Looks like the PC is better than the MAC for photoshop

[pcunite]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9909725-39.html

 

[Buitre]

of course....

 

[Doug Morgan]

Well CS3 has some issues with Vista 64 and doesn't play so well with other programs.

Near as I can tell Adobe and MS are doing something under the sheets that is not allowing other programs to access the memory they are entitled to and a lot of the available ram is getting committed to a cache for PS. Programs like QImage are unable to handle large print images while photoshop is running and others like Enblend fail.

A 64 bit version might allow photoshop to handle memory allocations directly but I think the Mac OS does this much better than Vista from the start, 32 bit or not, and may not need the "upgrade". Past that I doubt most users will see any improvement since Photoshop is not generally processor bound.

Doug

 

[CS Gordon]

Near as I can tell Adobe and MS are doing something under the sheets
that is not allowing other programs to access the memory they are
entitled to and a lot of the available ram is getting committed to a
cache for PS.

That's a pretty inaccurate statement. The Windows API allows programs to utilize all RAM as required by the application, up to the limit of the API. In 32-bit Windows that's 2GB by default, or more using 64GB using PAE (Physical Address Extension). See http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx . This information applies to Vista as well.

Programs like QImage are unable to handle large print
images while photoshop is running and others like Enblend fail.

That's an issue the developer needs to resolve. This is not fault of the memory allocation APIs.

A 64 bit version might allow photoshop to handle memory allocations
directly...

Okay, let's stop right there. Applications are not permitted to directly allocate memory in a protected mode OS (OSX, Windows NT through to Windows Vista). Doing so will cause a memory exception and signal the OS to terminate the application.

... but I think the Mac OS does this much better than Vista from
the start, 32 bit or not, and may not need the "upgrade".

It doesn't seem Adobe programmers agree with this, or they would be developing 64-bit code for Apple. Nothing a 64-bit OS provides automagically turns 32-bit code to 64-bit. An application needs to be recompiled to be converted. Which only the developer, with the source code can do. Adobe's decision to not support 64-bit on the OSX has everything to do with the relevant APIs being incomplete. Read the section of the c~net article: What derailed the 64-bit train? This makes it incredibly clear why Adobe cannot build a 64-bit app in OSX. Heres' a surprise for you: Microsoft has significantly more experience developing 64-bit APIs than Apple.

Past that I doubt most users will see any improvement since Photoshop is not
generally processor bound.

Doug

Photoshop is very processor bound. Going to 64-bit code is not simply about being able to access larger amounts of RAM. It's also about being able to use 64-bit registers, operators and operands. This improves performance. The big issue right now is that today's processors have alot of untapped power, both in multiple cores and 64-bit registers. This is why it might appear that Photoshop is not processor bound in testing that is not thorough. It is.

 

[Doug Morgan]

Near as I can tell Adobe and MS are doing something under the sheets
that is not allowing other programs to access the memory they are
entitled to and a lot of the available ram is getting committed to a
cache for PS.

That's a pretty inaccurate statement. The Windows API allows programs
to utilize all RAM as required by the application, up to the limit of
the API. In 32-bit Windows that's 2GB by default, or more using 64GB
using PAE (Physical Address Extension). See
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx .
This information applies to Vista as well.

Programs like QImage are unable to handle large print
images while photoshop is running and others like Enblend fail.

That's an issue the developer needs to resolve. This is not fault of
the memory allocation APIs.

A 64 bit version might allow photoshop to handle memory allocations
directly...

Okay, let's stop right there. Applications are not permitted to
directly allocate memory in a protected mode OS (OSX, Windows NT
through to Windows Vista). Doing so will cause a memory exception and
signal the OS to terminate the application.

... but I think the Mac OS does this much better than Vista from
the start, 32 bit or not, and may not need the "upgrade".

It doesn't seem Adobe programmers agree with this, or they would be
developing 64-bit code for Apple. Nothing a 64-bit OS provides
automagically turns 32-bit code to 64-bit. An application needs to be
recompiled to be converted. Which only the developer, with the source
code can do. Adobe's decision to not support 64-bit on the OSX has
everything to do with the relevant APIs being incomplete. Read the
section of the c~net article: What derailed the 64-bit train? This
makes it incredibly clear why Adobe cannot build a 64-bit app in OSX.
Heres' a surprise for you: Microsoft has significantly more
experience developing 64-bit APIs than Apple.

Past that I doubt most users will see any improvement since Photoshop is not
generally processor bound.

Doug

Photoshop is very processor bound. Going to 64-bit code is not simply
about being able to access larger amounts of RAM. It's also about
being able to use 64-bit registers, operators and operands. This
improves performance. The big issue right now is that today's
processors have alot of untapped power, both in multiple cores and
64-bit registers. This is why it might appear that Photoshop is not
processor bound in testing that is not thorough. It is.

Thanks for the windows lesson but being neither an Adobe or Microsoft programmer I can only report what my experience is and quite simply there is something going on with Vista 64's caching and memory allocation while CS3 is running. With 16GB of ram I have found that both QImage and Enblend (running separately) can not handle the same file sizes (by a fairly large margin) if CS3 is running. Plain and simple. Since there is much more memory available than a pair of 32 bit applications should be able to allocate I can only conclude that something is going on between photoshop CS3 and Vista 64.

Related to this is my experience with CS3 and resource usage under Vista 64. For background, I deal with very large files, often over 10GB and almost always 16 bit. I rarely use the "artsy" filters and very few actions, confining myself to more what I would consider a traditional photographic usage of photoshop. My studio box is a dual quad-core xeon at 2.5ghz, 16gb, with raided 15K work drives. Using photoshop in these circumstances my experience based on the resource monitor is that CS3 uses the processor mostly in small bursts, rarely reaching 100%, is only marginally multi-threaded, and is more limited by memory and disk. The bottleneck in my experience is not the processor(s) and I would suggest that 64 bit processing is not going to make a great deal of difference.

Personally I'd rather see a more multi-threaded approach with operations proceeding in the background while the UI remains responsive. Background saves, no lag painting or transforming kind of thing.

I'm sure the professional reviewers will come up with some benchmarks showing a marked increase in performance for a 64 bit version of photoshop just as they did when comparing the multi-threaded capabilities of CS3 against previous versions. It's my opinion though that the benchmarks they use are a pile of filters cherry-picked to show a difference in an action that wouldn't be used normally by most photographers. Only my opinion, for whatever that's worth.

Doug

 

[CS Gordon]

Thanks for the windows lesson but being neither an Adobe or Microsoft
programmer I can only report what my experience is and quite simply
there is something going on with Vista 64's caching and memory
allocation while CS3 is running. With 16GB of ram I have found that
both QImage and Enblend (running separately) can not handle the same
file sizes (by a fairly large margin) if CS3 is running. Plain and
simple. Since there is much more memory available than a pair of 32
bit applications should be able to allocate I can only conclude that
something is going on between photoshop CS3 and Vista 64.

I understand your observation, but that does not make your conclusion correct. I'm not one to believe there is a conspiracy between Microsoft and Adobe. That said, it would be interesting to see exactly how those two apps are allocating memory with and without Photoshop running in the background. Have you checked Task Manager to see if the memory allocation is different?

Related to this is my experience with CS3 and resource usage under
Vista 64. For background, I deal with very large files, often over
10GB and almost always 16 bit. I rarely use the "artsy" filters and
very few actions, confining myself to more what I would consider a
traditional photographic usage of photoshop.

Photoshop is processor bound when performing filtering operations mainly. This is why benchmarks using Photoshop are run when a heavy filter is being used, not when the app is idle or using basic filters, even with a large file.

My studio box is a dual
quad-core xeon at 2.5ghz, 16gb, with raided 15K work drives. Using
photoshop in these circumstances my experience based on the resource
monitor is that CS3 uses the processor mostly in small bursts, rarely
reaching 100%, is only marginally multi-threaded, and is more limited
by memory and disk. The bottleneck in my experience is not the
processor(s) and I would suggest that 64 bit processing is not going
to make a great deal of difference.

With high end equipment as a single point of measure the differences in performance would not be so obvious, especially without heavy filter usage.

Personally I'd rather see a more multi-threaded approach with
operations proceeding in the background while the UI remains
responsive. Background saves, no lag painting or transforming kind
of thing.

Agreed. Multithreading apps is not easy, on any platform. The same headaches apply to both Mac and PC since they use the exact same instruction architecture now.

I'm sure the professional reviewers will come up with some benchmarks
showing a marked increase in performance for a 64 bit version of
photoshop just as they did when comparing the multi-threaded
capabilities of CS3 against previous versions. It's my opinion
though that the benchmarks they use are a pile of filters
cherry-picked to show a difference in an action that wouldn't be used
normally by most photographers. Only my opinion, for whatever
that's worth.

Doug

Benchmark results do not always represent what real world results will look like. It's very difficult to build tests the measure real world performance in any industry (mileage in cars is a good example). Benchmarks should be used as a guideline, not an end-all-be-all of performance.

 

[Akemi]

The reason Adobe are not going 64 bit on mac is because 32 bit apps run on 64 bit mac systems unlike in windows. Apple also want Adobe to make a native mac photoshop as they are about to ditch the carbon crud. Apple will get what they want.

 

[tigger183234]

Using
photoshop in these circumstances my experience based on the resource
monitor is that CS3 uses the processor mostly in small bursts, rarely
reaching 100%, is only marginally multi-threaded, and is more limited
by memory and disk. The bottleneck in my experience is not the
processor(s) and I would suggest that 64 bit processing is not going
to make a great deal of difference.

So you say Photoshop is limited by memory and disk, not processor.

Well, the memory bottleneck is easily fixed by going 64bit.

Now, Photoshop can use something between 3GB-4GB of RAM on a 64bit OS. When Photoshop becomes a 64bit app, it will be able to use much, much more RAM.

 

[tigger183234]

The reason Adobe are not going 64 bit on mac is because 32 bit apps
run on 64 bit mac systems unlike in windows.

What are you talking about?
32bit apps run just fine on a 64bit windows.

Apple also want Adobe to
make a native mac photoshop as they are about to ditch the carbon
crud. Apple will get what they want.

So Photoshop is not running native now, or what? What is this about?

Carbon on the Mac is just as good an API as Cocoa. Until now, as Apple won't develop 64bit support for Carbon.

You wouldn't even notice a difference between a Carbon app and a Cocoa app.

Final Cut Pro is still Carbon. The finder is still Carbon. iTunes is Carbon. If Cocoa is so much better, wouldn't Apple at least have made a Cocoa version of Final Cut by now?

 

[anthony718]

propaganda?
--
http://anthonyc.zenfolio.com/

'] http://anthonyc.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p273490577.jpg[/img] [/URL]

 

[CS Gordon]

The reason Adobe are not going 64 bit on mac is because 32 bit apps
run on 64 bit mac systems unlike in windows. Apple also want Adobe to
make a native mac photoshop as they are about to ditch the carbon
crud. Apple will get what they want.

This is not even close to accurate. 32-bit apps run in 64-bit versions of Windows. End of story.

Adobe made it clear their reason for not developing a 64-bit app is because of problems with the existing OSX APIs. Re-read the end of the article.

 

[pcunite]

I use Windows XP x64 with a Quad processor. When CS4 is released I can easily load many images simultaneously and not reach the 3GB (I thought it was 2GB) limit. It will be nice.

 

[CM_laptop]

.....nothing new here.
--
'I'm back'

 

[CS Gordon]

I use Windows XP x64 with a Quad processor. When CS4 is released I
can easily load many images simultaneously and not reach the 3GB (I
thought it was 2GB) limit. It will be nice.

It is 2GB per application by default. Windows can be forced to allow 3GB per application at the expense of dropping kernel space to 1GB.

In addition, if a 32-bit app supports PAE it can address up to 64GB.

 

[Andreja]

I use Windows XP x64 with a Quad processor. When CS4 is released I
can easily load many images simultaneously and not reach the 3GB (I
thought it was 2GB) limit. It will be nice.

It is 2GB per application by default. Windows can be forced to allow
3GB per application at the expense of dropping kernel space to 1GB.

Since we're nitpicking, it's 2GB of virtual memory per process. The link to RAM is indirect. Most people around here talk of "memory" in a generic sense, but that is over-simplification and it causes them to scratch their heads when their sums don't add up the way they think they should... "so I have 2GB for processX, 2GB for this 'kernel' thing - how is the rest of my software meant to work (concurrently) given my machine only registers 3.5GB total?!?"

In addition, if a 32-bit app supports PAE it can address up to 64GB.

"Apps" (processes) don't support PAE directly. I think you want to substitute AWE as the acronym in that sentence.

In general, I love your work though

 

[CS Gordon]

Since we're nitpicking, it's 2GB of virtual memory per process.
The link to RAM is indirect. Most people around here talk of
"memory" in a generic sense, but that is over-simplification and it
causes them to scratch their heads when their sums don't add up the
way they think they should... "so I have 2GB for processX, 2GB for
this 'kernel' thing - how is the rest of my software meant to work
(concurrently) given my machine only registers 3.5GB total?!?"

I didn't see the point of further confusing non-programmers with the inner workings of the 80386 memory management architecture I did assembly programming back in the day =)

"Apps" (processes) don't support PAE directly. I think you want to
substitute AWE as the acronym in that sentence.

Just as above, it's information that's not really useful for non-programmers, but I guess I opened up that can of worms P

In general, I love your work though

Thanks =)

 

[Akemi]

Soon we will own all your system. Safari and iTunes is just the beginning.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/06/07/wwdc-2008-is-mac-os-x-106-the-death-of-carbon/

 

[CM_laptop]

In 64-bit MS are ahead of Apple; so it's only natural that Apple want to cross over.....gulp!....to the hated MS/Intel offerings.

First Apple adopts Intel's architecture; after Apple fanboys berated it for years BTW.

Now this......looks like Apple will be "assimilated"....just like the Borg collective(google).

PS: at our studios we were 100% mac until the release of the AMD Opteron; which completely smoked any of Apple's offerings at the time for price/performance & sheer processing power. Since then we haven't looked back.

--
'I'm back'

 

[ianR]

In 64-bit MS are ahead of Apple; so it's only natural that Apple want
to cross over.....gulp!....to the hated MS/Intel offerings.

First Apple adopts Intel's architecture; after Apple fanboys berated
it for years BTW.

I'm not really sure why you say that. Leopard is already 64 bit and the drivers work.

I think the original post is true though. Photoshop and other graphics apps are having trouble with Apple dropping support for Cocoa. I have read that several times.
Ian

 

[Scott Eaton]

I'm not really sure why you say that. Leopard is already 64 bit and the drivers work

...must be why Vista supported CS3 way sooner than Leopard did......all those superior Apple drivers.