News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

April 3, 2008

software

Next version of Photoshop will be a bit short (32 bits, to be exact)

Posted Apr. 3, ’08, 8:21 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Software

64-bitMe, I stopped counting bits back at 8-bit. It’s all gone downhill since then. But I can understand that some want as many bits as they can possibly have, hence the storm brewing over the lack of a 64-bit version of Photoshop…on the Mac anyway. In a blog post about the recent release of Lightroom 2.0, Adobe’s John Nack spelled out what Lightroom (which is 64-bit) says about future releases of Photoshop.

In the interest of giving customers guidance as early as possible, we have some news to share on this point: in addition to offering 32-bit-native versions for Mac OS X and 32-bit Windows, just as we do today, we plan to ship the next version of Photoshop as 64-bit-native for Windows 64-bit OSes only.
The reason? Photoshop is built in Carbon, not Cocoa, and Apple announced at WWDC 2007 that Carbon—surprise!—would not be taking the trip to 64-bit land (for those of you curious of geography, that’s right next to Candyland). That means that in order to take advantage of 64-bit, Adobe must port Photoshop for Mac to Cocoa, a pretty time-consuming process.

So, for those looking to play the blame game, should you focus your wrath on Apple or Adobe? Fortunately, in such matters of guidance we can turn to two of our favorite Mac pundits: the Johns. Monsieur Siracusa has an extensive look at the events that lead to this eventuality, and what it means for the relationship between Apple and Adobe. Meanwhile, Señor Gruber also discusses the state of affairs over at Daring Fireball. Both are well worth your time if Photoshop is important to you.

The shakedown, however, is this: on 64-bit capable Macs, Photoshop will be faster running under Windows than under OS X. Then again, that will also require you to install a 64-bit version of Windows—and really, who wants to do that?


7 Comments

fletcher Author Profile Page said:

I don't know that there is a question of blame. What does a 64-bit PhotoShop buy you? The ability to edit images larger than several gigabytes in size? It seems like the kind of thing that even professional users aren't necessarily going to need on a daily basis.

On the Mac 32-bit and 64-bit applications run side by side without issue so there is little problem running a few 32-bit applications even when most of the core OS is 64-bit. Apple doesn't make you pick between the two OSes the way Microsoft does.

But, if I had to assign "blame" it would fall squarely on Adobe. It's not as if Cocoa is a new API. The writing has been on the wall for Carbon for a long time now. Adobe seems unwilling to invest the resources to modernize their flagship software product.

April 3, 2008 8:31 AM
Dave-O said:

One thing Gruber (and Nack, apparently) mentions is that Final Cut Studio is a Carbon app. This somehow lets Adobe off the hook. I don't buy that. "Look that app over there is Carbon, so it's okay for us to stick with Carbon for the foreseeable future." Alas, had someone at Apple told anyone that a Cocoa rewrite of Final Cut Studio was planned/under way, maybe Adobe would have planned better. Still, pointing your finger at another app strikes me as lame, it is not the way to plan for the future.

April 3, 2008 9:15 AM
wesg Author Profile Page said:

I think using a 64bit Windows system is inviting more trouble than it's worth.

April 3, 2008 9:16 AM
Peter said:

I agree with the first two posters. Cocoa's been around since 96/97 (?)... They are saying that FCP is still Carbon - but who is so naive to think that Apple is not converting FCP to Cocoa? Cocoa is the future, the benefits are there stop putting it off and get to it already...

I see this stunt as yet another passive-aggressive jab at Apple from Adobe. Someone needs to be developing a serious CS competitor... look at the benefits we get when both Apple and Adobe compete with Aperture/Lightroom.. we need the same for the entire CS...

April 3, 2008 10:09 AM
Rich said:

It's not Carbon that's limiting Photoshop's memory usage, or you'd be able to edit 4GB images. Currently, the limit is 2GB, or with a bit of hacking, 3GB.

The finger is pointing squarely at Adobe. Pretty obviously they're still using the same GUI code as the OS9 version. Even more obviously, a makeover is long overdue.

And for Pete's sake Adobe, when you get around to supporting current hardware, don't mode me in!

April 3, 2008 2:39 PM
William Gates said:

Well, it works great on windows....2k, xp, xp64 (vista sucks, but then why use it...) - and it even runs on the most current hardware, the tupe you can change and replace yourself! Go figure... There's always the added bonus that all Adobe products run on both OSx and Windows. But yeah, it's definitely a problem with adobe...

April 3, 2008 5:11 PM
krye said:

Adobe drops the ball again. Have they ever gotten anything right? It's like they screw up every release. How long did it take to go Intel? They should have redone it as Cocoa then. And we the consumer a have to pay the price for their lack of vision and planning.

April 4, 2008 6:05 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: