Adobe 'no64' Photoshop CS3 launches

Adobe 'no64' Photoshop CS3 launches

Summary: Yesterday saw the launch of Adobe "no64" CS3 with no AMD or Intel x64 64-bit extensions support. So what really prompted me to write this blog?


Yesterday saw the launch of Adobe "no64" CS3 with no AMD or Intel x64 64-bit extensions support. So what really prompted me to write this blog? Simple: It was Adobe's cavalier attitude that you'll get 64-bit support when Adobe says it's time. I found that link via Adobe blogger John Nack's post insinuating that I though 64-bit was "magic," which was written in response to my blog "Choosing between Vista x86 32 bit or x64 64 bit." Maybe I'm overreacting, but at no time did I ever suggest that there was anything magical about 64-bit computing, nor did I exaggerate the advantages of 64-bit computing.

I'll quickly recap the advantages x64 64-bit computing, all of which would benefit a resource-intensive application like Adobe CS3 immensely:

  • Beyond 4-GB RAM support, which is important for a graphics application dealing with large and many bitmap images.
  • Double-wide 64-bit CPU registers, which allow larger number calculations to be performed in fewer CPU cycles.
  • Double the number of registers, which can even benefit 32-bit applications because more operations can be handled at the same time without going to slower CPU Cache or RAM.

Why is Adobe is so quick to discount the need for an x64 version of CS3? Is the need to avoid 64-bit binaries in parallel with 32-bit binaries more important than producing a better product?  Adobe insists that few people are running x64 operating systems. But isn't that because companies like Adobe refuse to take the next logical evolutionary step in computing? It seems to me that there could potentially be more Windows XP x64 or Vista x64 users than there are all of Mac users combined if Adobe ever offered an x64 64-bit version of CS3 for Windows -- yet Adobe is happy to create a Mac version of CS3.

[poll id=20]


Topics: Processors, Enterprise Software, Hardware

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Hummmmmm!!

    "Double wide 64 bit CPU registers which allow larger number calculations to be
    performed in fewer CPU cycles."

    Wrong cow-boy, in 64 bits processors only the register for the integer units get to
    be 64 bits wide, the floating point units have been using 64 bits registers for
    years. An application like Photoshop does not really gain benefits from 64 bits
    integer units as Phosothop manly deals with floating point numbers for its
    calculation. In fact, only a few specialized applications will benefit from running
    on processors having 64 bits integer units, cryptographic applications is an
    example of those applications.

    "It seems to me that there could potentially more Windows XP x64 or Vista x64
    users than there are all of Mac users combined if Adobe ever offered an x64 64 bit
    version of CS3 for Windows yet Adobe is happy to create a Mac version of CS3."

    I don't get it, the main users of Photoshop are on mac, so yes this release is
    important for Adobe, they are for sure happy for it. How can you expect that a 64
    bits version of Photoshop on Xp x64 or Vista x64 can have more users than mac
    users combined when first again most of the users of Photoshop use macs and
    secondly that the only thing that people know about Xp x64 or Vista x64 is that
    nothing works on those systems, who will use Photoshop there when most drivers
    do not work on those systems. This is typical George Ou BS, stupid comments
    from poor knowledge.

    I tell you something more, it is very likely that Adobe will have more facility to
    bring a 64 bits version of Photoshop on mac than on windows. Leopard will be full
    64 bits but everything works on this OS (think about drivers) and Adobe can
    provide a 64 bits version as Universal bibary together with the 32 bits version,
    that's more easy for them and for the user, they don't have to bother with multiple
    bimaries for multiple OS....
  • What's the hold up Adobe?

    The last poster still failed to address the larger memory requirements which would be very nice for Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite. I still feel that more memory would address many of these larger photographs which are becoming unreal in size.

    64 Bit computing is the next evolutionary step whether Adobe wants to admit it, but the problem becomes a chick and the egg problem. First we couldn't get any 64 Bit CPUs, but now thanks to AMD, that world has taken off. Now Windows and Mac OS have provided 64 bit computing at the OS level, but the applications are waiting on the users while the users are waiting for the applications.
    • The hold up is that they're lazy.

      The hold up is that they're lazy PERIOD. They don't have that much competition and they're going to wait for everyone else goes 64 bit before they do. Of course that's the chicken and egg deal.
      • George, making friends with the folks at Adobe....

        "The hold up is that they're lazy PERIOD."

        Now that you've insulted the developers at Adobe (a fairly large and important software company), you'll probably have to contact some of your fellow journalists to find out how the 64-bit version of Photoshop is coming along.

        As you have pointed out, Adobe doesn't have much competition in the professional photo editing software space. They feel no pressure to rush out an unpolished product that not very many people can take advantage of yet - 64 bit OSs aren't widely used yet. When they are, I predict that there will be a 64-bit version of Photoshop available.
        • It's not a developer issue

          It's not a developer issue, it's not a competence issue. Adobe has fine engineers who are more than capable of taking on x64 CS3. The issue is with management not wanting to take on x64 because they want the market to widely adopt x64 before Adobe produces x64 software. That sounds like a "safe" and "lazy" decision that's kind of like a football team run down the clock for the last two quarters not doing anything to advance the score board.
      • The beauty of being a monopoly

        is that there is no incentive to do anything, IE6->IE7 spring to mind?
        • Have you owned the whole boardwalk?

          IE 7 is no monopoly. There's this other little program called Firefox. There is also a ok open version modeled after Photoshop called Gimp on Sourceforge.
    • RE: Adobe 'no64' Photoshop CS3 launches

      a great opportunity to learn <a href="">web programming</a>
      order Propecia
  • Monopoly

    Adobe doesn't "feel the need" for a 64 bit port...what are you going to do? They enjoy a virtual monopoly and they know it. Monopoly precludes competition. With no mainstream competing alternatives Adobe can do (or not do) whatever they want. Kinda reminds me of the Windows world.

    Of course back here in the real world I run Debian Etch AMD64. This means that the OS and ALL of the hundreds of apps I have installed are 64 bit. Including The Gimp.

    Aren't monopolies great?
    Tim Patterson
  • Just nitpicking

    One thing you left out in your list of 64bit benefits, which is significant.

    32 bit Windows OSs have a per process memory limitation of only 2GB or RAM, and Windows sets aside a chunk of memory for the OS, which leaves only 3.8GB of memory for applications.

    The 64bit versions of Windows do not have these limitations.

    Even on machines with only 3-4GB of RAM, the benefits of this are immediate, as there are already several real world examples of programs that hit the 2GB address space limitation.
    • Yes, I forgot to mention that, thanks. NT

  • What's 64 bit

    That?s probably what you?d hear from most professional users of Adobe?s stuff?

    Adobe has concentrated on workflow, which is a huge timesaver. The ability to simply drag elements from one app into another saves far more time than speeding up the performance of the app. Being able to add graphical elements in a page layout app rather than having to go back to a bitmap or vector app, make the element, save, and then import the thing saves untold hours in a normal week. Being able to retain vectors in a photoshop doc and export a pdf with the vector info means you can quickly get print ready stuff from a raster app without sacrificing sharp edges. Things like that are what made the original creative suite a big success and why Adobe has adopted the name for even more product.

    Adobe?s (and Macromedia?s in the past) success has been based on giving their customers what they?ve asked for. Most of what they want is a way to make their work easier, faster and simpler. When customers ask for 64 bit, they?ll get it ? probably in the video end of things first.
  • More of the same

    I used to use Adobe products until I found better. Photoshop is a mess of old menus and obscure jargon and Premiere would have to have the record for crashes when editing video. There are plenty of much cheaper, more powerful graphic and video editors available - I mean most of us aren't stuck with a Mac so we have options. I use Ulead products for our commercial production, but there are plenty of other apps out there.
  • Nothing new here

    George, Adobe no doubt has plenty of good reasons, including the dearth of viable 64-bit graphics support for their Microsoft versions.

    After all, Microsoft itself didn't see any reason to release 64-bit platform software for almost two years after the hardware was on the market, at a time when (so they tell us) the software was ready but the market wasn't.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
    • No idea what you're talking about

      Windows XP x64 has been available for more than a year and I'm not sure what graphics support you're talking about.
  • 64-bit Support well how about new features all around

    I have said this elsewhere, but I feel CS3 is a big let down, you have to have a Mac to get a 64-bit photoshop executable.. However what are we really getting in this new program anyway?

    A new interface? No the typical move features around but keep the menus the same and not really introduce new function, just enough change to warrant new versions of support books and manuals.

    In a world where we have a new Microsoft Office that now gives us automatic realtime preview of changes and formatting changes why can't we see something new interface wise that really makes a difference here in Photoshop? Honestly most modern PCs have GPUs that make a number of things possible including faster rendering and more realtime results. I would have liked to see Adobe do something really revolutionary and to make it's interface more realtime. Not just move things around..

    They could really spend the time revamping how gadgets work, filter previews, animation etc. and make photoshop into a better piece of software.

    If I compare Photoshop CS3 on the PC to (all managed code with 64-bit support), it's my humble opinion that they have matched Photoshop feature-wise and give us a better product. One that doesn't cost what Photoshop does and certainly works for donation-ware.

    I think Adobe is asleep at the wheel with this product and aren't watching carefully what's going on around them in the marketplace and what people are expecting for their very expensive pricing. It's time to retire Photoshop in favor of and the Microsoft Expression Design package and others out there.. Mainly because the bang for the buck is no longer there.

    If Adobe isn't commited to fully supporting Windows, it's features etc., maybe it's time for them to get out of the market, or have a little consumer revolt going on that wakes them up..
  • x64 support

    I'd just comment that Adobe's reasons if it's what the commentor said is the case is very flawed. Microsoft has had a version of Windows XP x64 out for nearly a year, 2 if you count the beta period and not even vista itself which is their 2nd 64-bit OS..
  • RE: Adobe 'no64' Photoshop CS3 launches

    I believe he's referring to the fact that there was a long gestation period between IE6 and IE7 because there was no real competition.

    As you correctly pointed out, as soon as Firefox arrived IE7 materialised.