DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Photoshop will get 64-bit boost--on Windows only
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/07/2008 08:08:36 PM · #1
Find out why Adobe will deliver a 64-bit version of Photoshop for Windows and not the Mac.

I'm ready! I have CS3 running on my Windows Vista 64-bit laptop in 32-bit mode and it is faster than on my other native 32-bit platform. Can't wait until CS4. :-)
 04/07/2008 08:31:44 PM · #2
yah... it's a sad sad day when people have to boot camp into windows to get faster photoshop =(
 04/08/2008 12:39:51 AM · #3
Originally posted by wanjun:
yah... it's a sad sad day when people have to boot camp into windows to get faster photoshop =(

I know...they should just dump their Mac and get a true Vista machine. ;-)
 04/08/2008 01:10:42 AM · #4
oh great. let the mac vs. pc flame war begin.
 04/08/2008 03:55:44 AM · #5
Read the article - seems that both will see gains (but the Mac not as much) - but does this mean that CS4 is about to be released ?
It doesn't seem that long ago CS3 was released. When are they talking about CS4 coming out ?
 04/08/2008 04:41:03 AM · #6
You know what... to be honest here, I just got CS3 not too long ago and cost a small fortune too. but I have had to stop myself now and sit and think for a few moments..

What are we becoming, is it a need to edit pics at lightning speed (maybe for wedding business yes) but for someone like me, I actually enjoy the time to edit and work on a piece of work and I feel that if all I had to do was BASH THEM OUT in a few seconds then it would take away some of the enjoyment.. CS3 on an intel mac is not what I would call SLOW at all..

Sorry sounds like a RANT but sometimes I wish the Human Race would just sit down and have a rest every once in a while.
 04/08/2008 05:06:05 AM · #7
Originally posted by MAK:
What are we becoming, is it a need to edit pics at lightning speed (maybe for wedding business yes) but for someone like me, I actually enjoy the time to edit and work on a piece of work and I feel that if all I had to do was BASH THEM OUT in a few seconds then it would take away some of the enjoyment.. CS3 on an intel mac is not what I would call SLOW at all..

Sorry sounds like a RANT but sometimes I wish the Human Race would just sit down and have a rest every once in a while.


But you'll be taking the same physical time doing your work on a shot, it's just the computer will do it's thing quicker, so then you have more time to take your time over other shots!
 04/08/2008 06:24:35 AM · #8
= "Hey MAK, why don't you take a break, relax, get yourself some java, go to the bathroom, whatever. I'll be busy churning away leisurely on this one editing step of your image." :P
 04/08/2008 08:17:19 AM · #9
Once you factor in the all the reboot times, memory leaks, virus clean ups, and various other Windows "features" Macs will still be faster running the 32 bit version. ;-)

And if you think a 64 bit apllication is automatically twice as fast as a 32 bit app, read this blog from Adobe.

//blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

But if it makes you feel better being the first to get the 64 bit version, rock on with your bad selves!

Message edited by author 2008-04-08 08:17:28.
 04/08/2008 12:34:39 PM · #10
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
= "Hey MAK, why don't you take a break, relax, get yourself some java, go to the bathroom, whatever. I'll be busy churning away leisurely on this one editing step of your image." :P


FORGET THE JAVA!! I need some sulphate and CS4, 30 gallons of coffee and a job.
 04/08/2008 02:41:33 PM · #11
Originally posted by scarbrd:
And if you think a 64 bit apllication is automatically twice as fast as a 32 bit app, read this blog from Adobe.

It's not all about speed. It's about being able to handle larger data sets. In the case of PS, larger data sets could include ginormous PSD files, huge TIFF files, the EOS-1Ds Mark III's 21 megapixel RAW files, etc. It's also about multi-tasking and efficacy. 64 bit affords better and faster timeslicing and context switching, which translates into more efficient use of your time doing work (PS, surfing, music, email, etc.)
 04/08/2008 02:51:30 PM · #12
Cool. Another reason not to buy a Mac.
 04/08/2008 03:10:48 PM · #13
Mac OS, Linux, Windows...They are all part of the collective. I think in the future it won't matter what OS and version of photoshop you have because the machines will run on Google OS and our only job will be to harvest energy as slaves for the new cyborg race.
 04/08/2008 03:21:10 PM · #14
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
It's not all about speed. It's about being able to handle larger data sets. In the case of PS, larger data sets could include ginormous PSD files, huge TIFF files, the EOS-1Ds Mark III's 21 megapixel RAW files, etc. It's also about multi-tasking and efficacy. 64 bit affords better and faster timeslicing and context switching, which translates into more efficient use of your time doing work (PS, surfing, music, email, etc.)

Um... 64 bit allows Photoshop to address more than 4GB of RAM. You need memory equivalent to about 4X the file size to work efficiently in PS, so you're only talking about gigabyte+ file sizes here. How often does THAT happen? The multi-tasking part is the OS, not Photoshop, and OS X is already quite adept at handling multiple processes. In practice, a 64 bit PS will run about 5 to 8% faster than the 32 bit version (a basically imperceptible difference).
 04/08/2008 03:27:43 PM · #15
I am waiting for Googleshop or Picasa GoogleTurbo Paint or something. That will be fast...

Edit to add...I think it is acutally going to be called Google Picasashop iPro 128.

Message edited by author 2008-04-08 15:42:33.
 04/08/2008 05:20:37 PM · #16
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
It's not all about speed. It's about being able to handle larger data sets. In the case of PS, larger data sets could include ginormous PSD files, huge TIFF files, the EOS-1Ds Mark III's 21 megapixel RAW files, etc. It's also about multi-tasking and efficacy. 64 bit affords better and faster timeslicing and context switching, which translates into more efficient use of your time doing work (PS, surfing, music, email, etc.)

Um... 64 bit allows Photoshop to address more than 4GB of RAM. You need memory equivalent to about 4X the file size to work efficiently in PS, so you're only talking about gigabyte+ file sizes here. How often does THAT happen? The multi-tasking part is the OS, not Photoshop, and OS X is already quite adept at handling multiple processes. In practice, a 64 bit PS will run about 5 to 8% faster than the 32 bit version (a basically imperceptible difference).

First of all, you surely know that if you load a 1 mb file into a program (PS, Word, whatever), there is no linear correlation to the amount of memory used, right? Which means your 1 mb file doesn't necessarily take up 1 mb of RAM once loaded into an application. The application (upon loading the file) has structures and lists being instanciated, arrays and pointers created, a whole lot of technical objects are assembled, so your 1 mb file may now be represented in memory as something like 2, or even 5 mb (just as an example). In some cases, the "memory footprint" may be lower than the file size. So, you could have a TIFF file that is hundreds of megabytes in size. Let's say you are performing some HDR and you have seven or eight of these TIFF files. Once loaded into an application like Photomatix or PS, you now have some serious memory sizes being swapped around. Vying for your limited memory are other applications with their own processes, threads, and fibers such as your email, web browser, music, etc. As for multi-tasking, the CPU and data/address buses do play a large role in how the OS implements its multi-tasking scheduling algorithms.

I don't want to get into a pissing match about who knows how much about 64-bit computing, especially from non-computer professionals. I just don't want disinformation being passed around authoritatively. I'll admit, I don't know everything there is to know about 64-bit (and I'm a computer programmer!). I do know that for your everyday "Jane Doe" or "John Hobbyist", a 64-bit computing platform is not a necessity for them. Having said that, the time is nearing where all PCs will be 64 bit when you go to buy one at your local Best Buy or wherever.
 04/08/2008 07:14:21 PM · #17
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
It's not all about speed. It's about being able to handle larger data sets. In the case of PS, larger data sets could include ginormous PSD files, huge TIFF files, the EOS-1Ds Mark III's 21 megapixel RAW files, etc. It's also about multi-tasking and efficacy. 64 bit affords better and faster timeslicing and context switching, which translates into more efficient use of your time doing work (PS, surfing, music, email, etc.)

Um... 64 bit allows Photoshop to address more than 4GB of RAM. You need memory equivalent to about 4X the file size to work efficiently in PS, so you're only talking about gigabyte+ file sizes here. How often does THAT happen? The multi-tasking part is the OS, not Photoshop, and OS X is already quite adept at handling multiple processes. In practice, a 64 bit PS will run about 5 to 8% faster than the 32 bit version (a basically imperceptible difference).

First of all, you surely know that if you load a 1 mb file into a program (PS, Word, whatever), there is no linear correlation to the amount of memory used, right? Which means your 1 mb file doesn't necessarily take up 1 mb of RAM once loaded into an application. The application (upon loading the file) has structures and lists being instanciated, arrays and pointers created, a whole lot of technical objects are assembled, so your 1 mb file may now be represented in memory as something like 2, or even 5 mb (just as an example). In some cases, the "memory footprint" may be lower than the file size. So, you could have a TIFF file that is hundreds of megabytes in size. Let's say you are performing some HDR and you have seven or eight of these TIFF files. Once loaded into an application like Photomatix or PS, you now have some serious memory sizes being swapped around. Vying for your limited memory are other applications with their own processes, threads, and fibers such as your email, web browser, music, etc. As for multi-tasking, the CPU and data/address buses do play a large role in how the OS implements its multi-tasking scheduling algorithms.

I don't want to get into a pissing match about who knows how much about 64-bit computing, especially from non-computer professionals. I just don't want disinformation being passed around authoritatively. I'll admit, I don't know everything there is to know about 64-bit (and I'm a computer programmer!). I do know that for your everyday "Jane Doe" or "John Hobbyist", a 64-bit computing platform is not a necessity for them. Having said that, the time is nearing where all PCs will be 64 bit when you go to buy one at your local Best Buy or wherever.


According to John Nack from Adobe, realistically 64 bit photoshop won't be that significantly faster unless you're opening a file more than 4 GBs large, as in, 3000 something megapixels (3.75 gigapixels was his exact figure). In general it'll just be 8-10 percent faster.

As for 64 bit pcs, I don't think that's coming anytime soon because unlike os x which can simultaneously run 32 bit and 64 bit apps, vista is entirely in 64 bit or 32 bit versions. And 64 bit vista can't run 32 bit photoshop, and vice versa. So I don't even know how you manage to have a "64 bit pc running 32 bit photoshop".
 04/08/2008 08:57:54 PM · #18
Originally posted by wanjun:
As for 64 bit pcs, I don't think that's coming anytime soon because unlike os x which can simultaneously run 32 bit and 64 bit apps, vista is entirely in 64 bit or 32 bit versions. And 64 bit vista can't run 32 bit photoshop, and vice versa. So I don't even know how you manage to have a "64 bit pc running 32 bit photoshop".

Ah, excuse me, but with all due respect, you are very incorrect.

Windows Vista 64-bit Edition runs both 64-bit and 32-bit applications, as did its predecessor, Windows XP 64-bit Edition. This compatibility is provided as part of the WoW64 libraries (Windows on 64-bit Windows).

I run a few quite intensive 64-bit applications on my laptop (x64 dual-core CPU) every single day. I also run 32-bit apps as well (which includes PS).

Finally, yes...there are 64-bit PCs on sale today--plenty of them. Walk into your local Staples, Best Buy, Office Depot, and you'll see.

p.s. You forget who I work for. :-)

edited to add: There is also the Itanium chip from Intel. That's a 64-bit only CPU that is normally run in higher-end business servers. It is sometimes referred to as "IA-64". Where as the compatible 64-bit CPUs that I described earlier are considered "x64"

Message edited by author 2008-04-08 21:07:05.
 04/08/2008 10:53:14 PM · #19
Originally posted by wanjun:
First of all, you surely know that if you load a 1 mb file into a program (PS, Word, whatever), there is no linear correlation to the amount of memory used, right? Which means your 1 mb file doesn't necessarily take up 1 mb of RAM once loaded into an application. The application (upon loading the file) has structures and lists being instanciated, arrays and pointers created, a whole lot of technical objects are assembled, so your 1 mb file may now be represented in memory as something like 2, or even 5 mb (just as an example). In some cases, the "memory footprint" may be lower than the file size. So, you could have a TIFF file that is hundreds of megabytes in size. Let's say you are performing some HDR and you have seven or eight of these TIFF files. Once loaded into an application like Photomatix or PS, you now have some serious memory sizes being swapped around. Vying for your limited memory are other applications with their own processes, threads, and fibers such as your email, web browser, music, etc. As for multi-tasking, the CPU and data/address buses do play a large role in how the OS implements its multi-tasking scheduling algorithms.

The only thing that matters in the context of this conversation is Photoshop itself, and the primary benefit will be its ability to address large amounts of RAM. In the current versions, Photoshop is limited to 2GB (3GB with certain systems and software) of RAM. The rest is available to the OS and other applications. Since many current computer systems can handle 4GB or more of RAM, there's already plenty left over for Word or the OS unless you're running heavy duty software like rendering or video apps or have MANY apps open at once, and even then it's mostly a hardware memory limitation since PS is already maxed at 2-3GB. For many years, the rule of thumb for PS was about 4X the file size for efficient use, but new VM routines and non-destructive editing functions make it more complicated now. From Adobe's tech resources:

"With changes in Photoshop and its memory management, the formula used in the past (that is, 3-5 times the size of your average image) no longer provides an accurate estimate of how much scratch disk Photoshop needs. In Photoshop CS2, you can use the states in your history palette to help you determine how much scratch disk space you need. Each history state that includes an operation that affects the entire image (for example, when you apply Gaussian blur or unsharp mask to the entire image) creates a full copy of your image at its original size. If your initial image is 500 KB, and you apply Gaussian blur to it, your image will need 1 MB of scratch space. If your history states consist of operations that affect only part of the image, such as paint strokes, only the size of the tiles touched by the strokes are added to the image size. If you count up the number of histories you have where operations have affected the entire image, and multiply your original image size by that number, you'll have an approximate amount of scratch disk space the image will need. If you have applied levels, a reduce noise filter, and an unsharp mask filter to your entire image that's 5 MB in size, the image will need 20 MB of scratch space."
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 01:02:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 01:02:05 PM EST.