It seems like their Pshop app' has been very incremental since version 4 (which I loved.)
X, Universal binaries. 64 bit. Hmmm. Reasons to get us to upgrade no doubt. But obviously so.
Have they taken advantage of Core Image?
X only features?
Multi-core support?
I hope CS3 is going to be much faster than previous treacle like efforts. We've got bigger hard drives, more ram, faster cpus, more cpus, faster bus speeds etc. It's about time Photoshop flew.
It's about time Adobe got off their lard asss code and delivered.
I still hope some start up company will come up with a Photoshop killer...or Apple themselves. It's like Word from M$. Geeze. You just type stuff. Big deal.
What was that old Photoshop rival called? Live Magic? Pity Apple couldn't have bought the code from them...
(Remember, I'm not talking clusters or special MacPros fully kitted out to 16GB or whatever, these are special cases for 2007)... The weird thing is that the hard disks are lagging behind. The CPUs are there, 4-32 cores will start popping up from 2007 through 2009. The RAM is there, as projected, going up to 32GB... In 2007 to 2008 we need to see decent-performing 15,000RPM desktop SATA2 drives start to show up and/or RAID 0/ RAID 0+1 configs over just two hard disks really pony up in terms of speed, power consumption, vibration and noise factors.
As a side note, if Adobe CS3 is not multi-threaded, that would be really freakin' tragic. But maybe not sooo much, because one would have different apps going at once, but given CS3 will be the latest up to about middle of 2009, you'd want the software to make the most of your 2 to 4 to [16/32 cores in 2009].
People will use Adobe CS3 in many different ways, and there's a lot one can do with CS2 and Macromedia Studio 8 right now for 2007, even 2008.
But we're discussing the bleeding edge here. It's sharp, but lean and mean. Apple Macs are there. I hope Adobe CS3 will be too.
I haven't been running my beta on a four core system, so I can't say, but I've heard that it works better with four cores. Remember that the current betas aren't optimized as yet. We usually don't see much of that until a couple of months before release. Sometimes later. I've been running it for almost three months now, and have seen some optimising, but ny no means what I would expect for the finished product.
From what I've been told, all of the testing code has not been removed from the current beta either, which slows it down as well.
In so far as drives go, I expect to see manufacturers to begin phasing out the 3.5" models in a year or two.
In a tech article about drive technology in this weeks Science, they mention that before the end of the decade, we will see portable drives with 400GB. Before that happens, I would imagine more companies to follow Apple's lead and start to go to the 2.5" models in their smaller machines. Speeds are already rising, and even with video, most people really do not need more than 200GB right now.
Heh, this doesn't surprise me at all. Having worked for Adobe for a while, I know customers have been requesting 64bit support since the G5s came out. The reason they gave then for not having 64bit support was that Panther didn't support 64bit apps. Then Tiger came out with 64bit support - but only for the UNIX tools. Four years on and they're still saying no to 64bit support even though Leopard is fully 64bit. Never mind the fact that 64bit versions of Windows XP and 2003 have been around for ages.
Now about this drivel that 64bits won't make any difference - rubbish. Adobe apps are RAM hungry beasts, and if they cannot access RAM they start hitting the hard disk(s). As Adobe will point out themselves - RAM is faster than a scratch disk. So how they can now turn around and claim that more RAM won't make a difference is baffling.
The most they can claim is that it won't make a difference for customers who don't work on large files. Even so, Adobe is pushing RAW support for each new version of Photoshop, and created a new file format (PSB) for saving files larger than 2gig. There is clear indication that people are starting to use larger files with more filters and layers all the time. Yet this guy is insisting that people don't need to use the extra memory that a 64bit app can offer. Sure, customers are often stupid and don't really understand what it is they need, but if there is a clear trend for using larger files they really can't brush this off.
I expect the real reason they don't want to add 64bit support is that it is going to be a major rewrite of the code and it'll be a nightmare to make it work on both Windows and Mac OS X.
As an example even though Photoshop 7 had support for 16bits per channel colour support, it wasn't until Photoshop CS 2 until all the filters and adjustments supported this colour depth (actually, there still might be some that don't work). Likewise, it wasn't until Photoshop 7 that some of the blur filters worked on files which were larger than 500MB.
Cross-platform compatibility and grotesquely old legacy code are the main things which are stopping development of Photoshop these days.
I don't see as much of a problem as you do.
The program doesn't have to be 64 bit. That's a misconception. It does need to address more than 32 bits of memory. That isn't too difficult to impliment. They can do that later. The chipsets themselves don't address 64 bits for RAM anyway.
Most filters are already being handled by either Altivec on the PPC, or SSE on Intel. Both address 128 bits.
They pulled the same stunt with Xcode - and spent a few product cycles backpedaling on things Apple told them to prep for years ago. Leopard's launch is imminent, and PS's advancements have been incremental for far too long now. The poster was right - they'll be the new Quark- given the CoreImage tools available in Tiger and Leopard - they coul be pwned in short time by an upstart. Case in point - we dropped PageMaker for Pages based on performance, turnaround and price with our non-profit's production needs.
XCode was crap for years. Even now it isn't as sophisticated as MetroWorks. That's why they didn't switch.
Even Apple doesn't do what they tell others to do.
Let's see just how many of Apple's own programs will be 64 bits come MacWorld. All aren't even universal as yet, such as Shake, and that needs more RAM.
Many of Apple's programs can only address two cores, some, only one. We see that in the tests.
JBelkin - you are so right! 64-bit has not been a rumor, it's been available, so why hasn't Adobe been working this for CS3? See above for the answer. Adobe is just like MS, milking their cash cow.
Don't be so naive as to think they haven't been working on it.
When more than 5% of the computer users out there have real 64 bit systems, Adobe will show it. There are more important things for them to worry about right now.
Let's see just how many of Apple's own programs will be 64 bits come MacWorld. All aren't even universal as yet, such as Shake, and that needs more RAM.
Melgross has it right. What is with all these kneejerk negative reactions? Have any of you worked on retail-bound software? I haven't, but I know those who do, and there are thousands of moving parts outside of the code itself -- namely the many business decisions that are considered in each iteration of a product.
I'm sure Adobe is aware that holding off on 64-bit apps and pushing RAW support are in conflict. It's just a necessary evil. High-end Mac Pros can handle this kind of thing, which is most likely destination for CS3. My 20" Core 2 iMac will probably be happy enough with a Universal Photoshop Elements.
Sunilraman also brings up a good point about hard drives. I don't know if a 15k drive or RAID solution will ever be useful enough (or quiet or small enough) for an iMac, but I wouldn't be shocked if they were available to Mac Pros this spring.
Serial thinking! Give me a break! Do you work for Adobe? Do you think they have just one programmer? As far as throwing stones, none of us here work for Apple. Do you realize that Adobe just bought there main competitor - Macromedia. Adobe is a lumbering monopoly. As far as 5% - reread JBelkin's post. Your attitude appears to be monopoly-like - react to the market, don't strive for innovation and customer satisfaction. Keep in mind that the professional users who buy Adobe upgrades also buy current hardware.
There have been several reasons covered, and if you can't at least accept some of them might be true, then there is not much to discuss except to resort to ad hominem attacks.
The only reason 64 bit is useful for Photoshop is if your images are greater than 2GB/3GB in size, and even then, there are techniques that can be used to break down images into segments. Using those techniques is a lot easier and probably pays off more rather than converting the entire program to 64 bit.
Serial thinking! Give me a break! Do you work for Adobe? Do you think they have just one programmer? As far as throwing stones, none of us here work for Apple. Do you realize that Adobe just bought there main competitor - Macromedia. Adobe is a lumbering monopoly. As far as 5% - reread JBelkin's post. Your attitude appears to be monopoly-like - react to the market, don't strive for innovation and customer satisfaction. Keep in mind that the professional users who buy Adobe upgrades also buy current hardware.
I've been beta testing for them since 1991. They also came to my lab to test new versions of software.
I don't understand your odd post. I'm thinking serially? Please!
Belkin understands things about as well as you seem to, that is, not well at all.
I haven't been running my beta on a four core system, so I can't say, but I've heard that it works better with four cores. Remember that the current betas aren't optimized as yet. We usually don't see much of that until a couple of months before release. Sometimes later. I've been running it for almost three months now, and have seen some optimising, but ny no means what I would expect for the finished product.
From what I've been told, all of the testing code has not been removed from the current beta either, which slows it down as well.
In so far as drives go, I expect to see manufacturers to begin phasing out the 3.5" models in a year or two.
In a tech article about drive technology in this weeks Science, they mention that before the end of the decade, we will see portable drives with 400GB. Before that happens, I would imagine more companies to follow Apple's lead and start to go to the 2.5" models in their smaller machines. Speeds are already rising, and even with video, most people really do not need more than 200GB right now.
Hi Melgross, Happy New Year 8) ... Actually I forgot my post several days ago somewhere else about 8 cores and Photoshop.
"You want 64-bit? You want 64-bit? 499$ mothahfuckah."
No Kidding. I would like to see the breakdown of Mac vs. Windows *legal* CS owners.
There is a lot of anti-Adobe sentiment because Adobe has been playing games with their Mac user-base. Ever since they came out with that web page years ago saying that PC's were better tools than Mac's.... they've been steadily jabbing Mac users ever since. I don't know if Adobe has a burr up it's a$$ from iPhoto or FCP or what, but their attitude towards Apple and the Mac in general is typical of a company that wants to monopolize an industry for the sole purpose of having everyone by the short-and-curly's. They own the design software industry and they're showing it. Apple's MacPro sales have been affected by Adobe's lack of native support and I'd venture a bet that Chizen is clasping his hands and laughing maniacally. Bastard.
...... In so far as drives go, I expect to see manufacturers to begin phasing out the 3.5" models in a year or two...... In a tech article about drive technology in this weeks Science, they mention that before the end of the decade, we will see portable drives with 400GB. Before that happens, I would imagine more companies to follow Apple's lead and start to go to the 2.5" models in their smaller machines. Speeds are already rising, and even with video, most people really do not need more than 200GB right now.
I agree with the storage deal, people that really need storage past say 300GB will do Terabyte-level, redundant (BIG backup is as important as BIG data..!!!) hotswap local/ high-speed storage systems.
Whether 2.5" or 3.5", speed of the drives is most important, they need to move these up to saturation-level of SATA2 bus speed capacity. That means 7200rpm becoming more common, with 10k rpm targeted, for 2.5" drives, and 15k rpm for 3.5" drives. Higher spin speeds alongside perpendicular recording is the way to go to deliver close to SATA2-levels of hard disk throughput.
No Kidding. I would like to see the breakdown of Mac vs. Windows *legal* CS owners.
There is a lot of anti-Adobe sentiment because Adobe has been playing games with their Mac user-base. Ever since they came out with that web page years ago saying that PC's were better tools than Mac's.... they've been steadily jabbing Mac users ever since. I don't know if Adobe has a burr up it's a$$ from iPhoto or FCP or what, but their attitude towards Apple and the Mac in general is typical of a company that wants to monopolize an industry for the sole purpose of having everyone by the short-and-curly's. They own the design software industry and they're showing it. Apple's MacPro sales have been affected by Adobe's lack of native support and I'd venture a bet that Chizen is clasping his hands and laughing maniacally. Bastard.
Well, that's what happens when you're dealing with essentially a monopoly as people pointed out, that is Adobe-Macromedia. There are no other tools, that really come close. Yet this I suppose is the same bias that stems from, "well I can't really use anything else than Microsoft Windows and Office" ... Jobwise any person applying for a creative/ production/ web design job has to have (almost) the full list of Adobe-Macromedia apps on their resume.
I'm happy for Final Cut Pro and Motion and Shake cutting its own market, but Adobe-Macromedia is much more accessible (in terms of target market, it's bigger) so what the frack, CS3 Universal for Mac, get it out, get it cleaned up as much as possible, get the Macromedia stuff to Universal, all important for Apple as a company and their financials/ market share/ etc etc.
An upgrade to CS4 in 2009/2010 is pretty much inevitable, and we'll have 8gb-16+gb machines then, and pretty much 64-bit addressing of memory past 4gb will be quite common.
Leopard won't have significant sales compared to Tiger for at least a year, perhaps more.
Pros and shops don't rush out to embrace a new OS.
So, they'll rush out and buy CS3, but they'll leave Leopard on the shelf? OK, we get it. The smarties are telling us why 64-bit doesn't matter... yet. I get that. The point, though, is that if they were really pushing the envelope and not just cashing in on incremental updates, they would be there IN ADVANCE. It will matter.
Plus, "Pros and shops" don't act as a group. Some are early adopters and have the Mac Pros that can handle it, some are still using clusters of G5s that they invested so much in a while ago.
P.S. What Apple does with FREE programs is irrelevant.
?Byer in his official blog pointed out that many of the perceived benefits of 64-bit computing simply won't manifest themselves with current generations of hardware and software.?
Perhaps, some of you should take a few moments and read Byer's official blog. It seems the comments and his responses are more educated and informative that what is appearing here.
The program doesn't have to be 64 bit. That's a misconception. It does need to address more than 32 bits of memory. That isn't too difficult to impliment. They can do that later. The chipsets themselves don't address 64 bits for RAM anyway.
Most filters are already being handled by either Altivec on the PPC, or SSE on Intel. Both address 128 bits.
We don't need 64 bit menus and such.
Hmm. If it was that trivial to implement 64bit functionality into Photoshop then surely they would have done so already?
I know there is a plug-in which passes certain calculations through Altivec and there is an equivalent MMX/SSE plug-in for Windows. When the G5 came out it came with an updated version of the Altivec plug-in which was supposed to "take advantage of the power of the G5" of some such nonsense, but as far as I know all it did was add support for IBM's version of Altivec (VMX, or whatever it's called).
However, that's only good for filters. When you're working on a couple of layered RAW images 500MB each with a few adjustment layers on top and 40 levels of history RAM usage is going to go up. Altivec & SSE are good for processing chunks of data at a time - ideal for filters, but if the program itself is swapping chunks of memory from RAM to the scratch disk every time you make a change on an open project that's going to limit performance. If Photoshop could instead store all of that in RAM rather than on the drive I'm sure you'd see a performance increase. It's not just about how much memory the processor can access at a time. As you say, we have 128 bit processing going on with Altivec/SEE. What I would like to see is reduced virtual memory swapping, and the only way I see that happening is if Photoshop is able to place the entire project you are working on in RAM.
The difficulty for Adobe is to update the way the core image, layer and blending code works. Not to mention their entire virtual memory management system. 64bit systems have been out for a while now, and I just find it irritating that despite the constant request from customers for the last 4 years to allow Photoshop to access more memory Adobe is brushing them off and giving us "new" features in CS3 which are either ripped from Photoshop Elements or Illustrator CS.
Comments
It seems like their Pshop app' has been very incremental since version 4 (which I loved.)
X, Universal binaries. 64 bit. Hmmm. Reasons to get us to upgrade no doubt. But obviously so.
Have they taken advantage of Core Image?
X only features?
Multi-core support?
I hope CS3 is going to be much faster than previous treacle like efforts. We've got bigger hard drives, more ram, faster cpus, more cpus, faster bus speeds etc. It's about time Photoshop flew.
It's about time Adobe got off their lard asss code and delivered.
I still hope some start up company will come up with a Photoshop killer...or Apple themselves. It's like Word from M$. Geeze. You just type stuff. Big deal.
What was that old Photoshop rival called? Live Magic? Pity Apple couldn't have bought the code from them...
Lemon Bon Bon
(Remember, I'm not talking clusters or special MacPros fully kitted out to 16GB or whatever, these are special cases for 2007)... The weird thing is that the hard disks are lagging behind. The CPUs are there, 4-32 cores will start popping up from 2007 through 2009. The RAM is there, as projected, going up to 32GB... In 2007 to 2008 we need to see decent-performing 15,000RPM desktop SATA2 drives start to show up and/or RAID 0/ RAID 0+1 configs over just two hard disks really pony up in terms of speed, power consumption, vibration and noise factors.
As a side note, if Adobe CS3 is not multi-threaded, that would be really freakin' tragic. But maybe not sooo much, because one would have different apps going at once, but given CS3 will be the latest up to about middle of 2009, you'd want the software to make the most of your 2 to 4 to [16/32 cores in 2009].
People will use Adobe CS3 in many different ways, and there's a lot one can do with CS2 and Macromedia Studio 8 right now for 2007, even 2008.
But we're discussing the bleeding edge here. It's sharp, but lean and mean. Apple Macs are there. I hope Adobe CS3 will be too.
I haven't been running my beta on a four core system, so I can't say, but I've heard that it works better with four cores. Remember that the current betas aren't optimized as yet. We usually don't see much of that until a couple of months before release. Sometimes later. I've been running it for almost three months now, and have seen some optimising, but ny no means what I would expect for the finished product.
From what I've been told, all of the testing code has not been removed from the current beta either, which slows it down as well.
In so far as drives go, I expect to see manufacturers to begin phasing out the 3.5" models in a year or two.
In a tech article about drive technology in this weeks Science, they mention that before the end of the decade, we will see portable drives with 400GB. Before that happens, I would imagine more companies to follow Apple's lead and start to go to the 2.5" models in their smaller machines. Speeds are already rising, and even with video, most people really do not need more than 200GB right now.
Heh, this doesn't surprise me at all. Having worked for Adobe for a while, I know customers have been requesting 64bit support since the G5s came out. The reason they gave then for not having 64bit support was that Panther didn't support 64bit apps. Then Tiger came out with 64bit support - but only for the UNIX tools. Four years on and they're still saying no to 64bit support even though Leopard is fully 64bit. Never mind the fact that 64bit versions of Windows XP and 2003 have been around for ages.
Now about this drivel that 64bits won't make any difference - rubbish. Adobe apps are RAM hungry beasts, and if they cannot access RAM they start hitting the hard disk(s). As Adobe will point out themselves - RAM is faster than a scratch disk. So how they can now turn around and claim that more RAM won't make a difference is baffling.
The most they can claim is that it won't make a difference for customers who don't work on large files. Even so, Adobe is pushing RAW support for each new version of Photoshop, and created a new file format (PSB) for saving files larger than 2gig. There is clear indication that people are starting to use larger files with more filters and layers all the time. Yet this guy is insisting that people don't need to use the extra memory that a 64bit app can offer. Sure, customers are often stupid and don't really understand what it is they need, but if there is a clear trend for using larger files they really can't brush this off.
I expect the real reason they don't want to add 64bit support is that it is going to be a major rewrite of the code and it'll be a nightmare to make it work on both Windows and Mac OS X.
As an example even though Photoshop 7 had support for 16bits per channel colour support, it wasn't until Photoshop CS 2 until all the filters and adjustments supported this colour depth (actually, there still might be some that don't work). Likewise, it wasn't until Photoshop 7 that some of the blur filters worked on files which were larger than 500MB.
Cross-platform compatibility and grotesquely old legacy code are the main things which are stopping development of Photoshop these days.
I don't see as much of a problem as you do.
The program doesn't have to be 64 bit. That's a misconception. It does need to address more than 32 bits of memory. That isn't too difficult to impliment. They can do that later. The chipsets themselves don't address 64 bits for RAM anyway.
Most filters are already being handled by either Altivec on the PPC, or SSE on Intel. Both address 128 bits.
We don't need 64 bit menus and such.
They pulled the same stunt with Xcode - and spent a few product cycles backpedaling on things Apple told them to prep for years ago. Leopard's launch is imminent, and PS's advancements have been incremental for far too long now. The poster was right - they'll be the new Quark- given the CoreImage tools available in Tiger and Leopard - they coul be pwned in short time by an upstart. Case in point - we dropped PageMaker for Pages based on performance, turnaround and price with our non-profit's production needs.
XCode was crap for years. Even now it isn't as sophisticated as MetroWorks. That's why they didn't switch.
Even Apple doesn't do what they tell others to do.
Let's see just how many of Apple's own programs will be 64 bits come MacWorld. All aren't even universal as yet, such as Shake, and that needs more RAM.
Many of Apple's programs can only address two cores, some, only one. We see that in the tests.
What is that about throwing the first stone?
JBelkin - you are so right! 64-bit has not been a rumor, it's been available, so why hasn't Adobe been working this for CS3? See above for the answer. Adobe is just like MS, milking their cash cow.
Don't be so naive as to think they haven't been working on it.
When more than 5% of the computer users out there have real 64 bit systems, Adobe will show it. There are more important things for them to worry about right now.
Let's see just how many of Apple's own programs will be 64 bits come MacWorld. All aren't even universal as yet, such as Shake, and that needs more RAM.
?
Shake is unversal.
I'm sure Adobe is aware that holding off on 64-bit apps and pushing RAW support are in conflict. It's just a necessary evil. High-end Mac Pros can handle this kind of thing, which is most likely destination for CS3. My 20" Core 2 iMac will probably be happy enough with a Universal Photoshop Elements.
Sunilraman also brings up a good point about hard drives. I don't know if a 15k drive or RAID solution will ever be useful enough (or quiet or small enough) for an iMac, but I wouldn't be shocked if they were available to Mac Pros this spring.
Serial thinking! Give me a break! Do you work for Adobe? Do you think they have just one programmer? As far as throwing stones, none of us here work for Apple. Do you realize that Adobe just bought there main competitor - Macromedia. Adobe is a lumbering monopoly. As far as 5% - reread JBelkin's post. Your attitude appears to be monopoly-like - react to the market, don't strive for innovation and customer satisfaction. Keep in mind that the professional users who buy Adobe upgrades also buy current hardware.
There have been several reasons covered, and if you can't at least accept some of them might be true, then there is not much to discuss except to resort to ad hominem attacks.
The only reason 64 bit is useful for Photoshop is if your images are greater than 2GB/3GB in size, and even then, there are techniques that can be used to break down images into segments. Using those techniques is a lot easier and probably pays off more rather than converting the entire program to 64 bit.
Shake is unversal.
Yes, you're right it was recently updated to that.
But the main point was that it needs more memory, and isn't 64 bit.
Serial thinking! Give me a break! Do you work for Adobe? Do you think they have just one programmer? As far as throwing stones, none of us here work for Apple. Do you realize that Adobe just bought there main competitor - Macromedia. Adobe is a lumbering monopoly. As far as 5% - reread JBelkin's post. Your attitude appears to be monopoly-like - react to the market, don't strive for innovation and customer satisfaction. Keep in mind that the professional users who buy Adobe upgrades also buy current hardware.
I've been beta testing for them since 1991. They also came to my lab to test new versions of software.
I don't understand your odd post. I'm thinking serially? Please!
Belkin understands things about as well as you seem to, that is, not well at all.
"You want 64-bit? You want 64-bit? 499$ mothahfuckah."
I haven't been running my beta on a four core system, so I can't say, but I've heard that it works better with four cores. Remember that the current betas aren't optimized as yet. We usually don't see much of that until a couple of months before release. Sometimes later. I've been running it for almost three months now, and have seen some optimising, but ny no means what I would expect for the finished product.
From what I've been told, all of the testing code has not been removed from the current beta either, which slows it down as well.
In so far as drives go, I expect to see manufacturers to begin phasing out the 3.5" models in a year or two.
In a tech article about drive technology in this weeks Science, they mention that before the end of the decade, we will see portable drives with 400GB. Before that happens, I would imagine more companies to follow Apple's lead and start to go to the 2.5" models in their smaller machines. Speeds are already rising, and even with video, most people really do not need more than 200GB right now.
Hi Melgross, Happy New Year 8) ... Actually I forgot my post several days ago somewhere else about 8 cores and Photoshop.
http://creativebits.org/8_core_mac_pro
"You want 64-bit? You want 64-bit? 499$ mothahfuckah."
No Kidding. I would like to see the breakdown of Mac vs. Windows *legal* CS owners.
There is a lot of anti-Adobe sentiment because Adobe has been playing games with their Mac user-base. Ever since they came out with that web page years ago saying that PC's were better tools than Mac's.... they've been steadily jabbing Mac users ever since. I don't know if Adobe has a burr up it's a$$ from iPhoto or FCP or what, but their attitude towards Apple and the Mac in general is typical of a company that wants to monopolize an industry for the sole purpose of having everyone by the short-and-curly's. They own the design software industry and they're showing it. Apple's MacPro sales have been affected by Adobe's lack of native support and I'd venture a bet that Chizen is clasping his hands and laughing maniacally. Bastard.
...... In so far as drives go, I expect to see manufacturers to begin phasing out the 3.5" models in a year or two...... In a tech article about drive technology in this weeks Science, they mention that before the end of the decade, we will see portable drives with 400GB. Before that happens, I would imagine more companies to follow Apple's lead and start to go to the 2.5" models in their smaller machines. Speeds are already rising, and even with video, most people really do not need more than 200GB right now.
I agree with the storage deal, people that really need storage past say 300GB will do Terabyte-level, redundant (BIG backup is as important as BIG data..!!!) hotswap local/ high-speed storage systems.
Whether 2.5" or 3.5", speed of the drives is most important, they need to move these up to saturation-level of SATA2 bus speed capacity. That means 7200rpm becoming more common, with 10k rpm targeted, for 2.5" drives, and 15k rpm for 3.5" drives. Higher spin speeds alongside perpendicular recording is the way to go to deliver close to SATA2-levels of hard disk throughput.
No Kidding. I would like to see the breakdown of Mac vs. Windows *legal* CS owners.
There is a lot of anti-Adobe sentiment because Adobe has been playing games with their Mac user-base. Ever since they came out with that web page years ago saying that PC's were better tools than Mac's.... they've been steadily jabbing Mac users ever since. I don't know if Adobe has a burr up it's a$$ from iPhoto or FCP or what, but their attitude towards Apple and the Mac in general is typical of a company that wants to monopolize an industry for the sole purpose of having everyone by the short-and-curly's. They own the design software industry and they're showing it. Apple's MacPro sales have been affected by Adobe's lack of native support and I'd venture a bet that Chizen is clasping his hands and laughing maniacally. Bastard.
Well, that's what happens when you're dealing with essentially a monopoly as people pointed out, that is Adobe-Macromedia. There are no other tools, that really come close. Yet this I suppose is the same bias that stems from, "well I can't really use anything else than Microsoft Windows and Office"
I'm happy for Final Cut Pro and Motion and Shake cutting its own market, but Adobe-Macromedia is much more accessible (in terms of target market, it's bigger) so what the frack, CS3 Universal for Mac, get it out, get it cleaned up as much as possible, get the Macromedia stuff to Universal, all important for Apple as a company and their financials/ market share/ etc etc.
An upgrade to CS4 in 2009/2010 is pretty much inevitable, and we'll have 8gb-16+gb machines then, and pretty much 64-bit addressing of memory past 4gb will be quite common.
Leopard won't have significant sales compared to Tiger for at least a year, perhaps more.
Pros and shops don't rush out to embrace a new OS.
So, they'll rush out and buy CS3, but they'll leave Leopard on the shelf? OK, we get it. The smarties are telling us why 64-bit doesn't matter... yet. I get that. The point, though, is that if they were really pushing the envelope and not just cashing in on incremental updates, they would be there IN ADVANCE. It will matter.
Plus, "Pros and shops" don't act as a group. Some are early adopters and have the Mac Pros that can handle it, some are still using clusters of G5s that they invested so much in a while ago.
P.S. What Apple does with FREE programs is irrelevant.
?Byer in his official blog pointed out that many of the perceived benefits of 64-bit computing simply won't manifest themselves with current generations of hardware and software.?
Perhaps, some of you should take a few moments and read Byer's official blog. It seems the comments and his responses are more educated and informative that what is appearing here.
I don't see as much of a problem as you do.
The program doesn't have to be 64 bit. That's a misconception. It does need to address more than 32 bits of memory. That isn't too difficult to impliment. They can do that later. The chipsets themselves don't address 64 bits for RAM anyway.
Most filters are already being handled by either Altivec on the PPC, or SSE on Intel. Both address 128 bits.
We don't need 64 bit menus and such.
Hmm. If it was that trivial to implement 64bit functionality into Photoshop then surely they would have done so already?
I know there is a plug-in which passes certain calculations through Altivec and there is an equivalent MMX/SSE plug-in for Windows. When the G5 came out it came with an updated version of the Altivec plug-in which was supposed to "take advantage of the power of the G5" of some such nonsense, but as far as I know all it did was add support for IBM's version of Altivec (VMX, or whatever it's called).
However, that's only good for filters. When you're working on a couple of layered RAW images 500MB each with a few adjustment layers on top and 40 levels of history RAM usage is going to go up. Altivec & SSE are good for processing chunks of data at a time - ideal for filters, but if the program itself is swapping chunks of memory from RAM to the scratch disk every time you make a change on an open project that's going to limit performance. If Photoshop could instead store all of that in RAM rather than on the drive I'm sure you'd see a performance increase. It's not just about how much memory the processor can access at a time. As you say, we have 128 bit processing going on with Altivec/SEE. What I would like to see is reduced virtual memory swapping, and the only way I see that happening is if Photoshop is able to place the entire project you are working on in RAM.
The difficulty for Adobe is to update the way the core image, layer and blending code works. Not to mention their entire virtual memory management system. 64bit systems have been out for a while now, and I just find it irritating that despite the constant request from customers for the last 4 years to allow Photoshop to access more memory Adobe is brushing them off and giving us "new" features in CS3 which are either ripped from Photoshop Elements or Illustrator CS.