Next Photoshop will get 64-bit boost--on Windows only
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 and not for Mac OS X.
Adobe generally keeps features in the Windows and Mac versions at a level of parity, but that wasn't possible this time around because of a change Apple made last year to the Mac's programming underpinnings, John Nack, Adobe's product manager for Photoshop, said in an interview.
"We're not going to ship 64-bit native for Mac with CS4," Nack said. "We respect Apple's need to balance their resources and make decisions right for that platform. But it does have an impact on developers."
(Read the "What derailed the 64-bit train?" section below if you want more details on why Adobe concluded it had to change plans.)
What does 64 bits get you, anyway? Chiefly, an easier way for a processor and software to use more than 4GB of memory. In addition, the 64-bit versions of Intel and AMD x86 chips incorporate more data storage slots called registers that can improve performance.
But Nack took pains to say that moving to 64 bits, while useful, isn't like flipping a switch that doubles performance.
Modest performance improvements
Based on Adobe's preliminary testing, the 64-bit version of Photoshop CS4 will give a performance kick of about 8 percent to 12 percent compared with the 32-bit version, Nack said. For one particular task--opening up a huge 3.2-gigapixel file on a system with a lot of memory--the 64-bit version is 10 times faster because it doesn't have to write the data that won't fit in memory onto a relatively slow hard drive.
In practice, a huge swath of Photoshop users won't be affected by the difference, at least initially. The transition from 32-bit to 64-bit computing has been creeping sluggishly across the personal-computing industry for years already, and it's going to be some more years before the transition is complete.
Advanced Micro Devices unveiled the first 64-bit x86 chip in 2003. Although AMD and Intel have moved their x86 processors to 64-bit designs, the new Mac OS X 10.5, Leopard, is Apple's first full-fledged 64-bit operating system, and Microsoft's 64-bit versions of Windows are almost unheard of in real-world use.
But it's not unreasonable to assume CS4 will have to hold down the fort until 2010 or so, when a PC with 8GB of memory will be ordinary, and by then, the difference between Photoshop on the Mac and Windows likely will be more glaring--especially for those users who already had a 64-bit Photoshop CS3 on their wish lists.
Fortunately for Mac users, Intel-based machines can run Windows either with a dual-boot configuration or through virtualization software, so perhaps that could tide them over if Adobe obliges with permissive licensing.
Open the 64-bit floodgates?
Today, most folks with PCs don't bump too hard against 4GB memory limits--indeed, it's not easy to find mainstream computing hardware with memory slots for more than 4GB even when there's a 64-bit chip and operating system. But Photoshop can be a taxing application.
Images are getting bigger and bigger, and Photoshop often is used to composite many together on multiple layers or stitch them together into large panoramas. At the same time, people are starting to store more detail in each pixel, moving from 24 bits of color information to 48 bits and, in the case of the high dynamic range photography (HDR), often even more. Having more memory also improves Photoshop's ability to track the history of changes to a file.
I suspect the Adobe shift will be a harbinger that the rest of the software industry is finally getting ready to make the 64-bit shift. The Photoshop user base is a coveted one, and making sure consumers have the hardware drivers and other technology they need will be a useful incentive for moving 64-bit coding up the priority list.
One group of programmers that will doubtless be quick to move to 64 bit are those who sell plug-ins for Photoshop. The 64-bit version will require 64-bit plug-ins, Nack said. "We can't mix 32-bit and 64-bit processes," he said, adding that Adobe has a prerelease development program that helps programmers make the move.
That Mac OS X will miss out on initial 64-bit Photoshop support is somewhat perverse. Apple has chosen a straightforward transition to 64 bits for its operating system and its new, widely adopted product has arrived. Apple's smoother change is possible in part because Mac OS X can still use older 32-bit driver software to support hardware, whereas with corresponding drivers.
Microsoft began its 64-bit operating system transition with Windows XP, but it's putting more effort into the 64-bit version of Vista. Adobe expects 64-bit Photoshop to run on 64-bit XP, but only Vista will be supported, Nack said.
There are other Adobe Creative Suite applications, of course--the Premiere video-editing program springs to mind as another that could benefit from large-memory support--but Adobe isn't yet sharing details on those plans. It did announce Tuesday that Photoshop Lightroom version 2, which just entered beta testing, will be available in a 64-bit version. (Lightroom, for editing and cataloging raw photos from higher-end digital cameras, will work fine in 64-bit mode on Mac OS 10.5, Nack said.)
Other performance work
Nack and his boss, Kevin Connor, reiterated that 64-bit support doesn't mean a night-and-day performance improvement that Macs will miss out on.
"We fully expect that when we ship CS4, Mac users are going to be seeing performance improvements," Connor said.
And there are other hardware improvements besides 64-bit processors in the works. One big one is the increasing utility of graphics chips to process information as well as pump pixels to a screen.
"Graphics processors have become more powerful. We are very eager to take advantage of that power," Nack said.
What derailed the 64-bit train?
Until last June, Adobe had planned to move to 64 bit on Macs with CS4. But in June, Apple announced its technology plans at its Worldwide Developer Conference and that changed the situation for Adobe, Nack said.
Apple provides two technologies, Carbon and Cocoa, to help programmers take advantage of operating system services such as managing memory, fonts, or windows. Initially, Apple had planned to make both Carbon and Cocoa available in 64-bit incarnations, but Apple announced at the conference that only Cocoa would be.
Photoshop is written using Carbon, which dates from the earlier Mac OS 9 era and is better suited to cross-platform programming; Cocoa, like the newer Mac OS X, dates back to Jobs' previous company, Nextstep.
"When they chose not to do Carbon 64, we had to reevaluate our road map for getting there," Nack said. Adobe immediately assigned new programmers to the Cocoa switch "so we could make this transition as fast as possible, but as the saying goes, nine women can't make a baby in a month. You can only proceed at a certain pace," he said.
The amount of code that employs or interacts with Carbon features is substantial: about a million lines, and all of it must at least be reviewed, Nack said. Even today, "we don't yet know how much code needs to be rewritten or touched."
The Carbon-to-Cocoa switch was simply too massive to push back CS4 for just a couple months, he added.
"No one--Apple, Adobe, Microsoft--has attempted to move an application the size of Photoshop from Carbon to Cocoa," Nack said.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
ADOBE, not Adobe.
On that note, it's going to be interesting to see how well the move from Carbon to Cocoa really will be. Sounds to me it's going to be more like a 1.0 release rather than a 5th or 6th generation release from a user interface standpoint.
From what I understand too, an apple running with 8 gigs of memory will still benefit, the 32 bit app will only have access to 4 gigs of it, but of that it won't have to share with other applications, like the operating system, or browsers.
I'm sure too Adobe will find work-arounds to keep the performance acceptable, a huge portion of their user base is on apple, and if the market share indications are any measure, it's likely only growing on their customer base as well.
ADOPE, not Adobe.
I think the move from Carbon to Cocoa could be well defined with the word "backwards". Sounds to me it's simply a step backwards to only support 64-bit in the oldest technology. From what we are told, a Windows PC running with 8 GB of memory will benefit much more than a Mac with the same amount of memory. What I am sure is that 64-bit technology in Photoshop (and all the advantages that that brings in terms of performance) only in Windows and no word yet about when (if) we will (ever) have a 64-bit Photoshop for Macs, the biggest-by-far portion of the computer world is on Windows (Photoshop is not exclusively available to long-time users), and, if (as you say) the market share indications are any measure, it's likely not going to change anytime soon.
incarnations, but Apple announced at the conference that only Cocoa
would be."
If true, Apple must have dropped the ball. I wonder how old this statement is.
"nine women can't make a baby in a month. You can only proceed at
a certain pace,"
One month?!? OS X has been around since 2001... that's 7 years! Has
Cocoa only been out for one month?!?!
It took a very long time for Adobe to introduce OS X native apps. I'll
give them the benefit for the moment, but it all sounds fishy to me.
Is Adobe dragging it's feet? Will they miss the upgrade income from
Mac Adobe users?
sprung this surprise on Adobe. Shame on Apple. Bad Apple.
Golly, this can't be Adobe's fault. Apple does all things bad -- win
fan bois are remarkably shortsighted.
I wonder what percentage of people still only have all 32-bit CPU. I just now finally have all 64-bit CPUs, and most people I know have at least one 64-bit CPU. I'd be interested to know the percentage of people that only own 32-bit chips.
on Intel Mac's, forcing users who wanted better performance to
upgrade to CS3. Cocoa has been around even longer than Intel
Mac's and Adobe STILL isn't implementing that technology because
writing in Carbon is easier? Look around Adobe at how many
graphic designers use Macs. It's a shame that one of Adobe's
biggest cash cows is as poorly designed as the free Flash Player.
One can look at this and say that the writing has been on the wall for Carbon since the introduction of Mac OS X and that Adobe, along with everyone else, should have started the work of porting their applications to the Cocoa API immediately. However, I don't think it was until last year that Apple really gave concrete evidence that Carbon was going to be deprecated and that Cocoa HAD to be used. A miscommunication? Perhaps and I can certainly appreciate that Adobe didn't want to invest in migrating to Cocoa if they didn't have to since they already have a mature Carbon application and the experience that goes along with that.
While the migration to Mac OS X happened some time ago it appears that there is still some degree of baggage and only now is it being shed.
(because they will al be waiting for CS5) Adobe will say Mac
sales are sluggish and threaten to stop making Photoshop for
the Mac altogether.
C'mon Apple!! Its time to release the hounds on Adobe! Bring
out the secret weapon!! The Apple Photoshop killer!! Now is the
time! Final Cut Pro took over the much of the editing world.
Time to do the same with the image editing world!
The seem to be under estimating the number of Graphic
Designers that work on Macs.
Adobe also seems to have missed that Apple has been on a
major tear over the last 5 years and is the indisputable leader in
innovation.
It seems to be personal. Both of these companies need each
other. But the $3B / year Adobe better wake up to the fact that
the $24B / year Apple might roll over in bed and decide to
enhance iPhoto, Aperture, and Pages into "prosumer apps" and
cut into Adobe's virtual monopoly.
I don't think an acquisition of Adobe is in Apple's best interest,
but Quark might be a bargain! Although, that'd be a mistake.
Love the product. Hate the company!
64-bit Photoshop FIRST?
They screwed up my selections in CS3, changing the behavior
Photoshop has had since version 1. And they put out a "revenue
excuse" version every 18 months with no features 95% of people
will use.
Now they're telling the largest 64-bit audience out there (that
would be G5 and higher Mac users) that since Adobe prefers to
use their in-house craptastic development environment (rather
than use Cocoa, as Apple has been advising for FIVE g-damned
years) that _we'll_ have to suffer for having an OS that is and was
64-bit ready?
C'mon - I've had 16GB of RAM in my Mac Pro for a year. I had
8GB in my G5. Photoshop has never been able to use more than
bout 3.8GB of that RAM.
I think I'll start a movement for all Bay Area Mac users to show
up at Adobe's headquarters every Thursday until they "get it".
What jackasses. I was ticked when they delivered a half-assed
Framemaker 7. I was even more ticked when they bought
Macromedia and deleted any and all competition in the pro
illustration space.
Now I'm just flat out mad. This is a travesty. Adobe should get a
clue - they were built on the backs of Mac users and our
continuous upgrades. Screw them. Screw them period.
Adobe/Apple relationship but since you have strong opinions I
have a few questions for you: has Cocoa as a full-blown
development environment really been available for five years?
Isn't Apple itself competition for Adobe (FinalCut, Aperture,
etc.)--I do realize that Macromedia was a competition-limiting
buy, but you say they have no competition. Doesn't Apple have
a love/hate relationship with Adobe--they want them to bring
their products to their platform but Apple themselves want that
market (and its heady software margins) themselves? Do you
think Apple might be somehow stunting Adobe's efforts to fully
port feature/function to Mac OSX, just like Microsoft used to in
Windows (with hidden dll's, etc.)? I am interested in your
opinion...
leaving us with Quark!
Photoshop, all the upgrades, all my other Adobe products and
upgrades.
Really. You guys are probably some of the worst product
managers in the world. First you kill off half of Frame's customer
base, then you decide that you're going to hobble Mac users
even more by using your "Adobe knows best" internal
development tools.
I can't wait - even if it's for several years - for someone to come
along and develop something that accomplishes 90% of what
Photoshop does. I'll buy it. Until then, I'll suffer with CS3, but
you can forget about any further upgrades from our company.
You could save yourself a future $43k!
BTW, Adobe will be VERY happy to give you every CENT of your money back if you turn back time and give THEM back every second of use and joy and (maybe money you made?) Using Photoshop.
black sherif. So he holds a gun to his own head and yells, "Okay,
everyone stand back or the [sheriff] gets it!"
That's you.
Did you read one thing John Nack said? Obviously not. You want
to yell at someone, yell at Apple for pulling the rug out from
under Adobe and others.
Get a clue and stop making us Mac users look like illiterate
dolts.
image correction software that blows Photoshop back into the 20th
century where it belongs.
If you only use Photoshop for image correction, you probably shouldn't be using it, anyway.
There is one problem that would be holding Adobe back right now, though. It's a bit of a catch 22. To get them to develop more Linux software, Linux needs a larger desktop user base. To get a larger user base, Linux needs more of the applications that people depend on. Sure, there are open source alternatives for many programs, but people don't like change.
is in the works by Adobe. A version of PS running on Unix natively.
would be applications. But there isn't.
I was in the same boat more than 10 years ago. Only it was
OS/2. Why couldn't they do Photoshop for OS/2? It's a better
DOS than DOS, a better Windows than Windows for crying out
loud!
But, people didn't want it in large enough numbers to care. And
don't try to tell me there are more Linux users than Mac users.
That won't wash.
The availability of 5000 software packages would make zero difference.
Linux is fine for a release of this App and many others however most companies dont want to take the risk as its unfamiliar territory and they dont know much and make assumptions. No company takes the plunge no one else sees it and it stays stale. The only reason there arnt more commercial apps on Linux is due to the fact that there are no real commercial apps on Linux (its a weird thing but its there)
Someone needs to be willing to take the risk and prove that it works before others will and thats the key here... Risk... Linux is slowly gaining ground as is OSX (because vista is so horrid and if people didnt have a Retail version of XP they may of switched to Linux i know a good deal that did) Anyways. Linux is ready but the question is are the developers?
everybody has to use Photoshop they can screw everybody.
'Seriously' :p great strategy, Apple is the only one that sells
100% of 64 bit computers with a lot more than can upgrade to it
very easily...
And Adobe still has code from before Power PC's inside
Photoshop that they have always been too lazy to change, they
were very slow to upgrade to Mac OS X, then to Intel and now to
64 bits and yes they never bothered to upgrade their tools just
like Microsoft so they kept making engineering mistakes...
So please Apple stop taking their crap just drive a few miles and
buy the damn thing, Steve fire those A$$$$ holes from there
and make them innovate once again...
As much as I enjoy my Macs, this isn't true. Apple sells systems with Intel Core 2 Duos and Xeons the same as the other brands use, and there are 64-bit versions of Linux and Windows. In fact, I have been experimenting with openSUSE for x86-64 on a regular PC.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kool_skatkat/
mistaken... Adobe is counting it's days...
mmm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kool_skatkat/
rewrite. But for reasons not entirely documented, QuickTime has
lost its Flash media handler, and as a result, Flash can't run on the
iPhone. Update the Flash media handler in QuickTime, and
suddenly the iPhone has flash. But somehow Apple and Adobe
can't seem to come to an agreement to allow that to happen...
editing software to use.
professionally since May of '92. There is not even the slightest
chance it could put up a challenge to Photoshop, let alone
overthrow it.
Forget Photoshop, what about their most popular software, the Adobe Flash Player? Users have literally been begging for *years* for a 64-bit version of this CPU-hogging closed source software and Adobe have ignored all calls for it on all the platforms they "support". Basically, Adobe are utterly useless when it comes to 64-bit support in their software, although admittedly some other companies are almost as culpable.
Carbon was going to be a dead-end. The Cocoa framework has
been steadily improved with features/classes while the Carbon
framework has been lagging. My guess is they are simply pissed
off at Apple because of their intrusion in their field with Aperture,
disagreements over PDF, and lack of flash support on the iPhone.
WILL be 64-bit. Who is gonna want to wait 3 years (Adobe has an
18 month time table on releases) when they can buy it from Apple
now?
Well to late Adobe!
What the heck are we paying $2000+ for anyway. They should
have had this in their roadmap all along.
Apple has been telling the industry since MacOS X first came out
that Carbon was only a finite and limited. They have encouraged
Cocoa development since the beginning and have pressed hard
for the big 3 (Adobe, Quark, and Macromedia) to begin working
on a roadmap for the transition.
This isn't their first BBQ. This is another example of greed vs
need.
before CS3... They (Adobe) knew, but didnt listen.
everyone else has transitioned to Cocoa long ago. No thanks
Adobe! I'll pass on your creaky old bloatware! Pixelmator should
be fine until Apple itself finally releases its super secret Photoshop
killer!!!
Apple is YEARS behind Microsoft in 64-bit development. While this article makes it seem like 64-bit and 4+GB machines are somewhere in the future, in the technical market (not consumers) I have the data to show 64-bit sales volume is now becoming comparable to 32-bit sales (of course for Windows). I expect 64-bit to exceed 32-bit in a year.
Even funnier, in the Mac market, where 64-bit apps are nonexistent and likely to stay that way because of Apple's gambit, over half the machines have over 4GB!
Also, another detail that I haven't seen Apple list on any spec sheet to spoil their story --- not all Intel Macs can run 64-bit code. Core Duo iMacs, probably MacBooks can't.
I could write some completely separate rants on Microsoft, but here Microsoft has it right: they made it comparatively easy for developers to produce 64-bit versions. Apple's "you do what we say or else" is wrong for developers, and wrong for the users who will be left waiting and paying. Apple's actions are those of a monopolist, creating more costs in the overall ecosystem that must be born by developers and ultimately users.
clear on this whole thing.
It's my understanding that Carbon is older OS technology and
Cocoa is the newer platform. Seems Apple has been transitioning
away from Carbon for years and Cocoa is the path forward and to
64-bit Mac apps. I assume they don't want to support both
development technologies forever.
Is this the case and has Adobe had ample time to transition? Is
Cocoa really a much more difficult path? Why do you think Apple is
pushing Cocoa and what business reasons would they have in
making it more difficult.
OS X just had GUI support for 64-bit in its latest version just a few month ago!!
Windows has been 64-bit since Windows 2000, on the Intel Itanium! Windows XP was 64-bit on intel x86 in 2003.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your Mac delusions. :P
Apple beat Windows to market with an integrated 32/64-bit OS. There is only one version of MacOS which can run both 32 and 64 bit software.
guess what, BOTH operating systems were supporting limited 64
bit versions far longer than the marketing brochure you read.
The new Office too runs pretty well, but I have not been able to run One Note!
I have not found an article in Technet that explains why OneNote will not run in Vista 64...
Unless of course there is no backwards compatibility in Vista.
of windows and they are not compatible with each other. If you
want 64 bits you have to have the 64 bit os and the 64 bit
version of the software...
Mac os X i works at both 32 and 64 bits and the same time
(linux doesnt do that)
And yes any mac with core 2 duo (nad up) can run Leopard at 64
bits even the mac mini and macbooks, no different, you need
the same os that comes installed...
So is not that Apple just wants to push Cocoa for the sake of it,
Cocoa is more advanced programming environment and yes you
need someone to push things otherwise no one will change
stuff.
As for Mac apps well when Sj came back he asked Adobe to
develop a new Premiere for mac they refused because their
strategy was to dump Apple, seeing this Apple developed Final
Cut Pro so actually is their fault
and yes we need competition for Photoshop!
only. Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) offers 64-bit support both in the
kernel and user space (you know, where the GUI lives)! But don't
let the facts get in the way of your Windows delusions. :-)
Windows NT 3.1 ran on Digital Equipment Corporation's 64-bit Alpha processor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha
throughout like Apple AND MS EFI support is partial and MS is
always late to deliver AND MS has the most costly restrictive
licensing AND MS cannot deliver a POSIX certified OS ...
I guess you're right :-)
old spaghetti-code riddled way of doing things (think InDesign vs
Quark), is now exhibiting the same exact behavior.
Funny...or not.
finally take down Photoshop and its creaky old OS 9 code.
- Same Old Story...
- by amandachuck April 3, 2008 8:21 AM PDT
- Same types of excuses, different arguments. Reminds me of
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- You said it amandachuck!!
- by skellener April 3, 2008 8:31 AM PDT
- It was Apple that bent over backwards for Adobe by creating
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (179 Comments)Adobe's crawl toward OSX in the first place, and slower crawl
toward Intel, while everyone else was already there.
It's always "not enough resources." Thing is, Apple sales are
growing, the creative market share on Mac OS X is very high, and
Adobe is screwing over Mac users, again, due to laziness and
unwillingness to invest resources into their products.
Carbon in the first place. Adobe should have switched to Cocoa
years ago, but they refused to, even thought everyone else already
has. Let's see what Apple has in store for us. Apple may steal this
market with a new product. No 64-bit Photoshop on the Mac
leaves a 3 years window. A lot can happen in 3 years. I know I'll
be using Apple's Photoshop killer before an Adobe upgrade!