PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Photoshop 64-bit Roadmap - No 64-bit mac version until CS5


SilverCity
04-03-2008, 04:27 PM
The title says it all. No flame wars, please.

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

http://daringfireball.net/2008/04/64000_question

Lone Deranger
04-03-2008, 05:28 PM
It's all about politics.

ThirdEye
04-03-2008, 05:34 PM
It's all about politics.

That and a million code lines.

inguatu
04-03-2008, 05:42 PM
works for me!!! Those other people can use Bootcamp, Paralells, etc.

opus13
04-03-2008, 05:43 PM
I am sure that Adobe has slowed down their coding commitment to 64bit. Sure, the machines are there, but so few people* actually utilize the memory addressing benefits. In many respects 64bit desktop computing has been a pretty huge waste of resource investment.

* - just because the people on this board could use it doesn't mean a thing. We represent somewhere between jack and sh!t of the general computing population.

soulburn3d
04-03-2008, 05:58 PM
I am sure that Adobe has slowed down their coding commitment to 64bit. Sure, the machines are there, but so few people* actually utilize the memory addressing benefits. In many respects 64bit desktop computing has been a pretty huge waste of resource investment.

I don't see it as a waste, it's an investement in the future, even if the current benefits to consumers aren't terribly exciting.

- Neil

inguatu
04-03-2008, 06:01 PM
I am sure that Adobe has slowed down their coding commitment to 64bit. Sure, the machines are there, but so few people* actually utilize the memory addressing benefits. In many respects 64bit desktop computing has been a pretty huge waste of resource investment.

* - just because the people on this board could use it doesn't mean a thing. We represent somewhere between jack and sh!t of the general computing population.


How so? 64 bit CPUs have been out for a while. XP64 has been out for about 3 years. Vista64 is finally stable enough to use. OSX.. Linux... etc. It's a pretty silly assessment to think that people or developers shouldn't use it. My advice is to stay in the 32bit kiddy pool if you don't think you need it.

ThirdEye
04-03-2008, 06:05 PM
Let's not turn this into a 32 vs 64bit flame please.

TAVO
04-03-2008, 06:32 PM
I don't see it as a waste, it's an investement in the future, even if the current benefits to consumers aren't terribly exciting.

- Neil

maybe what he is saying is that the 64bit software demand is not as high as it should be, yes the hardware is there but how much people really take advance of it ?? beard in mind all the users not only highend, but yes it is a good investment in the future, i´m happy for this news :scream:

Anyone knows how the development for Linux is going ?? i´m really waiting for that news.

Venkman
04-03-2008, 06:42 PM
I'm just surprised how long it is taking to move some things to 64-bit. I know it's a lot of work, but the G5's have been out for a LONG time. If you believe what is written in those blogs, not even Final Cut Pro, and Apple product, is written in cocoa yet.

Of course, I don't know how much more work it adds to make something 64-bit capable on G5 processors AND intel processors. Is it double the development time?

Suddenly the availability of Maya in 64-bit (even if not on the mac yet) is a lot more impressive to me. That had to be a ton of man hours to port over to 64.

richcz3
04-03-2008, 06:42 PM
I would say Adobe has a vested interest in 64Bit on professional standards alone but their also growing their general consumer and business markets as well. This will remain largely 32 Bit for years to come.

Yes we do have 64bit CPUs and OS's but the market adoption of applications may be slower than investment warrents. We already have dual cores in the mainstream for two years - next quad, but consider the general apps that actually utilize them, its low. When the market as a whole shifts to supporting multiple cores - the advantages of 64 Bit will follow.

I would partially agree with opus13. It is a question of resources and "how much" to allocate and when. As long as a majority of users and business opt to use a 32 Bit OS, that will be a deciding factor to weigh in for many software developers.

mustique
04-03-2008, 06:50 PM
the game industry will take care of 64 bit

Xevious
04-03-2008, 06:53 PM
It would seem to me that an image-editing program would greatly benefit from a 64 bit platform. You can use bigger file sizes (provided that you have enough ram).

Personally...I think Corel Painter would benefit more than Photoshop because some of their brushes are pretty slow.

P_T
04-03-2008, 07:04 PM
When the market as a whole shifts to supporting multiple cores...That's the hard part... software vendors would naturally be reluctant to write the 64 bit version if the market is small but the consumers are just as reluctant to buy 64 bit hardware if there aren't many softwares that support it. Same goes for multicore CPUs. It's a vicious cycle I tell you... :scream:

soulburn3d
04-03-2008, 07:07 PM
Wow, I've heard of the max/maya war, the whichRendererForMax war, I had no idea there's also a 64bit vs 32bit war going on. Is there anything that people won't have a war about? :)

My personal belief is that right now, only a small group of users need 64bit, but over the next few years, this need will slowly increase as software needs more and more ram to do more complex things. So as I said, it's an investement in the future. How soon that future comes, who knows.

- Neil

Szos
04-03-2008, 07:09 PM
There is WAY too much confusion within the marketplace about 64-bit computing. People think that if they have 64-bit processor - but are running Win32 - they are somehow taking full advantage of their 64-bit hardware. And not being a Mac user, I would be the first to admit that I don't know how the 32 versus 64 bit is playing out on that side - I thought all new Macs where 64-bit.

On the PC side, I firmly believe that Vista should never have been released as a 32-bit OS at all. Should have been 64-bit only to help simplify the process and move the industry into the right direction.

I do find it sad that Adobe is saying that the 64-bit version of PS won't be out till CS5 (2 years or so away?). PS being such a graphics-heavy program with large file sizes would be one of the few applications out that could actually take advantage of many GBs of RAM.

Argopo
04-03-2008, 07:12 PM
Personally, I see this as great news. This past year I invested in a 64bit quad core 6gb system with the expectation of using apps that would make use of it. I also have been a long time Mac user. So, I don't care if its OSX or Windows, I'll take whatever I can get.


Personally...I think Corel Painter would benefit more than Photoshop because some of their brushes are pretty slow.

I want Painter to be 64bit and be able to handle true 16bit files. That would make it a powerful artist's tool.

aaraaf
04-03-2008, 07:24 PM
On the PC side, I firmly believe that Vista should never have been released as a 32-bit OS at all. Should have been 64-bit only to help simplify the process and move the industry into the right direction.

I agree 100%!

XP's unified 32bit release for both home and professional versions is what made it so strong. (XP64bit was released loooong after the initial XP release...) Before only professional/NT Windows were 32bit and Windows98 and its predecessors were also 16 bit. It was a pain in the butt for drivers on a decent rig, and they just didn't learn from their mistakes.

Drivers would have been quicker if there didn't need to be 2 versions of them (which is where Vista driver issues live), and how many hardware setups that are 32bit can really even benefit from running Vista? You have to go out of your way to get a 32bit desktop processor, and it's been that way for a lot longer than people know.

I am glad to have Adobe finally drop their line about there being ways to address more memory in 32bit, and that 64bit was a waste of time and finally start to develop for it. After Effects will benefit greatly from 64bit, as will many memory intensive Photoshop filters.

Now if After Effects will finally start to use DirectX...

trthing
04-03-2008, 07:57 PM
Wow, I've heard of the max/maya war, the whichRendererForMax war, I had no idea there's also a 64bit vs 32bit war going on...

Neither did I... I'm dying to see the "different versions of Vista wars" and I miss the good ol' times of the Mac x PC wars.

Thank God Mac won... and Vista Ultimate 32-bit is the best, hands down.

TAVO
04-03-2008, 09:26 PM
I miss the good ol' times of the Mac x PC wars.

what are you talking about, yesterday i was reading a post about a guy that was mad because Maya 64 bits is not out to Mac yet and Pc´s guys just telling him that was his fault for waste the money and such an expensive laptop and so on, that war is not over, but that´s a Mac´s guys problem i think.

paintbox
04-03-2008, 11:01 PM
what are you talking about, yesterday i was reading a post about a guy that was mad because Maya 64 bits is not out to Mac yet and Pc´s guys just telling him that was his fault for waste the money and such an expensive laptop and so on, that war is not over, but that´s a Mac´s guys problem i think.

I think trthing was using a stealthy ninja technique called "sarcasm" , Tavo ;)

SalvadorRuizJr
04-04-2008, 04:09 AM
So when's it coming out?

trthing
04-04-2008, 04:53 AM
what are you talking about, yesterday i was reading a post about a guy that was mad because Maya 64 bits is not out to Mac yet and Pc´s guys just telling him that was his fault for waste the money and such an expensive laptop and so on, that war is not over, but that´s a Mac´s guys problem i think.

Now, TAVO, which Vista edition do you have?

I bet it is that lame 64-bit version... :twisted:

Seriously, what paintbox said...

Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

MasterZap
04-04-2008, 07:53 AM
The thing about Photoshop is that it is basically a fast, efficient, tile-based image management core. I.e. what photoshop does is to be able to squeeze in big images in small computers. Heck, I remember the day when I could actually do a 1k image on my tiny computer with very few megs of memory back in the day...

...so basically, what Photoshop is is a tightly written core for squeezing big data into small space. The fact that you can paint and do image processing operations on that data is pretty much almost irrelevant... it's like fancy trimming and various tastes of icing on the cake. The core work is in the image handling itself.

With 64 bit, all that becomes almost unnecessary; you can almost (not quite, but almost) youst malloc() your image and let the OS swapping deal with it if it (ever) overflows....

So, the problem with photoshop are twain:

a) Their code is so tightly coupled to working around 32 bit issues, i.e. fitting stuff in a small memory space (and these days, the 2Gb a windows process can adress in 32 bit windows is considered a "small memory space") and so heavily optimized for this (probably with a ton of assembly code) so it's insanely difficult to rewrite

and

b) 64 bit itself makes a huge chunk of what photoshop actually does pretty much (to some extent) redundant....

/Z

alexyork
04-04-2008, 08:52 AM
The thing about Photoshop is that it is basically a fast, efficient, tile-based image management core. I.e. what photoshop does is to be able to squeeze in big images in small computers. Heck, I remember the day when I could actually do a 1k image on my tiny computer with very few megs of memory back in the day...

...so basically, what Photoshop is is a tightly written core for squeezing big data into small space. The fact that you can paint and do image processing operations on that data is pretty much almost irrelevant... it's like fancy trimming and various tastes of icing on the cake. The core work is in the image handling itself.

With 64 bit, all that becomes almost unnecessary; you can almost (not quite, but almost) youst malloc() your image and let the OS swapping deal with it if it (ever) overflows....

So, the problem with photoshop are twain:

a) Their code is so tightly coupled to working around 32 bit issues, i.e. fitting stuff in a small memory space (and these days, the 2Gb a windows process can adress in 32 bit windows is considered a "small memory space") and so heavily optimized for this (probably with a ton of assembly code) so it's insanely difficult to rewrite

and

b) 64 bit itself makes a huge chunk of what photoshop actually does pretty much (to some extent) redundant....

/Z

interesting take on it and i agree to a point. however i often find myself in the position of wanting to have occasionally 4 high res (6000 pixels in any dimension) PSDs, each using about 2GB RAM, open at the same time (so you can do client comments on the fly on multiple images in a series). This isn't practical on any 32-bit machine. The swap(s) can handle it but only just, and of course trying to have a render going in the background during this is a sure-fire way to kill your machine. Most of the time I have to limit myself to 2 large PSDs and one MAX instance. This seems to work smoothly enough (by the way I'm on a quad 3ghz 64-bit XP with 8GB RAM and dual 500GB HDDs for swap). If PSP was 64bit you could safely have those 4 (or more) PSDs open, at least 1 instance of MAX and a tonne of other apps all running at the same time.

so i'd agree that PSP has been written to work on smaller/less powerful machines, but being able to utilise almost unlimited RAM instead of having to rely on swap for heavy Photoshop work would have frankly enormous productivity enhancements, in my field at least.

Srek
04-04-2008, 08:54 AM
I agree that PS has been optimized regarding memory useage, but thats not actualy a hindrance to go 64 bit. It just takes a bit pressure out of the issue.
The big problem for Adobe and all the other developers on OS X are the huge changes to the SDK that increase the time and effort needed for the switch. The switch from 32 to 64 bit on Windows was very painless compared to that and even the switch to UB was rather easy compared to the current situation.

Cheers
Björn

trthing
04-04-2008, 09:07 AM
Thanks, MasterZap and others: it is amazing to me to be able to learn from your never ending source of knowledge and humbling to see you folks taking the time to share it with us.

However, I always thought (probably in a very clueless way) slow-moving-Adobe had only its de facto monopoly as their primary source of development lag, not really the technical mountains to climb.

zukezuko
04-04-2008, 09:45 AM
skiping it, not gonna buy it.

CHRiTTeR
04-04-2008, 11:00 AM
Is there anything that people won't have a war about? :)


- Neil

haha :applause:

Steve Green
04-04-2008, 11:39 AM
Heh, they'd have a war about whether to have a war or not...

- Steve

TAVO
04-04-2008, 11:47 AM
Now, TAVO, which Vista edition do you have?

I bet it is that lame 64-bit version... :twisted:

Seriously, what paintbox said...

Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

I'm sorry, english is not my first leanguage and sometimes i have a hard time to find out what the intention is, not against anyone. Runing Linux Fedora btw.

Bullit
04-04-2008, 03:35 PM
I am seeing Wedding video guys going 64bits route with Vista 64(which seems a good OS) so i dont think 64 bits is just for "highend". HD video will push for 64bits and with many with an HDV camera at least, 64 bits will make much more sense.

Apoclypse
04-04-2008, 04:54 PM
There is WAY too much confusion within the marketplace about 64-bit computing. People think that if they have 64-bit processor - but are running Win32 - they are somehow taking full advantage of their 64-bit hardware. And not being a Mac user, I would be the first to admit that I don't know how the 32 versus 64 bit is playing out on that side - I thought all new Macs where 64-bit.

On the PC side, I firmly believe that Vista should never have been released as a 32-bit OS at all. Should have been 64-bit only to help simplify the process and move the industry into the right direction.

I do find it sad that Adobe is saying that the 64-bit version of PS won't be out till CS5 (2 years or so away?). PS being such a graphics-heavy program with large file sizes would be one of the few applications out that could actually take advantage of many GBs of RAM.

On the Mac there is no difference, at least to a user. Leopard can run either or without any issues and all recent apple hardware supports 64bits. The 64bit argument falls strictly on the application side. What people may not know is that even though carbon will not support 64bit in the UI, it can still be used for the backend part of an application in 64bit, its the UI that needs to be re-written in cocoa for obvious reasons. So application like FCP can have 64bit support but their UI has to re-written in-order to take full advantage of this support. Kind of like the OS itself.

noxy
04-04-2008, 08:10 PM
I met some one who works at Adobe, specifically on Photoshop. Although he doesn't handle coding for the OS, when I asked him about 64-bit, he said that Windows was much easier to code for 64-bit, and they were having a lot of trouble getting it to work on the Mac side. So although they'd love to have 64-bit available on both platforms, they were still overcoming several hurdles (sorry, I don't know any specifics).

Robert Magee
04-04-2008, 08:33 PM
With Houdini we have been supporting 64 bit on Linux and Windows for a while and will be supporting it on the Mac version (http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1215&Itemid=66) when it is released.

Most of the benefits of a 64-bit system come when you start working with large scenes and complicated simulations. Memory usage during rendering is of course another benifit and it allows for handling millions of particles / large fluids / high numbers of polygons in the scene too. If you've got the lots of RAM combined with a 64 bit os, you'll be able to really push the envelope. It also makes it easier to multitask since Houdini, and other programs don't need to compete for resources.

Robert

Venkman
04-04-2008, 08:45 PM
This is what I gathered from Macworld.com

At WWDC 2007 Apple discontinued its Carbon 64-bit program, which left company’s like Adobe without an avenue to make its current codebase 64-bit. What Adobe has to do now is transition all of the old Photoshop code to Apple’s native Cocoa programming language, where it can then be made 64-bit.

“If you want to go 64-bit on the Mac, you have to port to Cocoa and that’s not a trivial task,” said Nack.

Adobe said that they have been working on the Carbon 64-bit version of Photoshop for some time and had planned on releasing a version for Creative Suite 4 (CS4). However, with the changes at WWDC 2007, that is not going to happen.

“Our feeling has been to deliver 64-bit on both platforms for this release,” said Nack. “We could hold back the Windows 64-bit version until we could catch up on the Mac, but that didn’t seem fair to those customers.”

Saurus
04-04-2008, 09:50 PM
This is what I gathered from Macworld.com

Quote:
At WWDC 2007 Apple discontinued its Carbon 64-bit program, which left company’s like Adobe without an avenue to make its current codebase 64-bit. What Adobe has to do now is transition all of the old Photoshop code to Apple’s native Cocoa programming language, where it can then be made 64-bit.

“If you want to go 64-bit on the Mac, you have to port to Cocoa and that’s not a trivial task,” said Nack.

Adobe said that they have been working on the Carbon 64-bit version of Photoshop for some time and had planned on releasing a version for Creative Suite 4 (CS4). However, with the changes at WWDC 2007, that is not going to happen.

“Our feeling has been to deliver 64-bit on both platforms for this release,” said Nack. “We could hold back the Windows 64-bit version until we could catch up on the Mac, but that didn’t seem fair to those customers.”




Seems politically motivated...I blame Microsoft.

paintbox
04-04-2008, 10:40 PM
I remember there was a much bigger rush to go 32-bit at the time, when the Pentium arrived. And when quake was announced, that really made things evolve fast.

The current 64-bit adoption seems a bit "meh" , both from manufacturers as well as consumers. Maybe we just need something "Quake" like to come along, a killer feature, before things will go rapid... ??

Lone Deranger
04-04-2008, 10:47 PM
What Nack conveniently left out is the fact that Adobe (and every other Mac developer) has known about this for nigh on 8 years. Back when OSX was first introduced (1999-2000) Apple made it very clear that Carbon was intended as merely an interim aid to minimize the difficulties in transitioning code from OS 9.x (Classic) to OSX. The long term plan proposed by Apple has always been to gradually transition code via the Carbon API (if need be) to Cocoa.



So how much work is it to convert 1million lines of code? Let's see.... say CS5 will be 64bit at last and ship in 2010. That's 10 years counting from OSX release.
1000000 lines of code / 10 years / 365 days = 274 / 69 developers (counted from the PS CS3 credits splash screen) = a whopping 4 lines of code per person per day! Yes.. Adobe's quite the sweatshop. :D


This is what I gathered from Macworld.com

“If you want to go 64-bit on the Mac, you have to port to Cocoa and that’s not a trivial task,” said Nack.

Venkman
04-04-2008, 11:26 PM
So how much work is it to convert 1million lines of code? Let's see.... say CS5 will be 64bit at last and ship in 2010. That's 10 years counting from OSX release.
1000000 lines of code / 10 years / 365 days = 274 / 69 developers (counted from the PS CS3 credits splash screen) = a whopping 4 lines of code per person per day! Yes.. Adobe's quite the sweatshop. :D


You are a harsh one, my friend! ;)

salmonmoose
04-05-2008, 12:22 AM
I remember there was a much bigger rush to go 32-bit at the time, when the Pentium arrived. And when quake was announced, that really made things evolve fast.

The current 64-bit adoption seems a bit "meh" , both from manufacturers as well as consumers. Maybe we just need something "Quake" like to come along, a killer feature, before things will go rapid... ??

Of course, the Pentium was the what? 3rd generation of consumer 32bit hardware?

We'd been seeing 32 bit software since the days of DOS, and Windows 3 - and whilst there were still chunks of the Windows9x based OSes that were 16 bit, they were largely 32bit.

The big push behind 32bits was memory addressing - 16bit addressing can only access 64k without jiggery pokery (which was used for the more traditional 640k memory limit) - moving to 32bit software sped virtually everything up. Whilst those who are pushing the limit of 32bit software are feeling pain, there numbers are relatively few in comparison. It's mostly professionals - the console market shows how little RAM we actually need.

Dead
04-05-2008, 04:30 AM
yes, 64bit thats all nice, but when will adobe bring in multithreading?

Multithreading for rendering out of after effects or premiere, handling timelines, CPU effects.

Able to do multiple clip rendering from Premiere with multithreading clips

*sigh*

CGTrader
04-05-2008, 09:32 AM
or at least in AE:
make rendering scanline (not that clunky pseudo "nucleo"'ish multiprocessing emulation)
distributed network rendering (not that useless watch folder)
fix memory addressing and flushing,
implement DirectX or make decent OpengGL..

sorry for going off topic, but just couldn't resist :) after all it's all about speed.. and I can't see where is the problem not going that way

Srek
04-05-2008, 11:32 AM
What Nack conveniently left out is the fact that Adobe (and every other Mac developer) has known about this for nigh on 8 years. Back when OSX was first introduced (1999-2000) Apple made it very clear that Carbon was intended as merely an interim aid to minimize the difficulties in transitioning code from OS 9.x (Classic) to OSX. The long term plan proposed by Apple has always been to gradually transition code via the Carbon API (if need be) to Cocoa.

This is actualy incorrect. Right up to the developer conference where they announced that carbon 64 bit will not be supported anymore Apple recommended to use carbon 64 bit. Even the Apple developers attending the conference to support third party developers were surprised by the decision.
Practicaly no developer has gone with cocoa instead of carbon since cocoa forces you to jump through some realy nasty hoops to achieve stuff that is very well supported by carbon. Cocoa simply wasn't (and still isn't) as complete as carbon.

Cheers
Björn

SilverCity
04-05-2008, 12:21 PM
Practicaly no developer has gone with cocoa instead of carbon since cocoa forces you to jump through some realy nasty hoops to achieve stuff that is very well supported by carbon. Cocoa simply wasn't (and still isn't) as complete as carbon.

Then why did Apple stop support of Carbon 64 bit? Why go with an inferior Cocoa? Was it simply because they ran out of time and wanted to get Leopard out with no further delays? At 2007 WWDC, was a good reason given for the change of plan for 64 bit development?

If Adobe is having this much trouble with a 64 bit version for OS X, will the major 3D apps also run into this difficulty? For example, will I need to wait for Cinema 4D R12, if I want a 64 bit version?

Srek
04-05-2008, 01:27 PM
Then why did Apple stop support of Carbon 64 bit? Why go with an inferior Cocoa? Was it simply because they ran out of time and wanted to get Leopard out with no further delays? At 2007 WWDC, was a good reason given for the change of plan for 64 bit development?
I have not the slightest idead why Apple detoured from their original plans.

If Adobe is having this much trouble with a 64 bit version for OS X, will the major 3D apps also run into this difficulty? For example, will I need to wait for Cinema 4D R12, if I want a 64 bit version?
Adobe is not alone in this. I can't tell you when a 64 bit version of CINEMA 4D for OS X will be available, but i can assure you that like with Win 64 bit and OS X on Intel support MAXON will provide. What i can tell you is that without the change in Apples development plans chances were high that there were already some more OS X 64 bit apps available, CINEMA 4D among them.

Cheers
Björn

SilverCity
04-05-2008, 03:20 PM
Thanks, Srek. Maxon has always impressed me with the speed at which they develop C4D (adding new features/modules), so I'm not too worried about it falling behind the other major 3D apps.

RenderTITAN
04-05-2008, 07:40 PM
Sorry about not reading the whole thread but I did want to comment:

Though I do prefer to have Adobe native 64bit software, what I do need is for it to at least run on a 64bit OS. Right now CS3 is running so baddly on my 64bit machine that I had to dedicate a machine to 32bit just to run CS3...

Adobe of course points to the cost of making a 64bit version, I do not need that, I need it to just run on 64bit. Fix the bugs!

End of line.
M

alexyork
04-06-2008, 12:09 AM
Sorry about not reading the whole thread but I did want to comment:

Though I do prefer to have Adobe native 64bit software, what I do need is for it to at least run on a 64bit OS. Right now CS3 is running so baddly on my 64bit machine that I had to dedicate a machine to 32bit just to run CS3...

Adobe of course points to the cost of making a 64bit version, I do not need that, I need it to just run on 64bit. Fix the bugs!

End of line.
M

sounds like something's wrong with your system config or install. I've been using CS3 on x64 since it came out without any issues of bugs or speed at all.

RenderTITAN
04-06-2008, 12:27 AM
sounds like something's wrong with your system config or install. I've been using CS3 on x64 since it came out without any issues of bugs or speed at all.

I had CS3 running on 3 systems and they all had the same problems. The biggest problem is placing a PSD file into Illustrator, which for whatever reason doesn't work. The long threads on the Adobe forums means the problem is quite real and not limited to my machines.

Not to mention the other problems. I could deal with bridge crashing all the time and slugishness...

I am sure they will get it right, but I may just have to wait for CS4...
M

stew
04-07-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm just surprised how long it is taking to move some things to 64-bit. I know it's a lot of work, but the G5's have been out for a LONG time.
At the time the G5 came out, you couldn't write any 64bit applications for the Mac whatsoever. Mac OS 10.4, which shipped a bit less than two years after the G5 was the first version that allowed one to build 64bit applications using a very, very limited set of system calls (system.framework and accelerate.framework). Up until WWDC 2006, there was not a single word from Apple about a 64bit roadmap for GUI apps.
Up until October 2007 (Mac OS X 10.5 public release), there was not definitive word from Apple on what system calls are supported in 64bit and which are not.

So any developers building their apps for actually shipping operating system and not vaporware betas had by now 6 months of time developing a 64bit version for the Mac.

Venkman
04-07-2008, 07:11 PM
At the time the G5 came out, you couldn't write any 64bit applications for the Mac whatsoever. Mac OS 10.4, which shipped a bit less than two years after the G5 was the first version that allowed one to build 64bit applications using a very, very limited set of system calls (system.framework and accelerate.framework). Up until WWDC 2006, there was not a single word from Apple about a 64bit roadmap for GUI apps.
Up until October 2007 (Mac OS X 10.5 public release), there was not definitive word from Apple on what system calls are supported in 64bit and which are not.

So any developers building their apps for actually shipping operating system and not vaporware betas had by now 6 months of time developing a 64bit version for the Mac.

Thanks for the insightful info! My original post was more about Apple transitioning to (or having a clear roadmap for) 64-bit support, which from what I have been reading in this thread has been quite frustrating for developers of 3rd party apps.

stew
04-07-2008, 07:24 PM
Frustrating indeed.
Furthermore, Apple emphasized the 64bit part when advertising the G5, which made many Mac users expect 64bit applications for their expensive new computers to follow soon. Unfortunately, that "soon" turns out to be five years later, and what once was the latest and greatest $5000 workstation is slower than the current $600 entry level Mac Mini.

So while it's completely understandable that users are disappointed about not having a 64bit version of their favorite application, you can't blame Maxon, Adobe or any other 3rd party developer for it - I'm sure they were just as eager to see 64bit versions as the rest of us, but Apple just didn't tell anyone how to build them.

inguatu
04-08-2008, 05:27 PM
Frustrating indeed.
Furthermore, Apple emphasized the 64bit part when advertising the G5, which made many Mac users expect 64bit applications for their expensive new computers to follow soon. Unfortunately, that "soon" turns out to be five years later, and what once was the latest and greatest $5000 workstation is slower than the current $600 entry level Mac Mini.

So while it's completely understandable that users are disappointed about not having a 64bit version of their favorite application, you can't blame Maxon, Adobe or any other 3rd party developer for it - I'm sure they were just as eager to see 64bit versions as the rest of us, but Apple just didn't tell anyone how to build them.

Yup... the blame for this lies squarely on Apple's shoulders. No halo effect can combat this screw up.

zukezuko
04-09-2008, 09:06 AM
Why, who can combat the vista screw up?
its on addobe's shoulders as well, they just didnt jumped to cocoa soon enough
they stayed "old school" on carbon which is older than old, where is the innovation adobe?
anyone cheked the cs3 AE lately?
low quality apps, and they can get away with it.

and stew yea the core 2 duo > g5

Srek
04-09-2008, 09:15 AM
they just didnt jumped to cocoa soon enough
Until mid of last year Apple recommended developers to use carbon for 64 bit development.
I can't see how Adobe or any other software company is to blame for following Apples advice.
Cheers
Björn

zukezuko
04-09-2008, 09:29 AM
where did u read "recommendet"
i know apple "recommends" cocoa,
thus apples apps are cocoa
carbon's purpose was to make it easier for app developers to transition
to the new cocoa (stevies new system).

carbon is dead, they killed it, and its undestandable.

While Carbon is the means by which most Mac developers will get their apps up to speed for Mac OS X, Apple recommends Cocoa for developers with new ideas who are creating applications for the future. The Cocoa environment provides an advanced, object-oriented programming environment for creating, in Apple's words, "the best next generation applications."
http://www.macworld.com/article/21535/2001/01/macosx.html

Srek
04-09-2008, 10:13 AM
where did u read "recommendet"
i know apple "recommends" cocoa,
thus apples apps are cocoa
carbon's purpose was to make it easier for app developers to transition
to the new cocoa (stevies new system).

carbon is dead, they killed it, and its undestandable.


http://www.macworld.com/article/21535/2001/01/macosx.html
This time last year apple promoted carbon as the main tool for 64 bit development. This changed completely on ADC where Apple announced that they will drop carbon 64 bit and urge developers to use cocoa instead.
What marketing stuff apple spews and what they tell the developers to do and use can be different things. Keep in mind that Apple already promoted 10.4 as a 64 bit OS which was only the case by very twisted standards.
Carbon was (and is) fully capable of doing the job, it was a purely political decision by Apple to drop it. I don't blame them for dropping it in favour of Cocoa, it's completely within their rights to decide what to do, but i do blame them for doing it after telling people to go with Carbon. This is simply bad business practise and only alienates the people that supported them most. Keep in mind that it's mainly those companies that are loyal to Apple and try to support OS X as good as possible that have to pay the pretty high price for this. Maybe keep this in mind before blowing a fuse on how Adobe or anyone else handles the situation.

Cheers
Björn

zukezuko
04-09-2008, 01:53 PM
well it seems the carbon v cocoa thing is happening
even inside apple.
winner is we know who.
by reading some through the net
i found that cocoa is faster to code but slower to execute
but with the modern cpu's thats no problem
found this from a developer
http://www.wilshipley.com/blog/2006/10/pimp-my-code-part-12-frozen-in.html
who made this app : http://www.delicious-monster.com/

personaly im glad they drop carbon
they make a fresh start
droping off unessesary weight,
and sorting the mess out.

stew
04-09-2008, 03:14 PM
personaly im glad they drop carbon
they make a fresh start
droping off unessesary weight,
and sorting the mess out.
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Lone Deranger
04-09-2008, 03:56 PM
You should read closer. The author of the link you posted actually denounces this as a myth.

But there are still people out there who use the Carbon APIs to program on the Mac, and there are still those who assume Carbon is "faster" and Cocoa is just "easier". While this has no basis in any timing tests I've seen, it's a myth that persists.



by reading some through the net
i found that cocoa is faster to code but slower to execute
but with the modern cpu's thats no problem

zukezuko
04-09-2008, 05:02 PM
might be true Carbon vs Cocoa: The Speed Issue (http://www.unsanity.org/archives/mac_os_x/carbon_vs_cocoa.php)

"If you love old interfaces, go ahead and use them, just don't ask Apple to make them better. I can't imagine both being a luddite AND expecting Apple to continue to enhance the old technology you covet. It's like me saying, "Look, I hate cars, but I also hate going slow -- why can't you damn engineers stick a turbocharger up my horse's ass?"

Wil Shipley (http://www.blogger.com/profile/04429428424208378747)

64bit turbocharger "discontinued"

Tlock
04-09-2008, 05:22 PM
All of this reminds me of the VB6 > VB.NET transition. Today there are still patitions to keep VB6 alive and due to so much pressure VB6 IDE runs better than VS 2002 and VS 2003 under Vista. I think with enough pressure Apple might do the same or they have already gotten to the point where enough is enough and the old must be let go to let in the new.

Venkman
04-09-2008, 05:44 PM
...or they have already gotten to the point where enough is enough and the old must be let go to let in the new.

Apple does this all the time! It is either good or bad depending on your situation or where your purchase or product development is at. I got a G5 right before the intel switch. This round, it sucked to be me.

beaker
04-09-2008, 05:54 PM
Frustrating indeed.
Furthermore, Apple emphasized the 64bit part when advertising the G5, which made many Mac users expect 64bit applications for their expensive new computers to follow soon. Unfortunately, that "soon" turns out to be five years later, and what once was the latest and greatest $5000 workstation is slower than the current $600 entry level Mac Mini.Yes and no. The big deal that Apple advertised with the G5 was the ability to use more then 4 gig of ram which is a feature of a 64 bit processor. You could put 16 gig of ram in a machine and osx would see it all though most apps were still limited to 3.5 gig each(Motion and a few others apps were able to get around this restriction by spawning different parts of the application as separate processes). Under Windows you can't even see more then 4 gig of ram even if it is installed.

zukezuko
04-09-2008, 06:42 PM
so is it apple beeing late on making up their minds
or adobe beeing slacky on shifting cs4 to cocoa?

i can undestand both, for apple its a hard decision to just drop development of carbon,
but adobe i justify the least, ok its hard to know what these apple guys
have in their minds, but its obvious that carbon will be dropped sooner or later,
or is it a tradition thing,
"our precious photoshop was always carbon, it was born carbon".

http://www.sj33.cn/digital/UploadFiles/200604/20060420141532847.jpg

beaker
04-09-2008, 07:26 PM
so is it apple beeing late on making up their minds
or adobe beeing slacky on shifting cs4 to cocoa?It was Apple announcing at WWDC 2006 that they were going to support both Cocoa and Carbon in 64 bit.

"our precious photoshop was always carbon, it was born carbon".No, Photoshop wasn't Carbon till it moved to OSX.

aglick
04-09-2008, 07:53 PM
I am sure that Adobe has slowed down their coding commitment to 64bit. Sure, the machines are there, but so few people* actually utilize the memory addressing benefits. In many respects 64bit desktop computing has been a pretty huge waste of resource investment.


We actually have TONS of customers who run out of RAM trying to open large files in photoshop every day.

For now, they are stuck with often HOUR LONG load and save times in Photoshop even on the fastest dual/quad systems with RAID storage.

64bit Photoshop will be a dream come true for many people.

beaker
04-09-2008, 08:03 PM
For the moment, people using files which take forever to open or save should look at using the Large Document Format(PSB).

aglick
04-09-2008, 08:43 PM
Hi Deke,

We have many folks who are receieving either RAW, TIFF or other file formats from GeoSpacial and satellite sources or extremely high resoultion scanners of all types which cannot generate this "PSB" format.

Otherwise this would be a great option.

Adam

Srek
04-09-2008, 09:05 PM
Maybe point those clients to BodyPaint 3D, it's fully 64 bit (though at this moment only for Windows). Not a replacement for PS, but often an alternative. Only drawback, BP 3D has a resolution limit of 16k, but you can add as many layers as you have RAM.
Cheers
Björn

stew
04-10-2008, 07:02 AM
The big deal that Apple advertised with the G5 was the ability to use more then 4 gig of ram which is a feature of a 64 bit processor. You could put 16 gig of ram in a machine and osx would see it all though most apps were still limited to 3.5 gig each
Yes, that's the thing that's technically not lying but misleading. Customers bought a new machine with 8 Gigs of RAM and end up wondering why none of their applications would see them.
Under Windows you can't even see more then 4 gig of ram even if it is installed.
My XP 64 disagrees. ;)

beaker
04-10-2008, 07:12 AM
My XP 64 disagrees. ;)Obviously I meant XP32. :)

Srek
04-10-2008, 07:16 AM
Yes, that's the thing that's technically not lying but misleading. Customers bought a new machine with 8 Gigs of RAM and end up wondering why none of their applications would see them.
Thats actualy a tech support issue we have to cope with on nearly daily basis here at MAXON. Shortly after the G5 became available people started to put 8 or 16 GB in them and expected it to be used by their applications. They are often pretty angry with techsupport when they tell them that the money they spent was basicaly for nothing. Given the prices Apple charges for additional RAM i think they earned quite a bit from this "misunderstanding"

Cheers
Björn

beaker
04-10-2008, 07:34 AM
Same question gets asked a million times on the forums about Maya, AE, etc.. under all operating systems. "Why doesn't my so and so app use all the ram or see the ram."

tuna
04-10-2008, 07:48 AM
Same question gets asked a million times on the forums about Maya, AE, etc.. under all operating systems. "Why doesn't my so and so app use all the ram or see the ram."

If only someone would invent a kind of "network" where people could share ideas, knoweledge and information together in a way that could be easily archived and searched, this whole problem would go away!

Srek
04-10-2008, 08:41 AM
If only someone would invent a kind of "network" where people could share ideas, knoweledge and information together in a way that could be easily archived and searched, this whole problem would go away!

Great idea, i already have an idea on how to name it: CG Talk WIKI (http://wiki.cgsociety.org/) ;)

Cheers
Björn

zukezuko
04-10-2008, 07:35 PM
No, Photoshop wasn't Carbon till it moved to OSX.
well yes though carbon i though was the translation of macos9
and adobe didnt change a bit in their software when it got ported to osx
just recompiled.

lazy :)

beaker
04-10-2008, 07:41 PM
Great idea, i already have an idea on how to name it: CG Talk WIKI (http://wiki.cgsociety.org/)
Used as much as the "search" function. :)

beaker
04-10-2008, 07:47 PM
well yes though carbon i though was the translation of macos9
and adobe didnt change a bit in their software when it got ported to osx
just recompiled.Carbon was an update of the old api's. They cleaned out a lot of old crap in there so only 50-70% of it was the same. Adobe showed off Photoshop 5.5 on osx at macworld but didn't actually ship an osx version till 7.0. So obviously it took a lot longer then simply a recompile (3 years).

zukezuko
04-11-2008, 09:16 AM
Good to know beaker, that changes my view of adobe
cheers

cTennant
04-15-2008, 12:20 AM
who has survived and done quite well with 32-bits of memory with photoshop so far? I have. I think a lot of others have as well, and done some really impressive stuff with it.
We'll still see incredible speed from processor speed improvements alone over the next few years until cs5.

Don't worry about "technobating" about 64-bit, ask yourself it it will honestly effect your workflow for now. Chances are, most people aren't running that optimized of a set-up, so before you complain about not getting 64-bit, look to see if you can do something else that will effect your set-up instead.

I'm not saying I don't want 64-bit, or 32 is better, I'm just saying I can wait. I'll happilly take 64-bit when it arrives though.

I can understand HDRI guys needing that advanced memory.

soulburn3d
04-15-2008, 04:54 AM
Don't worry about "technobating" about 64-bit, ask yourself it it will honestly effect your workflow for now.

For me the answer is yes. I work on really large still images, with lots of layers. I already spend a lot of time collapsing layers, etc in order to save on memory, but every image I work on at some point hits that memory spot, and it starts swapping, and then my productivity goes to nil, I get maybe 10 operations an hour or so because pshop spends most of it's time swapping. I am definately not a "normal" pshop user by any stretch of the imagination, but if I had a 64bit copy of pshop, my personal work would be greatly impacted for the better.

- Neil

Dtox
04-15-2008, 07:01 AM
Wow, I've heard of the max/maya war, the whichRendererForMax war, I had no idea there's also a 64bit vs 32bit war going on. Is there anything that people won't have a war about?
There was a 32 vs 64bit debate/war going on right here at this very forum in early 1999 when Win2K was just on the horizon.
Many people here were still running apps like Max2.5(remember when it was actually called "3D Studio Max") and Maya 2 on Win98 and NT4.
If you didn't have NT4, you didn't have multi-threading.
And nobody would let you forget that!
Bastagez.....You ruined my life!!

True Photorealism was as elusive as a dream in those days, there was no Z-Brush, Mac users were largely of the 2D variety, SGI was still making workstations based on IRIX.
Dual Pentium3's with 512MB RAM was a lusted after configuration, people were still pumping out work though.
And this 32bit vs 64bit debate was already on the doorstep.

And this site was called "learning3d" or something if I remember correctly.

Ahhh, those were the days...
When a simple scene of a rusted 55gallon drum on a palett with a fence and a sun in the background took 3 days to model and light, and 4 days to render.

Dtox
04-15-2008, 07:21 AM
I can understand HDRI guys needing that advanced memory.
What do you mean by "HDRI guys"?
Those who render to HDRI and edit in it?
Or those who simply use HDRI for lighting?

Because almost everyone uses it as a lighting technique to some degree, but that's not the case with rendering to it and editing in it.



Great idea, i already have an idea on how to name it: CG Talk WIKI

Cheers
Björn
This will be great for those of us who actually use the boards in this manner.
However, there's a large percentage of new users who don't read the terms of use, who don't really read too much of the boards at all before immediately jumping in and posting their question in haste, disregarding all the information used to acquire the information they want.
So I'll bet that the existence of the wiki doesn't cut down on throw away posts as much as we'd all expect.
Unfortunately.

Srek
04-15-2008, 08:04 AM
So I'll bet that the existence of the wiki doesn't cut down on throw away posts as much as we'd all expect.
Unfortunately.

The smiley behind my comment was there to indicate the futility of trying this.
Regardles if you use sticky threads, WIKIS or whatever, i have yet to see anything have an impact on repetitive questions.
The best use for the WIKI would be to collect the needed information and to simply refrain from elaborative answer postings but posting a link to the relevant WIKI article.

Cheers
Björn

ThomasMahler
04-15-2008, 08:07 AM
Don't worry about "technobating" about 64-bit, ask yourself it it will honestly effect your workflow for now.

A 64-bit Photoshop would definitely come in handy. Texture sizes are getting really big these days, throw in your typical layers, bake-layers and multiply that with as many textures as you need and all the reference samples that you have open at a time, so you can sample image data from one document to another and your computer will slow down to a crawl.

cTennant
04-15-2008, 07:19 PM
Point taken
I should of said, "ask yourself if your work requires it"

There are just so many people who simply want the biggest and the best when they have no idea what all the features are really going to do or how they will use them once they get them. I forget that there are plenty of amazingly talented and smart individuals here who know far more about these issues then I do.

Indeed, my friends and myself who do production work really would like that 64-bit version as well.

but a word to the guys who are new to photoshop. If your work doesn't require 64-bit memory, don't waste your time day dreaming about it, instead, spend your time working in photoshop to be a better artist, then just get the 64-bit version when it comes out.

soulburn3d
04-15-2008, 07:38 PM
There are just so many people who simply want the biggest and the best when they have no idea what all the features are really going to do or how they will use them once they get them.

I totally understand. I know a lot of students for example who get so wrapped up in trying to collect every single max plugin out there, they never ask themselves will they ever need the plugin (I was probably a little like that myself when I first started). My plugin repository is now like 10 plugins that I use all the time and that's it :)

Or the person who spends more time building a better and faster machine, and never seems to get around to using the machine for anything.

But that said, there are a number of people who do need that extra power. There are plenty of workarounds, but it would be so nice to work on complex pshop documents without the need for losing layers or doing precomps and copying parts of documents into other documents. It would totally speed up my workflow, and so I can't wait till we get that extra power.

- Neil

CGTalk Moderation
04-15-2008, 07:38 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.