more sense - re-rewriting your application because an OS maker decides to no longer support a significant and important portion of their API stack? Or spend your time optimizing your code, improving features and enhancing usability? I know what *I* would rather my developers spent their time on...
In defense of Adobe, what makes more sense - re-rewriting your application because an OS maker decides to no longer support a significant and important portion of their API stack? Or spend your time optimizing your code, improving features and enhancing usability? I know what *I* would rather my developers spent their time on...
Actually, Adobe DIDN'T know this, at least not until more recently.
Before mid-2007, Apple told devs that carbon would do 64 bit. Apple changed their mind and announced that 64 bit apps could only be cocoa in mid 2007, and shipped leopard just months later.
Apple screwed their devs in this particular case by giving them wrong info to use to make plans.
While Vista 64 does suck, XP64 is supposed to be very good, and there are a decent number of apps and users taking advantage of it and the extra ram it allows. In fact, there are barely any 64 bit apps for mac at all (which ones?) while there are a few usable ones on windows. Just because you don't know anyone using more than 4 gigs on windows doesn't mean they don't exist, there are plenty, and it seems to be working well with the right apps.
Sure, most apps are 64 bit hardware, and the OS is 64 bit, but that's of very little value when there are no apps that can take advantage of it.
I doubt it, as Win64 is basically the same as Win32.
Though Microsoft don't have the 64 bit thing easy themselves. Most new PC's sold today still use a 32 bit OS.
Don't get to down on Adobe
As far as I know, Carbon and the Win32 API are much more compatible than Cocoa and Win32. Correct me if I'm wrong but Cocoa still requires the GUI code to be written in Objective C while carbon allow more "traditional" C++ programming. While it's true that C++ basically sucks compared to programming in Objective C or C#, C++ is cross-platform and it allow big developer to write their own APIs or compatibility layers that will compile for Carbon or Win32(Win64?). Cocoa's APIs using Objective C look like gobbly gook to a person used to the C++ or Java (or even Perl, PHP, Ruby or Python) for that matter. I pity anyone that tries to maintain a unified codebase for an app as big as Photoshop with C++ on one platform and Objective C on another.
Adobe is not the only culprit here MS Office is still in Carbon, OpenOffice for Mac is on just starting to arrive, the GNU community can't make GTK work on Mac, Steinberg uses Carbon for Cubase and they have made and almost identical announcement to there users [1]. Finally try to see if you can find out even if Apple's own Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio are 64 bit. There is no mention on the Apple's website and it doesn't that user forums are pour with enthusiasm over 64 bit memory addressing. Apparently, writting a 64 bit Cocoa app is a monumental undertaking. So give Adobe a break . . . on this issue.
[1] see: http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=81217
As far as I know, Carbon and the Win32 API are much more compatible than Cocoa and Win32. Correct me if I'm wrong but Cocoa still requires the GUI code to be written in Objective C while carbon allow more "traditional" C++ programming. While it's true that C++ basically sucks compared to programming in Objective C or C#, C++ is cross-platform and it allow big developer to write their own APIs or compatibility layers that will compile for Carbon or Win32(Win64?). Cocoa's APIs using Objective C look like gobbly gook to a person used to the C++ or Java (or even Perl, PHP, Ruby or Python) for that matter. I pity anyone that tries to maintain a unified codebase for an app as big as Photoshop with C++ on one platform and Objective C on another.
Adobe is not the only culprit here MS Office is still in Carbon, OpenOffice for Mac is on just starting to arrive, the GNU community can't make GTK work on Mac, Steinberg uses Carbon for Cubase and they have made and almost identical announcement to there users [1]. Finally try to see if you can find out even if Apple's own Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio are 64 bit. There is no mention on the Apple's website and it doesn't that user forums are pour with enthusiasm over 64 bit memory addressing. Apparently, writting a 64 bit Cocoa app is a monumental undertaking. So give Adobe a break . . . on this issue.
[1] see: http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=81217
They will see this in sales. Normal people who use windows don't even know what 64-bit is. However mac users do!
Also the 10x speed improvements would need 32GB of ram.....uh if you have a professional company with professional computers for graphics or photo editing. You STILL won't need 32GB of ram. Hell I can use my iMac at 2GB for professional work. Just keep photoshop open and I will save 20 seconds of opening time. Its not like photoshop needs to render a whole movie like someone said.
Adobe is doing the right thing however, They probably could do it faster and have an update to CS4 if they wanted I think.
@ phasornc As has been recently argued on Arstechnica, Win32 isn't a very good API, and even in Win64 you still have to worry about issues caused by Win16 stuff.
As said before, this really won't effect 90%+ of Photoshop users, including myself. The largest file I've worked on is 500MB - nowhere near the 2.5GB+ file needed to see true performance gains.
That said, I'm glad PS is finally making the switch to Cocoa. For those who say that there's no difference between Cocoa and Carbon apps, you are wrong... Compare how iTunes and Safari feel. There's most definitely a difference, yes? That's because iTunes is carbon to the core while Safari is a Cocoa app. The Finder suffers from this to some point as well, but not quite as badly since it seems Apple have done a good deal of cover-up work to make the Finder feel more native. In my experience, Cocoa apps generally tend to feel more lightweight, responsive, and native to the system than Carbon apps do. Cocoa apps also get all the nice little freebies (such as spellchecking) without --any-- additional effort from the developer.
That said, I'm glad PS is finally making the switch to Cocoa. For those who say that there's no difference between Cocoa and Carbon apps, you are wrong... Compare how iTunes and Safari feel. There's most definitely a difference, yes? That's because iTunes is carbon to the core while Safari is a Cocoa app. The Finder suffers from this to some point as well, but not quite as badly since it seems Apple have done a good deal of cover-up work to make the Finder feel more native. In my experience, Cocoa apps generally tend to feel more lightweight, responsive, and native to the system than Carbon apps do. Cocoa apps also get all the nice little freebies (such as spellchecking) without --any-- additional effort from the developer.
Agreed. Is there some kind of hidden rule I'm not aware of where Apple can do no wrong and it's everyone else's fault when something goes wrong? No person or company is perfect, everyone and thing is entitled to make bad decisions and judgments.
Haha, every piece of bad news can always be thought of as good news by at least someone. Clouds and silver linings come to mind ...
But Adobe already knew they would have to rewrite it for Windows and started on it appropriately. And even then going from Carbon to Cocoa requires learning a whole new API and changing your style of programming compared to going from a 32 bit to 64 bit Windows API. The fact is that Apple told them late and Adobe are trying as hard as they can.
Try this:
http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/mac/2001/05/23/cocoa_vs_carbon.html
Basically, Carbon is a procedural API while Cocoa is object orientated and Cocoa even uses some Carbon functions to implement some of its functionality. Yes, there are some new features which your application can only tap into if written in Cocoa but for the vast majority of cases you can achieve what you want using both. Although it may be argued that Cocoa is better designed and easier to use.
Having programmed in both Mac OS and Windows I definitely see SOME similarities between Carbon / Cocoa and Win32 / .NET. For example with the latest features: in Windows, WPF is designed to be used with .NET and in Mac OS, Core Animation is designed to be used with Cocoa.
Now would be the perfect time for Apple to buy Adobe and discontinue the Windows version of Photoshop.
That would be like me acquiring Nike, then only selling the trainers to people with no feet.
Wait, it would be nothing like that. But it's a crazy idea, like yours.
