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 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, said John Nack, Adobe's product manager for Photoshop, in an interview.

photoshop_logo.png


"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."
(See "What derailed the 64-bit train?" 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 easily 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. And 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.
AMD unveiled the first 64-bit x86 chip in 2003. Although it 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 users 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 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, hastened to note 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?
Adobe had planned to move to 64 bit on Macs with CS4 until June 2007, when Apple announced its technology plans at its Worldwide Developer Conference, 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 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. The company 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. And 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 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.

Source:- Next Photoshop will get 64-bit boost--on Windows only | Underexposed - CNET News.com
 
Adobe are playing catchup to paint.net which is available in 64bits right now for free!
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    E8400
    Motherboard
    asus p5ql-e
    Memory
    ocz pc 1066 2x2gb
    Graphics Card(s)
    asus eah3650 silent
    Sound Card
    Edirol UA-25
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Gateway FPD2185W
    Screen Resolution
    1680 x 1050
    Hard Drives
    750g samsung
    PSU
    Zalman ZM460B 460W
    Case
    Lian Li A05 + 2 x Sythe S-FLEX SFF21D 120mm case fan
    Cooling
    Coolermaster Hyper Z600 fanless CPU cooler
    Keyboard
    Merc Stealth
    Mouse
    Microsoft Laser Mouse 6000
    Internet Speed
    DSL
I am using Photoshop CS3 in my vista 64bit Ultimate..... just had alot troubles to install it as the installer is 32bit.. but after this workaround and moved some files from program files(x86) to program files. I can work in it and use the 8GB of ram with photoshop.... calculations are faster than in my exaxtly the same machine with vista 32Bit Ultimate.
But real 64bit benefits i get with Paint.net..... so amazingly fast in 64bit vista compared to 32 bit vista.
Adobe should hire some good programmers and recode photoshop from the bottom instead of always adding more code since Photoshop 4....
I love photoshop and can not live without it... but it very bad coded software.
 

My Computer

This is good news. CS2 was partly 64-bit. CS3 was a disappointment with no 64-bit. It cost Adobe a upgrade. I am glad they came to their senses on CS4. I hope it is sooner than later for its release. I have a pair of quad core Xeons, 16GB of RAM and SAS RAID waiting for CS4.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
I had no troubles installing CS3 on my 64 bit machine.. However, definitely looking forward to a photoshop [and hopefully at some point all adobe suite programmes] 64bit utilizing version.

[o/t Also, i heard adobe are gonna make photoshop work on Linux... ]
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    Amd x2 6000+
    Motherboard
    Am2 .... errrm
    Memory
    4gb DDR2 667mhz
    Graphics Card(s)
    8500GT + 1gb
    Hard Drives
    160gb internal sata 7200rpm
    500gb maxtor one touch external
    PSU
    550W Super Quiet
    Case
    Mac Pro Style Black
    Cooling
    ZALMAN Copper CPU Heatsink
    Keyboard
    Saitek Blue LED
GPU acceleration is the most exciting feature for me. That would boost the file opening and filter operation a great deal. :)
 

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    Custom Build
    CPU
    Core Duo E6320 @ 3.0GHz
    Motherboard
    Intel 965P
    Memory
    VData 4GB DDR2 800MHz (Only 3.25GB available to use)
    Graphics Card(s)
    NV Geforce 9600GT-512MB @ 850/2100MHz
    Sound Card
    Integrated Card (Realtek)
    Monitor(s) Displays
    MAG 22" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    1680 x 1050
    Hard Drives
    An old Seagate 160GB HDD (7200rpm)
    PSU
    400W (peak)
Looking forward to this! I use 32-bit Photoshop CS3 and would like to see a 64-bit release.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 3.2GHz
    Motherboard
    Abit IP35-E @ 1600FSB
    Memory
    4GB Hynix DDR2-800
    Graphics Card(s)
    PowerColor Radeon X1900XT
    Hard Drives
    (2) 320GB Seagate 7200.10
I built my last workstation around CS2 for performance.

Pair of AMD 280 dual core 2.4 GHz Opterons
8GB DDR333 NUMA enabled RAM
LSI Logic MegaRAID 320-2X PCI-X SCSI RAID controller 64/133 PCI-X with 512MB cache.
18 SCSI hard drives

RAID 1: OS
8 drive RAID 10 for apps
6 drive RAID 10 for target
2 hot spares

I configured it to use 6GB of RAM in XP x64 SP2.

My camera is a Olympus E-500 8MP. The RAW pictures are 14.7 MB each. I setup three auto filters for RAW to best compression JPG. I was able to do 17 pictures a minute. One picture in just over 3 seconds. The JPGs were 6-8 MB. I called Adobe about increasing the performance. It can hit all four cores. They said 17 per minute was incredible. Most get 2-4 per minute at that size.

My RAID 10 arrays could do 380 MB/s cached writes and 435 MB/s cached reads. I can open about 30 pictures per second on the RAID arrays with the drive performance. This is what made Adobe so fast.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
Wow you really are the SCSIraidGURU :) ....I'm liking your style!

I need that kind of performance....my Raptors churn out between 9 and 60 Mb/s....I need more!!!!!!!!.....

How big is your powersuppy? will 600W cope with your kind of setup?
 

My Computer

System One

  • Manufacturer/Model
    system1 (system2)
    CPU
    q9650 3ghz (i7 920)
    Motherboard
    Asus p5q deluxe (p6t deluxe)
    Memory
    16gb ddr2 (12gb ddr3)
    Graphics Card(s)
    Nvidia 8800GTS 640mb (285gtx 1gb)
    Sound Card
    on board
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Eizo CG301w, Dell 2407
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1600 + 1920 x1200
    Hard Drives
    Raptor 74gb,
    Raptor 150gb,
    500gb x2,
    320gb,
    750gb
    (raptor 150gb, 2x 500gb)
    PSU
    ocz 600w (ocz750w)
    Case
    coolermaster stacker (coolermaster 690)
    Cooling
    many fans
    Keyboard
    apple slim aluminum jobbie
    Mouse
    intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    2mb
    Other Info
    Wacom A3 tablet, Epson 3800
indexhttp://www.SCSIraidGURU.com

My workstation had two chassis:

Main chassis: PC Power and Cooling customed wired 1kW-SR, $600 with shipping.
Motherboard, adapters,controllers, 10 drives

Second SCSI chassis: PC Power and Cooling customed wired 510W for 8 hard drives, three tape drives, and SCSI-UW CD-ROM. It was wired to be on always.

Power for my workstation: $1500
60A service panel
20A double pole breaker with a 20A double pole wall switch split 2 x 20A 120V. Each side of the switch. One 20A 120V per chassis. Each chassis has its own 20A 2400W Tripp Lite line condtioner.

The drives were all hot swap.

It cost over $5000 for the SCSI RAID setup.

I just spend $2200 for a LSI Logic 8708EM2 SAS RAID controller, battery, two 8 drive 2.5" enclosures, and 3 x 146 GB SAS 2.5" drives. I can put 16 drives in the main chassis.

http://www.scsiraidguru.com/Computers/X7DWA-N/Pictures/

It was not cheap but worth the credit card bill.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
I inserted 2GB more RAM in my system to make Photoshop work faster, and it helped alot.

Starts up twice as fast as normal, and I used it to make my sig.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
    Motherboard
    ASUS P5B-E Plus
    Memory
    4GB Kingston ValueRAM DDR2-667
    Graphics Card(s)
    ASUS EN8800GT 512
    Sound Card
    Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Packard Bell Maestro 190W
    Screen Resolution
    1440x900 @ 75Hz
    Hard Drives
    WesternDigital 200GB 7200RPM + Iomega Desktop HD 360GB 7200RPM
    PSU
    Xilence Power 600W Gaming Edition
    Case
    Coolermaster Centurion 534 Black
    Cooling
    Standard Coolermaster Case Fans + Standard Intel CPU Fan.
    Keyboard
    Logitech G15 V1
    Mouse
    Razer Copperhead Tempest Blue
    Internet Speed
    100.0 Mbps
I used it to convert 20,000+ pictures on my web site from my various vacations.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
I hope it can hit all 8 cores and 16GB of RAM. It should work even faster on SAS RAID.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
You know, it's funny!!! Many Mac users are already dismissing any possible speed gains using Photoshop 64 bit within Vista. However, in the late 90's / early 2000's I remember looking through articles in Mac publications claiming that a 400Mhz
Mac was just as fast if not faster than a 600-700Mhz Windows PC. Why?

Because of Photoshop. Due to a lack of universal benchmarking software (which would be useless due to the differing achitecture at the time), Photoshop was used as an albeit crude benchmarking tool. Because Photoshop could at the time open, save and apply filters to large images on a Mac more quickly than on a Windows PC, the conclusion - the Mac was faster! This was not suprising as Photoshop was designed with the Mac OS in mind rather than Windows.

Now the tables have turned....!
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    Xeon 3210 Quad Core
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-G33M-DS2R
    Memory
    6Gb PC6400 (was 2Gb)
    Graphics Card(s)
    ATI Radeon 4770 512Mb
    Sound Card
    Creative Soundblaster Audigy SE
    Monitor(s) Displays
    HP LP2065
    Screen Resolution
    1600 x 1200
    Hard Drives
    Western Digital Caviar Black 750GB
    Western Digital Caviar Blue 640GB
    Maxtor 250GB (External via ESATA and NO external enclosure)
    PSU
    650 Watt
    Case
    Antac 300
    Keyboard
    Mateus USB2 Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Trackball Optical
If MAC was so good, why did they switch and allow users to install Windows?

MAC was faster because the old MAC OS had less overhead. I will still put my workstation against a MAC for performance.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
You know, it's funny!!! Many Mac users are already dismissing any possible speed gains using Photoshop 64 bit within Vista. However, in the late 90's / early 2000's I remember looking through articles in Mac publications claiming that a 400Mhz
Mac was just as fast if not faster than a 600-700Mhz Windows PC. Why?

Because of Photoshop. Due to a lack of universal benchmarking software (which would be useless due to the differing achitecture at the time), Photoshop was used as an albeit crude benchmarking tool. Because Photoshop could at the time open, save and apply filters to large images on a Mac more quickly than on a Windows PC, the conclusion - the Mac was faster! This was not suprising as Photoshop was designed with the Mac OS in mind rather than Windows.

Now the tables have turned....!

Honestly who really cares what Mac users think and why would they care about Vista exactly? MacOSX is properly the most backwards and useless Operating System for Professionals or Multimedia production I have every seen.
 

My Computer

MACs have good graphical and A/V software. Journalist software is also good. They do have their place.
 

My Computer

System One

  • CPU
    pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
    Motherboard
    Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
    Memory
    16GB DDR667
    Graphics Card(s)
    eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card
    Hard Drives
    SAS RAID
Back
Top