No 64bit for Photoshop CS4 on OS X

[hdasmith]

A couple of things. I thought Apple had been trying to kill carbon for ages now, but been putting it off because of Adobe (as a previous poster has already said). Also, for I thought that along with the classic environment, carbon had been killed off for Intel Macs, and to run a carbon version, it had to be run through Rosetta. I may well be wrong on both of those.

 

[arkmannj]

so, does anyone know the estimated release dates for CS4 and CS5 ?

 

[kingtj]

Indirectly, yes, it's still Adobe's fault!

Carbon was obviously an old, transitional technology. Apple's made it clear they're moving to cocoa for development. Software developers may hate it, but it's just a fact of life that the technologies underpinning their software apps change now and then, and part of their job includes adapting to those changes with new software releases.

This happens all the time with Microsoft products too. (I used to work for a company that had in-house developers who wrote small apps for our company's internal use. Microsoft updated and changed their MSDAC objects so many times, our developers could hardly keep up. Eventually, they pressured management to let them rewrite everything in Java, so their code wouldn't constantly break when Microsoft pushed out a Windows update.)

It's easy for Adobe to say "We have millions of lines of code, and there's no way we can get it all converted over in time for CS4!" ... but that misses the point that they should have started getting off of Carbon a while ago. They gambled that Apple would keep supporting the older code for a while longer, making their job easier, and they bet wrong.

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

Oh come on, guys. That's just silly.

 

[Crtaylor]

I was just wondering if Apple could try to create their own version of Adobe's Creative Suite. They already have an advantage in the area of video editing with Final Cut Studio. Why shouldn't they try to go into graphic design? Apple already has some great graphical foundations in their OS. If Adobe is going to give Apple the cold shoulder in the future, Apple might as well consider this maneuver.

 

[A.Fairhead]

Adobe are working on it for CS5 because they likely won't meet the CS4 quota.

They didn't say 'well to hell with it', they said 'right lets change millions of lines of code'; they didnt say 'to hell with flash player for iphone' they said theyll be happy to make it with Apple.

All sounds like a pretty sound process to me. Adobe are bending over backwards for Apple, and the two companies are going through the motions to get stuff done safely (to those who think Apple are being awkward over the flash thing, would it be a safe move to simply say "oh, sure thing, make an app that affects one of the main selling points of our handset without us so much as seeing it!"? )

 

[kainjow]

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?

QuickTime Player is Cocoa, although it used to be Carbon.

I don't see iTunes going Cocoa in a long time because Apple would have to rewrite all of its UI. The reason they probably stuck with Carbon is because it's more compatible with Win32.

You can definitely tell a difference between iTunes and Finder, but I bet it's because Finder is Mac only and uses native controls, while iTunes uses almost all custom-drawn controls (and windows) to keep the same codebase with Windows. This is probably another reason why Office and Photoshop are so slow - they use heavy custom UI components.

BTW I'm pretty sure Apple has actually started transitioning Carbon UI to Cocoa in Leopard. I remember playing around with the Carbon HIViews and a HIWindowRef ended up being NSWindow subclass. That might help explain why in Leopard you can now embed Cocoa NSViews into a Carbon window.

 

[arkmannj]

Not that I'm defending Adobe, but I just thought of something else I haven't seen mentioned (I haven't read every single post in the thread)

Not only is adobe needing to rewrite the code base they have now, but they will also need to play "catchup" with whatever features get added to Photoshop and the other apps in CS4 & CS5. I imagine all of this will keep them pretty busy.

 

[Lone Deranger]

Come on Adobe! You're not the only developer that got stung by the sudden pullout of Carbon-64. You could learn a few things from much smaller developers with equally, if not more complicated pieces of Software than anything found in CS3. Take NewTek's LightWave v9.5 for example. It's soon to be released as a Cocoa-rewrite and will be fully 64bit. And alongside that, they're redesigning and rewriting most of their Core-architecture. If they can do it with their small team, why can't you?

This isn't about Carbon but about politics. Poor show Adobe...

And to those claiming even professionals don't really need 64bit, here in the Visual Effects world we deal with massive assets that would hugely benefit from 64bit on a daily basis. For instance renders would finish much faster (due to not having to swap to HD as much). There is only so far you can push the 32bit envelope.

 

[Eraserhead]

Not only is adobe needing to rewrite the code base they have now, but they will also need to play "catchup" with whatever features get added to Photoshop and the other apps in CS4 & CS5. I imagine all of this will keep them pretty busy.

The thing is, that like the Intel native CS3 sold loads of copies, a Cocoa/64 bit version of Photoshop will also sell extremely well, much better than a slightly improved CS4.

 

[Neutral Gamer]

How is that better than.

Car.m

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

?

The important thing to note is that "EngineStalled" is an event rather than a method so you could have different instances of the Car class with different handlers for when the engine stalled.

Car ParentsCar = new Car();
Car SonsCar = new Car();

ParentsCar.EngineStalled += delegate { Phone.CallMercedes(); };
SonsCar.EngineStalled += delegate { CityDump += SonsCar; }

This is quicker than having to create a whole new child custom class in a separate area or file. As there's only one or two commands you can go over your code easily and see what it does without criss crossing through the different sections of your project. Basically, sometimes creating a one line inline method is more elegant than creating a whole new method and class. No?

 

[LSlugger]

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...

Exactly. The first thing your comment made me think of is Joel Spolsky's "Fire and Motion" article:

Think of the history of data access strategies to come out of Microsoft. ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, now ADO.NET - All New! ... The competition has no choice but to spend all their time porting and keeping up, time that they can't spend writing new features.

I think John Nack overstates the case by claiming that "over a million lines of code" will be affected, but the fact is: Apple killed 64-bit Carbon at the last minute, knowing full well the effect it would have on the flagship applications of its top two competitors.

 

[milo]

Avid, too. (makes sense, since Digidesign is owned by Avid). Seriously, what's the deal?

I suspect the deal is Digidesign has their head up their *ss? As they have for years. Their compatibility is so bad they're now saying their just released update to Pro Tools only works with 10.5.1 but not 10.5.2. If they handle it the way they usually do, they should be announcing 10.5.2 support just in time for the 10.5.3 release.

It's easy for Adobe to say "We have millions of lines of code, and there's no way we can get it all converted over in time for CS4!" ... but that misses the point that they should have started getting off of Carbon a while ago. They gambled that Apple would keep supporting the older code for a while longer, making their job easier, and they bet wrong.

So what's your excuse for Apple not having their OWN pro apps switched to cocoa, and 64 bit compatible?

I was just wondering if Apple could try to create their own version of Adobe's Creative Suite. They already have an advantage in the area of video editing with Final Cut Studio. Why shouldn't they try to go into graphic design? Apple already has some great graphical foundations in their OS. If Adobe is going to give Apple the cold shoulder in the future, Apple might as well consider this maneuver.

Except that apple doesn't have any of their pro apps updated to cocoa/64 bit either, so they don't have any head start on that front.

 

[G4DP]

Okay Apple could and probably should have given more warning. But when Steve started talking about Cocoa taking over from Carbon, someone with even the smallest brain cell at Adobe should have noticed this. Adobe are a $1bn company for christ sake surely they must have people who think ahead?

Or am I just being silly. I know since they bought Macromedia - which is technically against almost every anti-competition law oh wait there in the US, I wonder how much was given in back handers - they have been sloppy as hell but guys come on not even trying to get it ready for CS4? There just too bone idle to actually earn the money they charge.

Are you really willing to fork out $3000 on a second rate design package, knowing perfectly well that it's only half baked.

As another poster has said, Apple have been moving towards 64bit tech and software for years. Unless those in charge at Adobe are totally ******* useless this is nothing more than a pathetic excuse to rip people off.

I bet you, they charge the same price for Windows as Mac though. I bet those of you who are defending adobe will change your tune then.

 

[hayesk]

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.

Adobe themselves claim going 64-bit is only around a 12% boost, not 1000. This is a non-issue. I don't know why after being told repeatedly, people believe that going 64-bit does not magically give them double the speed.

 

[I WAS the one]

Ok, I get it... so, it will be like that then huh? no Flash, no Photoshop in Apple's future.... mmmm

I think everything is getting in place now...

Ladies and Gentlemen... be prepaired to meet:

iPhoto PRO and Keynote Animation CSS

Apple won't need Adobe no more, they decided to move to the dark side. We can fight back with Apple Apps... prepared... just stay tuned... for an Apple without Adobe and without Microsoft. Can U handle that? Living with your Mac with iWork and iLife Pro?

any help? ..... I'm scare.

 

[hayesk]

As the design for the application is already done re-doing a million lines of code, shouldn't be too big a deal, for the Xcode conversion each Microsoft Office employee had over 100k lines of code to check through. Given 2 years it shouldn't be too much of a challenge.

For my D&D application I've written 35k lines of (Cocoa) code in 18 months, and I don't work full time on it, as I have lots of University work to do too.

But have you converted a Carbon app to Cocoa? I've written both - it's a huge undertaking.

 

[saltyzoo]

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.

While I totally agree with your overall assessment. The question "Do you know how long it would take to rewrite and debug over a million lines of code?" is a bit off base. Rewriting the code is not necessary. It's just a port. Granted porting a million lines of code and making the adjustments needed to take advantage of 64 bits is not remotely trivial. Just making the point that it's not really a re-write of a million lines of code.

 

[hayesk]

Given no-one else but Apple uses Objective C, and the best way to use Cocoa is with Objective C it is essentially correct.

Though what you are saying is somewhat accurate (though disputable if you get technical), you are implying that the big task is converting one language to another which is false. The issue is not converting C++ to Objective C (although that will cause some headaches), but converting the procedural based Carbon toolbox to the OO Cocoa frameworks.

 

[BongoBanger]

Adobe themselves claim going 64-bit is only around a 12% boost, not 1000. This is a non-issue. I don't know why after being told repeatedly, people believe that going 64-bit does not magically give them double the speed.

Unless, as the article says, you are shifting really big images.

 

[HLdan]

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.

Agreed, Mac OS X has been on the street for 7 years now and Adobe has made several versions of their suite of apps in Carbon. It's been long enough and Adobe should have been writing their suite in Cocoa.

Man, it's so ridiculous to launch an Adobe app and still see the stop watch waiting cursor appear then followed by the beachball.

Many developers have been writing Cocoa apps for OS X, there's no excuse for Adobe to be lazy. This comes from the fact that Microsoft has done nothing to really change Windows so Adobe is used to writing the same code year after year. Microsoft gives them no reason for change so they treat Apple's customers the same way. Boo to Adobe.

 

[Eraserhead]

The issue is not converting C++ to Objective C (although that will cause some headaches), but converting the procedural based Carbon toolbox to the OO Cocoa frameworks.

Very true, I see your point there.

But have you converted a Carbon app to Cocoa? I've written both - it's a huge undertaking.

No, so to an extent I'm talking out my ass.

 

[milo]

Adobe themselves claim going 64-bit is only around a 12% boost, not 1000. This is a non-issue. I don't know why after being told repeatedly, people believe that going 64-bit does not magically give them double the speed.

You get the 12% from the 64 bit code itself. But isn't there a potentially bigger boost when using huge files since they can be completely loaded into ram instead of lots of swapping from disk? Isn't the big appeal of 64 bit the ability for an app to take advantage of more than 4 gigs of ram?

 

[Durendal]

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?

Because Apple will switch them over when they need to, and on top of that, there aren't any real limitations on these apps due to being Carbon. Being Apple's own API, they know how to use it better than anyone, but I expect to see everything in Cocoa by 10.6 as Carbon's deprecation is looming. Adobe needed to a long time ago and never did. Now they're hitting a wall and still wont switch over.

 

[Neutral Gamer]

While I totally agree with your overall assessment. The question "Do you know how long it would take to rewrite and debug over a million lines of code?" is a bit off base. Rewriting the code is not necessary. It's just a port. Granted porting a million lines of code and making the adjustments needed to take advantage of 64 bits is not remotely trivial. Just making the point that it's not really a re-write of a million lines of code.

I fully accept that point. Most of the time it is easier to port exisiting code than rewrite it from scratch so my "rewrite" really should have been "port". However as hayesk excellently points out in the following quote, the porting of code from Carbon to Cocoa may be even more complicated than originally envisaged thanks to the different coding design paradigms:

Though what you are saying is somewhat accurate (though disputable if you get technical), you are implying that the big task is converting one language to another which is false. The issue is not converting C++ to Objective C (although that will cause some headaches), but converting the procedural based Carbon toolbox to the OO Cocoa frameworks.

 

[atl27426]

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!!

You're statement is a bit misleading. For of all a 32 bit verison of Vista or any program for that matter can use 3 gigs of ram, its really a totall of 4gigs for Vista or Xp but your GPU memory is included with the total 4 gigs allocated.

Second the only Apple users that would be able to truly take advantage of a 64bit progam are Mac Pro users, all other systems only support up to 4gigs of Ram in Apples current lineup. So they are just as far behind as MS.

64Bit hardware has been out for years now, however the software has been very slow on both side to catch up.