Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Will Be 64-Bit For Windows Only

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the takes-time-to-make-a-cup-of-cocoa dept.

Graphics 478

HighWizard notes that Adobe Systems has shared the first scrap of information about its next version of Photoshop, CS4, and it's a doozy: there will be a 64-bit version of the photo-editing software, but only for Windows Vista and not for Mac OS X. Ars explains the history of how this conundrum came to pass — blame Apple and/or Adobe as you will.

cancel ×

478 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

64 bit is no panacea (3, Interesting)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961872)

just like the article says, it's not like it's going to make your app run any faster. In fact, with tday's machines, 64 bit will probably run slower than 32 bit...

Re:64 bit is no panacea (5, Informative)

joaommp (685612) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961908)

Well, it will run faster if you have a large pool of physical memory and do some heavy Photoshop editing, because Photoshop will be able to access more than 3GB of memory (remember that 1GB of the 4GB address space is already reserved for system code sharing) and not resort to it's own swap/disk cache system as much.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962118)

Yep, and memory prices have dropped *extremely* over the last year. If I was working with many and large photoshop images, getting 4x4GB memory wouldn't be out of the question. Honestly I don't need it, but if you're working with high-quality print images I can easily see why you might need that...

Re:64 bit is no panacea (1)

joaommp (685612) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962438)

And you have to keep in mind that Photoshop isn't the average "Paint" product for the average joe home user, it's a product developed for professionals (and with "professional" prices...). It's intended for those who need it at the point that they can afford it and the requirements for the kind of work they need to do with it. So, yes, going 64 bit is good and important for Photoshop.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962544)

I was just gonna agree. Photoshop works really nicely in OSX as it is. I understand Adobe's gotta keep adding "features" so they can keep making money, but I don't think Mac users should get too upset that they won't have a 64-bit version for a few months.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (0)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961920)

I'm not overly concerned, it's not like I'm editing 64 bit color images, 12 - 16 bit tops (but then, I don't have a Hasselblad)

I'd be more concerned if they said something like it ignores 2 of the 4 cores per processor, or can't due SMT, or something else. 64-bit isn't as sexy/important in this case as far as I understand it.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (3, Informative)

alta (1263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962372)

Unless I'm mistaken the only thing 64bit color has to do with 64bit processing is that they both start with the number 64.

64Bit will allow the computer to deal with more data at a time, no matter what the color depth of the file is... It'll let the program have more memory. That will help a 64bit image if it's BIG, but just because it's BIG, not because it's 64 bit.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22961924)

It does mean that the app will be able to address more than 4 gig of RAM though, which for a professional image program I could see being useful.

But AMD64 could be... (5, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961966)

Remember, going to 64-bit on x86 can make programs faster, but not because of the extra bits. The speedup comes from the fact that, in addition to increasing the bits, AMD also added a bunch of extra registers to the spec.

Re:But AMD64 could be... (2)

jackbird (721605) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962220)

Well, for those of us working with large images, programs speed up because they aren't constantly thrashing the swapfile.

Re:But AMD64 could be... (0, Flamebait)

crusty_yet_benign (1065060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962496)

The speedup comes from the fact that, in addition to increasing the bits, AMD also added a bunch of extra registers to the spec.

Vendor-specific registers aren't the point (and I doubt whether Adobe spends much time on them, as "Optimized for Intel" as they've become). The extra address space speeds things up by preventing (much) swapping/paging.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962008)

64 bit will speeds things up, but not by a lot. And then, on windows, you take a hit for running all your 32 bit apps (perhaps 95% of what you run) on WOW64. And also 64 bit apps take ~15% more memory. So far, on the desktop, 64 bit just ain't worth bothering with. Even die-hard windows fanboys like Paul Thurrott admit 64 bit windows is treated as a 2nd class citizen in his own reviews. There's almost no speed advantage, it just brings compatibility issues, and it's much harder to find drivers for some hardware. If CS4 is 64bit, and Vista only, that means our dozen or so photo workstations (running XP) will stay with CS3 for a long time to come.

There's just no way we'll upgrade the hardware, to be able to upgrade the OS and have it run at a decent speed (nevermind support costs), to be able to upgrade to CS4. It would have to have MAJOR time saving/productivity features to be worth spending that much. They must not want our money.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962138)

32 bits is just fine...until the day that Apple announces better 64-bit developer support, at which time it will immediately become the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Re:64 bit is no panacea (1)

mehemiah (971799) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962294)

But the little bit of support they give makes pixelmater for lepord 64 bit by defau_t. I'__ _et a Pixe_mater rep speak for how dificu_t it was. wou_d the editor p_ease rep_ace my underscores with the 17th _etter of the a_phabet.

Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (3, Funny)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961874)

I guess there's no hope now...

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (0, Flamebait)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961922)

Because Flash and Photoshop are so interrelated?

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (1)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961988)

Hi, you must be "special". If a company makes such a statement (like not supporting CS4 on OS X), it is a good indicator that a Flash plugin for PPC is even more unlikely than before.

Please let me know if you would prefer less syllables, or a clue.

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (2, Interesting)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962056)

Hi, you must be "special". If a company makes such a statement (like not supporting CS4 on OS X), it is a good indicator that a Flash plugin for PPC is even more unlikely than before. Please let me know if you would prefer less syllables, or a clue.


*whistles in disbelief*

No scratch that, it's not disbelief, I should expect it on /.

TFA says that there will be no 64bit version of CS4 for Mac OS X, not that they will not support it.

Someone is special and I don't think it was the poster before you.... Go away now, kthnxbi!

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (1)

mpathetiq (726625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962150)

I'd reckon that not creating software for a specific platform indicates not supporting that platform. How does one support software that doesn't exist?

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (0, Troll)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962176)

"TFA says that there will be no 64bit version of CS4 for Mac OS X, not that they will not support it."

Your are super special! Please let me know what you discover about the 11th dimension in M theory.

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962076)

The one who needs a clue is you.

They are still supporting cs4 on OS X, they are just taking longer to convert to cocoa from carbon, carbon can't do 64 bit so until cs5, no 64bit on os x. That has absolutely nothing to do with flash player.

Though I do think there is no chance of a PPC linux flash player.

Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (1)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962270)

So you acknowledge that I'm right, and also that I need a clue?

The point that Adobe as a company is slow adapting to new platforms and architectures. For a company of this size, it's pretty shameful...

What will happen? (-1, Troll)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961880)

If this carries out, this will pretty much end the debate on how Macs are "so much better for image editing than PCs" even though most of us know that that is rubbish. Kinda hard to do image editing when the primary tool used for the job isn't even available for your OS.

Re:What will happen? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961928)

IF you RTFA you would know that what you said has NO basis on whats being talked about. But then you where just trolling anyway.

Re:What will happen? (2, Informative)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961940)

At the WWDC show last June, however, Adobe & other developers learned that Apple had decided to stop their Carbon 64 efforts. This means that 64-bit Mac apps need to be written to use Cocoa (as Lightroom is) instead of Carbon. This means that we'll need to rewrite large parts of Photoshop and its plug-ins (potentially affecting over a million lines of code) to move it from Carbon to Cocoa.
The main reason for the Mac having only the 32-bit (Yes, CS4 will still be available for the Mac) is Adobe does not feel like rewriting an entire program at a moments notice, and I can't say I blame them.

Additionally, this shouldn't rule out the eventuality of a 64-bit Mac version. I would assume it is a goal and it will just not be available at launch.

Re:What will happen? (4, Informative)

john82 (68332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962038)

As a matter of fact, Slashdot once again misleads with the choice of headline and half-the-story lead-in. Just a bit of reading reveals:

On the other hand, we work very hard at maintaining parity across platforms, and it's a drag that the Mac x64 revision will take longer to deliver. We will get there, but not in CS4. (Our goal is to ship a 64-bit Mac version with Photoshop CS5, but we'll be better able to assess that goal as we get farther along in the development process.)
Hmmm. Not the end of the world after all.

Re:What will happen? (1)

arachnoprobe (945081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962174)

Adobe does not feel like rewriting an entire program at a moments notice
There is no "moments notice" for Cocoa. Instead it's been there since Mac OS X. Carbon is the "old" OS 9 compatibility environment, where it was clear that it will not be ready for the future. Adobe should have ported the Creative Suite to Cocoa a long time ago.

Re:What will happen? (4, Interesting)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962380)

Exactly. Adobe, along with all Mac OS developers were warned almost a decade ago - essentially a previous geological epoch in computer terms - that going forward they would have to move their apps from Carbon, the old OS 9 compatibility layer - to Cocoa, the new Mac OS X framework which has been the fully native Mac OS X framework since the developer previews of Mac OS X in the late 90s.

Adobe was busy focusing on the windows market and betting that Apple would go out of business so they put 0 effort into porting Photoshop to Cocoa - OOOPS!

Apple not only survived but thrived, so Adobe simply dug in their heels and assumed that Apple would keep Carbon around forever rather than risk losing Adobe. Instead, Apple simply built internal Cocoa replacements for all the Carbon software whose absence could threaten the platform:

Microsoft Internet Explorer -> Safari
Microsoft Outlook -> Mail and AddressBook
Microsoft Word -> Pages
Microsoft Excel -> Numbers
Microsoft PowerPoint -> Keynote
Adobe Photoshop -> Aperture

This 64bit issue is no one's fault except Adobe who have had nearly a decade's warning that they needed to move from Carbon to Cocoa.

Re:What will happen? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962410)

Adobe does not feel like rewriting an entire program at a moments notice

What do you mean, "moment's notice?" Apple has been telling people to switch to Cocoa for years and years now, ever since 10.0 came out!

Re:What will happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962482)

The main reason for the Mac having only the 32-bit (Yes, CS4 will still be available for the Mac) is Adobe does not feel like rewriting an entire program at a moments notice, and I can't say I blame them.

Why not? Don't change the release date, just made the developers work extra hours, its not like they get OT anyway. Unless they're contractors in which case Adobe gets what they deserve.

Re:What will happen? (2, Informative)

nxsty (942984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961946)

If this carries out, this will pretty much end the debate on how Macs are "so much better for image editing than PCs" even though most of us know that that is rubbish. Kinda hard to do image editing when the primary tool used for the job isn't even available for your OS.
What? There will be a version for Mac OSX, but only 32 bit just like the current version.

Re:What will happen? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961958)

Isn't that debate just a relic of days past anyways?

At any rate, as a user of Windows XP 64-bit edition, the anger at being treated like a second class citizen knows no bounds. I have Vista on one machine and XP 64-bit edition on another; XP 64-bit edition still has fewer compatability issues than Vista and runs faster and more reliably, too.

I vote Apple (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961882)

Apparently Apple suddenly mentioned that carbon would not be supported in 64bit, meaning that a lot of code will have to be ported to cocoa.

Re:I vote Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22961906)

But it's not like OSX is a 64 bit operating system anyone. Under the hood it's 32bit, there are just a few 64bit parts that "thunk" downwards. Vista 64 bit is 64 bit down to the kernel.

Re:I vote Apple (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962070)

You're wrong as of 10.5 Leopard. It's 64-bit completely through.

Re:I vote Apple (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961954)

Didn't Apple say nearly 10 years ago that Carbon was a stopgap solution and that you shouldn't particularly rely on it anyways?

Re:I vote Apple (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962204)

It's not much of a stopgap if you many millions of lines of code written against it. Which I expect Adobe have.

Re:I vote Apple (2, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962240)

Yeah, but even Apple still writes some stuff in Carbon, and up to the point where they suddenly changed their mind, they had been telling everyone that 64-bit carbon was coming.

Nobody's really saying that Apple sucks for moving away from Carbon, the argument is that they should've communicated the timeline better to developers.

Not that I think giant developers neccessarily deserve special treatment, but you'd think it prudent to at least not waste a ton of time for a developer of one of the most significant programs available for your OS.

Re:I vote Apple (2, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962304)

No, my recollection is that they said exactly the opposite: that Carbon and Cocoa were co-equal and would be kept feature-comparable.

I don't have my notes from WWDC 2000, however.

Re:I vote Apple (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962510)

Look up the WWDC presentation on YouTube. Steve Jobs *clearly* says that Carbon would be a transitional API to Cocoa. Honestly, supporting it for 7+ years is enough I think.

Re:I vote Apple (5, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962030)

Wasnt sudden at all, the writing was on the wall when Apple released OS X. Carbon was supposed to be a quick way to transition your OS9 programs to OSX. That was it. Adobe had no issues writing new programs in Cocoa (Lightroom) but continued to drag its feet on a port for the 64bit version of its landmark products, content to add GUI bullshit that many are not even sure was a improvement.

This was as sudden as Apple dropping OS9 development. It was coming and coming for years, but developers are more content to repackage old code, than to rewrite it. This is the same mentality thats screwing Vista development too. Developers are just plain LAZY.

Re:I vote Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962132)

We don't like being called lazy. We prefer developmentally challenged.

Re:I vote Apple (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962210)

"Developers are just plain LAZY"

  Uhmm.. developers don't call the shots. Management does, and it is influenced to a large extent by the fiscal responsibility of the company in question (they do what makes money today and in the near future).

Re:I vote Apple (2)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962242)

Please keep in mind that the cocoa framework has changed significantly in every release of OSX since the beginning. It wasn't until the last couple of years that it started stabilizing and applications remained compatible with new releases of the OS.

They're still adding new features and improving the way things work internally, and applications, although they run, have some weird glitches with new OS features; namely, older applications sometimes behave strangely when one uses Spaces.

I agree, adobe should have seen the writing on the wall, but they were kinda like a dear in headlights, not knowing what the fuck to do and just watching the semi barreling down on them.

At least they decided to go to cocoa. At least they didn't drop 64-bit support for OSX or worse yet, drop the creative suite altogether.

Re:I vote Apple (2, Funny)

mini me (132455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962416)

Developers are just plain LAZY

Of course. That's why were are developers. When job X needs to be done, the average person will just jump in and get it done. Where as we developers, being lazy, would rather tell the computer to do the job instead. Had we not been lazy, we would have just done the job manually like the average person, and the software would have never been written.

Re:I vote Apple (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962426)

developers are more content to repackage old code, than to rewrite it. This is the same mentality thats screwing Vista development too. Developers are just plain LAZY.

Laziness is a virtue to developers, and it rightly should be. Why rewrite something that works as -is?

And it's not like Adobe's developers had a year to spend Cocoafying the Photoshop codebase, anyway. "All the same features, different windowing API" is not exactly a selling point that customers would be willing to pay upgrade prices for, therefore management isn't going to make it a priority.

blame Apple and/or Adobe? (5, Funny)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961890)

Sorry, but I will blame Microsoft.

It may be a knee-jerk reaction, but still. ;)

Re:blame Apple and/or Adobe? (0, Offtopic)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962074)

Don't worry, this is /. We could find a way to blame MS for the Dafur genocide.

You must be new here! (2, Funny)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961902)

blame Apple and/or Adobe as you will

You must be new here, I don't even need to read the article to know MS and thier monoply is to blame for this :-)

Blame Apple? (5, Funny)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961904)

Blame Apple? I didn't think we could do that, here.

Re:Blame Apple? (0, Offtopic)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962184)

In the comic book world:

Superman is stronger than Hulk, who is stronger than Spiderman, who is stronger than Batman

In the /. world:

Linux is stronger than OSX, which is stronger than BeOS, which is stronger than Windows

Re:Blame Apple? (0)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962330)

Blame Apple? I didn't think we could do that, here.
Ha,ha,ha that is hilarious. Please, keep it coming...

Why? Because once you said something against apple and somebody disagree with you? Get of your bloody high horse. Their are plenty of apple lovers and haters, but most people don't really care about anything except for Apple and Linux.

The blame falls solely on Apple (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961916)

they promised, and then rescinded, 64 bit Carbon, and didn't even bother to tell developers until WWDC 2007. This is the big problem with Apple's secrecy, sometimes they are secret just to be secret. There was NO reason not to let developers know there would be no 64 bit carbon as soon as the decision was made, but Apple waited until the last possible second for who knows why.

Yeah, Carbon is dead and they should be going to all Cocoa, but that takes time, and if it was your intention to kill Carbon, why even promise a 64 bit version at all? Why not state from the getgo that you plan to phase out Carbon and that if you want a 64 bit GUI you better be making it in Cocoa? Apple goes out of their way to piss people off sometimes I swear.

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (2, Insightful)

zootm (850416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962006)

Yes, it's Apple's fault, and the blame should lie pretty much just with them. From what I can tell of the situation, though, I don't think they made the wrong decision - I think they just administered the right decision very poorly. They made the decision fairly late in the day, and without prior notification this will push back the schedules of many projects.

The article pushes this very even-handedly, and I do think that Apple's decision will pay off in the longer term. They just could have handled the short term a little better.

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962090)

I don't think they made the wrong decision

32 bits should be enough for anybody.

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962154)

I think that the fact that we've been stuck with as many as that has been a testament to the waste in our industry. Clearly the only true solution is 4 bits, where the fourth can be a rudimentary checksum for data integrity.

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962172)

"Yeah, Carbon is dead and they should be going to all Cocoa, but that takes time, and if it was your intention to kill Carbon, why even promise a 64 bit version at all?"
Actually killing carbon is DUMB. To use Cocoa you have to use Objective-C for the GUI. There is a lot more experienced c++ developers than Objective-C developers. Objective-C isn't widely used on Windows or Unix so cross platform is now going to be a bigger pain for developers.
This is going to be a great thing for TrollTech.
The end result will be a lot of 32 bit apps will stay 32 bit apps.

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962492)

I'd be very cautious of any developer who knows C++ but can't pick up Objective-C at a moment's notice. Getting to know Cocoa will be the bigger challenge, but that would be true even if it were implemented in C++.

Adobe Should Dump The Mac Version (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962198)

It is a complete waste of resources that could be better spent focusing on just one version for 64bit Windows from here on out. The days of Macs being the only serious platform for Photoshop work are long gone.

Native Mac apps are a complete waste of resources for developers. It simply doesn't make economic sense to pay expensive engineers to rewrite code to support a niche platform that can already run the standard Windows version of your app.

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (2, Insightful)

Henriok (6762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962312)

Apple have never promised 64-bit Carbon. Everything that's in developer seeds are subject to change. As far as I can tell Apple didn't make the decision to drop 64-bit Carbon until about same time as WWDC'07, so Adobe and everyone else, including many developers inside Apple, found out at the same time. Adobe are going to migrate to Cocoa at some time or another, and it will be in everyone's best interesst to do it sooner rather than later. Adobe is lazy and they've shown it time after time.. just watch their poor support for OSX in the beginning and Universal Binaries. They promosed to be the first, but they were the last..

Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (1)

TejWC (758299) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962362)

I think that even if they were told a year or 2 in advance about this decision, Adobe still would not have been able to make the port to Cocoa in time. I suspect a lot of their code is in C++. Carbon is also C++ which makes it easy to integrate while Cocoa is Objective-C. There is a way to combine C and C++ code, but if the wrong person does it, it can lead to a big mess. Even open source projects like OpenSceneGraph (OSG) and Qt are having trouble making a Mac 64-bit since its so hard to combine the Objective-C and their C++ together (but it can be done). So its easy to blame Apple for their "last minute" change, but for a large codebase like Photoshop, it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

minus 1, Troll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22961930)

bad summary - there will be a 32-bit version (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22961934)

You misread the article:

The Lightroom news naturally raises the question: What's Adobe doing with Photoshop? In the interest of giving customers guidance as early as possible, we have some news to share on this point: in addition to offering 32-bit-native versions for Mac OS X and 32-bit Windows, just as we do today, we plan to ship the next version of Photoshop as 64-bit-native for Windows 64-bit OSes only.

Re:bad summary - there will be a 32-bit version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962376)

But this is exactly what is stated in the summary:

There will be a 64 bit version.
It will be only for Win64.
Not for OSX.

There is absolutely nothing said/inferred with respect to the 32bit-Version.
The Summary would be misleading if it stated "Photoshop CS4 Windows-only", but it does not.

How the heck is a wrong "correction" modded +5 informative?
Bunch of illiterates! I'm heading back to digg!

XP too...? (1, Interesting)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961974)

Will it run on 64-bit editions of Windows XP? I certainly hope so, as I have zero intention of downgrading to Vista, but I do intend to run XP x64 on the computer I'm currently building for video editing work. If 64-bit Photoshop works out, I'm hoping 64-bit Premiere Pro will be following.

Re:XP too...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962230)

Why would they support 64-bit XP? The support for 64-bit XP is much worse than 64-bit Vista, and Vista is the future - like it or not.

Re:XP too...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962322)

Windows XP 64 bit edition? How many people use that? Four?

Re:XP too...? (1)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962324)

Speaking from experience, you will gain nothing by using XP x64 as opposed to Vista X64. XP64 has the same problem that Vista 64 has - lack of driver support and lack of most apps supporting x64.

Things like the old Cisco VPN client simply don't work.

Just go to Vista 64 if you think you want or need to use 4GB of RAM.

Despite what you've heard there are some nice things about it too, it isn't that bad and you will get more drivers for it as the years wane on. It is also more secure, and you don't run the risk of not getting support in the near future.

Re:XP too...? (2, Insightful)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962378)

Wow, can nobody here answer the man's question with anything except sarcasm?

Yes, it will run on 64 bit editions of XP, it says so in the article. The summary just assumes that 64bit means "vista". Great slashdot editors as always./sarcasm

LOL (0)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961984)

Really amazing.

How can Apple get away with essentially discontinuing updates to one of its core programming environments. You can't just tell your partners "oh hey, yeah we just decided that we're not going to support X anymore".

Re:LOL (0, Redundant)

macs4all (973270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962098)

Yeah, it's not like MacroSuck(tm), who has NEVER created an API, only to abandon it later...

Re:LOL (1)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962236)

Cocoa and Carbon are not just API's they are core system interfaces.

It is equivalent to MS saying they will not support 64 bit platforms for MFC.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962446)

You're clearly unfamiliar with the history. Apple have been saying that Carbon was a temporary transitional framework and that developers should move to Cocoa since the late 90s.

Dropping 64 bit support for Carbon *GUI* code (yes, there is 64 bit Carbon, just not 64 bit Carbon GUI libraries) was just the latest in Apple's long litany of warnings that Carbon is eventually going bye bye and developers should transition to Cocoa, something they were told to do nearly a decade ago.

Re:LOL (1, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962252)

Your clever use of the term MacroSuck as a parody of Microsoft was comic genius. The fact that you added the (tm) at the end just sweetened the deal!

On behalf of myself and all the other "According to Jim" writers, I would like to offer you a job on our writing staff. We call ourselves the "yuck yuck factory" (get it? it's because we write jokes!) and could use a sharp comic wit such as yourself. Tell me, how good are you at writing my-annoying-mother-in-law gags? Because, since Peter left during the strike, we've been really weak in that area.

I have to blame Apple (1)

MegaMahr (788652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961990)

You have to think that by now Apple would have their SDK in order concerning 64bit apps. The 64 bit achitecture has only been around for 10+ years... [softpedia.com]

Equality (1)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22961998)

I suspect a government coverup here. I think us slashdotters could blow this whole thing wide open with a little snooping...

But seriously, I enjoyed the articles neutral point of view in that both parties are to blame, apple for bailing on Carbon, and Adobe for neglecting Cocoa. Oh well, I'm still stuck in the middle ages with my CS2, so I'm wholly unaffected by all of this.

Seriously, software just keeps changing too fast.

Fudge you Adobe (1)

theaceoffire (1053556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962016)

Think that it is pretty clear at this point:
No Linux version as well.

CS5 will be there (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962028)

(Our goal is to ship a 64-bit Mac version with Photoshop CS5, but we'll be better able to assess that goal as we get farther along in the development process.)

So the mac is not cut off. They just need time to move from carbon to cocoa. At least they are not trying to rush something through the door.

Let the blame game begin! (5, Insightful)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962036)

Personally, I'm taking Adobe to task on this one.

Carbon was initially meant to be a "type" of backward compatibility with old Mac OS "less than X" applications so that they would require minimal re-writes of code to allow the program to be Mac OS X "native".

Apple has been pushing people to use the "more native superior" Cocoa framework for a number of years now by not only urging programmers and developers to use Cocoa but, by also enhancing the speed, stability and capabilities of Cocoa while Carbon stagnated (comparatively) and Adobe has constantly and stubbornly refusing to re-write ANYTHING they make to use the superior Cocoa framework.

This has been the case since the "Photoshop 7 ver.2" generation of Adobe's Mac products.

Lightroom uses Cocoa because it was made from scratch. That's it. If it was a hold over from pre-X days, I would bet my geek creds that it would be written in carbon.

Yes, I do fully realize that re-coding all of Adobe's Creative Suite to the Cocoa framework is a monstrous task, but Adobe has been severely dragging their feet regarding the switch-over which, I might add, they "hoped for in CS2 and "promised" for CS3!

That totally happened..... oh wait, it didn't! So now Adobe is caught with their pants down and doesn't want to admit it, despite Apple saying "You're not supposed to use Carbon anymore!" for years.

So no, this is not Apple's fault. It's Adobe's and I look forward to seeing any counter-arguments!

This should be interesting!

Re:Let the blame game begin! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962292)

Ah, don't worry. It's not like anyone uses Apples for graphic design.

Re:Let the blame game begin! (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962296)

So no, this is not Apple's fault. It's Adobe's and I look forward to seeing any counter-arguments!
TFA said that Apple promised Carbon would get 64 bit support in 2006, then changed their minds and cancelled it in 2007.

If Adobe expects Carbon to get 64 bit support (because Apple said so) and then it suddenly doesn't, its pretty easy to see how that is going to screw things up. That part is Apple's fault.

So since their Carbon version isn't going to ever be 64 bit, they need to do a Cocoa port to get there. Thats only necessary because of Apple's cancellation of 64 bit Carbon, so its Apple's fault.

(Though I tend to agree with TFA that Apple's decision to do that was right, in the long term.)

Re:Let the blame game begin! (3, Insightful)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962390)

You act as if planned and/or announced features/products have never been canceled or abandoned and Apple is the only one to ever do this. *COUGH!*M$VISTA*COUGH!**COUGH!*

They decided to cancel 64 bit support for carbon and announced it. It's not like they simply decided to ship the next update/version of Carbon as 32 bit only and never told anyone.

Adobe's fair warning came 10 years ago. Carbon has always been a stop-gap. IMHO, no amount of blame directed anywhere but straight at Adobe should be cast.

hey (3, Funny)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962060)

who cares.

GIMP runs well on macs with xcode & developer tools installed.

Re:hey (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962246)

hahaha!

I like the GIMP just as much as anyone, but I have no illusions that it's a full Photoshop replacement.... especially for the professional market who would benefit most from 64-bit.

Re:hey (0, Troll)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962344)

GIMP runs on nearly everything it can compile on (Windows, Linux, Mac, 64-bit versions as well). I don't care about this news because Adobe is irrelevant to me until they open up Flash or something open replaces Flash. I haven't used Photoshop in at least a few years now. GIMP has replaced Photoshop for me. I know there are a lot of people who will say Photoshop cannot be replaced with GIMP, but I disagree for what I do. In many aspects, I found some things easier to do in GIMP than in Photoshop. The only thing I would say that I miss from Photoshop is borders and shading option dialogue and the basic shapes you could easily make.

Adobe's foot-dragging? Most users won't care. (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962072)

I've been using 64-bit systems since 1994... including ILP64 Alpha processors... and unless you're memory starved 64-bit software tends to be slower than 32-bit software... with one exception: there's a serious problem with 32 bit mode that the 64-bit mode doesn't have.

On the Alpha, the problem was that 32-bit mode requires trapping many accesses because the CPU is *purely* 64-bit.

With AMD64, AMD implemented a large register file efficiently, so a good compiler can generate better code for it. Intel's implementation of AMD64 doesn't seem to be as good, and since Apple is on Intel...

Also, Adobe has to have a 64 bit version for Windows, because Windows comes in 64- and 32- bit versions, but OS X has the same support for both 64- and 32- bit in the same OS...

So unless you're editing truly enormous images, far larger than most users ever deal with, this doesn't matter.

On the plus side, Apple's been trying to kick Adobe into converting to NeXTSTep/Yellow Box/Cocoa since 1997, and Adobe's knuckle-dragging over abandoning Classic is what made Carbon necessary in the first place, so I don't think Adobe's in any position to say Apple didn't give them plenty of warning.

It's been 11 years and they're finally going "oh, man, I guess Apple's really serious about this Objective C stuff!".

Re:Adobe's foot-dragging? Most users won't care. (1)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962104)

What are you talking about? 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit software just fine.

Re:Adobe's foot-dragging? Most users won't care. (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962276)

x64 Windows runs 32-bit applications fine unless they rely on some 16-bit components, or it relies on some form of virtual driver. Photoshop CS3 is a x32 program, and it runs on my x64 Vista.

On the upside (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962108)

At least you can run Windows on Macs now.

Sheesh (2, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962196)

At my old job, I worked in the art department doing production work and created a whole range of applications for CS2, Office, Mail.app and Transmit using PERL and Applescript. There's a whole workflow that's been built around the products they use on the platform that they use (OSX).

The guys in charge of purchasing hardware/software know little about the details of technology, although they gloss over eWeek and read the Technology section of the Times. Inevitably, they will read about this and try to convince the art department that maybe they should put Vista on the MacPros, or maybe get some standard PCs (if they decide to upgrade the hardware).

this news is especially relevant to that shop since they frequently get 2GB and 3GB files (and that's compressed!).

The good news is that the majority of their clients are running OSX, as well, and this lack of 64-bit photoshop should not cause them to start sending in even larger files... however, I do know that many of the larger clients get whatever the latest and greatest Mac is and max it out. This means that they could just get a copy of Vista and use Bootcamp.

Apple kinda shot itself in the foot with this one. Shops that can, may install Vista and get CS4 for windows just to keep up with incoming work. If MS gets Vista's usability up, and can offer a competitive experience, users may get used to it and stick with the platform... although I seriously find that highly unlikely.

Re:Sheesh (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962414)

Apple decided to move over from some old technology left over from support for pre-OS X, to the current technology. They had to do this sometime. This is a big decision, but not one that was taken lightly.

Bloody Apple (0)

kramulous (977841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962224)

The reason why I fled the Windows programming environment was because I was getting sick and tired of having to rewrite parts of my code to run on other platforms. Having to change what should be standard stuff was the final straw.

I moved to OSX and what did I find there? The same shit with Carbon and Cocoa. I absolutely refuse to program in them because they are only supported by one platform. I've since moved to Linux. One size fits all ... as it should be. Thanks to Trolltech.

For once, I can actually understand one of these larger companies doing this. More of these bigger players need to send a message to stop this childish crap of platform specific programming.

I vote Adobe (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962260)

1. They have taken entirely too long to come out with 64-bit versions of their software.

2. They aren't very good at change. Basically all Adobe does now is buy other companies that have good software or market share. After the company is acquired they make few efforts to improve the software. If they make any changes it's to make it more bloated and riddled with advertisements.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because they don't have a 64-bit version of Flash and there is no Shockwave for Linux.

Use QT, like the rest of the world (3, Informative)

SwiftX (672557) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962274)

Trolltech(/ nokia) is working with Apple to get QT on MacOSX using Cocoa.
Problem solved!
SwiftX

OMyFuckingGOD !! Say it AIN'T TRUE !! Adobe !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22962278)







OMyFuckingGOD !! Say it AIN'T TRUE !! Adobe !! Just when I got my knickers in a bunch I see this doesn't affect me at all !! God am I glad !! It was SUCH A FUCKING IMPORTANT MUST-KNOW news-worthy fucking piece I got my self into a tizzie. Somebody sacrifice a (ugly) virgin so slashdot can keep the gods happy and keep sending it this great news. I am so fucking glad we live in an age where PR makes its way to news. God !! Where would this place be without fucking PR news ??
And praise be to the Gods that they see fit to provide us with the 3-sides, quote box. Where would we be without that shit, too ??

What DID Apple pledge at WWDC 2000? (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962290)

The thing is... and if anyone else was there and still has their notes I'd appreciate it if they'd confirm or deny this... I could swear that Apple pledged at WWDC 2000 that Carbon and Cocoa would be co-equal on Mac OS X.

I do not remember Apple saying that Carbon would be discontinued, and I do not remember their suggesting that there was any reason to move to Cocoa _other than its intrinsic merits_.

I realize that computer companies have a very bad track record of keeping any long-term commitments, and that a sophisticated developer should take whatever is said with a grain of salt, but my recollection was that Apple was very, very definite at the time.

Re:What DID Apple pledge at WWDC 2000? (1)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962462)

I do not remember Apple saying that Carbon would be discontinued...
*siiigh*

Carbon is not being discontinued. It just won't be 64-bit like Cocoa.

...and I do not remember their suggesting that there was any reason to move to Cocoa _other than its intrinsic merits_.


Apple has been pushing developers for more than 9 years to move away from Carbon and use the "shiny new" Cocoa. Drop by Apple's developer page sometimes, it's not hard to find then urging you to use Cocoa. (And they make their related Carbon stuff harder to find! lol!)

windows 64bit tradition (2, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962338)

It must be because Windows has had such a long and stable history of running on 64bit hardware.

http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/ [gimp.org]

Pirates ahoy! (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22962354)

Call me paranoid, but maybe they figure making it the 64bit version of it Vista only, there will be fewer pirated copies about. I know of few people who run the 64bit version of that OS and they're not really into photo editing. It does make their email download faster! So they keep telling me...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?