Adobe 64-bit support a Windows exclusive

Author: Gareth Halfacree
Published: 7th April 2008
Comments (19) Stumble
The jester won't be laughing when he learns he'll have to run on Windows to take advantage of 64-bit processors.

The jester won't be laughing when he learns he'll have to run on Windows to take advantage of 64-bit processors.

Adobe will be introducing a feature many user have requested with the next version of its Creative Suite – 64-bit support. But only if you're running Windows.

In a volte-face that will anger many Mac users, Adobe has announced that the Windows port of CS4 – the package containing such creative essentials as Photoshop and Illustrator – will be available in a 64-bit binary for users running compatible builds of Windows. The Mac version, by contrast, will only be available as a 32-bit executable until the next release, CS5.

The 64 bit support enables users to work on massive images easily, with the biggest speed gain seen on Windows systems running 32GB or more of RAM. For us mere mortals struggling long with quantities of RAM that don't require a second mortgage, the speed increase will still be a not inconsiderable 8-12 percent over the 32-bit build.

The reason for Adobe to seemingly snub its core market of Mac users is, ironically, all Apple's fault. Last June, Apple announced that they would not be providing a 64-bit version of their Carbon procedural API. Any applications based on Carbon that would like to enter the 21st century with 64-bit support will need to be re-written for Cocoa which can produce both 32 and 64 bit code. Adobe was just one of the companies taken by surprise when Carbon all but bit the dust.

With the additional speed gains and better support for massive images, Photoshop houses are facing the choice of running Windows in order to get the most from their software. Although it wouldn't have been enough to make users buy an entirely new system, the fact that Windows can be installed on existing Intel-based Mac equipment and run the new Creative Suite applications better than their 'native' Mac ports will be giving people pause for thought.

Any Photoshop addicts here looking to move away from Mac in order to get 64-bit support, or is 32-bit enough for you – at least until Adobe finish re-writing the Mac version practically from scratch? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Quote Buzzons 7th April 2008, 10:17
ahhh poor mac fanyboys/girls. Why did Apple shoot themselves in the foot like this though?
Quote Woodstock 7th April 2008, 10:22
until theres (decent) nix support for any adobe products, i really dont care what they do
Quote [USRF]Obiwan 7th April 2008, 12:29
Its not apple's fault. It is Adobe' fault. Because the Carbon API was intended as a "in between" step for Cocoa. And no, i am not a apple fanboy. But i did read a whole bit about this a few days ago on a photoshop forum.
Quote wharrad 7th April 2008, 12:56
Woooo for Bootcamp....

But sadly, only business users can actually afford to buy a Mac copy and a Windows copy. Seem to remember lots of bit-tech employees going the way of the fruit, I wonder if this will switch them back for normal office based productivity.
Quote koola 7th April 2008, 14:22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzons
ahhh poor mac fanyboys/girls. Why did Apple shoot themselves in the foot like this though?
Quote:
Any applications based on Carbon that would like to enter the 21st century with 64-bit support will need to be re-written for Cocoa.

Nuff said. Apple gave plenty of notice.. lazy Adobe FTW.
Quote Glider 7th April 2008, 15:01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodstock
until theres (decent) nix support for any adobe products, i really dont care what they do

QFT
Quote rDr4g0n 7th April 2008, 15:09
"The 64 bit support enables users to work on massive images easily, with the biggest speed gain seen on Windows systems running 32GB or more of RAM."

lotta users with 32gigs of ram?

also, is this Vista only or will it work with 64bit XP? I may be willing to try and wrangle 64bit XP into submission for this...
Quote completemadness 7th April 2008, 16:03
i dont see why it wouldnt be XPx64 ....

Still, +1 for the Linux suggestion, although, i believe you can get photoshop to work in wine
Quote wuyanxu 7th April 2008, 16:20
if this makes all the anti-Mac-fanboys happy.

im sure all the Mac-fanboys will be super happy this this news:
Quote:
Originally Posted by source
Windows 7 takes a different approach to the componentization and backwards compatibility issues; in short, it doesn't think about them at all. Windows 7 will be a from-the-ground-up packaging of the Windows codebase; partially source, but not binary compatible with previous versions of Windows. Making the break from backwards compatibility is a dangerous proposal but a dream for software developers. Performance of native applications can be increased, distribution sizes can be cut down, functionality can be added without the worry of breaking old applications, and the overall end-user experience can be significantly improved.
Quote Hezza 7th April 2008, 17:13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rDr4g0n


lotta users with 32gigs of ram?

Theres not too many machines with 32 gig but plenty with 12 or 8 gig of ram.

For high end 3d stuff i'm often working with 8k 32bit images that weigh in at 768mb for a single layer, as soon as you start doing anything to them Photoshop hits the 4 gig limit. Being able to address more memory will be lovely

Still i'd rather they released a linux version and then I could abandon windows completely
Quote E.E.L. Ambiense 7th April 2008, 17:15
I just read somewhere on friday that Mac support is coming after the Windows release, unless I'm mistaken. :? Hm.
Quote koola 7th April 2008, 18:57
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.E.L. Ambiense
I just read somewhere on friday that Mac support is coming after the Windows release, unless I'm mistaken. :? Hm.

Adobe are supposedly re-writing the code-base right now for cocoa. Will be a while though; over 1 million lines of code need to be changed lol.
Quote zoom314 7th April 2008, 19:04
Where's the Flash plugin for the 64 bit firefox browser that runs in Windows XP x64 or Vista x64?
Quote E.E.L. Ambiense 7th April 2008, 19:12
Quote:
Originally Posted by koola
Adobe are supposedly re-writing the code-base right now for cocoa. Will be a while though; over 1 million lines of code need to be changed lol.

It would be smart, since you can't beat a Mac for design work. Period. Hell, I started graphic design work on a friggin' Mac, way back in the late 80's!
Quote chrisuk 7th April 2008, 19:36
Adobe's fault - apple has given plenty of warning carbon was going the way of the dodo, but, in another "customer endearing" move (see adobe global price differences as well) they decided not to spend the money getting it done.

Tut tut adobe, well done apple for sticking to your guns
Quote seanap 7th April 2008, 23:03
Interesting to see that they stuck with Carbon rather than working on the Cocoa port right away. You'd think a company with that much 'interest' in Apple would be able to overcome something like that..

Edit: anyone else notice the unclosed <b> tag from wuyanxu's post? Wonder if doing a blank quote with </b> will fix it
Edit 2: Hmm.. can't seem to fix it. *pokes teh adminzxor*
Quote B3CK 8th April 2008, 00:21
I'm just glad to see more of the big companies releasing productivity apps on 64 bit. The more we get, the more refining the hardware Mfgr's are going to do to increase performance and efficiency. It is time to start moving away from 32bit systems. I for one would like to start seeing more of a push to finish 64 bit and go on ahead for the 128bit hardware/OS. With more and more development of multi core processors, and ram prices dropping; (not forgetting the flash memory dropping as well.), The era of Tera-everything is not too far off.
Quote [USRF]Obiwan 8th April 2008, 09:09
Quote:
Originally Posted by B3CK
and ram prices dropping; (not forgetting the flash memory dropping as well.), The era of Tera-everything is not too far off.

Ram prices dropping? Looks like all company's new motherboards have worked out a "deal" with ram makers to only release DDR3 boards. Its 4 times expensive then DDR2 and does nothing in performance. So basicly its a big scam to force us to buy very expensive useless DDR3 ram. And do not tell me it is not true because you can smell this scam from 5 miles away.
Quote pendragon 8th April 2008, 18:25
DDR2 ram has indeed been dropping in price.. 2gigs for under $30: unheard of a year or two ago!

re: article.. i dislike Apple as a company, so this makes me smile. :) ...even if it is just a temporary hiccup
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.





Stats: 0.151 seconds