[HN Gopher] Adobe Photoshop ships on Macs with Apple Silicon
___________________________________________________________________
Adobe Photoshop ships on Macs with Apple Silicon
Author : jbverschoor
Score : 274 points
Date : 2021-03-12 09:45 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.adobe.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.adobe.com)
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| Did anyone else read this as "Adobe Photoshop comes preloaded on
| Macs with Apple Silicon?" If I recall correctly, this was the
| case 15 (?) years back, I thought perhaps as a marketing gimmick,
| they were trying it again. Seems it would be a benefit to both of
| them - Apple can sell more hardware and Adobe can try to drive
| more people to purchase subscriptions with their app preloaded.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| i hate these preloaded bloatwares that come on your computers.
| they don't even work and only exist to remind you to give them
| money, in order to unlock features you didn't know you needed.
| 14 wrote:
| This was my thought as well since I thought photoshop went
| way of the subscription. Effectively bloatware some customers
| will have to mess around to delete. But that is where my
| complaining ends as someone who runs windows 10 sigh
| galago wrote:
| There was a time when Apple was shipping dual-processor G4s,
| but Mac OS 9, in general, could only use one processor. There
| was a system extension that allowed Photoshop to use both. A
| co-worker of mine had one, and it was very much a system used
| for running Photoshop. At that time OS X was considered too
| slow for professional work. So bundling made a lot of sense.
| tsieling wrote:
| That's exactly how I read it and my immediate reaction was
| 'hard no'. Glad it was a misread because bad things lie down
| that path.
| e-clinton wrote:
| That's exactly how I read it. My minds was blown for a sec.
| racl101 wrote:
| Yeah, I read the same thing too.
| nodesocket wrote:
| I was like, oh sweet I can cancel my insanely expensive Adobe
| creative cloud monthly subscription when I buy the new 16" M1.
| Nope, to good to be true.
| [deleted]
| leoc wrote:
| > If I recall correctly, this was the case 15 (?) years back
|
| I don't know for sure that it never happened, but I don't
| _think_ it ever did, partly because Apple and Adobe were not
| particularly friendly around that time:
| https://arstechnica.com/staff/2008/04/rhapsody-and-blues/ .
| cratermoon wrote:
| > Apple and Adobe were not particularly friendly
|
| Which is hilarious, because you could make a good case that
| neither would still exist today without the other. I'd
| qualify that by saying Adobe products work find on Microsoft
| operating systems now, but without the Mac years I'm not sure
| the Windows port would have ever caught on.
| robbyking wrote:
| Completely off topic, but I love stumbling upon old articles
| by John Siracusa.
| sergeykish wrote:
| I've red as "Adobe Photoshop ships on _Mars_ with Apple Silicon
| "
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| i did read that the mars rover uses Apple processors. It's
| good to know that it can also send funny pictures back to
| Earth, now.
| ant6n wrote:
| Albedo Photodrop-ships on Mars with Apple-Silicon.
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| I read your comment as "I'm a redditor and I need to delete
| my HN account"
| gumby wrote:
| Finally! We live in a networked world now. These regional
| publishing restrictions have to go!
| Solocomplex wrote:
| It would imply the built in photo editor isn't good enough for
| most users.
| johnklos wrote:
| Yes. "ships for" would obviously be more correct than "ships
| on".
| [deleted]
| gumby wrote:
| Yes, it should read " _for_ Macs with"
| 1f60c wrote:
| You're not alone. "Adobe has finished porting most of Photoshop
| to Apple M1" would have been unambiguous.
| codq wrote:
| 'porting' is a relatively insider term.
|
| "Adobe Photoshop arrives on Macs with Apple Silicon" might be
| how I'd phrase it.
| derefr wrote:
| "Adobe has released a new version of Creative Suite
| optimized for Apple's M1." You don't even really need to
| invoke the concept of architectures to understand "it was
| slower on the M1 before; now it's faster, because Adobe did
| work to focus on support for it."
| 333c wrote:
| Or even "ships for" rather than "ships on"
| grishka wrote:
| > If I recall correctly, this was the case 15 (?) years back
|
| I recently installed Mac OS 9 on an emulator just to see what
| it was like. First thing I noticed was that there was a lot of
| third-party software that came with it both preinstalled and as
| extra on the installation CD. Heck, even iTunes used an
| installer made by a third party! That felt very un-Apple to me.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| iTunes came from an acquisition of SoundJam. Apple didn't
| have much first party apps at the time, so it was important
| to include software to make the computer usable out of the
| box.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _even iTunes used an installer made by a third party! That
| felt very un-Apple to me._
|
| Yes, everything installed differently, updated differently,
| and maintaining currency across a large application set was
| unreasonable without third party subscriptions like "Mac
| Update"! It was crazy.
|
| And yet, it seems majority of HN wants to rewind from the App
| Store which was created as to assist users and devs with that
| problem.
| pcr910303 wrote:
| > And yet, it seems majority of HN wants to rewind from the
| App Store which was created as to assist users and devs
| with that problem.
|
| Well, to be fair the App Store isn't really a viable
| solution to these problems to a fair bit of applications.
| The sandbox requirement makes a large portion of 'useful'
| apps unable in the App Store.
|
| Looks like most non-App Store apps use Sparkle[0] these
| days though, so it's much better than before.
|
| [0]: https://sparkle-project.org
| dpkonofa wrote:
| Sparkle is great but, for some reason, it never works on
| the apps that I have that use it. I check the box to
| automatically update apps in the future and I still get
| prompted every time there's an update. Even then, I hit
| the update button and the update fails and then I have to
| restart the app, try again, and then it succeeds... until
| the next time there's an update and the process starts
| all over again. At least with the App Store, all my apps
| update at night and they're ready to go when I need to
| use them.
| zepto wrote:
| > Well, to be fair the App Store isn't really a viable
| solution to these problems to a fair bit of applications.
|
| This used to be true, but every new release adds
| mechanisms to securely enable more capabilities.
|
| What examples are you thinking of that still can't be
| done?
|
| > The sandbox requirement makes a large portion of
| 'useful' apps unable in the App Store.
|
| I don't think this is true any longer.
| Terretta wrote:
| It seemed at the time that Sparkle was part of what made
| Apple realize this was a legit pain point.
|
| Sherlock, Sparkle, Growl, if you demonstrate a gap in
| what should be built in, Apple _will_ admit it and fill
| it in.
| zepto wrote:
| > And yet, it seems majority of HN wants to rewind from the
| App Store
|
| It's definitely not the majority of HN.
|
| You'll notice sentiment varies a lot from thread to thread.
| grishka wrote:
| > And yet, it seems majority of HN wants to rewind from the
| App Store which was created as to assist users and devs
| with that problem.
|
| App Store is fine, as long as _it 's not the only way to
| the platform_. If it's a curated catalog of apps + a
| hosting service + payment processing _for those developers
| who want it_ , there's no problem with it existing. There
| is, however, a problem with how Apple keeps tightening its
| grip lately, and how current versions of macOS with default
| settings treat apps that haven't been vetted by Apple as if
| they're radioactive. That's still better than iOS, which
| outright refuses to run anything that isn't signed by
| Apple, but this overall direction is still troubling.
| Terretta wrote:
| But then we're immediately in the anti-consumer user
| anxiety inducing situation we were in before -- where you
| don't know where or how to keep these things up to date
| or secure or remember where that license key is or how to
| cancel the subscription or etc.
|
| I deal with this with several dozen other tools on the
| Mac each using random store and key schemes. Lately I
| throw in the towel and switch to inferior tools in the
| app store if I can't dig up the secret codes to the
| legacy hoops their devs want me to jump through. Charge
| me 30% more, no problem, just stop making me waste my
| time for things that are now _solved problems_.
|
| This overall simplification and end-to-end trusted
| curation direction is a minority but well heeled part of
| the market (happy to spend money on apps if it doesn't
| waste their time), and a sort of grand experiment in what
| users want. If users want a free for all, the majority of
| the market is still buying those handsets. If not, the
| option to have a handheld _appliance_ should be available
| to those who want it.
|
| Seems a shame to appeal to regulation to stomp on user
| choice where customers speak with their wallets that
| "please don't make me think".
| jasonjayr wrote:
| The problem is the operating system developers, instead
| of defining a standard component that could pull update
| lists from anywhere, just decided, "we shall make one
| store, and we shall be the gatekeepers"
|
| Imagine if windows (or MacOS) had a control panel where
| you could paste "Update subscription URLs", and uses
| crypto to verify licenses (optionally), and implemented
| binary diffs and what not, and provided a standard
| operating system component for navigating, purchasing,
| and installing/updating software?
|
| They were _SO CLOSE_ with add /remove Programs, and it
| never went all the way.
|
| IIRC there is the Install-Package Powershell commandlet
| that might almost be that? But, I think it's still locked
| to Microsoft's store.
| grishka wrote:
| Take it a step further maybe. Why have the user set up
| updating at all? Suppose they've downloaded an app form
| the developer's website and installed it. When the app
| first runs, it calls a special API in the OS to register
| its "update feed" URL that provides the update info in a
| predefined format. The rest is then managed by the OS
| itself. It refetches these URLs as needed, shows
| notifications, installs updates, and, most importantly,
| provides the user with a central place somewhere in the
| settings to control all this.
|
| I don't know much about the money/license part UX because
| I've never paid for software myself. But developers
| probably won't want to delegate licensing to the OS
| because this would make it all too easy to crack -- it
| would only take one very simple patch to disable license
| checks altogether system-wide.
|
| edit: Sparkle already uses a standardized feed format
| (https://sparkle-project.org/documentation/publishing/).
| So basically the only thing that's left is to move the
| update checking and installation logic to the OS as
| opposed to every app containing a copy of it.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| This is a much better idea than the parent. It would be
| great if MacOS included a default package manager and
| apps registered themselves like this. My only concern
| would be malware taking advantage of this and somehow
| figuring out how to persistently register itself. I'm
| sure there's a fix but I haven't quickly come to a
| solution in the 10 seconds that I've thought about it.
| grishka wrote:
| > I'm sure there's a fix
|
| Make that API call pop up a dialog or something to ask
| the user for consent.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| I don't think that's good enough, unfortunately. People
| just dismiss the dialogues or malware distributors just
| learn to provide instructions to bypass any consent
| dialogues. The benefit of the App Store is that it's
| _impossible_ to install malware through it. Unless you
| can provide the better experience while still delivering
| on that point, it 's not much better. As I mentioned
| above, it's better for techie people but not for the
| average user and certainly not good enough for my mother
| to use.
| grishka wrote:
| If you put it that way, then sure it more or less
| necessitates a walled garden and some trusted party that
| verifies everything (according to its own standards). But
| then I'm skeptical of this nanny approach. IMO it's okay
| for technology to require education. After all, locked-
| down devices have only been a thing for the last 10 years
| or so. Computers used to be open by default, and
| operating systems were much less secure in terms of what
| applications were allowed to do, yet somehow, people
| survived that.
|
| It's like governments. It can be a surveillance state
| ruled by a dictator where everything is regulated and
| everyone is spied on for the sake of "safety". Or it can
| be something that offers all the freedom you could
| possibly want, including the freedom to shoot yourself
| into the foot, both literally and metaphorically.
| zepto wrote:
| > Imagine if windows (or MacOS) had a control panel where
| you could paste "Update subscription URLs", and uses
| crypto to verify licenses (optionally), and implemented
| binary diffs and what not, and provided a standard
| operating system component for navigating, purchasing,
| and installing/updating software?
|
| I imagine that being completely unusable for a lot of
| people, and a total disaster of social engineering and
| malware exploitation.
| simonh wrote:
| There's not been nothing stopping anyone developing
| exactly this on MacOS or Windows for 30 years. In fact
| you could go and develop it right now. If both platforms
| can support third party stores like Steam, if it's so
| easy to do then this should be entirely doable.
|
| I suspect the reason something like this hasn't been done
| is that it's actually a heck of a lot harder than you
| think.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| This would work great for technical people and be an
| absolute nightmare for my mother.
| canadianfella wrote:
| I've never seen the word currency used that way.
| SllX wrote:
| The Mac App Store has multiple reasons for existing, but
| the whole gestalt of it is a mixed bag with both blessings
| and curses.
|
| Also the Mac App Store updating system is just damned
| terrible compared to the Sparkle updater. The only
| advantage it has is that it is centralized, but I have
| found it to be one of the slowest and buggiest parts of
| using the Mac App Store.
| Lammy wrote:
| This is speculation, but this may be related to resource
| compression and them trying to get the iTunes download size
| as small as possible since so many people were on dialup at
| the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26415883
|
| System 7 added that overall capability, and Apple shipped 4
| different built-in resource compression algorithms over the
| years (the last of those added in OS 9), but it was equally
| possible for third parties to ship their own decompression
| routine's machine code along with the other resources. I
| remember iTunes using InstallerVISE, and I know VISE came
| with its own compression routines.
| ekzy wrote:
| My first read was really confusing. I kind of blanked out that
| photoshop was from Adobe and read that "Adobe photoshopped
| ships on macs" as in ships photoshopped on images of Macs for
| some marketing reason.
| antihero wrote:
| > Seems it would be a benefit to both of them
|
| Except the brand damage from ruining the "pure" experience that
| doesn't come preloaded with a bunch of 3rd party apps...
| smoldesu wrote:
| It already comes with Apple TV preloaded, whether you like it
| or not. Apple isn't adverse to frontloading you with
| subscription models, as long as it's a Premium(tm)
| experience.
| zepto wrote:
| The TV app doesn't require a subscription to any particular
| service.
| zapzupnz wrote:
| Indeed. Just in case people weren't aware, the TV app is
| where you can purchase movies and TV shows from iTunes,
| or watch your own video content if you get it into the
| library.
| dpkonofa wrote:
| How is the Apple TV app related to the comment? There's no
| subscription needed to use the app and it isn't tied to one
| service.
| filoleg wrote:
| >It already comes with Apple TV preloaded
|
| The parent comment said "a bunch of 3rd party apps", and
| Apple TV is clearly not a third party app.
| scintill76 wrote:
| Maybe a free license included with the OS/hardware combo
| then; installing is user-initiated.
| geon wrote:
| Especially if it would still require a subscription. I hate
| that kind of bloatware oems insists to fill up windows
| installs with.
| akmittal wrote:
| Not as slow as earlier is more relevant title
| Gaelan wrote:
| > There are still a few features we haven't finished porting to
| run on the new M1 chip, primarily a couple of those we most
| recently shipped (Invite to Edit Cloud Documents, Preset Syncing,
| most notably).
|
| This is an interesting detail--I'm surprised that either of these
| features are things that wouldn't "just work" when compiled for
| another architecture.
| juusto wrote:
| With Apple Silicon I wish Apple and Adobe would bang their
| coconuts together to bring the full versions of Lr/Ps to the
| iPad.
| williesleg wrote:
| Apple Macintosh with ALL NEW velocity engine! Go get em!
| wukerplank wrote:
| Amazing accomplishment considering how long they struggled when
| the PowerPC->Intel transition happened.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The 32bit->64bit transition was emabarassing for Adobe too
| robertoandred wrote:
| And the OS 9 -> OS X transition.
| ibraheemdev wrote:
| And here I am _still_ waiting for Photoshop to come to Linux.
| lostgame wrote:
| Please explain how putting development resources into firstly,
| porting; and secondly, _supporting_ , a fourth (MacOS, iPadOS,
| Windows and then Linux) platform that ~1% of non-server
| computers use works, business-wise?
|
| Especially then they're not selling the products for several
| hundred to start, and moved to a subscription model...
|
| From what I've experienced and read, the cost of supporting a
| platform has to be greater than its sales.
|
| The second issue with this is that many people use Linux to
| _specifically avoid_ using closed-source software.
|
| No part about Photoshop on Linux makes sense, from any sort of
| serious business end. They haven't even done an Android tablet
| port of full-fledged Photoshop, and I haven't really read any
| plans to support it.
|
| If WINE wasn't a thing, or GIMP wasn't a thing...well, even
| then; no. This would never happen. XD
| pixelbath wrote:
| Good luck. I had enough and dropped my Adobe paid subscription
| because they decided _Windows 8.1_ was a verboten platform for
| some reason. Not Windows versions _prior_ to 8.1, mind you,
| because Windows 7 and regular Windows 8 was still supported.
| Also the same day I purchased all the Affinity products (which,
| incidentally, cost as much as 1.5 months of Creative Cloud
| subscription):
| https://twitter.com/pixelbath/status/1268767475685945344/pho...
|
| Completely baffling to me, and I've built a huge chunk of my
| design career using Adobe tools.
| preommr wrote:
| This is never going to happen.
| wheelie_boy wrote:
| 2021 is the year of linux on the desktop, I just know it
| usui wrote:
| How has the relationship been between Apple and Adobe ever since
| Steve Jobs declared war on Adobe Flash and effectively being the
| final nail in the coffin for Flash? Seems like there would be a
| lot to repair when even Adobe snarked back
| jacurtis wrote:
| Well that was a decade ago (2011)... Welcome to 2021.
|
| Adobe and Apple have been working together for a long time
| since then. Appearing in keynotes, doing demos on screen, and
| directly referencing eachother's products.
|
| Whatever hatchet they had with eachother (if they ever did) is
| buried.
| BooneJS wrote:
| It was my understanding that apps without special x86-only
| inlined assembly would be straightforward to port. This could
| hint that LR, as slow as it is, actually has special vectorized
| or otherwise performance-boosted sections of code.
| keyle wrote:
| For how long?
|
| Every new generation of computer has been "woooo look how fast
| photoshop starts cold now! And Illustrator, so fast!"
|
| ... 6 months later <waaaaat is it doing?!>
| amelius wrote:
| Exactly. In the 90s PCs jumped from a few 100MHz to 3GHz in a
| few years. Now _that_ was impressive. _This_ on the other hand
| is just plain old evolution of technology.
| phaemon wrote:
| I'm afraid you're remembering incorrectly. The Pentium 100Mhz
| was released in 1994. The last Pentium released in 1999 was
| the PIII 800Mhz. There wasn't a 3GHz release until 2010.
|
| And that's just clock speed. Compare any 2010 chip to
| something like a Ryzen 5800x and see how the benchmarks
| scores look.
| robin_reala wrote:
| No, no, much earlier than 2010. First 3GHz Pentium was
| 2002: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1031 . That's only 8
| years after the 100Mhz Pentium.
| phaemon wrote:
| Huh, you're right, I must have been looking at the wrong
| line. Thanks!
|
| My point on comparing CPUs remains, and is even more
| pronounced against a 2002 CPU!
| anthk wrote:
| The gap from a Pentium with MMX and a Pentium 4 with SSE2
| is many more times bigger than the first i3 to the
| current i7.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Though people forget the 100mhz pentium was a 10W chip.
| canadianfella wrote:
| "Few hundred Mhz"
|
| Pentium 2 came out in 1997 233MHz
| mhh__ wrote:
| I also wonder whether a lot of M1 Anecdata is biased because
| it's a new computer at the end of the day
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| I suppose that would depend on how many of those machines
| were set up with Migration Assistant, which transfers nearly
| all the cruft from an old machine, all the way down to
| Homebrew packages and other CLI tools. Doesn't really feel
| like a "new computer" when you're greeted with the same
| desktop and console.
|
| My anecdata last weekend was 60% to 90% JavaScript benchmarks
| from a loaded 15" to an M1 Air, that coupled with no fans
| screaming at me sure felt new.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law
| rhacker wrote:
| I know it's a different thing, but my SSD based systems (at
| this point it's all of my systems) still boot in ~10 seconds.
| jp555 wrote:
| I heard Jim Keller say on a podcast recently that many
| computation problems are N^2, so if unoptimized and run on
| silicon with 2x the transistors, it runs 4x slower.
| thejohnconway wrote:
| I swear Illustrator takes longer to launch now from a fast SSD
| than it did from a slow laptop HDD 15 years ago. Input latency
| is awful. Something's gone crazily wrong with the bloat in
| Adobe applications.
|
| I would jump on an optimised version of Illustrator with the
| feature set from 10 (or more) years ago.
| Ellipsis753 wrote:
| > I would jump on an optimised version of Illustrator with
| the feature set from 10 (or more) years ago.
|
| Genuine question, can't you just install an old version of
| Illustrator?
| IntelMiner wrote:
| Not anymore! Adobe has been taking the activation servers
| offline for its older products for some time now. Newer
| versions as I understand it are the service model "Creative
| Cloud" meanwhile
| throwaway743 wrote:
| You _can_ , just not an official version :/
| folkrav wrote:
| So... it was basically a subscription all along.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Other issue is version compatability if you're working on a
| team
| dunnevens wrote:
| I bought Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign CS2 a long time
| ago. Still use it since it's mostly for hobby and very
| occasional freelance. There's a tiny bit of jank running it
| on Windows 10, but otherwise it starts quickly and runs
| perfectly. The only thing I'd change if I could is to have a
| 64 bit version. This one chokes occasionally on very large
| files. But I don't deal with those enough to invest in the
| subscription.
| vetinari wrote:
| For Mac, CS2 was PowerPC binary. It ran on the first Intels
| with Rosetta, but that's not usable for a long time now.
| Mac users, if they want Photoshop, they must go for
| subscription.
| LegitShady wrote:
| There were a few versions of the suite in between CS2 and
| subscription. I have CS5 here non subscription. Wouldn't
| there be an equivelant on mac?
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| CS6 was the last. But even on Intel processors, running
| it on Catalina or later is crash-prone and requires a
| fair bit of hacking around. The main problem is that
| there were still chunks of 32-bit code in there and macOS
| has stopped supporting that.
| vimy wrote:
| > I would jump on an optimised version of Illustrator with
| the feature set from 10 (or more) years ago.
|
| The iPad version?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Yeah I know it varies from person to person but for me the
| addition of useful features I use with any regularity stopped
| at like... CS2. And if I'm being honest, I'd have no issue
| getting along with CS1 or even pre-CS 6.x/7.x.
| pentae wrote:
| Figma? Sketch?
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| This. I'm keeping a Mac mini on Mojave specifically to run
| Illustrator CS6. The price of an Intel Mac mini on eBay is
| fairly competitive with 2 years of Illustrator CC payments.
| dbspin wrote:
| Buy a USB cd ROM drive (around 30 dollars / euro), buy an old
| copy of illustrator, say 5 or 6. Use offline activation using
| the included code.
| tartoran wrote:
| No need for a drive, a virtual image would do as well
| martin_a wrote:
| I feel this every time I start up my old Adobe CS4 on my
| private (somewhat older) Thinkpad. While the work notebook
| (Dell Latitude whatever) is faster than the Thinkpad, the
| current Adobe CC surely takes longer so start than the CS4.
| user-the-name wrote:
| Affinity Designer?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Fifteen years ago Photoshop took 2-3 minutes to load on an
| average computer.
|
| These days it takes 8-15 seconds on a non-M1.
|
| Filters that used to take 50 seconds to run now finish in just
| a couple.
|
| The point you're making is true with some software. But not
| Photoshop.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Generally I dislike this kind of view and find it not to be
| true.
|
| But in this case... man, it feels like Adobe deliberately try
| to slow down Photoshop and the wider CS suite. I used to use
| these a lot back in early CS days, but I've used the trials
| recently and by far the biggest offenders are some of the bad
| UIs that they've slapped on top of things like creating new
| documents, or Photoshop's "Home Screen".
|
| They're slow as molasses, provide minimal useful features, and
| there is an explicit option to turn them off and use the legacy
| versions (usually a massive red flag to me that a feature is
| shite).
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| They changed their rendering engine for Photoshop a couple of
| years back and ever since it's been slow as hell. I'm in
| Photoshop at least 20 hours a week and I'm still using
| Photoshop 2019.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > there is an explicit option to turn them off and use the
| legacy versions
|
| I had no idea this existed. THANK YOU!
| 1f60c wrote:
| // TODO: Uncomment after keynote demo //
| Thread.Sleep(5000);
|
| /s
| Shadonototro wrote:
| ah the microsoft people, they are easy to spot :p
| coldtea wrote:
| Hasn't been my experience. Photoshop, for all its clunky UI
| decisions (at some point it had Flash-driven panels too e.g.),
| has always been very fast, and fastest than the competition in
| large image processing.
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| Obligatory comment about how fast my M1 Mac is and how the
| battery lasts forever.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I can't be the only one who read the list of features that are
| not finished porting yet and thought "Yeah makes sense".
|
| Current day photoshop feels like a duct taped ball of random
| systems and frameworks that somehow function within the same app,
| until you get a few too many OS updates ahead then parts of that
| system start breaking.
| s_dev wrote:
| What happened to that war Steve Jobs declared on Adobe?
| leadingthenet wrote:
| It only happened in your imagination.
|
| The only war declared was on Flash, and they've won that ages
| ago.
| beyondcompute wrote:
| Does it feel like it took surprisingly long to port it?
| tuyiown wrote:
| Nope, they've been kicking and screaming a verrry long time for
| the PPC -> intel migration, with a lot of people legitimating
| it due to hand optimized PPC code
| shp0ngle wrote:
| Not really. I would expect a lot of number-crunching stuff,
| that's not easily portable.
|
| For example, SciPy/NumPy/R is not ported to M1 for similar
| reason.
|
| Well, just similar, they depend on FORTRAN of all things, and
| that does not have M1 compiler. Maybe Photoshop stuff does too?
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Scipy, Numpy, and R all work on an M1 Mac if compiled to do
| so.
| thinxer wrote:
| I expect Photoshop to contain many highly optimized function
| routines for photo processing. These routines are optimized by
| hand and usually use architecture-specific features such as
| SSE/AVX which is not portable.
|
| Unoptimized (more portable) versions of theses routines exists,
| but I suspect they will perform well even with M1.
| Const-me wrote:
| > architecture-specific features such as SSE/AVX which is not
| portable.
|
| I don't have hands-on experience, but somewhere on HN I saw
| this: https://github.com/simd-everywhere/simde If starting a
| new cross-platform project today, I would try that library
| first, before doing the usual intrinsics.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| This is probably true. But afaik photoshop allready ran on
| ios. So I would have expected it to take a couple of weeks at
| most.
| dboreham wrote:
| A QA cycle probably takes 2 weeks.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >I expect Photoshop to contain many highly optimized function
| routines
|
| Ah, I see you have never had the pleasure of using it.
|
| Sarcasm aside, the whole Adobe suite makes atrocious use of
| your machines actual power, most is still single core. My
| machine can simulate the entire virtualized interactions of
| simulated light photons on glass on multiple GPUs in the time
| it takes photoshop to encode a GIF.
|
| and you think "well maybe encoding the gif is more work?" yet
| try any GIF encoder written in pure Javascript and they still
| outperform Photoshop and also the 3D render.
| mirsadm wrote:
| I'd expect them to have moved on from hand assembly to things
| like halide-lang.org/ by now.
| tuyiown wrote:
| I'd imagine that they would have been cautious with highly
| cpu tuned instruction flow after the PPC->intel migration.
| unicornfinder wrote:
| Indeed. It's why Photoshop for Mac won't run an Ryzen systems
| - it's optimised to the point where it relies on specific
| Intel CPU instructions.
| dannyw wrote:
| Kinda a cool benefit of having a Mac. Serious optimisations
| by developers.
| xxs wrote:
| The windows one likely have them, except they have the
| codepaths for all processors.
| oauea wrote:
| Yeah, restricting the hardware your software can run on
| is super cool!
| dylan604 wrote:
| This happens in Linux apps as well. Vendors like Discrete
| will have restrictions on what kernel version, which
| distro, what hardware that is really no different. With a
| Mac, you just don't have a choice on the hardware to
| install. On Linux, you have a choice, but only from the 2
| options listed and you have to build it yourself.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Not at all. I'm surprised they got it done so fast. They're
| previous big product updates in response to Apple hardware
| releases have taken way longer.
| ChrisLTD wrote:
| I'd have to imagine some of the work they've done to make iOS
| apps, and the work they started to make a Windows on ARM
| version of Photoshop helped a bit.
| williesleg wrote:
| Yeah their downloads are quite a bit faster on those M1's. Now
| benchmarks and regular use, well that's a lot slower.
| hadrien01 wrote:
| > Our internal tests show a wide range of features running an
| average of 1.5X the speed of similarly configured previous
| generation systems.
|
| What are 'similarly configured previous generation systems'? Do
| they mean i5, i7, i9? What GPU?
| jordache wrote:
| At first, I thought the OP wrote a bad title.. This is the same
| heading from the adobe blog. Terrible copy writers, and terrible
| publication approval process over there.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| The last year of Mac Photoshop has been a PITA.
|
| Specifically it has a horrible horrible draw/render bug. it
| blanks out with grey for 90% of the image after switching a tab
| and some other tasks.
|
| You have to zoom in or out for it to re-display the entire
| canvas.
|
| The recent 2021 install has the same problem. I have the highest
| upgraded 2019 16"
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Don't worry it's total trash on Windows these days too, I use
| both platforms and its a complete jank-fest on both with dog
| slow UI redraw and even basic painting app functionality that
| ran fine on systems 20 years ago is now slow and glitchy.
|
| (recent Intel MacBook Pro and high end multi-GPU workstation
| PC)
|
| Adobe started to rest on their laurels about 6 years ago and
| the results of that choice get more prominent each year as
| bitrot sets in. Nothing about their software is empowering
| anymore it's actually just limiting when you see what your
| computer is truly capable of in software that is written to
| make use of its modern power.
|
| Within 5 years every piece of Adobe software will be displaced
| and people will be looking back in disbelief asking "How could
| they fall so far, they owned the market?"
|
| Also gonna do my part to help their downfall, if you
| (unfortunately have to for work) pay PS49.94 a month to use
| full Creative Cloud you're being ripped off, I've only paid
| PS30.34 a month for 4 years now, when it's renewal time just
| keep telling them you're cancelling and it's too expensive and
| after about 5 minutes of pushing they'll knock a lot off.
| jacurtis wrote:
| > it has a horrible horrible draw/render bug. it blanks out
| with grey for 90% of the image
|
| Oh so that wasn't just my hardware? I didn't realize it was a
| widespread issue. I've been experiencing that bug for at least
| a year now. I could go on, but there aren't enough hours left
| in the day.
| addedlovely wrote:
| Sure it won't take long for them to add more bloat and slow it
| down.
|
| Wish I could cancel my creative cloud subscription but there is
| still prevalent use. Sketch and Figma do a much nicer job of
| things. Seems Adobe end up copying some of their features but
| always buried a few more clicks deep.
| BurnerBotje wrote:
| I've just canceled my subscription this morning after i've
| received a reminder that it would be renewed.
|
| I don't know where you use CC for, but if it is just for
| photoshop, you might give https://www.photopea.com/ a try.
| instafail wrote:
| I cancelled my subscription a few days ago. It was the most
| painfull procedure ever. Help article points to a
| cancellation button, which does not exist. Contact page leads
| to nowhere. Chat bot points you to the useless help section.
| Finally a real human behind the chatbot answers, but takes
| extra long time to make you lose any remaining patience or
| hope. Finally after 1 hour of various counter offers and
| discounts, they accept the cancellation request. I have never
| witnessed a subscription cancellation process this
| obstructive. It should be illegal.
| dangero wrote:
| I'm amazed that a large corporation gets away with it. It's
| super scammy.
| WhyCause wrote:
| Every single cable company tries the same scam. The only
| difference being that it's slightly easier to get to a
| human in the first place.
| jclardy wrote:
| Same here but in my case I did find the cancel subscription
| button, it just gave an "error" when I tried to use it.
| Required me to talk to support before cancelling.
|
| That is in addition to their scammy practice of displaying
| a monthly price, but locking you into a yearly contract.
| You pay monthly, but if you cancel within the year they
| charge you a cancellation fee that is essentially equal to
| the entire remaining subscription. Not sure if they do that
| anymore, but that was the case with my sub 2 years ago.
| Angostura wrote:
| Cancelling the payment from the bank side would probably
| speed up their response.
| jacurtis wrote:
| This is why I have gone to using virtual cards online.
|
| When you want to cancel, you go to one central repository
| with all your virtual cards and turn off the card for the
| service you want to cancel. When your next payment comes
| up, the card will decline, the service will close your
| account for you. Easy cancellation.
| kuon wrote:
| I have many customers who are stuck with CC for Acrobat. It
| seems to be the only full featured PDF editing program.
| kweinber wrote:
| I switched to "PDF Expert" (developer is Readdle I think)
| on the mac and its equivalent on mobile. Its easier to use
| than Acrobat ever was and costs less per year.
| no_wizard wrote:
| For those on a Mac I highly recommend PDF pen pro for most
| editing needs. If it has the features you're looking for
| it's a great alternative
|
| That said Acrobat is really fully fleshed so I understand
| why people still only use it professionally
| vishnugupta wrote:
| PSA: Be aware of Adobe's "Yearly contract billed monthly"
| subscription thingy.
| laurent123456 wrote:
| I switched to Affinity Photo as an alternative [1] and quite
| happy with it. It's similar enough to Photoshop that I'm not
| lost, more polished than Gimp, and only a fraction of the
| price. Their forum is also quite good for support.
|
| 1: https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/
| sbarre wrote:
| I'll second this.
|
| Affinity Photo and Designer are great tools, they are
| cross-platform (although you have to purchase them
| separately), and regularly go on sale (I bought both for
| 70$ total).
|
| I have yet to find a task I used to use Photoshop or
| Illustrator for that I can't do with these. I am not a
| hardcore or super advanced user, but that's why it works
| for me.
| StavrosK wrote:
| (They aren't cross-platform if they don't run on Linux)
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| It is cross platform if they run aCross multiple
| platforms. Be that 2 or 3 or 15.
| jordache wrote:
| These arguments really needs to be in the context of the
| real world. No one values an academic/technical point.
|
| The intersection of artists, who are heavy users of the
| Adobe suite of products, and linux aficionados is
| essentially zero.
|
| You do realize this, do you not?
| sbarre wrote:
| Tomato, tomato
|
| edit: we are talking about replacements for Adobe
| products here, so context matters. Adobe products _also_
| don't run on Linux.
| StavrosK wrote:
| I wouldn't call Adobe products "cross-platform" either,
| though.
| criley2 wrote:
| With linux desktop use at ~1.5% and dropping, at some
| point it becomes bad business to support it. It's not
| adobe's job to pick OS's for their users, it's their job
| to support the OS's that their users use. And their users
| are about 99% Windows/Mac it seems.
|
| When you cover about 98-99% of your users platforms, I
| think you're cross platform.
|
| Otherwise, we could define a cross-platform slippery
| slope such that no software has ever achieved it. There's
| always another platform you didn't support.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Then "cross-platform" now means "Windows and MacOS" and
| Linux stops making the "platform" list?
| wtetzner wrote:
| I always thought cross-platform meant "more than one
| platform", but I guess I don't really know if that's how
| it's typically used.
| Shared404 wrote:
| I almost exclusively use Linux, and I would call any
| Windows + Mac app cross-platform.
|
| Does it run on more than one platform? If yes, it's cross
| platform.
|
| Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Linux? BSD? Haiku?
| Minix?
| criley2 wrote:
| I mean, yes. Functional cross-platform doesn't mean
| "every single platform ever", and hitting 98% is a
| fantastic target.
|
| Listen, I love linux, and it's not MY fault that the year
| of the Linux Desktop never came and that its marketshare
| has continued to fall against its competitors.
| macintux wrote:
| In the commercial desktop software realm, that's what
| cross-platform has always meant.
| sbarre wrote:
| Pretty sure there are lots of valid definitions of
| "cross-platform", and I will say again that context
| matters.
|
| If I'm talking about a mobile app and I say "cross-
| platform" I probably meant iOS and Android. It would be
| strange to say "what about Linux??" in that context.
|
| So here we are talking about competitors to Adobe
| products, where "cross-platform" means Windows and Mac,
| so when I say "cross-platform" in this context, I am also
| referring to that same set of platforms.
| Cullinet wrote:
| Nikon have just published a complete free and quite
| sophisticated photo software suite, most useful summary
| of which here :
|
| https://bythom.com/newsviews/nikon-launches-new-
| software.htm...
|
| Ed; "Everything is there: stills, video, image browsing,
| NEF processing, Lightroom-like capabilities, cloud
| integration, image ingest,and much more."
| kyriakos wrote:
| nice trying this out. i have a nikon camera :)
| boraoztunc wrote:
| This is really something I've been thinking for quite some
| time, canceling my CC subscription (which is monthly) but
| there are couple of things that kept from executing this
| decision; first of course loong years of habit (almost 20),
| hard to leave. After switching to Figma for UI design, my
| main use of CC for branding, print design is left to
| Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and photography editing for
| Lightroom. I can ditch the others in CC apps in an instant,
| but I can't Photoshop and Illustrator, because the branding
| design works need mockups, brushes, textures, stuff and web
| resources mostly made for PS, also I've a huge offline
| archive I like using, also there is print work, which I use
| Illustrator mainly. Adobe products really make me mad, they
| work in weird ways, crash, lost work and data, plus couple of
| times in a year something happens to make me connect to
| client support, these are the times that I really want to cut
| my all connection with the company and their products.
|
| At some point I'll manage to figure this out and take a bold
| step further to leave Adobe all behind. I know there are
| options, tried most of them (Affinity etc), but I make my
| living through these apps and I need reliable software with
| resources and community, just like Figma did in a great way
| for UX/product design, I wish they create side products like
| CC apps, for print design, even audio design, that would be
| awesome.
| daniellarusso wrote:
| I have gotten pretty decent results from Pixelmator Pro and
| Inkscape.
|
| I grew up with Photoshop 4 and CorelDRAW!, so I would
| totally be happy with those as well.
|
| YMMV
| nkozyra wrote:
| I just tried this and while I appreciate the attempt to make
| it relatively the same UI as Photoshop most of the things I
| tried didn't work like they would in Photoshop.
|
| I couldn't apply a filter to a shape layer, which I can do in
| Photoshop. It didn't blur out the option, I had to click it
| to find out I couldn't do it.
|
| I did try to gaussian blur a layer and it did nothing until I
| hit 50px then at 51px it basically blurred everything out of
| existence. I tried this in Photoshop and it behaved in a more
| linear way, as I'd expect.
|
| This would actually be _less_ of a problem if every Photoshop
| alternative didn 't try to be a pixel perfect clone of
| Photoshop. Take some risks, evaluate some choices and see if
| you can do things better than Photoshop. Otherwise the
| comparisons will be too stark.
|
| I understand a lot of the vitriol towards Adobe for a number
| of reasons, but for some reason they just do photo/image
| editing better than anyone else. I keep waiting for the day a
| FOSS alternative pops up that actually competes.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Thank you, we want to try this. I despise subscription model
| software. I wish I could find my Adobe Photoshop 6.0 disk, it
| did everything I need just fine.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Eh, why not rate it 3.14159 ? After all you paid for it?
| bsaul wrote:
| Thanks for that link. I've often found myself wanting to do
| minimal image work, and this is the first time i see
| something really usable.
| achow wrote:
| Photopea is made by a single developer.
|
| https://blog.photopea.com/creating-photopea.html
| yaseer wrote:
| A single developer who put in 7000 hours before he made a
| cent. It was a hobby project he was passionate about.
|
| He thankfully now makes a comfortable living from it.
|
| It's one of my favourite indie-hacker-style stories, as
| the hacker was motivated by his intrinsic joy of making
| something.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9urjmg/i_made_a_fr
| ee_...
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > A single developer who put in 7000 hours before he made
| a cent.
|
| I think this is less uncommon for bootstrapped companies
| than a lot of people assume. E.g. Patrick Campbell from
| ProfitWell has a similar story.
| simonh wrote:
| Ironically that this is also how Photoshop started.
| [deleted]
| daniellarusso wrote:
| I have been happy with Pixelmator Pro.
|
| I use it for work.
|
| One time fee, I can't justify Photoshop CC for once per
| quarter usage.
|
| I may use it intensively for a few days then not touch it for
| months.
| hypertexthero wrote:
| FYI Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo are good alternatives
| that also run on Apple Silicon.
|
| They have no subscription requirements and are 50% off right
| now ($25 each): https://affinity.serif.com/
| jscheel wrote:
| I love (and own) all the Affinity products, but Designer
| still has a long way to go to get to feature parity with
| Illustrator, imho. Good news is, they are always improving.
| mattkrause wrote:
| I'm mostly happy with it too, but the lack of a "Select
| Same Appearance" in Designer drives me insane.
| jkestner wrote:
| Affinity just added this in the most recent update.
| mrtksn wrote:
| As someone who is not professional in graphics but need to
| do some vector graphics for professional work, I like
| Affinity Designer very much. Once it clicks, it's actually
| easy to use and quite productive.
|
| That said, its probably not a marketable skill by itself as
| most places would look for the "Adobe Illustrator" keyword.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| Designer feels like working with an arm tied behind my
| back. I absolutely hate Adobe's subscription model,
| software philosophy, and nearly everything else about them.
| But Designer has a long way to go to being productive.
| addedlovely wrote:
| Thanks, will check it out. Reads like it'll handle opening
| InDesign, Illustrator and PSD's - assume that's workable and
| doesn't have too many gotchas?
|
| I get a variety of artwork from designers in a plethora of
| formats and sadly can't enforce my preferences on them.
| pixelbath wrote:
| One gotcha is there is no native bitmap trace. The
| developers currently recommend using external software to
| do so.
|
| Otherwise, I've been able to bang out some quick vector
| layouts since some of the basic hotkeys are the same, and
| it seems to handle almost any vector format I've opened
| with it.
| aetherspawn wrote:
| Affinity wouldn't let me switch my 3 month old Affinity
| Designer for OS X license with a Windows license when my
| laptop got stolen. They wanted me to pay $70 for another
| license, and their support was quite rude about it. The
| reason they gave me was "it would be unfair to the other
| customers that paid full price for both platforms".
|
| I have a bad taste in my mouth about the ordeal and have been
| boycotting their software in protest. Because of how rude
| their support was, I would rather pay Adobe than spend a
| single dollar more at Affinity.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The good news for you then is that you're going to pay
| adobe much much much more in the long run, getting exactly
| what you wanted, apparently.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I was agreeing with you, empathizing, until your last
| sentence. You lost me there.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Yes. No problem with Adobe switching licenses to other
| machines. You just log in and select which machines you
| want to remove the license from, and you can switch them
| around easily.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Yeah, but that's a subscription. The whole point of these
| apps is that they are a one time purchase.
| preommr wrote:
| I don't see how that makes sense.
|
| In HN of all places, I would expect people to understand
| that it costs money to maintain a product for different
| systems.
|
| And it wasn't even their fault, your laptop getting stolen
| is not on them [1]. There's a lot of bullshit with services
| (like Amazon not refunding you the difference on an order
| if the price goes down before your item arrives), but this
| doesn't seem like one of them.
|
| Also, if you paid $70 for designer, then that kind of sucks
| because I almost always see it for 50% off. Case and point,
| it's $35 right now.
|
| [1] I am trying to make a point that's purely technical,
| but I don't want to seem too callous - I am sorry your
| laptop got stolen, it sucks to lose something expensive
| that is very important, and has a lot of important data on
| it. And I know responses like mine are the last thing
| someone with anger wants to hear (I've been in that
| position), but I run my own business and I am also on the
| other side now where it's really hard to deal with
| situations like this.
| dkersten wrote:
| > I would expect people to understand that it costs money
| to maintain a product for different systems.
|
| Huh? What has that got to do with this case? They're
| already maintaining it on multiple systems and its not
| like aetherspawn would be able to use it on more than one
| system. It literally is no different to the Affinity devs
| whether aetherspawn is using the OS X or Windows version
| since they both cost the same amount (and the license was
| only three months old).
|
| It just seems like they wanted another sale to allow
| access to a second platform, which would make sense if
| they retained access to the first.
|
| I'm not sure what the right approach is here (certainly
| being rude about it isn't it, though!) but every time a
| company has given me leeway, I've always then went around
| telling everyone who would listen how great the company
| is. Seems like they did the opposite by alienating the
| customer instead. That doesn't seem like a good approach.
| jkestner wrote:
| I might agree with the goodwill argument if it wasn't for
| the fact that Affinity apps are _so cheap_. When I wanted
| to give them more money for yet another free updated that
| added several features, I happily paid for the iOS
| version even though I didn't really need it.
| acomjean wrote:
| I think the point is that its a one and done transaction.
| You bought the software on platform X. 3 months in it
| might engender goodwill to swap it. But bought software
| deactivation isn't really a thing...
|
| Now subscriptions. I notices my jetbrains stuff worked
| with the same license key when I switched it to linux.
| But I'm paying them yearly.
|
| I'll totally agree there is no need to be rude. Though I
| imagine if you are in customer service for a while, its
| probably a natural defensive posture.
| throwaway8581 wrote:
| They're basically trying to make a sale, a windfall, from
| an existing customer's personal troubles. It's not a sale
| they would have made except for the guy needing to switch
| laptops. Frame it however you want, but that kind of
| thing makes people feel taken advantage of.
| dkersten wrote:
| Yeah, that's my thought too. The fact that it is cheap
| makes me think they could have been more flexible, under
| the circumstances of someone who ran into some hardship.
|
| But even if not, they could have simply said sorry, our
| policy is that we don't do this. aetherspawn said they
| were rude about it. There was no reason to be rude, they
| could have said no while still being empathic to the
| situation and being courteous. I don't know how rude they
| were or weren't, of course.
| throwaway8581 wrote:
| Sorry but I think you're wrong. If your customer
| accidentally spills their drink you give them a
| replacement for free. It's not a requirement, it's just
| the kind of decency that builds good will, especially
| when the marginal cost to you is very low. Same principle
| applies here, where the marginal cost is literally zero.
| novok wrote:
| No its more like you bought a new car stereo that only
| works with bmw cars and then your car got stolen. Then
| you ask the stereo shop to give you a ford version for
| free because you cant afford to buy a bmw again. Its the
| wrong place to ask this and he is asking for a different
| product.
|
| Its explicitly part of their biz model to charge for
| different platforms in liu of doing the subscription
| thing.
| throwaway8581 wrote:
| The marginal cost of the stereo is probably over a
| hundred dollars. The marginal cost of a drink and of a
| software license is zero. If your customer for some
| reason can't use the previous license due to unforeseen
| circumstances, just give them a new one that they can
| use. If you lose your license key, most software vendors
| will give you a new one too.
| zapzupnz wrote:
| > The margical cost of the stereo is probably over a
| hundred dollars
|
| > just give them a new one that they can use
|
| It always rubs me the wrong way when a customer decides
| what value something has to a business, assuming they
| know everything about the business' incomings and
| outgoings, assuming they know the size of the business,
| assuming that all businesses must operate the same way
| because _some_ businesses have the flexibility to offer
| acts of goodwill.
|
| It makes the assumption that all businesses, especially
| in software, are on equal footing. They very much aren't.
| Sorry, but the customer can't always be right -- the
| business has its own bills to take care of, employees to
| pay, rights to licence, and lights to keep on; beyond
| what the customer paid for, it really doesn't have any
| further obligations. Good will is exactly that: good
| will.
| dadrock wrote:
| Now imagine having to re-buy any of your Steam games to
| have them work on Macs. This is a bad take.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Does anyone how well it holds (or if it's useful at all)
| against Lightroom?
|
| I'm tired of the Adobe subscription ...
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| They don't currently offer a Lightroom alternative.
| Affinity photo is a photoshop replacement, but doesn't
| really offer photo organization capabilities like Lightroom
| does.
|
| I too am tired of paying for Lightroom every month
| rimliu wrote:
| Depending on your Lightroom use, check out CaptureOne.
| Great RAW editor, fantastic if you shoot tethered with
| supported cameras, not so great for organizing photos.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Have you checked out the Affinity offerings?
| hahahahe wrote:
| Can't wait for Mac Pro.
| cactus10 wrote:
| 50% Faster (according to Adobe, who want to sell new copies).
| chrisseaton wrote:
| But Adobe don't sell copies - it's a subscription that works on
| whatever platform and they gain nothing from people switching
| architecture.
|
| So what are you on about?
| ErneX wrote:
| They sell subscriptions only now.
| ksec wrote:
| Here [1] is an actual test and benchmarks. Showing M1 is faster
| than a Laptop with Nvidia Discrete GPU.
|
| Quite amazing.
|
| [1] https://petapixel.com/2021/03/10/real-world-test-
| photoshop-f...
| arghwhat wrote:
| They write that any GPU workload scores similar to the intel
| internal graphic[1].
|
| For the total scores, they're intentionally using an old beta
| of the benchmark as it includes an older CPU workload that the
| M1 happens to excel at.
|
| Seems a little like they're cherry picking results.
| Interesting, but a little dishonest.
|
| ----
|
| [1]: Quoting the article:
|
| > Unsurprisingly, the M1 Mac mini loses to the competition in
| raw GPU performance, more-or-less matching the onboard graphics
| of the quad-core Core i7 that's in the 13-inch MacBook Pro
| (full review here).
| ribit wrote:
| I think this is more a testament to the quality of Adobe's
| GPU pipeline (or lack thereof). M1's GPU is surprisingly
| capable for a 10W part, and more importantly, it supports
| low-latency CPU/GPU communication and opt-in memory page
| sharing. The later is especially interesting for creative
| software, as CPU and GPU can work on the same data structure,
| eliminating the need for copies or GPU buffer management.
| Knowing Adobe however, it's probably most likely that they
| are still using OpenCL, so the lack of performance is not
| surprising.
|
| P.S. Or maybe the GPU test is simply memory bandwidth
| limited...
| agloeregrets wrote:
| Results are a little strange. Theoretically speaking, the M1
| is a 2.6 TFlop GPU at FP32. The Macbook Pro they are benching
| it with is just 1 TFlop. to get the exact same result on a
| GPU with 2.6X the FP perfromance seems....unusual. I would be
| interested to see if their benchmark is a limiting factor
| here as realword is dramatically different.
| okamiueru wrote:
| I don't understand what is behind the "filter" benchmarks,
| and it smells a bit fishy. Image filtering are (should be)
| highly GPU intensive tasks, so what does it mean to score low
| on "GPU" but somehow high on "filtering".
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Fact check: even if the M1's gpu performance matches that of
| an i7 as opposed to a discrete gpu it:
|
| 1) Is an entry level chip matching a high-end's performance.
|
| 2) it does so in around a 5th of 6th of the thermal workload.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Beating the integrated graphics in an i7 is nothing,
| especially on the older chips. Intel integrated has never
| been about performance. It really isn't saying much when
| comparing to the 10th gen chips. They use the old Iris
| graphics. Apple didn't adopt the 11th gen which are
| actually contemporary to the M1 and use an entirely new
| integrated gpu.
| africanboy wrote:
| 1) macs are not entry level, entry level is a 350$ laptop
| mounting an i3
|
| 2) it doesn't matter unless you work with the laptop
| sitting on the bare skin of your legs
|
| EDIT:
|
| sorry!
|
| forgot the basic rules: don't dismiss bitcoins, don't
| engage with Apple users.
|
| My fault.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| > 1) macs are not entry level, entry level is a 350$
| laptop mounting an i3
|
| It depends on how you see it:
|
| The M1 is the entry level chip for the whole upcoming
| M-series, this is a logical FACT.
|
| It's hard to estimate how much an M1 costs but I would
| say it's closer to an i5 than to an i3 simply because the
| price tags can afford it.
|
| Apple could make a profitable $350 plastic laptop with
| some kind of watered down m1 chip, they just don't want
| to.
|
| > 2) it doesn't matter unless you work with the laptop
| sitting on the bare skin of your legs
|
| It's in the name.... "LAP" "TOP", regardless this is not
| about temperate, this is about efficiency. The 18 hours
| battery life works both on and off your laps ;).
| Joeri wrote:
| The m1 is basically the a14, which is rumored to go into
| the $350 base ipad real soon now. That's their profitable
| entry level laptop.
| minhazm wrote:
| They're similar, but it is not "basically the a14". This
| is like saying that an Intel Core i9 is basically the
| same as a Core i5. Sure it has a lot of similarities, but
| they have very different thermal and performance
| characteristics.
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/computing/318715-comparison-
| of-a...
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| The thermal load matters for battery consumption.
| africanboy wrote:
| my 400$, 6 years old Chinese entry level laptop does 8
| hours on battery...
| valuearb wrote:
| My raspberry pi does 9 hours.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| Your post is a poor fit for the collective mindhive here
| and it makes me uneasy. I better downvote it.
| africanboy wrote:
| Keep calm and everything will be fine.
| simonh wrote:
| They're comparing entry level Macs to high end Macs, or
| processors equivalent to them. That's the context.
| blunte wrote:
| For the historical HN crowd, a MacBook Air less than
| $2000 is definitely entry level.
|
| My high end Dell XPS was $2600, and the M1 Air blows it
| away for half the price.
| africanboy wrote:
| > For the historical HN crowd, a MacBook Air less than
| $2000 is definitely entry level.
|
| so basically 99% of the laptops are entry level...
|
| Anyway the full optional Macbook Air on the Italian Apple
| website costs EUR 2.349,00
| asutekku wrote:
| Which just has a bigger storage, but the performance is
| the same as in the cheapest one. There's no point taking
| the most expensive option and try to invalidate the
| results because of it.
|
| And yes, for development sub $1000 laptops are entry
| level.
| africanboy wrote:
| 16GB of RAM are the bear minimum in 2021
|
| By simply upgrading the RAM from 8 to 16GB the MacBook
| Air cost goes up to EUR 1.389,00
|
| Which is a lot to me for only 256GB of SSD storage
| eertami wrote:
| >My high end Dell XPS was $2600, and the M1 Air blows it
| away for half the price.
|
| Isn't "blowing it away" a little hyperbole? An XPS with
| 1185G7 has around ~10% worse single core and ~25% worse
| multi-core CPU performance than the M1. An improvement
| sure, but not the leap some people make it out to be.
|
| I don't notice a 10% worse single core performance, but
| what I do notice is going OOM because the Air is limited
| to 16GB RAM (base model 8GB is personally unusable in
| 2021). Or being limited to 1 external display due to the
| design of the M1.
|
| Apple silicon needs to support at least 2 external
| displays before I can consider one and I'm honestly
| surprised they currently do not. The next generation of
| Apple chips might be useful, particularly if linux kernel
| support improves too. A 2023 Macbook Pro has a lot of
| potential.
| minhazm wrote:
| The XPS 13 is also limited to 16 GB of RAM, and it's
| actually _more_ expensive than a M1 Macbook Air, so I 'm
| not sure why you're using that as a comparison. Even if
| you bump the Air to 16gb of RAM and 512GB SSD it's still
| $50 cheaper than the comparable XPS 13 which is $1499,
| which btw has a worse 1920x1200 screen vs the 2560x1600
| one on the Air.
|
| I'm not sure what source you're using for performance.
| But at least with Geekbench 5 results it's not as close
| as you're saying. The M1 Macbook Air scores 1699 in
| single core, and 7362 in multi-core[1]. The Intel Core
| i7-1185G7 scores 1446 in single core and 4924 in multi-
| core[2]. That's about 18% better single-core and 50%
| better multi-core performance, for me that's a pretty big
| difference.
|
| [1] https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks [2]
| https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
| eertami wrote:
| >The XPS 13 is also limited to 16 GB of RAM
|
| This isn't true, I have an XPS 13 (9310) with 32 GB of
| RAM. You can also get the XPS 13 with a 4k screen,
| although I do not understand why you would. 1920x1200 is
| already much higher DPI than I care for, 2560x1600 and 4k
| are just a battery drain.
|
| I'm going off my own benchmarks using Geekbench 5, where
| the M1 scored 1700 single core and 7500 multi core, and
| the 1185G7 scored 1550/6000 multi core. (There are people
| with better results than this on Geekbench as well.)
|
| I wasn't making an argument about the price by the way, I
| do understand the Air is cheaper, but in my opinion it is
| cheaper because it is a lesser quality device with key
| functionality missing. Of course, for some people the
| Macbook Air is the best value because they don't need or
| care about these things. Which is totally OK, but having
| used both devices both the Air and the MBP are non-
| starters for me.
|
| As I said, I hope future revisions can improve things and
| be more competitive.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Yes, it isn't only about pure performance numbers. Better
| performance with much lower heat, much better battery
| life. "Blows it away." Every laptop seems to have a
| drawback or two however.
| unix_fan wrote:
| A 15 W mobile chip would be considered entry level for
| most laptops.
| wil421 wrote:
| A MacBook Air is 100% entry level.
| omegabravo wrote:
| MacBook Air costs 3x the price of a Dell Inspiron. The
| Mac laptops seem to be great (I've never owned one, have
| ordered one though), but they're not entry level. It
| might be Apple's entry level, but it's not the markets
| entry level.
| minhazm wrote:
| For someone who is using Photoshop as a professional,
| $999 really is not far off from entry-level. People
| easily spend $2500+ on computers for professional work
| that requires high performance. Sure you can use a $350
| Dell Inspiron for Photoshop work, but it's not going to
| be very practical. Performance, battery life, and even
| the actual screen will be pretty poor at that price
| point.
| africanboy wrote:
| though, Photoshop professional work is not entry level.
|
| My uncle is a woodworker, his tools are not entry level.
|
| He doesn't buy the best of the best the market can offer,
| far from it, but his tools are not entry level.
|
| they can be considered entry level only if you compare
| them with the state of the art in his field of work.
|
| Entry level of the high end segment maybe.
| moreira wrote:
| I think they might be referring to the power used by the
| chip, which is indeed comparable to entry-level chips.
|
| The thought is that if it runs this fast right now,
| imagine what it'll be like when you put a big heat sink
| and fan on it and let it use 100w or something, on a Mac
| Pro. And more - this is a first generation product.
| Imagine what the second generation will be like.
|
| I think people are just excited for the possibilities.
| We'll see how it all turns out, but it really does seem
| promising.
| jychang wrote:
| Power usage is not linear with perf. Doubling power
| wouldn't double clockspeeds or something.
| [deleted]
| vitus wrote:
| Actually, I agree with the sibling commenter that power
| consumption is not a good predictor of whether a chip is
| entry level.
|
| Estimate of TDP for the M1 silicon are about 20-24W [0].
|
| The i7-1185G7E can be offered at anywhere within 12-28W
| TDP [1].
|
| This 12-28W figure is exactly the same for the i3-1115G4E
| [2].
|
| Yes, there's some trickery in Intel's TDP numbers, but
| based on Anandtech's results for that i7 [3], it looks
| like lower TDP means that you can't burst for as long.
|
| [0] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-
| apple-m1-teste...
|
| [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/
| 208076/...
|
| [2] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/
| 208079/...
|
| [3] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-
| lake-review...
| africanboy wrote:
| > I think they might be referring to the power used by
| the chip, which is indeed comparable to entry-level
| chips.
|
| Is it?
|
| _the Core i3 530 consumes 73 Watts_
|
| _the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS consumes 35 Watts_
| moreira wrote:
| The i3-530 is a 10-year old desktop CPU, so of course it
| uses more power. The M1 can go up to 39w, which is
| comparable to the Ryzen you mentioned. I didn't know
| either, and looked it up before commenting to make sure I
| didn't make any wildly incorrect claims.
|
| The M1 is an incredible achievement, but let's try to
| remain honest about the numbers.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT201897
| africanboy wrote:
| that's absolutely true
|
| The i3 desktop CPU is an entry level CPU because it can
| still handle entry level workloads, consuming a lot more
| energy than the state of the art because providing high
| end performances while consuming less energy than the
| competitors is not worth the entry level segment money.
|
| Entry level means (IMO) good enough for as little money
| as possible in a non pro field (as in: your salary do not
| depend on the performances of the device)
|
| M1 Macs are not in that segment.
|
| > The M1 is an incredible achievement, but let's try to
| remain honest about the numbers.
|
| 100% agree
| jeswin wrote:
| The i7 (and Intel) has always had mediocre graphics
| performance, mostly just for 2D, office/productivity and
| media encoding/decoding.
|
| What'll be interesting is how the M1 will compare upcoming
| 4th gen Ryzen laptop parts with RDNA2.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| My bet is Ryzen will be slightly competitive this time
| around (at maybe double the power usage), but Apple will
| increase performance by 10-20% per year and eventually
| AMD will start lagging behind.
| JoshTko wrote:
| Those chips will probably not be out until later this
| year and will take another couple months to show up in
| laptops. By then we will see the midrange versions of the
| M1. In Macbook pros.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| I agree wholeheartedly, but a small correction: those
| chips are available now if you're very very lucky. For
| example, the latest ROG Zephyrus is available from my
| neighborhood Best Buy. The M1 has been readily available
| for months, and we'll probably see Apple's new pro chips
| by the time AMD's supply chain issues are sorted.
| agumonkey wrote:
| can it handle svga high resolution ?
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Not only is your post an example of the Moving goalposts
| fallacy [0].
|
| Is also an apples to orange comparison.
|
| The M1 was being compared to an i7, and that was I was
| responding to.
|
| It will also not "be interesting", since if we part from
| "M1 does not beat current discrete GPUs" as per
| grandparent comment, it will obviously not beat an
| upcoming one, whatever the wattage will be.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
| neogodless wrote:
| 4th generation Ryzen parts are expected to replace their
| Vega-based integrated GPU with an RDNA2 integrated GPU.
| That comment was not about discrete GPUs.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| It is an entry level chip. And it's a fantastic one.
|
| But a comparison is a comparison even if lopsided, and when
| people are pushing this as "As fast as high end Intel",
| it's going to be squared against high end intel setups with
| discrete GPUs.
|
| The M1 is absolutely fantastic. But it does absolutely fall
| short in some (arguably small) ways. Pointing those out
| isn't unfair.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Thermal load *
| sbarre wrote:
| So do this just mean that the legacy CPU architectures we've
| been working with for decades are just really outdated?
|
| Is this less about M1 being amazing and more about Intel being
| inefficient, in terms of utilization of power/speed/features?
|
| Because I have to assume the M1 chip can ignore a host of
| legacy compatibility/performance tradeoffs that must exist in
| x86 architecture.
|
| If this is the result, hopefully it means a more generalized
| leap forward (not just for Apple hardware) at some point in the
| coming decade..
| izacus wrote:
| None of those laptops has a modern Ryzen CPU in them though?
| For a more fair comparison?
|
| Also your post is a bit misleading: GPU performance is
| comparable to Intels, not nVidias which is explicitly called
| out.
| unix_fan wrote:
| Ryzen isn't popular in the high end laptop class.
| bogdan wrote:
| Any guesses on why? I'm trying to get a new dev laptop with
| a Ryzen 4xxx or 5xxx but none of the _big_ enterprise
| vendors (dell, lenovo) have it yet.
| stagger87 wrote:
| Pretty much all major laptop vendors have Ryzen 4xxx
| models. Some like Dell only put them in their lower tier
| models.
|
| https://www.amd.com/en/shop/us/Laptops should get you
| started on where to look.
|
| 5xxx models are just appearing, look up the Zephyrus G15.
| neogodless wrote:
| Lenovo is much better than Dell and has announced a lot
| of Ryzen 5xxx laptops. Not sure if the
| Thinkbooks/Thinkpads are available yet but they are
| coming.
|
| AMD just caught up (to Intel) in 2020 in laptop
| efficiency, and the OEMs are starting to catch up in
| offerings in 2021. However, availability is a mess in
| general lately. Might be 2022 before really high-end
| laptops offer Ryzen regularly.
| redisman wrote:
| The M1 is honestly very good value and the overall best
| mobile chip right now which is rare for Apple. Unless you
| need a PC. Goes toe to toe with my big desktop machine on
| dev workloads.
| neogodless wrote:
| > M1 is entry
|
| > Only compare high-end laptops
|
| Wait...
|
| Depending on what you're doing, compare Best (most
| powerful), Value, Efficiency, etc...
|
| M1 wins in Efficiency. Ryzen wins on high-end power. Value
| varies by laptop but currently Ryzen wins on any sub-$1200
| laptop comparison for value.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| I suppose it depends largely on whether you consider a
| laptop with a 1080p laptop and a sluggish SSD a good
| value. Seems to me often the "Value" you get is simply
| going cheap on components. Mediocre display, barely
| useable trackpad, slow SSD, fan noise, thermal
| throttling, etc.
|
| The current MacBook Air is a phenomenal value with almost
| no compromises.
| haukilup wrote:
| The M1 chip macbook pro I bought recently is only able to
| support a single external monitor natively, whereas
| non-M1 macbooks can support more.
|
| That's a massive compromise, and I'll be returning this
| version
| izacus wrote:
| Thing is, Ryzen Zen3 is supposed to be pretty close to M1
| on efficiency as well - this is why I want to see numbers
| comparing them because they're closer in capability than
| some obsolete Intel chip.
| matsemann wrote:
| Is it faster on the M1 chip because they made a proper build for
| it compared to before on the M1 chip, or are they saying it's 50%
| faster on M1 than on other hardware? Edit: Title is now edited
| from what it was, it included a statement about speedup I
| couldn't find explained the same in the post
|
| It contains this quote though
|
| > _Our internal tests show a wide range of features running an
| average of 1.5X the speed of similarly configured previous
| generation systems._
|
| So I guess it's faster than on other systems, but still vague
| about compared to what.
| adioe3 wrote:
| but they still can't make a version for Linux :'-(
| jordache wrote:
| What business case would they have to do such a thing?
| amelius wrote:
| Keeping FOSS from building a serious competitor.
| jordache wrote:
| what is FOSS?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-12 23:01 UTC)