Photoshop CS3 64bit??

Adobe personal have said that eventually there will be a move to 64-bit. However, it won’t be happening in the near future. They have said that unlike the move from 16-bit to 32-bit OSes there is a lot fewer advantages going from 32-bit to 64-bit. Add to that that we are talking about basically a new version of Photoshop or any other program that is going to go fully 64-bit and you can see why this won’t be happening soon.

As for CS3 it is a 32-bit application. It should run on Vista 64-bit in 32-bit mode. However, you will not get any 64-bit improvements.

=(8)

from what you say Vista as loaded can run both 32 and 64 bit applications (you don’t have to load vista as a 32bit only OS)?

What is the speed advantage in running 64 bit rather than 32bit. Will CS3 take advantage of a core 2 duo? Does 32bit mean CS3 only has address space limitations?

Malcolm
"=(8)" wrote in message

Adobe personal have said that eventually there will be a move to 64-bit. However, it won’t be happening in the near future. They have said that unlike the move from 16-bit to 32-bit OSes there is a lot fewer advantages going from 32-bit to 64-bit. Add to that that we are talking about basically a new version of Photoshop or any other program that is going to go fully 64-bit and you can see why this won’t be happening soon.
As for CS3 it is a 32-bit application. It should run on Vista 64-bit in 32-bit mode. However, you will not get any 64-bit improvements.
=(8)

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

from what you say Vista as loaded can run both 32 and 64 bit applications (you don’t have to load vista as a 32bit only OS)?

What is the speed advantage in running 64 bit rather than 32bit. Will CS3 take advantage of a core 2 duo? Does 32bit mean CS3 only has address space limitations?

Malcolm
"=(8)" wrote in message

Adobe personal have said that eventually there will be a move to 64-bit. However, it won’t be happening in the near future. They have said that unlike the move from 16-bit to 32-bit OSes there is a lot fewer advantages going from 32-bit to 64-bit. Add to that that we are talking about basically a new version of Photoshop or any other program that is going to go fully 64-bit and you can see why this won’t be happening soon.

As for CS3 it is a 32-bit application. It should run on Vista 64-bit in 32-bit mode. However, you will not get any 64-bit improvements.
=(8)

I never said 32-bit Vista could run 64-bit applications. What I said is 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit applications if you tell it to do so. I also said that right now and for the near and probably distant future (5 years or so) you won’t see much in the way of main stream software going 64-bit. There isn’t a big enough advantage in doing so for the cost involved in creating the software from the ground up. It isn’t like they just have to change a few things and presto the 32-bit program becomes a 64-bit one.

I suspect people are hot for 64-bit OS because of the possibility of using more memory. However, 32-bit applications aren’t going to use it, So unless for some reason you need to have Windows itself using 4GB of ram a 64-bit OS right now is a waste. Not to mention finding drivers for many things.

=(8)

Thanks

Malcolm
"=(8)" wrote in message

"Malcolm Smith" wrote in message

from what you say Vista as loaded can run both 32 and 64 bit applications (you don’t have to load vista as a 32bit only OS)?

What is the speed advantage in running 64 bit rather than 32bit. Will CS3 take advantage of a core 2 duo? Does 32bit mean CS3 only has address space limitations?

Malcolm
"=(8)" wrote in message

Adobe personal have said that eventually there will be a move to 64-bit. However, it won’t be happening in the near future. They have said that unlike the move from 16-bit to 32-bit OSes there is a lot fewer advantages going from 32-bit to 64-bit. Add to that that we are talking about basically a new version of Photoshop or any other program that is going to go fully 64-bit and you can see why this won’t be happening soon.

As for CS3 it is a 32-bit application. It should run on Vista 64-bit in 32-bit mode. However, you will not get any 64-bit improvements.
=(8)

I never said 32-bit Vista could run 64-bit applications. What I said is 64-bit Vista can run 32-bit applications if you tell it to do so. I also said that right now and for the near and probably distant future (5 years or so) you won’t see much in the way of main stream software going 64-bit. There isn’t a big enough advantage in doing so for the cost involved in creating the software from the ground up. It isn’t like they just have to change a few things and presto the 32-bit program becomes a 64-bit one.
I suspect people are hot for 64-bit OS because of the possibility of using more memory. However, 32-bit applications aren’t going to use it, So unless for some reason you need to have Windows itself using 4GB of ram a 64-bit OS right now is a waste. Not to mention finding drivers for many things.

=(8)

I have not tried 64 bit Vista because I extensively tried out 64 bit Win XP. 64 bit OSes offer absolutely nothing to users of current productivity software and are in fact inherently less stable because there is less attention devoted to developing and maturing the OS and peripheral drivers. The theoretical advantage of being able to address a larger amount of RAM with a 64 bit OS is only marginally achieved in the real world and is imaginary in 32 bit applications. In the real world memory systems in most motherboards cannot stably handle 4gbs or more of RAM, and that is an inescapable fact of life.
Multi core servers can benefit from 64 bit OSes and massive amounts of RAM. It would be the soon unemployed IT director that ran his company’s mission critical network on Vista 64.
Realize that with Vista 32 you are a beta tester as this is an OS released without stable Video drivers and without any proven peripheral drivers and that was never used by large numbers of people with all kinds of hardware/software configurations in mixed Vista/XP networks. When you install Vista 32 you are working out the kinks Microsoft never bothered to address.
That makes you a less than alpha tester for Win 64.

"babaloo" wrote in message

I have not tried 64 bit Vista because I extensively tried out 64 bit Win XP.
64 bit OSes offer absolutely nothing to users of current productivity software and are in fact inherently less stable because there is less attention devoted to developing and maturing the OS and peripheral drivers.
The theoretical advantage of being able to address a larger amount of RAM with a 64 bit OS is only marginally achieved in the real world and is imaginary in 32 bit applications. In the real world memory systems in most motherboards cannot stably handle 4gbs or more of RAM, and that is an inescapable fact of life.
Multi core servers can benefit from 64 bit OSes and massive amounts of RAM. It would be the soon unemployed IT director that ran his company’s mission critical network on Vista 64.
Realize that with Vista 32 you are a beta tester as this is an OS released without stable Video drivers and without any proven peripheral drivers and that was never used by large numbers of people with all kinds of hardware/software configurations in mixed Vista/XP networks. When you install Vista 32 you are working out the kinks Microsoft never bothered to address.
That makes you a less than alpha tester for Win 64.

The more I hear about Vista the less enthused I become…. sticking with XP for awhile

Staying with XP isn’t a bad idea. While there are many things I do like about Vista and we all know a time will come that we will need Vista to run the latest bloatware, bugware, and open security free-for-all-program that time isn’t now. As for the things I like, there are just as many I don’t like. UAC being one of them. Microsoft took this way too far. I also don’t like the changes to My Documents which I used in XP because it put all of my stuff in one easy to backup place. Now there is just too much clicking.

The Aero interface which I had high hopes for is a major disappointment. While they will let you go back to an older interface it is a pre-XP style interface which in my opinion is dog ugly. I don’t know why Microsoft can’t do an interface that is both functional and attractive. Apple can’t be the only company we people that can create nice looking interface elements.

I think Vista is much more stable and faster. I do not however feel that at least at this time it is any more secure even with UAC on. It will be secure when you can trash you anti-virus, firewall, spyware scanner, etc. But, that will happen about the same time Bush gets a clue, which is never.

=(8)