CS4

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by alanrusso, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. Hello - While I know CS4 is just released, I was wondering if anyone had a sense for how compelling the new version is for users of CS3. I went through the online demos, and alot of the enhancements seem to be UI related. Masking in RAW is nice, but other than that I'm not clear what if anything is improved if you're already comfortable with the CS3 interface.
    Alan
     
  2. Looks like stuff most photographers would not want to shell out more money for if they already have CS3.

    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshopextended/features/?view=topnew
     
  3. Graphic artists may love it. I don`t see anything photogs need.

    They seem to be set on a simple panel to do things which is nice.
     
  4. The only compelling reason for me would be if I did get a new DSLR which is not supported in CS3 - like the new Canon 5DMKII. I only shoot RAW and I like their raw converter - other than that, CS3 does everything I could possibly need to process my photographs.
     
  5. Haven't looked into it fully but I think it's more like an interim upgrade: Higher bit support for some Windows versions and a
    handfull of window dressing. Nothing like the major changes that came with CS3: smart layers, etc. Being on a Mac
    platform I'll probably skip this one and wait for CS5.
     
  6. You're right Alan, from what I've seen everything is UI related, the only notable change for photographers
    is the introduction of the "adjustment brush" (I think that's what it's called) brought in from LR2. I'm
    probably going to hold out just like Juergen said until my camera system out paces CS3.
     
  7. Masks panel_Quickly create and edit masks from the new Masks panel. This panel offers all the tools you need to create editable pixel- and vector-based masks, adjust mask density and feathering, easily select noncontiguous objects, and more.

    Content-Aware Scaling_Use the new and revolutionary Content-Aware Scaling feature to automatically recompose an image as you resize it, smartly preserving vital areas as the image adapts to the new dimensions. Get the perfect image in one step without time-intensive cropping and retouching.

    For me, are the 2 reason why i already upgrade it (another one would have been the 64bit support, but windows only for now).

    As a retoucher i see a lot of why i need it, since i also receive a ton of raw from different camera type. Understand that some people will prefer to wait to another big realease with full of new feature, like CS3 was..and for me is totaly deductible..so why not : )

    I also gonna give workshop on it in January, already plan in my schedule..so basically its paid even before i get it : )

    People buy a intuos tablet or a cintiq when in fact a bamboo would have done the job. they buy a uv filter to put in front of there expensive lens, and its the first thing pro remove to take picture. they buy a spider3 tv to calibrate there projector and tv, when a simple adjustment by eye would also have done the job quickly and close to the same result. they buy expensive external plugin to sharpen, create effect, get soft focus, simulate film grain..and all of that are part of CS3 already...but the same people complain about the fact that upgrading to CS4 is too expensive and they will wait for another version?! funny : )
     
  8. I see nothing compelling for me; such as the Shadow/Highlight tool being delivered in CS2 - that was worth it. I upgraded to
    CS3 for the B&W conversion tool - kind of a bust as I already had far better 3rd party B&W tools At least with CS3 it was intel
    native - important if you're Mac-based.

    The user interface on CS4 has taken a BIG STEP backwards. All elements (photo edit windows, palettes, tools, etc) are now
    contained within one giant window that commandeers your display, the Application Frame. Pure microsoft....
     
  9. >>> but the same people complain about the fact that upgrading to CS4 is too expensive and they will wait for another
    version?! funny : )

    It's not that it's too expensive. It's about *value* and expecting to get features that will actually enhance productivity. Most
    people can spring for the $200 if there was something compelling about the upgrade.
     
  10. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The way things have been going, every other upgrade seems to be worth the $200. Adobe knows this, and that's why they force upgrades for support of new cameras in ACR. I wonder what the number of upgrades would look like if they actually upgraded ACR separately, maybe for a small fee.

    There is nothing in the new release that is critical. If there was, people would have been talking about the need before the release.
     
  11. agree with you. theres nothing like seing it with my own eyes and see if it was or not a good move : )

    i will let you know if for me it was a smart move, sinc ei dont buy extrenal pluging, let take this update as kind of one.

    Brad, when you mention you get better result with a external plugin vs the bw tool in CS3, i dont think you can blame Adobe for that; i mean the point of buying plugin is they make our job easier by doing thing whe cant because of the limited knowledge whe have in that area, or the limited knowledge about the tool to get what whe want. I get spectacular result with it, because i know how to use those tools.

    Its like saying " Man, those tool are bad, look at my crooked house.. i get better result when i hire someone! " see my point : ) Anything (or close pretty close too anything) could be achieve in CS3 without the help of any external plugin..those are tools you need to understand to get the result you certainly understand im sure.

    Come back to CS4 a moment , i have seen a video yesterday about the new mask tool, about a dog being extract from a background with all the little hairs still present..kind of like a mask pro thing..i would love to see that on my fashion shot where the girl have the hairs all over the place and the client want me to change the background color!?

    *by the way i alreay do it using mask, its not that long, but would love to see if this new tool could deliver it faster!
     
  12. The big thing for me is the enhancements in InDesign, which I use constantly everyday. They finally added smart guides, which CorelDraw and Illustrator has had for years. Live Preflight is a major upgrade for me. Transitions and publishing straight to Flash is a bonus too. And like PS, you can rotate the page now. As for Photoshop, there's not a whole lot of new and some things are enhanced, but overall it's not a major upgrade to me. But I really do like rotating the image workboard because I work on retouching commercial real estate and this would definitely help.
     
  13. >>> Brad, when you mention you get better result with a external plugin vs the bw tool in CS3, i dont think you can blame Adobe for that;
    i mean the point of buying plugin is they make our job easier by doing thing whe cant because of the limited knowledge whe have in that
    area, or the limited knowledge about the tool to get what whe want. I get spectacular result with it, because i know how to use those
    tools.

    I'm not blaming Adobe. I'm saying I made a bad decision upgrading for the B&W tool. But actually, I had to upgrade because of the Intel
    native issue.

    >>> I get spectacular result with it, because i know how to use those tools.

    And I do to having processed a ton of B&W. And you're missing the point. There are some tools that do what can't be done with a series
    of operations within ps. And it saves a huge amount of time in the way way information is presented in a real time window.


    >>> Anything (or close pretty close too anything) could be achieve in CS3 without the help of any external plugin..those are tools you
    need to understand to get the result you certainly understand im sure.

    That's just not true - unless of course you put a very low value on your time.
     
  14. "I don`t see anything photogs need."

    How about time and money? If you're on a Mac and have a very low value on your
    time, then, like the consensus here, probably not see anything worthwhile to upgrade. But time in front of a monitor
    working is very important to me. The less the better. If on a PC, for
    the first time PS can
    use more than 3.2 gigs of ram when on a 64-bit OS. Using 16 gig of ram will be a welcomed change for me and my
    eyes. One used
    to
    have spend $3500 in parts at newegg and out
    perform a $8K Mac. Now you only have to spend $1200 to do it. No doubt
    there will be a few platform request
    changes heading to Adobe over the next 20 months or so.
     
  15. PS CS 3 has had the ability to use more than 3.2 GB of ram on Macs for some time. barefeats.com has tests using 16 GB
    of ram and maxing out all 8 processors on a MacPro, for editing a PS image with 32 layers.
     
  16. Tough crowd!
     
  17. Mr. K said: One used to have spend $3500 in parts at newegg and out perform a $8K Mac.
    Interesting, I bought a 2x3 GHz MacPro this year for less then $3500 and after maxing out the RAM to 16 gigs the total cost was around $3800. I would do your Macintosh shopping somewhere else is I were you, try the Apple Store.
    Mr. K then continue with his Microsoft talking points; If you're on a Mac and have a very low value on your time
    LOL. You might want to let Microsoft know this seeing that they use Macs to do all their graphic work, their Graphic Division is 90% Mac. Interesting comment consisting that professional photographers/graphic artists and publishing companies are almost 100% Macintosh. You might want to check out Microsoft's latest $300 million ad campaign, all done on a Mac. Oh, and if you are loyal reader of PC Magazine you are supporting the Macintosh platform - PC Mag. is done on a Mac.
     
  18. The upgrade price is now $349, previously to CS3 the upgrade was just $199. A slight "ouch!" there. In any case, I'll be upgrading 1Q09 when I get a new PC and the 5d Mk II.
     
  19. PS CS 4 upgrades are $199.00 most places. Maybe you're looking at PS Extended?
     
  20. wel i pay mine 2 days ago 199$..i doubt they inflated the price..maybe casue of the bad review they get, since
    less people seem to not want it..those who want it will pay it more LOL.

    See, you should have bougth it 2 days ago!

    Brad, my time is really important, not for me but for my paying customer : ) and when i say that i can do
    anything a external plugin do..i can. using action, image processor, mask technique...name it. The point is, even
    if im agree with you about the easiest way to do thing using a external plugin, i dont heard a lot of people
    complaining about a PK sharpener that cost money to sharpen a file, a GF pro that cost more than the Ps upgrade
    to blow a image like Ps could do it, or silverfx to create bw and noise...but a lot of people dont see the point
    of upgrading to CS4?!..and this is where i dont get it.

    Its a personal choice of course, and maybe a lot of people dont need this upgrade, i probably dont even need it
    myself! but i can buy it without going broke, and it will pay by itself 2 days after...i like to get new toys
    once in a while, specially when they are bizeness related : )
     
  21. That a none sense version to get for a photographer..CS3 extended, yet, people have it for no real reason...just because..and certainly those one will complain about the upgrade price!? hello, you already pay too much for nothing for a version that you dont use anyway now....

    But i think the point is, for some CS4 will be a good addition because of it 64bit support, for others it will be for is new mask and content aware filter..for toher it will be a just because its the latest version.

    Anyone have is own why to get it or not, and i think all reason are good.
     
  22. Patrick, if I was in your shoes, the content aware scaling feature alone would be reason enough to buy the upgrade. ;o)
     
  23. If it work as showned, man..ist a serious enhancement for my job. Now i have to see how the image look after; full of bizarre pixel or clean and fresh... For a moment (really short one) i almost want to get a PC with it : ) but THAT would have been a non sense upgrade LOL just to play with Garrison ; P
     
  24. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    When CS3 came out, reading the promotional materials and feature lists made me want to spend the $200 to
    upgrade from CS2. And it indeed has proved a noticeable improvement in many ways. The improvements to
    Camera Raw and Bridge by themselves almost justified the cost.

    So far, I have seen nothing in the list of CS4 improvements that compels me to spend $200 for an upgrade. It looks
    like a collection of "nice" incremental tweaks (along with greater code commonality between platforms that primarly
    benefits Adobe) put together to meet Marketing's demand to keep the Upgrade Treadmill running on schedule.

    Am I perhaps missing or overlooking something?
     
  25. for a little more cover of CS4..

    http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/whats-new-in-cs4-by-martin-evening/
     
  26. Basically it's what you get out of it and I agree that purchasing every upgrade for most is overkill. There are only few that use programs like these to it's full potential. I myself had high expectations of the b&w conversion tool and while it works very fine I find myself using the Channel Mixer most times simply because I'm used for it so long it "feels" better. Third party plug-ins are always nice to play with but I agree they don't add that much we can already do. Also a lot of them are destructive by nature to a certain extent.
    Will I get CS4. Absolutely, part of my job is to retouch and enhance medical images (endomicroscopy) which is kind of forensic. I always get the latest upgrade. The nice thing about it is that I can work with it before deciding if I will buy it privately as well.

    "People buy a intuos tablet or a cintiq when in fact a bamboo would have done the job"
    While definitely true of the cintiq I don't agree about the intuos. I perceive it as much more user friendly and having rather large hands I find the bamboo a bit too small.

    In the end it will always come down to the same thing. There are those that want to have for no other reason than just that and those that are a bit more pragmatic and look what it will add for them that they are really going to use.

    I know quite a few people with a Hasselblad were less than 20 films were put through but they like to point out to others that they own one. It's a macho thing I guess. I got rid of mine just in time before prices began to drop when I found out that a digital back was way to expensive for my needs. It's the same with this kind of software. I rather ask people to show their results instead of what camera or editing programm they use.
     
  27. Personally, trying to make a decision based upon the scanty marketing messages so far is pretty silly. Since it hasn't
    shipped yet, you'll have plenty of time to absorb the next 30-45 days worth of information and then if you need to see for
    yourself, download the demo when it's released and do a test drive.
     
  28. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Jeff, you're absolutely correct. But in my case, the "scanty marketing messages" for CS3 were sufficient to compel me to pull out my credit card and order it. I see nothing similarly compelling with CS4. So I'm just wondering whether I'm at fault for failing to salivate correctly on cue when Adobe rings the dinner bell, or whether this version really isn't as compelling as the previous one.
     
  29. Some of us will buy CS4 for the sole reason of directly addressing more than 4 gigs of ram; since CS4 for the PC is a 64 bit program; CS3 is just a 32 bit program; its boxed in to use less ram.

    Here I started with Photostyler; then used PS 2.0, then 2.5, then 3.0, then 5.5, then 7, then CS; then CS2; then CS3. After awhile the "reasons" to upgrade are less; all versions have been pro versions. Newbies often crave the latest version; the older ones are debunked as non pro. When it goes to CS10 you can say that was CS4 useless; cost nothing.:) Full bore Photoshop costs today way less than in the past; in dollars, compared to a computer, compared to a digital camera. Photoshop 3 cost me the same as a 17" CRT or 16 megs of ram; ie 600 bucks; the entire computer was 3 grand; a 90 MHZ pentium.

    For folks who do not deal with monster giant files CS4 will more of a yawn; for those of use who do; CS4 will be a no brainer; it will allow our 64 bit PC OS's to directly address more than 4 gigs of ram. Its like do you want your shop wired with 240 volts or 120 volts; amatuers dont care; pros will be able to use the radically better settup to save time; ie better tools. The more ram directly available will be a blockerbuster tool, a giant milestone, a huge time saver for those who deal with giant files; thus CS4's cost will have a quick payback.
     
  30. There will be less "CS4 excitement" with Mac only users; you still are boxed in to 4 gigs of ram directly addressed by Photoshop; ie non scratch. Its like a neighborbood in 1946 got upgraded to 120/240 volt service from 120; where Mac dryers only work on 120 volts; PC dryers work on 120 or 240 volts and thus can dry 4 times quicker. The Mac dryers look cooler but will be boxed in for awhile to a slower arena; ie 120 volts.
     
  31. Running the same piece of equipment, 120v, and 240v, use EXACTLY the same amount of current (electricity). A lot of
    equipment can be wired to run either way, just by switching some wires in the motor. All 220v does is split the amperage
    between two lines, as opposed to one with 120v.
     
  32. >>> Personally, trying to make a decision based upon the scanty marketing messages so far is pretty silly.

    There's a *ton* of information already out there - from all the usual third party folk that write/blog, offer books, workshops, etc, whenever a new
    release comes out. More than adequate to make a decision...
     
  33. Your voltage analogies are entirely incorrect. Using 240v as opposed to 120v does NOT make things run faster.
     
  34. "There's a *ton* of information already out there - from all the usual third party folk that write/blog, offer books, workshops,
    etc, whenever a new release comes out. More than adequate to make a decision..."

    Agreed, I see no compelling reason for most people to buy CS 4 immediately. It not going to disappear if one doesn't pre-
    order it.
     
  35. For a PC user will CS4 work at all; work well with older XP pro 64bit; or will then do a lockout and require us to use VISTA 64bit?
     
  36. >>> Running the same piece of equipment, 120v, and 240v, use EXACTLY the same amount of current (electricity)

    Not true... The equipment will dissipate the same amount of power.
     
  37. >>> Not true... The equipment will dissipate the same amount of power.

    Let me backup a bit. If you halve current (which is the point of going to 220 - reasonable wire size to support the current needed for required
    power), you will
    dissipate the same power going to 220v.
     
  38. "Not true... The equipment will dissipate the same amount of power."

    Isn't that what I just said? A 120v motor using 15a uses the same wattage as a 240v motor using 7.5 amps per side. 120 X
    15 = 1800 watts, and 240 X 7.5 =1800 watts. The only thing gained by running 240v is that things run a little cooler
    because the amperage in each leg is cut in half. That and a bit easier on the motor starting up, but there is no performance
    difference gained from 240v over 120v, all things being equal.
     
  39. >>> Isn't that what I just said?

    "...use EXACTLY the same amount of current (electricity)."

    Not the same amount of current...
     
  40. Yes they do use the same amount of current. Look at my example, 1800 watts is still 1800 watts, it does not make a bit of
    difference how you arrive there, it's the same amount of power. Using 120v and 15a is identical to using 240v and 7.5 amps
    per leg. You double the current in each leg of the 240v circuit to arrive at the wattage being consumed, whereas using 120v
    you merely count the amperage in one leg. Remember 240v has to have three wires, two hots, and a neutral innorder to
    function, while 120v only has one hot and a neutral. Today, both of those circuits would have another wire added for
    grounding the circuit, so 120v is 3 wire, with one being a ground, and 240v is 4 wire, with one being a ground.
     
  41. Carl; the *old* 1940's dryers in the USA and some today *can be* wired for useage on 120 volts; or 240 volts. the *motor* is a 120 volt motor. My 1976 westinghouse dryer is like this too. The *heating element* is the one that sees the larger voltage when one sets up the dryer for the more modern 240 voltage; its got about 5400 watts at 240 volts; roughly 1300 with a 120 volt settup. With a corded/plugged unit the max nameplate wattage is about 1500 watts for a 120 volt dryer. The dryer cord is settup differently inside the unit when its settup for only 120 volt service; the ac motor and 11 ohm heater element are both only "seeing" the neutral and one 120 volt leg.

    The apartment My dad lived in from 1946 thru 1952 had only 120 service; not 240 volts. Post ww2 finally NEW houses and apartments were required to have 240 volts too; older ones often did not have 240 volts yet. Our dryer had the same wattage as a hair dryer when it was on 120 volts; darn wiimpy; dang slow. When we built a house in 1952 we got 240 volt service; the dryer then was settup for 240 volts and had 4 times the wattage. I am a registered electrical engineer.

    The dumb 11 to 12 ohm heating element in a dual voltage dryer sees less voltage when its settup for 120 volt service. The power is volts squared over the resistance of the coil; its just grade school stuff. Maybe folks here dont understand the heat of a dryer is due to a heating coil; and not the motor? the motor on a dual voltage dryer still "sees" 120 volts since its wired from neutral to one 120 volt leg in either configuration. Its the heater element that "sees" the 240 versus 120 volts; thus it has twice the voltage; four times the wattage when its settup for 240 volt service. Its slighly less than four becuase the Nichrome wire is hot and the resistance grows a tad

    Photo.net full of confusion over electrical stuff; folks on the lighting threads often say AC generators put out squarewaves!.

    CS4 allows a PC user with a 64 bit OS to rise above the ancient 4 gig ram barrier. Its like having a shop rewired for 240 volts service; it allows a hell of alot of ways to save time with bigger jobs.

    Having Photoshop that can directly address more than 4 gigs of ram IS something to get excited about; it will allow the handling of larger files without puking into the slower scratch disc arena. Some of us had 1 gig of ram back when our PC's were Pentium Pros with NT 12 years ago;and the ram alone was 5 times what CS4 will cost. Somewhere around PS7 to CS2 photoshop on a PC could see above 2 gigs of ram. With current CS3 Mac and PC users are in a little box still hampered with the 4 gig limit of a 32 bit program. It really doent matter much for amateur usage; sicne there are no goals; no clients with deadline; no real cost with waiting. In printing and pro work CS4's ability to DIRECTLY address more that 4 gigs of will be a blockbuster thing; like when Photoshop got layers; got batch/actions.
     
  42. >>> Using 120v and 15a is identical to using 240v and 7.5 amps per leg.

    That's right. Same power dissipated, 1/2 the current, smaller wire gauge. Which was my point...
     
  43. Carl; the NEC (National electrical code) will not allow one to pull 5400 watts out of a 120 volt standard plug. One cannot rewire a 120/240 volt dryer with lower resistance coil so it puts out 5400 watts legally. The combo dryers just suffer with the same 11 to 12 ohm coil with a lessor voltage ie 120 volts when its on a 120 volt settup. The 'wattage" is one quarter with the wimpy 120 volt config because the voltage is one half across the heater. V squared over R applies; the heater is a dumb resistor. With a 255, or 208 volts config some laundrymats use a different coil length to the wattage about 5400 watts. The old 120 volt config is rarely used anymore; most folks have long had 240 volt service for decades. The "analogy with CS4 " was to mention how a blockbuster thing like having 240 versus 120 volts allows another arena to be entered; ie quicker times. Having more ram directly available with photoshop with CS4 and PC allows one to handle giant filesp; the old 4 gig barrier is broken.
     
  44. The dryer analogy maybe is poor; or maybe any analogy at all; its involves some knowledge. Kids like us in the 1950's learned basic electricity in grade school from teachers that made a grand or maybe two a year. V squared over R experiments were done with an old WW2 surplus General Radio Variac; we measured the power with a Weston wattmeter.The teacher didnt even have a college education. The power with the voltage was well understood 150 years ago; buts seems to be missed by many folks today where massive amount of money have been wasted in poor education. What gives? 240 volts places four times the the wattage across a dumb heater like in a dryer compared to 120 volts.
     
  45. Maybe a *BETTER* analogy for CS4 its that allows one with more ram on a PC to have a "larger workshop to work in" ie more square footage. This might be easier to understand since V squared over R is; ie basic electricity. A LARGER workshop with more RAM; or More squarefootage allows one to build a larger image; a larger boat; house a larger elephant ; deal with a larger bloaded file of a customer.
     
  46. Okay, you meant faster as in drying time because of the increased voltage across the heater. Correct, but I thought you
    meant faster as in the speed of a motor, merely because of going from 120v to 240v. My error, sorry.
     
  47. Sorry to change the subject from voltages but I can't wait to upgrade! I use the entire suite for my web design
    and video work (in addition to the photo) and focusing on just photoshop I see the value. I also have a Lynda.com
    subscription and I have seen
    most of the new features. The main new feature that has me amped is the GPU stuff. Being able to navigate that
    much quicker will be a huge bonus. Also the fact that the "in between" zoom ratio's will now show a clean image is
    another plus for me. Also you can now rotate the canvas (quickly) to get into any nooks for brush work will be
    another huge improvement for me. I also got a sneak peak at the new dodge and burn tools. This seems small but
    when seen in action the tools blow me away. I've been running 8gig of RAM for a while now and being able to use it all
    will
    also
    help justify the upgrade cost.

    I think on the surface it seems like nothing but UI improvements but all the smaller under the hood improvements have
    me the most excited. If I can save a min or 2 per image and have say 2500 from a wedding to finish, it doesn't take
    long for it to pay for itself, even with the price jump.

    I may be biased because will be upgrading the master collection when CS4 arrives (I am even more pumped for Flash
    CS4) but that's my take.
     
  48. The only thing that looks interesting to me in CS4 is the ability to combine shots with different focal points in Photomerge to extend DOF. There is some pretty good freeware that does that though so I probably won't upgrade just for that feature.
     
  49. "they buy a uv filter to put in front of there expensive lens, and its the first thing pro remove to take picture."



    But some lenses (the old AF 300mm f2.8 Nikkor, for one) have a *filter* on the front-end from the factory. Are you suggesting one should pry it off?



    Filters have a place in photography....
     
  50. Hello,

    I'ves seen CS4 today at photokina. The presentation was focused on features with a wow! effect. Like masking a few persons shot at a beach, then just drag the right border of the picture, this stretches the landscape, but the persons don't alter their width, and the picture looks as if it was sohot like this, no seams visible... Stunning. The smooth zooming looks very, very good. The new 'Bridge' allows very fast sorting/tagging. All in all, a gerat many new features and improvements, that's the impression I got. Not sure if it is a 'must buy' for me. I had the impression that CS4 needs a hell of processing power to run smooth. There were apparently high price Fujitsu Siemens multi Xeon machines used for the presentations. So, CS4 would therefore require to replace my 'old' but till now sufficently fast Core2Duo computer and invest a lot of money for a state-of-the art machine with lots of cores and gigabytes, plus 64bit OS, plusplus...

    Regards

    Stephan
     
  51. Gerald, im saying that if you buy one, buy the most expensive one if you want to leave it on. but many time, pro will remove it anyway (in control environement, in studio or similar place) to make sure nothing stand between the lens and the subject.
     
  52. By the way, CS4 will see a speed-up on the Mac even without 64-bit support: CS4 uses OpenGL and thus can use the GPU to accelerate rendering. John Nack claims the speed-up from OpenGL will be much more for regular-sized images than that from 64 bits.
    Link to Ars Technica blog entry.
    Also, for recent MacBook Pro users, CS4 includes multi-touch gestures.
     
  53. I'm sorry, it was Bruce Bowman, not John Nack, who spoke of the performance boost from OpenGL. My mistake.
     
  54. "So, CS4 would therefore require to replace my 'old' but till now sufficently fast Core2Duo computer and
    invest a lot of money for a state-of-the art machine with lots of cores and gigabytes, plus 64bit OS,
    plusplus..."

    Stephan, CS4 will run fine, and similar to CS3, on your computer as there is a 32 and 64 bit option. I presume it will
    be the same as when I installed Lightroom 2 and the software detects which OS is installed and a window will allow
    you to choose. However, upgrading to a new 64 bit box is very
    inexpensive. Providing you have an AXT case, power supply, and dvd burner, a winning combo is Asus and Intel.

    Asus P5Q-Pro $140

    Intel Q6600 $190

    WD 640 $80

    RAM: 8 gig of Patriot, 2 X 4GB PC2-8500 DDR2-1066. (PVS24G8500ELKR2) $250.00

    Video Card: EVGA 512-P3-N944-LR GeForce 9400 GT 512MB. $60.00

    Vista 64 Home OEM $90

    That's $810 from newegg and all Vista 64 certified. The WD 640 is the fastest 7200 rpm drive on the market at the
    moment. And for $80. Two
    WD 640 hdd's in RAID O out perform the new WD Velociraptor in both seek times and
    sustained writing times. For $160 and raiding two of these, you achieve incredible speeds and 1.2 T's of space. An
    additional two
    of these (over the top?) in RAID O for your scratch and swap files is heaven. These two RAID O set ups and 8 gigs of
    ram is a dream. I went into great detail recently building a new box with parts and links here,

    http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00QukA

    Any Vista 64 users that have upgraded from Lightroom 1.4 (32 bit) to Lightroom 2.0 (64-bit) will confirm the speed
    difference is incredible. Everything is instant for me Lightroom 2.0. No matter where and how quick I click through
    folders or collections, it is instant. I anticipate the same giggles with CS4 in 64-bit.

    I haven't had a chance to confirm this but have read that Windows Vista 64 Home is limited to 8GB RAM, Windows
    Vista 64 Home Premium is limited to 16GB RAM and Windows Vista 64 Business (and above) is limited to 128GB
    RAM.

    I wouldn't invest too much into a CPU as Nehalem is coming and all the CPU's as we know it will be dropping in price
    and upgrading from a Q6600 to a faster 3.2 CPU will cheap and only require a bois flash.

    In June, Microshite reported selling, for the first time ever, 50% of their OS's in 64 bit. The SP1 for Vista is a different
    kernel than the original Vista and is actually a different, and decent, OS.

    Dell is now teasing a laptop with a quad core, 16 gigs of ram, and Vista 64. I suspect this will be the norm soon.
    Almost all the motherboards sold over the last couple years max out at 16 gig and presume the newer boards will be
    maxing out at 32 gig.

    Other forums, Luminous Landscape, DPReview, Adobe User 2 User etc etc, all have Mac owners chatting about
    either having to run bootcamp, and doing a platform change with Adobe, in order to use thier Mac's to their fullest
    potential or to simply switch and start over with a Windows 64 box. It's interesting as the rumoured size of the new
    DSLR's, such as the Canon MK IV coming up in the spring with 39 meg raw files and 21 meg 5D will certainly have
    owners looking for, and
    needing, CS4 running with the most horsepower and torque.

    William John Smith "Interesting, I bought a 2x3 GHz MacPro this year
    for less then $3500 and after maxing out the RAM to 16 gigs the total
    cost was around $3800. I would do your Macintosh shopping somewhere
    else is I were you, try the Apple Store."

    Mr. Smith, it is interesting how Mac can provide 2 top end quad core CPU's for such a reasonable price. But no
    contest,
    spec for spec, PC's are cheaper for the same
    speed: partly the essence of my original post. The 8K figure I came up
    included 3x 10,000 rpm drives, 1 x 1T 7200 rpm drive, a 512 vid card,
    raid card, 16 gig ram, 24" monitor, apple care. The box I almost
    ordered in the spring. The $3800 Mac you have can be matched in speed and built for $2K in PC la-la-land. Did you
    really spend that much
    and can only install 16 gig of ram?

    "LOL. You might want to let Microsoft know this seeing that they use
    Macs to do all their graphic work, their Graphic Division is 90% Mac.
    Interesting comment consisting that professional photographers/graphic
    artists and publishing companies are almost 100% Macintosh. You might
    want to check out Microsoft's latest $300 million ad campaign, all
    done on a Mac. Oh, and if you are loyal reader of PC Magazine you are
    supporting the Macintosh platform - PC Mag. is done on a Mac."

    Did you read this
    on a blog or two? Must be true...

    My post is about the upcoming CS4 and the
    first time it is offered in 64-bit and is in regards to the future
    possibilities coming up on the choice of platforms to work under. My
    post is not about what was done where
    and how and by whom in the past.

    Do not infer I fly the flag of any OS or manufacture. Except Ubuntu. I
    could care less what is connected between my monitor and keyboard as
    long as it is the fastest. Even if it initially costs more, it simply
    has to be the fastest as it will eventually pay for itself. Starting with a Commodore 64, I grew up on
    Mac's, used PS v3 to v5 on PPC's and jumped ship to PC
    land with v7 as frankly, I got sick of "Mac version not available
    yet". To this day, it's still the same.

    For a handy fellow such as myself that can connect a few power plugs
    together and use a screw driver, building up a PC with all the helpful people in 'The
    University of Google' at my finger tips, it makes a great deal of sense
    as the end result is a faster box at half the price with more hardware
    and software options. It's a no-brainer to me.

    With Vista 64 being stock on half the new
    computers and almost all boards that it is loaded onto will take an
    affordable 16 gigs of ram, CS4 64-bit running in Windows 64-bit will
    be something to be considered amongst those that have a need for
    speed. Time is money. Those already on PC....well, they'll probably
    stay.

    Carl Stone. "PS CS 3 has had the ability to use more than 3.2 GB of ram on Macs
    for some time. barefeats.com has tests using 16 GB of ram and maxing
    out all 8 processors on a MacPro, for editing a PS image with 32
    layers."

    This is the OS using the available ram above 3.2 gig before relying on
    a scratch disk and is not the limiting 32 bit CS3 app using more than
    3.2 gig. MS's Vista 64 bit OS utilizes ram above 3.2 just the same.
    Moot point, except that it is easier to install 32 gig of ram, if you
    can afford it, on a few top end Mac's.

    The Insanely Mac Forums are a great enjoyable resource if interested
    in all things Mac.

    http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?s=f2fd0668ad7ecce77d07c9e8039ef468&act=idx

    If you own Leopard on an older and slower Mac and wish for a faster Mac, there's some great DIY Hackintosh builds
    in there that
    will save you a great deal of money building up an Octacore with 16 gigs of ram, or more, and loading your OS. I
    might try one with CS5.
     
  55. for Kelly,

    http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/about101245-0-asc-0.html

    It took several months of organizing and convincing, but some of us did a group buy with Server 2008
    and had my techie tweak it for us. It's really sweet. "Vista 64 without the bloat". If the rumor that this is the basis of
    Win7, there might be hope for MS. Since 3.11, Server 2K8 is the best
    Windows OS I've ever used. I have four year old 32-bit apps and five year old mono laser printers and three year old
    scanner's and inkjets running of it just like it was XP. Consider it for your next dual boot?

    Has everyone tried Google Chrome Beta as a web browser? Wow, fastest and safest yet.
     
  56. Anyone had experience with the new Bridge in CS4?
     
  57. its not out yet. october 14.
     

Share This Page