Oh my god I'm hyperventilating...

quote:

Originally posted by thalo:
Oh my god I'm hyperventilating...

Must be sad to be left behind with a bunch of extra-expensive hardware that suddenly becomes outdated because of stupid - close to suicidal - decisions by Apple.

But at least Apple-PC's can run 64-bit-Windows now, which 90% of them will do in one year's time. But that was the masterplan anyway. The sheeple will follow and keep bragging about their "macs". Intel inside, Windows on top of it, what a hoot.

But, as someone said, no one will save them from their own stupidity.

So Adobe starts rewritung PS in Cocoa. Yeah, sure. ROFLMAO.

To read this poor guy trying to tell Apple-PC-users that they've just been f... ed badly by Apple but at the same time trying to keep them buying Adobe stuff for their "macs" makes me feel sorry for the guy.

"when an app isn't using a large data set (one that would otherwise require memory swapping), the speedup due to running in 64-bit mode is around 8-12%."

Well, who's using large data sets with PS anyway. ROFLMAO.

I've written about the significance of Apple not delivering 64-bit-Carbon on this forum some time ago. Now we're there. Bye bye OS X. I won't miss you.

Thanks to you, brother klappy, once again thalo.net is way ahead of the curve.

There go my plans for buying an intel Mac anytime soon. What's the point? Photoshop on the PC is going to CRUSH it on the Mac, unless both Adobe and Apple get their asses in gear.

I don't think it's bye-bye OS X, as much as it's gonna be bye-bye pro users on OS X. And probably bye-bye pro-level desktop computers. Because without Adobe, all that computing power is going to be totally meaningless.

Didn't Adobe just do the same thing when Intel CPU's were announced on the Mac?

Adobe released CS2 with a big sorry no native Intel use on the Mac. Don't worry it still works in Roseta. CS3 will be here in no time when Universal Binary will be implemented. Adobe made Mac users wait then why should it be so scandalous now.

I am sure brother Klappy that you made all the same litany of reasons then to place blame ending with Apple kaputt.

Yes, i think Apple once again did not very well...

...

BUT, too many people see problems where are none. CS4 will be coming to OS X in 32-bit. Who needs that extra special bit of power the 64-bit Versions will bring? Very few people...

Too often i get the feeling when a new PS Version is released the users are also doubling their amount of work. But in reality most stuff you're working on is staying the same amount of data. Or do you double the amount of layers and increase the DPI when you get a new Mac or a new PS-Version?

...
Yes, i still think it's sloppy. Adobe failed hand in hand with Apple.
Still working with CS3, CS2 and PS7 with no problems. (Besides Bridge is still a slow & occ. crashing POS)

Thalo, PS in Windows won't CRUSH the Mac-Version any more than right now. Use PS on XP and be shocked by the speed gain compared to OS X. Anyway, for most tasks the advantage of the 64-bit PS won't be important. Honestly.

I can't tell you how many keynotes I've watched, where they'd run Mac Photoshop up against Windows Photoshop to show how the Mac runs circles around it. Remember how they used to do that?

They'd get some big multi-layered file and play back the history side-by-side, and the Mac would always be done way before the Windows machine. Of course that was before Mac went Intel.

So, you're telling me that right now, XP Photoshop beats Mac?

I have no way to test that, because a) I "upgraded" my PC to Vista months ago, figuring Vista was going to be better than XP (it wasn't); and 2) I'm not going to buy a Windows version of Photoshop at full price. Highway robbery.

It already feels like I've bought Photoshop five times over with no apparent improvement to the actual application since friggin' version 7!

OK, there have been substantial changes with things like VersionCue and Bridge (both of which I use)... but they're still buggy and beta as far as I'm concerned. And just when I started using Stock Photo regularly, they dump it.

This is the problem with a monopoly.

Now, ID did crush Quark fair and square... but there's nothing out there that can touch Photoshop. If there were, maybe Adobe wouldn't be resting on its laurels.

Never trust the benchmarks unless you faked it yourself. :-)

Maybe you got me wrong about the "speed" of PS. My main concern is the fluid UI-Experience, this is still lacking in OS X. At work i am using CS3 running on a decent MacPro. The UI is still sticky and under heavy load it gets stickier. For example i often use ctrl-click (right mousebutton) to change the brush. The popup-window is flickering when resizing like mad, and never feels fluid. ... Some could say this doesn't matter, but it matters to me.

So the main problem isn't PS, but still the core UI-System of the OS. I do believe that PS may be faster on OS X for certain tasks like batch-conversions and stuff. But most important is the fluid working experience and i mean REALTIME.

quote:

Originally posted by smithz:

BUT, too many people see problems where are none. CS4 will be coming to OS X in 32-bit. Who needs that extra special bit of power the 64-bit Versions will bring? Very few people...

But, who will be feeling bad sitting in front of an extra-expensive Apple-PC that runs PS 10 times slower than your average walmart-PC ?

Not a lot of people, i'm definitely certain.

From my vantage point, I thought the greatest part of John Nack's article was the best description I've read yet of the irrational fanaticism typically thrown at Cocoa, and by people (fans..."fanatics") who likely have absolutely no idea what they're talking about:

quote:

3)  We start hearing all about "Cocoa Über Alles"--about how Adobe should have known that Cocoa is the One True Way™ and should have started the move years ago.  Most Mac users don't know Cocoa from Ovaltine, and nor should they: it's just an implementation detail, not a measure of quality.  I think Brent Simmons, creator of wonderful Cocoa apps like NetNewsWire, put it most elegantly: "Finder + Cocoa = Finder."  That is, rewriting one's app in Cocoa doesn't somehow automatically improve its speed, usability, or feature set.

Calendar 2.2, for instance, would be smaller if written in Cocoa (Or C++, or probably even BASIC). But it wouldn't work differently. That's not to say that some programming languages aren't faster, aren't more portable, or don't allow easier expansion and modification. But I don't know that any of those apply to Cocoa over C++, although they might. But is Photoshop a piece of shit or one of the greatest applications money can buy?

quote:

Originally posted by BN:
From my vantage point, I thought the greatest part of John Nack's article was the best description I've read yet of the irrational fanaticism typically thrown at Cocoa, and by people (fans..."fanatics") who likely have absolutely no idea what they're talking about:

quote:

3)  We start hearing all about "Cocoa Über Alles"--about how Adobe should have known that Cocoa is the One True Way™ and should have started the move years ago.  Most Mac users don't know Cocoa from Ovaltine, and nor should they: it's just an implementation detail, not a measure of quality.  I think Brent Simmons, creator of wonderful Cocoa apps like NetNewsWire, put it most elegantly: "Finder + Cocoa = Finder."  That is, rewriting one's app in Cocoa doesn't somehow automatically improve its speed, usability, or feature set.

Calendar 2.2, for instance, would be smaller if written in Cocoa (Or C++, or probably even BASIC). But it wouldn't work differently. That's not to say that some programming languages aren't faster, aren't more portable, or don't allow easier expansion and modification. But I don't know that any of those apply to Cocoa over C++, although they might. But is Photoshop a piece of shit or one of the greatest applications money can buy?

I truly think that John was biting his nails when reading some of the comments about Cocoa being such a wonderful silver-bullet framework that rewriting PS in Cocoa should be just fun and games. usually from people that have no clue whatsoever about programming.

I would venture the guess that rewriting PS in Cocoa - if actually possible - takes much more time than just one PS-release. Actually, it's a total rewrite, not just a port. Additionally, it doesn't make any business sense since nobody outside Apple-land uses Objective-C or Cocoa, so they would have to maintain two different PS-versions written in two different frameworks and languages - a nightmare.

I would venture the guess that rewriting PS in Cocoa - if actually possible - takes much more time than just one PS-release.

But from that article they sound committed to doing so. But if it's a total re-write, not just a port, and they have to maintain two different sets of code, will they? Maybe they can't afford not to. I'd heard a convincing argument that one reason Microsoft went to so much trouble to write software for the Mac, despite it being a small market, was to keep some competing program from incubating. Adobe is probably in the same spot. Macs are still used for a lot of graphic work, and Adobe is well aware of how easily one program can gobble up another. They did it to Quark. It could be done to them. They may indeed go through the horrendous pains of moving to Cocoa. And might one then expect really crappy, buggy versions of Photoshop for a while? I think so. I think any speed improvements are likely to be offset by software just not working right or crashing.

Klappy what fantasy computer world do you live in seriously?

A Walmart PC will run PS 10x faster please did you get hit with the stupid stick or what. You will need to shell out at least $5000US probably like 6 or 7 maybe even 8 thousand Euro's to get a PC machine that will even start to be able to approach those numbers. One thing is certain a Walmart PC is not going to be able to install 32GB of RAM which is essential in running 64bit apps.

Oh and when Adobe does get their heads out of their asses all the Mac Pro's that have been sold so far can handle 32GB of RAM.

quote:

Klappy what fantasy computer world do you live in seriously?
A Walmart PC will run PS 10x faster please did you get hit with the stupid stick or what. ...
Oh and when Adobe does get their heads out of their asses ....

Man, do I enjoy Rico's notes!

It's just a shame that with all that tact he missed his true calling to go into the Diplomatic Service.
.

It's funny, every time Rico comes up with a gem like that, I steal it and use it all day... I must have dished out half a dozen "stupid stick" comments before realizing the guy should probably get royalties from me.

.
Only if he invented it. Which he didn't.
.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Klappy what fantasy computer world do you live in seriously?

A Walmart PC will run PS 10x faster please did you get hit with the stupid stick or what. You will need to shell out at least $5000US probably like 6 or 7 maybe even 8 thousand Euro's to get a PC machine that will even start to be able to approach those numbers.

looking at your assumed exchange rate of Euros to $ i know which one of us is living in a fantasy world.

Well brother Klappy it is about time you admitted that you live in a fantasy world.

I say kudos to you.

.
Whoa, Klap, he really got you with that one!!!
.