Adobe Photoshop CS4 Will Be 64-Bit For Windows Only 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.
64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Informative)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:5, Interesting)
you don't know photoshop, you're not getting hired. period.
we have a bank of macs, and we have several little tests that we've setup.
adobe would LIKE everyone to believe that their application is the EXPENSIVE HEAVY DUTY PAINT APP.
I'd say it's a paint app that remains expensive and hasn't added anything extraordinary to the feature lineup in 10 years.
We chose adobe photoshop in 1993, instead of a used Pixar Image Computer. Back then this stuff was ground breaking. We had a quadra 950 with 64 megs of memory (the memory alone was $5000). The license for photoshop was $500.
18 years later, computing power is cheap.
and Adobe has been playing safety defense for 10 years. The signs are all there. Buying up all sorts of smaller companies or competitors. Innovation is dead. Lot's of top down decisions. Microsoft, Autodesk, and Adobe...are all just the big fat slugs of their domain. They need to be taken out and shot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I wouldn't entirely judge Adobe's "sitting on it's laurels" based only on Photoshop itself. I think of Ligh
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Interesting)
My ex-wife was struggling with a demo of Photoshop, and had run into some serious lag and 'early-version' blues with Aperture. I gave her a full version of Lightroom, and racked up a ton of points, let me tell you.
I do work with already-existing images, for the most part, and use Photoshop and PhotoRetouch Pro. But she is a photographer (amongst other things) and absolutely loves Lightroom. I'd recommend it, based on my limited usage, and more on her real usage, to anyone out there who takes pictures and wants to pop them into their file systems with some serious editing on the way in. Really outstanding work on the part of Adobe... almost makes up for GoLive... on second thought, no... no, it doesn't. :)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:5, Insightful)
On Win32 the API doesn't really change when you go to 64 bit. And the LLP model means int and long stay 32 bit, only the pointers change size. So code that reads bitmaps for example won't break. Now you can argue about this, but it means if you've spent ages developing Win32 code it only takes a few days to port a large application to Win64.
Now Windows has ~90% of the market place and Apple has ~6%. If you were Adobe and getting to 64 bit on Apple required a lot more work in return access to far less of the market place, wouldn't you be tempted to tell people to use Bootcamp if they want to use the 64 bit version? Now I know Adobe will do the work at least this time, but don't you think decisions like this may cause other vendors to reconsider keeping their Mac ports going?
I know Adobe had a hard time going from PPC to Intel
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/macintosh_and_t.html [adobe.com]
The thing that Apple needs to realise is that independent software vendors are an asset to the platform. If you keep making them to extra unnecessary work - the transition from Metroworks to XCode and from Carbon to Cocoa - to support a minority platform when the majority platform doesn't require this, then they might well just tell people to use Bootcamp. Which they do already for Framemaker.
http://www.macworld.com/article/50465/2006/04/photoshop.html [macworld.com]
Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen
So the hassle for Mac users running a Windows application is dropping all the time. And that will definitely affect Adobe's decisions whether to spend man power on refactoring every few months to keep tracking Job's whims. But in the long run, if the Mac has no native third party applications, it will go the way of OS/2.
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Informative)
Adobe has a long legacy of making sure their application is rock-solid and reliable before releasing. They, of any company, were the ones to set the bar for what it's like to release incredibly stable, bug-free software without any major point release dramas to fix glaring mistakes.
Yes, ever since they decided it was a good idea to put a salesman at the head of the company who believes that it's not what you sell, but how you sell it that's important, they've started going down a bad road. Their subsequent attempts to lock the system down with draconian DRM etc. has not improved their image much. However, there is no way to compare Pixelmator to Photoshop. Pixelmator can afford to be nimble because it has no expectations to live up to and is a relatively limited application with little utility in comparison.
Photoshop is a (reasonably) well-thought-out system of utilities and tools that have always done a darn good job working within the limits of the processor and memory and still manage to offer speedy, capable performance and a comprehensive 3rd-party plugin architecture. Adobe's main crutch is that they can't afford to simply throw away doing things the way they've always done in order to move forward; their own success has locked them into evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, progress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true at all. wxWidgets and QT are both able to provide a C++ wrapper for Cocoa. I imagine that QT is exactly what photoshop is going to use. Then they can have the same code base for windows and osx (and linux if it ever comes to that)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be willing to bet, that of the "workstation class" computers, capable of doing PhotoShop, Apple has a much bigger slice of the pie, vs. say a cash register at Applebee's running Windows.
It's also a marketing fact that Mac users actually make up more than 50% of the people buying Adobe products. Not worth it to update the code? For millions of users when you charge $800 or m
But AMD64 could be... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re:But AMD64 could be... (Score:4, Interesting)
The additional GPRs and XMM registers are not vendor-specific, as they are a natural part of the AMD64/EM64T platform, and Intel has adopted them as well, as they are a required part of the specification. These registers may speed up tight inner loops by allowing to keep more data a hand. Yes, I know that this is not going to help many applications, for example data structures with a large percentage of pointers/references (trees and graphs, for instance) might actually get slower on 64 bits due to the size increase and memory "speed" (unless you are using something like DataDraw [sourceforge.net]), but expensive computations on packed homogeneous data can get much faster under right circumstances.
If you can generate tight inner code from a node tree, for example, even if the expression trees you can compile are very simple, things can get much faster, because less accesses even to cache equals more speed. You basically cannot saturate a modern PC CPU's execution units from memory today - if you're not running from registers and have to hit the memory to reach the big picture (pun intended :)) in order to just multiply and add some pixel values from several layers, you might be losing an order of magnitude of performance compared to the theoretical limit. If the operations are more complex, and you have dozens of layers and you are adding them and multiplying them and processing them all over the place, it is faster to keep the intermediate the values in registers even at the cost of having to generate some code. The other option is to spill the values into intermediate buffers and that is not a good thing for performance.
I do not think that the people at Adobe are dumb. VirtualDub uses this idea, and I think I read something about the Windows GUI kernel using such techniques as well. I fail to see why the leader in the market of graphics editors would avoid such opportunity.
You are still wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, stipulated. Regardless, it's the memory address space that allows for the speed improvement when working with large files, not new JMP routines.
JMP routines? Actually, the extra register things is capable of optimizing out _many_, _many_ memory accesses... leaving the path clear for the SIMD instructions to fetch repeatedly only the data that your extended addressing is capable of. Imagine (simplifying a little) some transform being done to an image, that alters some data:
if x1, x2 are put in registers then your transform will fetch only the pages
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, in 32-bit land, you can use blocking algorithms to get by memory limitations. Not all operations must be done over the entire file, requiring all the data be in memory at the same time so it isn't like 32-bit can't
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Insightful)
Adobe has been dragging its feet on a port to Cocoa (about which everyone saw the writing on the wall a long time ago), aided by Apple's thinking that it was going to give 64bit Carbon a future (rescinded quite some time ago). I don't know why this is at all surprising to anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Linux 64bit apps are very fast and for photo editing I would use the GIMP over Photoshop. there are a lot of plugins for the GIMP too! Also I have a powermac G5 (real mac) running tiger. GIMP is very fast on that too! So I am not missing anything.
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:64 bit is no panacea (Score:4, Informative)
No x86 software, *including drivers*, should be shipping in both 64bit and 32bit binary form, all of the problems you mention with 64bit are essentially proprietary software exclusive btw, and just highlight the highly broken software ecosystem Microsoft Windows has fostered.
Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume your not a programmer. Code takes time to port to new interfaces. That's time that can be spent on other things. It gets even worse when some of the code is hand optimized or worse yet is a GUI app. Photoshop is a very large and very complicated GUI code base and therefore will take a long time to port.
That's life.. it's
Re:Adobe Flash on PPC Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Then you hand it to your QAers. "Good luck, fuckers!"
I vote Apple (Score:2)
Re:I vote Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have my notes from WWDC 2000, however.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 h
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I vote Apple (Score:5, Informative)
blame Apple and/or Adobe? (Score:5, Funny)
It may be a knee-jerk reaction, but still.
You must be new here! (Score:2, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
The blame falls solely on Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 sh
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
32 bits should be enough for anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 wi
Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
I would love to try Objective-C but the lack of bindings for GTK, QT, and Windows keeps me from putting in the effort.
It is a shame since I hear that Objective-C is better than C++ in many ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The blame falls solely on Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, John Gruber claims [daringfireball.net] that's not true:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It won't, unless C++ changes significantly. The fundamental issue is that Cocoa needs to be able to call arbitrary methods on arbitrary objects when both are determined at runtime (see the NSObject "performSelector" method). As far as I know C++ can't do that.
bad summary - there will be a 32-bit version (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
XP too...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
CS5 will be there (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Let the blame game begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I blame Apple (Score:3, Informative)
Also, prior to WWDC 2007 Apple has never said that "You're not supposed to use Carbon anymore!" Apple has been evolv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Carbon and Cocoa aren't in direct competition. Carbon is a lower-level API that works as advertised. Cocoa is a higher-level API like PowerPlant or MacApp that, in spite of Apple's marketing, isn't some kind of all-encompassing masterwork of new technology. In fact, it hasn't changed significantly since the debut of OPENSTEP, and the fact it wasn't written for the same market as the Mac shows.
Cocoa has missing API
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm talking about things like the integrated spell-checker, Services, drag&drop, AppleScript GUI scripting, etc. X11 on some other platform may have those features, but it definitely doesn't in OS X.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a developer of any kind, I try my best as end user to report issues I spot.
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/xquartz [macosforge.org]
It is not a bad X11 (as they moved to x.org) , in fact Apple made possible and lot easier for X11 apps run in average end u
hey (Score:3, Funny)
GIMP runs well on macs with xcode & developer tools installed.
Adobe's foot-dragging? Most users won't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the upside (Score:3, Insightful)
Sheesh (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I vote Adobe (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Problem solved!
SwiftX
What DID Apple pledge at WWDC 2000? (Score:2)
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
windows 64bit tradition (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/ [gimp.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tiger had very limited 64-bit support (GUI apps ran in 32-bit mode). The fairly recent 10.5 is much better though.
In contrast, the Windows API's were well supported in 64-bit platforms since 2003. (Windows 2003 server, for IA-64 and later X64). While XP 64-bit was pointless, and soon discontinued, Windows APIs remain the same on Server and Client editions.
This would have allowed Adobe to start working on a 64-bit version anytime in the last 5 years
Adobe had no other choice (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to software development, companies prefer to make changes that affect the customer directly, and in the short term. The Ars article mentions that it would take a serious redistribution of resources to begin the port from Carbon to Cocoa, which means that feature development and stability improvements (things that the customer sees) would have slowed significantly. CS4 might come out with a few new features, but users would complain that it is basically a rehash of CS3 and there would be significant negative press. Arguments would intensify that Photoshop has hit a plateau, and future sales would be hurt.
All that would be the result of the forward-looking decision to port to Cocoa far before this point, and that decision would have had the potential to cause more problems for Adobe than they're seeing now by not having a Cocoa version ready. Today's news is bad press for Adobe, but it's not as bad as it could have been. In reality, people will get along with a 32-bit Mac version or the 64-bit Windows version instead. Since the problem of making a Cocoa port is now very customer-facing, the marketplace will likely be more forgiving of a feature stall over the next few years.
Um... Adobe just re-wrote CS3 from the ground up (Score:5, Insightful)
So now they are saying that when they made the decision to start over from scratch, they chose the older, backward-compatible API instead of a forward-looking modern one? If their mumbling about the delay of CS3 were true, then there was no reason at all that they wouldn't have just moved to Cocoa right then.
Adobe needs to get their lies straight if they hope to be as awful of a company as Microsoft (something they seem to be striving for with increasing vigor).
You clearly have no clue what Objective-C is (Score:3, Informative)
Objective-C is most certainly not a "proprietary language". It is not as popular and widely known as C/C++ or Java, to be sure, but it is, as far as I understand it, completely open.
Cocoa, Apple's Objective-C based API, is, I believe, not completely closed, either, but it's probably what you're actually thinking about. And it's an API, just like the Carbon API, or the Win32 APIs.
Dan Aris
Misleading title? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps a better title would have been, "64-Bit Macs Snubbed by Photoshop CS4"
There will be an x86_64 version for Mac... (Score:3, Informative)
...but the Windows version is just coming out first. It's not like Adobe is totally abandoning 64 bit apps on the Mac. It's just that re-writing millions of lines of Carbon code is going to take a bit longer.
If you read the Ars article, and John Nack's blog at Adobe, you get a sense of the history involved here. Back when Apple's next-gen OS was going to be Rhapsody, Apple developers were looking at re-writing all their apps in what came to be known as Cocoa. Many of the big developers, Adobe among them, said "No way, Steve," leading to the birth of Carbon, to allow an easy transition from OS 9 to OS X.
It's been known for a while that Carbon would eventually be deprecated, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's going to be a huge job for Adobe. Adobe shouldn't be chastised for this move. They should be lauded for developing the an x86_64 version for Mac at all, even if its release will lag behind the Windows version.
Here at my work...it won't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides our budget limits, the other reason for this is that most of the printers we work with as well as publication companies follow a similar trend in their upgrade patterns. As it is right now we just finished migrating all of our offices over the last year from CS (a couple offices did have 2 already) to CS3. Depending on when CS4 comes out, we'll more than likely just wait until CS5 is released.
With that said if we run into an issue where we need to have the latest for some given reason chances are we'll require only InDesign or Illustrator upgrades as those are our main priorities. While photoshop seems to add in yet another ten ways to adjust the shadows/highlights of an image every version, it never seems to be high on our list of requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I can tell it is, not that I am the Apple developer that maintains it or anything. The plugin SDK is highly suggestive that it is a Cocoa app.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It is equivalent to MS saying they will not support 64 bit platforms for MFC.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 stri