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 Windows is available in separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions 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 covers Google, Yahoo, search, online advertising, portals, digital photography, and related subjects. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered servers, supercomputing, open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen.
- Topics:
-
Digital photography
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us





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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
image correction software that blows Photoshop back into the 20th
century where it belongs.
everybody has to use Photoshop they can screw everybody.
'Seriously'
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...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kool_skatkat/
mmm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kool_skatkat/
editing software to use.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
- Same Old Story...
-
by amandachuck
April 3, 2008 8:21 AM PDT
- Same types of excuses, different arguments. Reminds me of
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 177 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.