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 all have our quirks (plenty of blame to go around)

Neutral Gamer said:
I actually pefer .NET and Visual Studio but then I have been programming in them for years so I may be biased. There is one thing I can't stand though and that is Objective-C's syntax - I just hate those square brackets; they're just so hard to write and read when scanning your code:

Objective-C
[ [car dashboard] display:[ [ [car engine] getLitres ] toString ] ];

C#
Car.Dashboard.Display ( Car.Engine.Litres.ToString() );

Argh! Again though my reliance on C++, C#, PHP, Perl, Javascript and Java may have clouded my judgment ... :D
Click to expand...

I remember my initial struggle when I went from Fortran to LISP. But once you get familiar with it all is good. As for Adobe and Apple both should share blame. Apple for abruptly not following through with what they promised. But Adobe is also to blame for being lazy and not making the migration (after all they had several years to make it). Other just as complex programs have made the transition (LabView, etc.) so I attributed it to Adobe's laziness and the fact they feel they have the market and don't really have to stay on top of things (gee doesn't that sound familiar with MS).

As for the .net vs. cocoa I feel the syntax is worth it considering .net has nothing like frameworks which in my opinion is the right way to do things. In fact historically LISP in the early 90's first prototype the concept with presentation types (which I still think is the best thing out there still - personal bias I admit).
 
ATG said:
This is truly excellent news. A cocoa photoshop! (well at least partially).

Cut adobe some slack, it's not their fault.


That's complete rubbish. A cocoa photoshop is a massive task which will take all of the time between now and CS5 to complete.
Click to expand...

Which is why they should have started it in 1998 when Apple said that the future was Cocoa.

Nano-tube said:
This is Apple's fault - period.
You can't expect Adobe to convert Photoshop - one of the biggest and most complex apps out there - over night or even in a year.
One million lines of code is a massive amount of code to update, even if only some of it needs to be reworked, all of it must be repeatedly checked. This is a 2 year ordeal in the minimum. Apple has a long history of dropping things unexpectedly. It may be exciting in the consumer department but in the R&D world this is a bad habit.
Click to expand...

Which is why they should have started it in 1998 when Apple said that the future was Cocoa.
 
BongoBanger said:
Wait... Apple drop support for Carbon and it's Adobe's fault?

Oh come on, guys. That's just silly.
Click to expand...

Hahah, yeah, I had to laugh at all these ignorant apple fanboys too.

But this is *good* news in a way, this should force steve jobs to pay more attention to his customers than his bank account.
 
ungraphic said:
Hahah, yeah, I had to laugh at all these ignorant apple fanboys too.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this was a totally good decision by Apple, but the foundations for it are reasonable as having 2 API's is a drain on resources and you need to know which one is going to win.

Also lets not forget that Microsoft's 64 bit transition is going, um, excellently. Given this news they'll both come out of it about the same IMO.
 
Hey Adobe, you boobs are the LAST ONES STILL USING CARBON. Well, not entirely I'm sure, but I don't see any new apps being written in it. It's an old API that was transitional. You should have gone to Cocoa in CS3.
 
Also, id like to know how many of you actually need a 64bit CS4 for Mac OS X? By that I mean, how many of you actually use adobe products. My guess, would be *all* of you? Isnt that one of the main reasons why people buy macs? For design, photoshop, creative work, etc?

Running photoshop on my mac was one of the biggest reasons for buy a mac. Doesnt it seem like apple relies on adobe for its sales? That whole transition between PPC-Intel and CS2 to CS3 was a nightmare for many mac users, and it was mostly because of adobe being late, but then again, i heard apple screwed around with PDF integration in OS X (or something) and cutting out adobe, so maybe not really adobes fault, but more like payback.
 
jragosta said:
Which is why they should have started it in 1998 when Apple said that the future was Cocoa.
Click to expand...

Well then why hasn't Apple made Final Cut a cocoa app or for that matter iTunes, Quicktime, and the Finder if they knew Cocoa was the future?
 
So basically this affects people that shoot large format. Um....ya....


Sure it would be nice, but I doubt the average user, hell most power users, would actually notice.

You would have to be merging some major amount of photos to get up that high.
 
Eraserhead said:
Mathematica and MATLAB are. SPSS probably also is 64 bit on the Mac, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Mathematica has the advantage that is very clearly split into a front end and calculation engine (kernel). My understanding is that the kernel is 64 bit, but has no GUI components, so did not require rewriting in Cocoa.
 
If I remember correctly, Apple did advice everyone to switch to Xcode and Cocoa way back (2 years) ago or so when they announced the Intel transition. Suddenly dropping support?

They and others knew it was coming, there is no sudden here.
 
elcid said:
So basically this affects people that shoot large format. Um....ya....


Sure it would be nice, but I doubt the average user, hell most power users, would actually notice.

You would have to be merging some major amount of photos to get up that high.
Click to expand...

And obviously if the situation were reversed and Adobe offered Apple 64-bit everyone here would be going on about how amazing Apple was, how great a feature it would be, and how downhill Microsoft are going?
 
Well, at least we've had 64-bit caching since CS2. It uses OS X's cache management. Barefeats pointed this out the other year when first comparing CS to CS2. They found that CS2 was using as much ram as needed, if available.

<]=)
 
dr_lha said:
I thought Obj-C 2.0 allows the dot syntax now, so you can use either the square brackets or the .Net form you showed above.
Click to expand...

But if I recall correctly that's only for properties isn't it and not for methods (or "messages" as they call it) as well? I do have to admit though that in the hastily written example above I could've replaced the Objective-C methods with properties! But I was using ObjC in Tiger most of the time. :D

Also let's not forget no overloaded operators (or methods) or indexers so we couldn't write:

Code: 
CarsCollection[3][2].MilesFromGallons(3);

or:

Code: 
Cars += car1 += car2 += car3;

But the lack of inline (anonymous) methods is the killer for me:

Code: 
Car.EngineStalled += delegate { Car.StopCar(); Phone.CallPickup(); };

Again though, when you're used to using a specific feature it's hard to live without it. :)
 
iindigo said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I fire up Photoshop without opening a file and hold down the
spacebar, Photoshop uses close to 100% of one core! Is that
anything to do with poor event handling in Carbon, or is it just
badly written (i.e., polling)? I ask because I recall something
similar happening with some other Carbon apps.

Thanks.
 
jragosta said:
Which is why they should have started it in 1998 when Apple said that the future was Cocoa.
Click to expand...

That's nothing but monday (ten years after the game) quarterbacking.

Back in 1988, companies like Adobe didn't even know if OSX would catch on and Apple would stay in business, much less whether apple was serious about the switch to cocoa and whether they'd enforce it. It's entirely possible apple could have never dropped cocoa or changed their mind to something entirely different and a switch to it could have been wasted effort.

This is apple's fault, period.

Eraserhead said:
Apple's pro apps are all still Carbon too ;).
Click to expand...

Exactly. And, Adobe's NEW apps like Lightwave are cocoa. Adobe isn't the last company still using carbon at all. Isn't Office still carbon? Really, how many apps the size of Photoshop are carbon at this point, particularly ones that were created before Cocoa even existed? Are there ANY?

Did Apple even make Soundtrack Pro cocoa? It's only a few years old, started long after apple was pushing cocoa. Is there a relatively easy way to look at an app and tell if it is carbon or cocoa?

EagerDragon said:
If I remember correctly, Apple did advice everyone to switch to Xcode and Cocoa way back (2 years) ago or so when they announced the Intel transition. Suddenly dropping support?

They and others knew it was coming, there is no sudden here.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. Apple has been making general "use cocoa!" statements, but until June 2007 they were telling developers that carbon would handle 64 bit apps. They didn't amend that until June 2007, so that IS suddenly dropping support, and backing out of a promise they made to developers. And how seriously can devs take the "switch to cocoa!" message when Apple itself hasn't made that switch for ANY of their pro apps?

Answer me this...

powderblue17 said:
Well then why hasn't Apple made Final Cut a cocoa app or for that matter iTunes, Quicktime, and the Finder if they knew Cocoa was the future?
Click to expand...
 
Neutral Gamer said:
But the lack of inline (anonymous) methods is the killer for me:

Code: 
Car.EngineStalled += delegate { Car.StopCar(); Phone.CallPickup(); };

Again though, when you're used to using a specific feature it's hard to live without it. :)
Click to expand...

How is that better than.

Code: 
Car.m

-(void)engineStalled{
	[self stopCar];
	[[driver mobilePhone] callPickup];
}

?
 
BongoBanger said:
Wait... Apple drop support for Carbon and it's Adobe's fault?

Oh come on, guys. That's just silly.
Click to expand...

I agree that it kind of is Apples fault, but at the same time perhaps it is just a poor excuse on Adobes part. When can we expect to se CS5, let alone CS4?
 
powderblue17 said:
Well then why hasn't Apple made Final Cut a cocoa app or for that matter iTunes, Quicktime, and the Finder if they knew Cocoa was the future?
Click to expand...

Quicktime Player was rewritten into a Cocoa app in Tiger. iTunes and the Finder will need to follow suite in 10.6 or 10.7 if carbon is really dying.
 
Both companies are at fault. Adobe knew they'd have to transition at some point, and probably should have done it earlier. But Apple completely dropped the ball by telling developers 64-Bit Carbon would be included and then removing it from Leopard.

And to be honest, most of the armchair-pundit Apple fanboys here shouldn't be commenting on this issue. If you've never programmed anything and think Cocoa is a language then you are completely unqualified to comment on this. Phothoshop is mind-numbingly complex, and a Cocoa re-write is an enormous undertaking. Should they have made the transition sooner? Yes. And they would have done if Apple had told developers from the start that there would be no 64-Bit Carbon.
 
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