PDA

View Full Version : Bad news for us mac photoshop users



Alan Klement
04-09-2007, 07:36 PM
I have personal correspondents with Adobe engineers. They leaked to me that cs3 runs up to 40% slower on apple's tiger than on XP or Vista.

This is NOT adobes fault but rather Apple's. The engineers have complained to me that Apple does not share optimization with devolpers

I have personally confirmed this and ran into someone who has posted benchmarks



http://www.circuitremix.com/index.php?q=node/9


Here is an email between me and lead enignners:


"...I know Apple is very closed about it's OS and doesn't share much info
with devolpers, and I want to do something about it. What can we end-
users do to help persuade Apple to work with devolpers, such as Adobe,
to optimize their software. If we are able to generate any noise within
the user community, would it help at all?"

-Alan Klement


"Heh--no. ;-)
I mean, Apple knows perfectly well the price of their secrecy.
They simply do not care."

-adobe engineer

Damien
04-09-2007, 09:20 PM
Hi Alan

Sorry you got caught by the filter on your first post of this topic. We have been having some spam issues and are trying to get them under control.

I am not 100% sure but I think you should not have that problem anymore. If you do run into it give one of us mods a poke and we will try to work on it further for you.

TZ
04-10-2007, 07:54 AM
Well, you have to wonder if they used Xcode 3 or something else. I've seen other benchmarks on PPC vs Intel but not a lot for Vista (a lot of 64-bit drivers have been AOL there).

And Adobe decided that they had to take one step now using 32-bit and go 64-bit at a later point (after Vista SP1 and more folks are on 64-bit hardware?).

The real candidates for CS3 are going to be Leopard and Mac Pro (on Mac side) and different options are used.

There is a thread on CS3 benchmarks and notes.

But, when you have a decade of taped code, rubber bands to hold it together, and it use to take a lot of hand code to do optimization (Xcode 3 eases and takes a lot of that away and is provided for you, along with Leopard libraries).

XP reminds me of OS 9 and if you want to run Vista, just as we were faced with hardware requirements and upgrades, you need -- well, any current Mac obviously.

CS3 and back in January was beta and of course sluggish.

Alan Klement
04-10-2007, 09:11 AM
I've seen other benchmarks on PPC vs Intel

This is not a PPC vs Intel issue. These are results from running XP and Apple on the same machine (hardware) and then running the benchmarks.

The MacPros run Windows natively. We can actually now prove which OS is faster


And Adobe decided that they had to take one step now using 32-bit and go 64-bit at a later point (after Vista SP1 and more folks are on 64-bit hardware?).

Isn't the 64-bit architecture really only significant with regards to RAM. Aren't CPU intensive tasks dependent on the OS's kernel to hardware relationship and muti-threading efficiency.


The real candidates for CS3 are going to be Leopard and Mac Pro (on Mac side) and different options are used.

CS3 will not work any (noticebly) faster on Leopard. Adobe and other developers have been working with 10.5 for quite sometime.


There is a thread on CS3 benchmarks and notes.

This isn't really a CS3 performance/benchmark issue, but rather a larger issue of Apple not working with developers to provide us with efficient software.


But, when you have a decade of taped code, rubber bands to hold it together, and it use to take a lot of hand code to do optimization.

Who's taped code. CS3 is rebuilt from the ground up. osX's code then? XP is older than osX.



CS3 and back in January was beta and of course sluggish.

The performance(speed) of the beta is what Apple users will see in the commercial release. Adobe has taken it as far as they can without more help from Apple.

This is an Apple issue. Apple is shutting out Adobe and other developers

ricks
04-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Ouch.

IMHO, without Adobe and other flagship graphics suite developers keeping Apple at the top, Apple dies. Apple cannot fall even 10 percent behind Windows in graphics and expect to sell anything.

TZ
04-10-2007, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't base anything on beta and some of the differences (yes, between PPC and Intel because that I know more about) that Barefeats saw, was not present last month when later tests based on what Adobe had March 27th.

And basing this on a MacBook? Take a look at the Mac Pro FAQ Photoshop performance comparison. (http://www.macgurus.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103859&postcount=19)

Worried about exotic memory is a PC thing. Buys you an empty wallet on Mac. kaye tried to use Ballistix, to get CL2 memory.

Adobe has had better XP code than Mac, because they always did it their way and had too much invested.

Leopard changes the caching techniques used so that your Mac Pro or G5 Quad can take advantage of more memory.

CS3 is the first time Adobe cleaned up their code. But that doesn't say whether they knew how to or learned how to optimize or were looking for stability and function and to do that later. It takes a lot of time to learn to work with compilers and optimizing.

It is always the other guys fault, never ours/mine etc huh?

Why are you leaking a leak?

Boots
04-11-2007, 05:39 AM
CS3 will not work any (noticebly) faster on Leopard. Adobe and other developers have been working with 10.5 for quite sometime.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.


CS3 is rebuilt from the ground up

From what I know as a beta tester, no, not really.


IMHO, without Adobe and other flagship graphics suite developers keeping Apple at the top, Apple dies.

I am pretty impressed at the incredible amount of work being put into CS3 for Mac and how much care and concern on the part of Adobe in dealing with Mac-specific issues.

Even if it turned out that PS was slightly faster on Windows- which I doubt- I'd still far and away prefer using it on a Mac for a bunch of reasons.

Alan Klement
04-11-2007, 08:47 AM
Well, perhaps my use of "leak" was incorrect. A close friend of mine is a child hood friend of one of the engineers at adobe. When the whole Adobe gang was here in NYC, I was invited to hang out with them. We talked completely off the record. I imagine this is why they expressed so ernestly their frustration regarding how Apple curtails their efforts to make Photoshop a better program- whereas Microsoft works closely with them.

Scott Byer pointed out that Apple will NOT share crash or bug data with Adobe, even when it comes to an Adobe product.

This is why they had the public beta.

I have the commercial build of Photoshop CS3. It has some great new features over the public beta, but the speed is the same. Other issues were addressed.

Alan Klement

Boots
04-12-2007, 06:21 AM
Well, sounds like you've got the inside track Alan- what do I know.

I was encouraged by all the speed testing I did with CS3 relative to CS2 on PPC during the beta cycle. I'll post those once the product is released.

If I ever get an Intel Mac, it sounds like it would be worthwhile to run it under Windows- maybe that'll be the true power user setup...
Thanks for the input. :)

TZ
04-12-2007, 08:08 AM
I can't find the links to comparisons that were done a year ago when MacBook Pro came out and first tests of running XP version of Photoshop.

Anyone know where they are?
www.hardmac.com likely to be one.

Leopard is beta and my experience is that every OS X version needs THREE updates, about nine months, to get to something like "SP1" and get things smoothed out.

10.4.8 made a 15-20% improvement in CS2 on IntelMacs, at least Mac Pro. Not shabby.

People have sometimes heard back from Apple when their program code uncovered a bug in Leopard, even some help in how to best work their code.

people thought OS X had so much bloat they wanted to sometimes stay with OS 9 to run things.

Vista has issues. I've used its 64-bit versions off and on for six months and really waiting for its SP1.

Barefeats - Quick takes (http://barefeats.com/quick.html):


March 28, 2007 (Updated) -- Adobe Creative Suite 3 -- All or partly Universal Binary? Adobe's FAQ on CS3 states, "Many of the CS3 applications are universal binary..." That implies that not ALL of them are UB.

We've done some digging and confirmed that Photoshop CS3, Illustrator CS3, InDesign CS3, DreamWeaver CS3, Lightroom 1.0, Acrobat 8 Pro, Contribute CS3, Flash CS3 Pro, FireWorks CS3, Premiere Pro CS3, After Effects CS3 Pro, Encore CS3, and Soundbooth CS3 are Universal Binary (or "Mac-Intel Optimized). That's as close to "ALL" as you can be.

One reader warned that, though all CS3 modules run native on Intel Macs, some CS3 apps (like Premiere and Soundbooth) will NOT run at all on the PowerPC based Macs, even though they might be labeled "universal" on the Adobe website.

Boots
04-12-2007, 02:24 PM
Well, sounds like you've got the inside track Alan- what do I know.

I was encouraged by all the speed testing I did with CS3 relative to CS2 on PPC during the beta cycle. I'll post those once the product is released.

If I ever get an Intel Mac, it sounds like it would be worthwhile to run it under Windows- maybe that'll be the true power user setup...
Thanks for the input. :)

Actually what I meant to say: If I ever get an Intel Mac, it sounds like it would be worthwhile to run Photoshop it under Windows-
The rest of the Windows look and feel I can do without!