Adobe has become one of the s***tiest software companies in the world. Carbon was developed to ease the transition from Mac OS 9 to OS X. Seriously, they actually wanted carbon-64? For those Windows folks out there to understand what it means, this would be like complaining that Microsoft dropped 64-bit support for its Windows 9x kernel emulator. All because Adobe is too lazy to write DECENT code in Cocoa, like everyone else. They should've done it years ago. Now they finally see the end of it, and it's suddenly Apple's fault that their code is extremely old and outdated and Apple won't support it anymore? It's crap like this that makes Adobe lose even when competing in their own grounds - I have long dropped Adobe's PDF tools for better 3rd-party alternatives. Now if only Flash would die, maybe the Web would be a better place.

Yes !! be hard with Apple

so?

Apple has been changing their OS so many times, I've lost track.

There was the original Macintosh OS in 1984, which lasted for 19 years and Mac OS X. Is it that difficult to count to 2?

I was referring to architectural and API changes, not just UI.

Let's see. In the mid 90s, there was 68000 to PPC. Then there was BSD (OS X). And then PPC to Intel. And now this.

I guess you can keep track. :-)

You should add to your list the 68000->68020 Macintosh II transition, as it was an important 32/16 bit processor to 32/32 bit processor change and System 7 with 32-bit clean applications.

You get the point.

If the platform keeps changing, it is very hard for developers to keep up. Sure, Apple may have very valid reasons for doing so, but the least they can do is to make it as painless as possible for their already small developer community.

That is simply the way it is with computers, my friend. Let's look at the PC world: DOS to Windows 3.x, then to Windows 9x, then moving on to the NT kernel. Then, all of the sudden, programs needed to move on to .NET (don't get me wrong, .NET is the best thing MS has come up with in a long time - esp. since programmers are becoming lousier each day.) Now everything is becoming 64-bit as well. Can we blame MS? Of course not. Computers are that way. The Mac platform is 24 years old! How could Apple not change its OS? And just like Apple, most of MS' changes to its OS have happened in the last decade.

Here's the difference: The x64 versions of Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 will actually still run several programs which shipped in March 1982 on the first 5.25" diskettes ever to be labelled MS-DOS. Of course, these programs can only access files in the current directory, since MS-DOS 1.x didn't have subdirectories, and they're pretty much worthless compared to modern equivalents, but the point is that today's Windows still directly executes unmodified binaries from 1982. On the other hand, not a single Mac program which shipped in 1985 (or 1986 for that matter) will execute as-is on Mac OS X Leopard. Not one, not from Apple nor any ISV.

Backward compatibility has hindered the evolution of Windows, but lack of backward compatibility has made Mac OS an expensive platform for both users and ISVs.

There isn't anything from the 1980s that I would want to run on any current machine. If your software vendor isn't up to date and still hasn't created its first Windows application, they're definitely the wrong vendor.

This is partially true. In order to do so, you have to emulate MS-DOS (or Win9x for that matter), and there are several restrictions. Exactly how far back a compatibility would you expect an OS to offer? Heck, I can run most apps from Mac OS 9 & 8. Why would I want even more backward compatibility than that? Heck, I can always run a Mac Plus emulator if I need to. I belive that after a couple of decades, what really matters is that you can open older files, not run old software.

FINALLY! Pshop was one of the LAST apps I was waiting on to become 64bit! Everything else I have is 64 already and it's been frustrating being limited to 3GB in CS3 when working with all the layers and image sizes I have to work with. BOO on slow disk caching! YAY for RAM!

THANK YOU ADOBE!!!

This is a good point.

Are there any ETA for Photoshop CS4 or Lightroom 2 yet ? :)

Given the price versus the inability of any photo- editing software to achieve the same level as a darkroom, this isn't a plus. Also, given the fact that there still isn't a lot of software out there yet that would work on a 64 bit machine, this decision is just plain dumb but Adobe, lately, should change it's coporate name to "Just Plain Dumb".

Just curious, did you read like some people that CS4 would only be 64bit with no 32bit? Otherwise, your comment makes no sense.

I understand that there are not many programs that are 64bit yet, other than major enterprise applications. If everybody waited for someone else to be the first to port their applications to both 32 and 64 bit, noone would do it. Also, graphics programs are the ones that make the most sense to me. That and some sort of AutoCad.

Nowhere in the article do they say 32 bit is supported. Saying 64 bit does not imply support for 32 bit. But I also stand by my comments on the price and photo-editing issues and this not only applies to Adobe by most photo-editing software. Adobe just happens to be the most outlandish in their price.

Regardless of what you say, Windows version 64-bit, OS X version 32-bit.

Probably because they wouldn't allow Flash on the iPhone.

This is a good thing because programs like flask or quicktime offer hackers a easy gateway into your computer or Phone.

This just says that after all the delays, Adobe cheated again. Photoshop CS3 is nothing more architecturally than what the original Mac OS X-compatible version (7.0) should have been around 2001.

They wasted time for years and whined that Apple had dropped a bomb on them in 2006.

Photoshop CS3 still doesn't run as well as a proper Mac OS X application should. Other software developers can do it, why should Adobe be any different?

If Apple would extend their application plans into Photoshop's market space, I think a lot of people might be happy. Adobe already has a 64-bit Lightroom on Mac OS X.

AHAHAHAHAhHaHAHAhAHA take THAT mac fabois!

Wow, that was enlightening. Now is there any chance you could go back to Myspace please? Or school? :P

aw, did black-turtleneck fanboi get his feelings hurt? sry bout dat, bye.

Great move. I hope all copy drop their development for 32 bits software and just focus on 64 bits one. All computer sold nowadays are 64 bits anyway. I also hope MS will drop it's 32 bits development for next version of Windows.

I know the title is probably misunderstood. Adobe is NOT dropping 32bit support in favor of 64bit support. Rather, they will finally have 64bit support along with 32bit support. The 'only' part of the article is that currently, 64bit will only be available in Windows and not on Macs.

Which is the way it should be... at least for the now.

I personally don't see myself using 64 bit OS for some time even thought i probably could use the extra increase in speed and whatever. The thing is that having to be able to use certain set of software that are 64 bit, and for a good reason, means i would have to drop the "lesser" demanding 32 bit software that are still important.

Unless there is a REALLY good reason to drop support for 32 bit then they should keep it.

I'm actually looking at loading Vista 64 the next time I do a clean install. One of the reasons is that I'm looking at adding 4GB of RAM to my current 2GM system. Due to the limit of 4GB (3.5?) I wouldn't do me much good to without 64bit. :-)

Vista scares me. :[

I actually didnt know that there was a limit of 4GB for RAM in 32 bit Windows until i read about it in here. Im looking at building new system and was actually thinking about adding 8GB of DDR2 memory, but this might change things. Also it seems that not all new motherboards even run properly (instability) when using all 4 memory slots.

Already having problems deciding on what components i should get let alone what OS to run. Probably will stick to XP since i don't have any problems with it.

64-bit math:
64-bit CPU's (all of them now I guess) aren't generally "truly" 64-bit. Where they really shine is in the math registers which are 64-bit so programs like Photoshop could process at 2X that of an equivalent 32-bit version of Photoshop (as long as you are running 64-bit Windows with 64-bit Photoshop).

It would really be nice if Photoshop included a tool to analyse your usage of Memory to see if you could benefit from more. I think the average Photoshop user should consider at least 4GB of RAM but it really varies especially if your processing makes multiple copies of a large RAW file. Do your research for a quality motherboard with an adequate memory controller and good RAM (go with quality over speed).

Considering OEM copies of Windows Vista Premium can be found as low as $100 I think dual-booting is a good way to go either with 32-bit XP/64-bit Vista or 32-bit Vista/64-bit Vista. *Note: the 4GB memory limitation in 32-bit Windows refers to the entire Memory Map of which RAM is the largest, but not only part. A system with a 512MB card should access about 3.2GB in 32-bit Windows. Most memory now is Dual Channel so I recommend the majority of Photoshop users go with 2x2GB or 4x1GB.

Despite the significant advantages of graphics processing (GPGPU), especially parallel computations utilizing Stream Processors don't expect Adobe to really bother with this until it's adopted a lot more. Considering plans are underway to eventually combine the best of both the CPU and GPU (5 years?) maybe they'll skip GPGPU entirely. Also, the need for parallel computation decreases slightly as we see faster, multi-core CPU's with low idle power (soon 8 cores with 2 Watts total idle power). Err, I guess that is parallel computation but you know what I mean..

Summary:
64-bit should double computation time. Ensure adequate memory for no hard-drive access slowdowns.

Makes complete sense to me!

OSX is completely 64 bit with 32bit compatibility.

Windows is, well some are 32 bit and a few try to find drivers for 64 bit...

Besides, the vast majority of Windows users run the 64 bit version for their 64 bit software... Right? LOL!

Yup. makes sense to me...

oh well...

I'm glad it makes sense to you, because what you just said makes no ****ing sense to me at all.

Yup. makes sense to me too. Adobe has chosen to use the superior operating system to roll out the newest version of their flagship product.

foxfyre is so anti MS/Windows and pro anything Apple, he/she tends to forsake logic at attempts for wit. But still fails...lol

Either you can't read or you didn't read.

Either way you are a hysterical (not the funny kind) retard.

Do you want to rewrite up to a million lines of code now, after you've written quite a lot already in the old and now abandoned form, or do you want to do that for the next version when it can be started fresh and not end up costing an arseload of money?

Seems a pretty simple and sensible solution to me.

Just because you bought a shiny new Mac (which, incidentally, I don't blame you for) doesn't mean economic sense will be thrown out the window.

*facepalm*

I think you forgot your /sarcasm.

If Apple would actually keep 3rd party companies apprised of their plans instead of annoucing them at a common trade show maybe things like this wouldn't happen. All they care about is their own products and software and it shows...

I was under the impression one of Apple's primary sources of income is suing others for leaking information, displaying fruits or critizism. Why would they give up on this?

totally agree with alphatrigon

So, will Apple be pointing out that CS4 will only be 32 bit on their commercials? They have so much fun pointing out all the flaws of the PC and especially Vista you would think they would be objective. Oh, come on, isn't everything supposed to be better with a Mac?
Isn't the point that I should want to get rid of my PC by now?

-Steve