The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

Featured Article: Podcast - Mac Geek Gab #178: Batch Permission Changes, Encrypting Follow-up, Re-Enabling AirPort, and GigE speeds

Photoshop Boss: 64-bit Adobe CS4 Coming to Windows First

by , 9:50 AM EDT, April 3rd, 2008

Adobe Photoshop product manager John Nack says that a 64-bit version of the Creative Suite is in the works, but it will be for Windows only. Most likely, Mac users won't get to use 64-bit versions of Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator until Creative Suite 5 ships.

"The development is frankly bittersweet for us: On the one hand we're delighted to be breaking new ground with Photoshop, and when processing very large files on a suitably equipped machine, Photoshop x64 realizes some big performance gains," Mr. Nack said. "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."

Since Creative Suite 4 for the Mac will be 32-bit only, that means Windows users will have a couple of feature Mac users won't. Most notably, Windows users will be able to work with files larger that 4GB since the 64-bit version of CS4 will be able to access larger amounts of memory. It also means that 64-bit Windows users will about a ten percent performance improvement compared to 32-bit Windows and Mac OS X users.

The reason Mac users will remain in the 32-bit world for CS4, according to Mr. Nack, is because Photoshop and the other Creative Suite applications were written in Carbon instead of the Cocoa application framework. Since Apple decided to drop its plans for a 64-bit version of Carbon, that means Adobe's applications must be ported to Cocoa to remain on a 64-bit development path -- which will be no small undertaking.

"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," Mr. Nack said.

On the surface, it could look like this is a manifestation of the alleged Apple versus Adobe feud. More likely, however, is that this is simply a situation where there isn't enough time to transition the Create Suite code base from Carbon to Cocoa in time for the CS4 launch.

In fact, Mr. Nack offers up the new public beta of Photoshop Lightroom 2 as proof of Adobe's commitment to 64-bit applications on the Mac and the company's positive relationship with Apple. "Look, Apple and Adobe share the goal of maximizing Photoshop performance on Mac hardware, and we're working together on all aspects of that story -- 64-bit included," he said.

Mr. Nack added "As for Mac x64, we'll continue working closely with Apple, just as we've been doing, to make the transition as quickly and efficiently as possible."

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:Dean Lewis Posts: 162 Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Subject:

Adobe have known about Cocoa for how long? And somehow this is Apple's fault? I smell rats...

Close Name:iBill Posts: 642 Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Subject:

Just one more slap in the face to Apple and its customers by Adobe. The truth is that Adobe should have been working to modernize their code base(s) a long time ago. Instead, they have invested a minimal effort into their Mac product portfolio and have essentially been milking that while investing most of their effort on Windows product development.

I hope that strategy winds up biting them in their arse.

Hopefully Apple has in stealth development a photoshop competitor, and this is the catalyst for its release. Time for Apple put the screws to Adobe and put an end to the suffering.

Oh, and no Flash on the iPhone either. Ever.

Time for Flash to begin its slow and agonizing death, and I hope its painful and costly for Adobe. Apple doesn't need to buy Adobe. They just need to render them irrelevant.

Close Name:geoduck Posts: 1921 Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Subject:

And this is one of the reasons I put Adobe in the same category as Microsoft. I find them to be arrogant and annoying. Adobe reader pop-ups, ongoing Flash issues, Cold Fusion problems, the list goes on and on.

I know someone will come back saying they love Photoshop and Illustrator and make their sites dance and sing with CF. Mark me down as a happy GIMP user and as soon as I get some time I'll be testing alternatives to Dreamweaver/GoLive.

Close Name:Guest
Subject:

This problem created by Apple -- not Adobe. Dumping Carbon in favor of Cocoa is just one of 4 horrendous changes Apple has made in the last 15 years. Remember the promise of Write-once and Run-both? I believe Mac OS XI may support true Virtualization -- Mac apps and Win apps running side-by-side. The only 'Mac apps' available by then could be Apple's own iApps.

If any Mac (not iPhone) developers plan to ask Apple any hard questions @ June's WWDC -- please don't drink any Cool-Aid first.

As a Mac only user for 28 years, I still wouldn't recommend anything else. As a very minor Apple developer, the Mac has been a huge waste of time!

Close Name:Sir Harry Flashman Posts: 792 Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Subject: Creative Suite killers

Quote
iBill wrote:
Just one more slap in the face to Apple and its customers by Adobe. The truth is that Adobe should have been working to modernize their code base(s) a long time ago. Instead, they have invested a minimal effort into their Mac product portfolio and have essentially been milking that while investing most of their effort on Windows product development.

I hope that strategy winds up biting them in their arse.

Hopefully Apple has in stealth development a photoshop competitor, and this is the catalyst for its release. Time for Apple put the screws to Adobe and put an end to the suffering.

Oh, and no Flash on the iPhone either. Ever.

Time for Flash to begin its slow and agonizing death, and I hope its painful and costly for Adobe. Apple doesn't need to buy Adobe. They just need to render them irrelevant.


I have been a Creative Suite user for some time and an early switcher to InDesign. After I upgraded to Leopard I started having problems with InDesign and Acrobat Distiller crashing; Illustrator, PhotoShop and GoLive run with no problems. Well GoLive is as fine as it always has been which is to say it crashes now and then, I don't care for the interface in DreamWeaver.

Anyway a few weeks ago with more than the usual lead time on a job deadline I decided I would give Pages a try and I was pleasantly surprised at the power of the program. It was a 12 page program for a play presented at a local theatre, it contained PhotoShop, PDF, and Illustrator files. There was a little bit of learning curve, but nothing that stumped me. It is not yet an InDesign killer, but it would not take much and the price is right. Note that I delivered PDF/X file to the print shop and not a .pages file, no problems with the file and the finished product looks no different than had I created it using inDesign. The only downside I see is that a PDF coming out of Pages are larger than the seem to be had they come from InDesign, this goes for distilled PS files as well.

Have any of you tried the Extract Shape and Instant Alpha features of Preview? This too getting close to what PhotoShop offers in the way of cutting something out of a background. Preview needs layers and some other PhotoShop features, but Apple is probably quite capable of offering a good image editing program. Preview also offers some PDF editing that in the past would have required the full Acrobat program

What I need from Apple, or some other software publisher, is an alternative to Illustrator.

Also a DreamWeaver/GoLive killer that lets me do coding as well as graphical layout of pages.

Yeah, I think that there is some tension between Apple and Adobe.

Close Name:Intruder -   TMO Mac Specialist Posts: 3149 Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Subject:

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
This problem created by Apple -- not Adobe. Dumping Carbon in favor of Cocoa is just one of 4 horrendous changes Apple has made in the last 15 years. Remember the promise of Write-once and Run-both? I believe Mac OS XI may support true Virtualization -- Mac apps and Win apps running side-by-side. The only 'Mac apps' available by then could be Apple's own iApps.

If any Mac (not iPhone) developers plan to ask Apple any hard questions @ June's WWDC -- please don't drink any Cool-Aid first.

As a Mac only user for 28 years, I still wouldn't recommend anything else. As a very minor Apple developer, the Mac has been a huge waste of time!


Funny, it wasn't a problem for other major developers like Quark, Microsoft (who was late to the game with Office, but did get it done), etc.

The Mac OS (and Macs) has had 64 bit support for quite a while (G5s, C2D, Xeon). Leopard has even more 64 bit support. Windows has 64 bit support for one version of Vista (ie you have to specifically buy 64 bit Windows). Far fewer buy that version than the other versions of Windows.

This was a bad move by Adobe. Maybe they know that Apple is working on something to compete directly.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: Another reason to skip a revision cycle

I've upgraded InDesign and Photoshop religiously since ID v 1.0. This will be the first time I've skipped a rev cycle, and I'm sure my company and printers will be grateful for the break.

Pages is an anemic alternative to ID CS3 (v5.0) and Quark will never get my business again. Likewise, Lineform does not measure up to Illustrator ( I still prefer Freehand). There is no real competitor to Photoshop on the horizon.

When Adobe devoured Macromedia, it was the death of competition in the professional print graphics and web design fields. Perhaps we can hope that Apple or some other company will develop alternatives to the Adobe suite in the long run, but for now, I'll just hang on to my money and not reward Adobe for their lack of support.

Close Name:Mikuro Posts: 457 Joined: 15 Jun 2002
Subject:

There was really no reason for Adobe to convert Photoshop to Cocoa before now. Apple has been neglecting Carbon for quite some time now, but even so, the benefit of converting Photoshop to Cocoa would have been slight. I can't blame Adobe for not converting sooner. I can blame Apple for neglecting Carbon for so long.

But ultimately, I have to blame Adobe for making excuses now instead of getting their butts moving.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: Business Opportunity

Business Opportunity

To get my last century technical degree, I was required to take Economics 101. Anyone else? Virtualization is enabling Windows apps to run on Macs. Intel Mac users will have say 10x the app/game choices on which to spend their S/W budgets. No one (to my knowledge) is working anything to run Mac apps on Intel PC's -- directly or under Windows. The Virtualization ideal is a one way street.

Companies that support both platforms have a great incentive to drag their feet. Soon they'll only have to support one standard on both platforms. E-101. Many big companies had supported both HD-DVD and Blue-Ray until a choice was made.

It's quite possible Intel Mac users will be running Win & Mac apps side-by-side under a new Mac OS version.

Smile!

Close Name:Guest
Subject:

Quote
Mikuro wrote:
There was really no reason for Adobe to convert Photoshop to Cocoa before now. Apple has been neglecting Carbon for quite some time now, but even so, the benefit of converting Photoshop to Cocoa would have been slight. I can't blame Adobe for not converting sooner. I can blame Apple for neglecting Carbon for so long.

But ultimately, I have to blame Adobe for making excuses now instead of getting their butts moving.


I agree that Apple bears some responsibility for its mixed message regarding Carbon64. However, the fact that Carbon was "neglected" should have been the hint for all developers to get on the Cocoa train if they wanted their products to remain viable in the long-term.

Personally, I can't help but imagine that Apple has already added additional resources to the Aperture team to add 64-bit support and to either beef up its editing tools or to create a separate application which better competes against Photoshop. I think that the developers of TIFFany currently work at Apple and would certainly be an asset for such a project. If this happens, it will be interesting to see whether competition stirs Adobe to step up or if they will initially choose to cede the market to Apple (as they did with Premier).

Close Name:Guest
Subject:

I don't have the evidence yet but I suspect Apple is largely to blame. First, Apple essentially out of the blue announced its plans to switch to the Intel architecture. Companies like Adobe where well into their development cycle for products by then. Apple told the world it would take almost two full years to convert its whole line to Intel. Then a year later the whole line was made Intel. Meanwhile, Adobe was somehow made out to be the bad guy because it's products weren't ready on Apple's constantly changing time schedule. Second, companies like Adobe were using Codeweaver to write their applications. In order to write Universal applications they had to dump those tools essentially overnight and switch to Apple's far less developed tools.






Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Mikuro wrote:
There was really no reason for Adobe to convert Photoshop to Cocoa before now. Apple has been neglecting Carbon for quite some time now, but even so, the benefit of converting Photoshop to Cocoa would have been slight. I can't blame Adobe for not converting sooner. I can blame Apple for neglecting Carbon for so long.

But ultimately, I have to blame Adobe for making excuses now instead of getting their butts moving.


I agree that Apple bears some responsibility for its mixed message regarding Carbon64. However, the fact that Carbon was "neglected" should have been the hint for all developers to get on the Cocoa train if they wanted their products to remain viable in the long-term.

Personally, I can't help but imagine that Apple has already added additional resources to the Aperture team to add 64-bit support and to either beef up its editing tools or to create a separate application which better competes against Photoshop. I think that the developers of TIFFany currently work at Apple and would certainly be an asset for such a project. If this happens, it will be interesting to see whether competition stirs Adobe to step up or if they will initially choose to cede the market to Apple (as they did with Premier).

Close Name:gslusher Posts: 2088 Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Subject: Pages vs InDesign

Quote
Guest wrote:
Pages is an anemic alternative to ID CS3 (v5.0) ...


Lessee, Pages costs $80--WITH Keynote and Numbers, while InDesign, by itself, costs $700-800--9 to 10 times as much, or, if one divides the cost of iWork by 3, 27 to 30 times as much. One would hope that InDesign is a bit more powerful than Pages, but **30 times** as powerful?

Close Name:DaiMac Posts: 952 Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Subject: Damn...

I guess with Today turning out so awesome on other fronts (BSG premieres today!), something sucky had to happen for Balance.

Seriously, #@!$ Adobe. That is coming from a Photoshop user who has been working with it for decades too. As others have noted, hopefully Apple is creating a Photoshop competitor (Darkroom?), and thats the reason for this move.

Can't come soon enough if you ask me.

Close Name:gslusher Posts: 2088 Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Damn...

Quote
DaiMac wrote:
I guess with Today turning out so awesome on other fronts (BSG premieres today!), something sucky had to happen for Balance.

Seriously, #@!$ Adobe. That is coming from a Photoshop user who has been working with it for decades too. As others have noted, hopefully Apple is creating a Photoshop competitor (Darkroom?), and thats the reason for this move.

Can't come soon enough if you ask me.


Could be. Photoshop seems to be used mostly by two professions--graphic designers and photographers. Their needs are actually quite different, I've been told. That's why Adobe created Lightroom and Apple built Aperture, I expect. Photoshop is just too complicated and too slow for most professional photographers' workflow. They need software that can process large numbers of images quickly, making basic manipulations (e.g., white balance/color correction, cropping), cataloging them and allowing the photographer to review and choose which ones to work on further. I'm not as familiar with graphic designers, but, even when they work with photos, they are usually working with large images/files and spending a bit of time on each one.

There are other options for photographers, including the iCorrect series by PictoColor and Lightcrafts' Lightzone. They do some things better and faster than Photoshop, as they don't try to do everything Photoshop does. (Check out the Relight function of Lightzone, for example. Doing that in Photoshop would take quite a while.)

Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.
Log in | Register | Having Problems? Reset TMO Cookies & Try Again
Username:   Password:   Log me on automatically each visit   

You are not logged in, and this post will appear as "Guest." Log in with your username and password from the TMO forums. If you do not have a username, you can register here.
Please note that guests are limited to including a maximum of two URLs per post.


Post A Comment
  Subject


  Your Comments



Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.


Recent Headlines - Updated Saturday, November 29th, 2008

Sat., 9:00 PM
Podcast - Apple Weekly Report #135: Apple Lawsuits, Banned iPhone Ad, Green MacBook Ad
Fri., 12:45 PM
Podcast - Mac Geek Gab #178: Batch Permission Changes, Encrypting Follow-up, Re-Enabling AirPort, and GigE speeds
Thu., 1:30 PM
iPO Review - Scosche kickBACK iPhone case
7:00 AM
Happy Thanksgiving from TMO!
Wed., 6:00 PM
TMO Appearances - Nancy Gravley Joins MacJury Gift Guide
5:15 PM
TMO Visits The Bay, a Premium Apple Reseller in New Zealand
3:25 PM
iPO Oh the Games You'll Play - iPhone: The Wii of Handheld Gaming Devices?
2:15 PM
Sonnet Releases Simply Fast FireWire 800 to 400 Adapter
1:10 PM
Mac Gaming News - Disney Plans 1st Annual PotC Online Thanksgiving Event
12:05 PM
iPodObserver - UK Shuts Down iPhone 3G Ad
11:15 AM
TMO Appearances - Jeff Gamet on MacJury Gift Guide
10:30 AM
TMO Contest - TMO Announces Macworld Expo Pass Winners
9:50 AM
PhotoCopy 1.1 Adds iPhoto Event Support
9:15 AM
Acclivity Buys MYOB US
8:30 AM
Review - Bento 2 Holiday Pack
7:50 AM
Microsoft Offers Black Friday Office Discount
7:30 AM
iPO Quick Tip - iPhone: Google Street View
 

The Mac Observer Reader Specials

Apple Stock Quote

  • AAPL: $92.47. Change Today: +3.54.
  • (Prices delayed up to 20 minutes.)
  • Discuss in our Apple Finance Board

Hot Topics

Top Deals From DealsOnTheWeb