Photoshop cs4 64 bit mac
ID did work ok with Sierra but the CS4 programs are dropping one-by-one CS4 is not useable in High Sierra. I have found them to be great replacements for Photoshop and Illustrator. I haven't found a replacement for InDesign. Thankfully, my layout needs are not very extensive, so I am using Pages until I can find something better that's not pricey.
In short, Sierra should be fully compatible with CS4. There is no need to go to down to Yosemite. However, I would not upgrade to High Sierra right now, and will follow this thread to monitor when is safe to do it. Despite that, there is no way you can assure anyone else that it will work. I have no dog in this fight but lurkers need to be warned.
Adobe Photoshop CS4 to be 64-Bit for Windows, 32-Bit for Mac
The chances of getting CS4 to work on anything beyond Yosemite get smaller and smaller with each new Apple update. I just wanted to point out my own experience using upgrades instead of clean installs. Seems that upgrades up to Sierra are reasonable suggestion that may cause less headaches later for CS4 users. To use legacy applications on recent versions of OSX you have to install the legacy version of Java. Here's the legacy download page for High Sierra:. Download Java for OS X It is not necessary to install the insecure legacy version of Java.
You can trick CS4 into thinking it's installed by creating empty folders as per this in-depth discussion and instructions scroll down to Workarounds section :. Adobe Illustrator CS6 with Java 8? I haven't bothered trying this, as there doesn't seem to be any need for Java with CS4. Here's what you should end up with deploy. OS X just thinks it's a bundle because of the extension :. Yes, there are a few things you must watch out for, but it does work.
Plenty of other people have it working in many other situations. I just got a brand new iMac with HighSierra pre-installed. I had a minor annoyance installing Photoshop CS4 but managed to get everything installed and running perfectly fine. What version?
The end of the innocence
I have So I downloaded CS4 again. Got a message the file system in the DMG file was not compatible in this operating system. The setup was the only issue I ran into. I downloaded the MacOS installer, copied it onto an external USB drive, booted from that drive, then ran the installer. It took two tries, but that got I had to install the trial version because the installer would not accept the registration code. On first launch of Photoshop, I got a dialog telling me that I'd also need to install a legacy version of Java, and a link to it.
Adobe photoshop cs4 mac crack download
Here's the link:. The download and install of the legacy Java went fine, and when I relaunched Photoshop, it behaved normally. It opened a dialog box that allowed me to enter the registration number, which was accepted. I created a new file, opened an existing gif file, resized it, blurred it, cropped, then "saved it for web" at a different resolution, and all went fine.
No blank windows, no hangs, no other alterations to Photoshop or system settings. Photoshop CS4 is the only app I don't intend to upgrade, primarily because I only use it for a few simple operations and I don't want anything to do with Adobe's new Cloud based services. There's also the cost factor. Useful pages on the Adobe website:. Links to updaters and extras for every Adobe product:. InDesign six updaters for CS4. Photoshop two updaters for CS4. Do you support the Corel suite? Which Mac OS's do you support?
A Brave New World
Get help with Photoshop and Lightroom This page gives information about our support for Photoshop and Lightroom. Support for Photoshop versions Q. What versions of Photoshop do you support? All or products work in Photoshop CS4 and higher. Support for Photoshop in bit Q. Do you support in Photoshop in bit? All products are updated for bit. Back when Apple's next-gen OS was going to be Rhapsody, Apple developers were looking at re-writing all their apps in what came to be known as Cocoa. It's been known for a while that Carbon would eventually be deprecated, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's going to be a huge job for Adobe.
The Big 64-bit Question for Photoshop CS4
Adobe shouldn't be chastised for this move. This means that bit Mac apps need to be written to use Cocoa as Lightroom is instead of Carbon. This means that we'll need to rewrite large parts of Photoshop and its plug-ins potentially affecting over a million lines of code to move it from Carbon to Cocoa. The main reason for the Mac having only the bit Yes, CS4 will still be available for the Mac is Adobe does not feel like rewriting an entire program at a moments notice, and I can't say I blame them.
Additionally, this shouldn't rule out the eventuality of a bit Mac version. I would assume it is a goal and it will just not be available at launch. On the other hand, we work very hard at maintaining parity across platforms, and it's a drag that the Mac x64 revision will take longer to deliver. We will get there, but not in CS4. Our goal is to ship a bit Mac version with Photoshop CS5, but we'll be better able to assess that goal as we get farther along in the development process.
Not the end of the world after all. If this carries out, this will pretty much end the debate on how Macs are "so much better for image editing than PCs" even though most of us know that that is rubbish. Kinda hard to do image editing when the primary tool used for the job isn't even available for your OS. There will be a version for Mac OSX, but only 32 bit just like the current version. Re: Score: 2 by Dr.
Eggman writes: Isn't that debate just a relic of days past anyways? At any rate, as a user of Windows XP bit edition, the anger at being treated like a second class citizen knows no bounds. I have Vista on one machine and XP bit edition on another; XP bit edition still has fewer compatability issues than Vista and runs faster and more reliably, too. Apple have been saying that Carbon was a temporary transitional framework and that developers should move to Cocoa since the late 90s.
HighWizard notes that Adobe Systems has shared the first scrap of information about its next version of Photoshop, CS4, and it's a doozy : there will be a bit version of the photo-editing software, but only for Windows Vista and not for Mac OS X. This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. More Login. In fact, with tday's machines, 64 bit will probably run slower than 32 bit Share twitter facebook linkedin. Re bit is no panacea Score: 5 , Informative.
Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin. Re bit is no panacea Score: 4 , Informative. If I was working with many and large photoshop images, getting 4x4GB memory wouldn't be out of the question. Honestly I don't need it, but if you're working with high-quality print images I can easily see why you might need that Re bit is no panacea Score: 5 , Interesting. I'd say it's a paint app that remains expensive and hasn't added anything extraordinary to the feature lineup in 10 years. We chose adobe photoshop in , instead of a used Pixar Image Computer.
Back then this stuff was ground breaking. The signs are all there. Buying up all sorts of smaller companies or competitors. Innovation is dead. Lot's of top down decisions. Microsoft, Autodesk, and Adobe They need to be taken out and shot. Re: Score: 3 , Interesting. Adobe has been playing safety defense for 10 years.
- macbook retina vs mac pro.
- Noise Ninja legacy download links;
- conrad chavez | blog!
- Adobe Photoshop CS4 to be Bit for Windows, Bit for Mac - MacRumors.
- mac mini vs ipad air 2.
- error code 3259 outlook mac 2011.
- Do not upgrade until everything you use is ready.
That's at least a bit glib, at least with respect to Photoshop and competing products. I find that most of the last few releases of Photoshop have improved enough to make it worth the price of upgrade, moreover, Thomas Knoll's work on ACR and the introduction Lightroom represents a significant rethinking of the photographic workflow.
That having been said, the attempts at competition in the broad marketplace have been weak, Adobe does have a pretty. Re: Score: 3 , Insightful. Indeed, we're all going to see performance and features of Photoshop through the lens of whatever work we do with it. You'd be surprised how much time a "small" feature like the healing and spot healing brush have saved me, not to mention lots of the improvements to what one can do with layers and smart filters, but Re bit is no panacea Score: 4 , Interesting.
Adobe has a huge problem: its past. When the Mac crossed over to OS X, Photoshop had a huge constituency that wasn't going to be happy about running in Classic, and a huge code base that needed some heavy lifting to translate to Cocoa. Apple provided the Carbon template as a temporary transition to OS X. Adobe farted around and took the easy way out. Imagine, they just discovered that there would be no bit Carbon. So they'd actually have to delve into all that spaghetti and rewrite stuff.
Apple switches to Intel, and to bit chips. It's seven years into OS X. It's not a fad. Wake up, Adobe! Re bit is no panacea Score: 5 , Insightful. They should be concerned that Adobe got told that the API they relied on won't be ported to 64 bit though. That might affect other third party software vendors. On Win32 the API doesn't really change when you go to 64 bit. And the LLP model means int and long stay 32 bit, only the pointers change size. So code that reads bitmaps for example won't break.
Now you can argue about this, but it means if you've spent ages developing Win32 code it only takes a few days to port a large application to Win If you were Adobe and getting to 64 bit on Apple required a lot more work in return access to far less of the market place, wouldn't you be tempted to tell people to use Bootcamp if they want to use the 64 bit version? Now I know Adobe will do the work at least this time, but don't you think decisions like this may cause other vendors to reconsider keeping their Mac ports going?
If you keep making them to extra unnecessary work - the transition from Metroworks to XCode and from Carbon to Cocoa - to support a minority platform when the majority platform doesn't require this, then they might well just tell people to use Bootcamp. Which they do already for Framemaker. Photoshop's legacy is all Apple. If Apple did that when OS X first came out Photoshop would be in the same exact situation as they are now. Re: Score: 3 , Informative. Or Python or Ruby or Perl or Lisp.
http://qooru.com/por-fin-una-historia.php But AMD64 could be Score: 5 , Informative. Remember, going to bit on x86 can make programs faster, but not because of the extra bits. Re: Score: 3. Well, for those of us working with large images, programs speed up because they aren't constantly thrashing the swapfile. Re:But AMD64 could be Score: 4 , Interesting. Kyosuke writes: on Friday April 04, AM You are still wrong Score: 3 , Informative. To add to your post, the folks at Cinebench were very happy transitioning from bit land to bit land x because they were able to get rid of a lot of cruft and make use of the registers and such to achieve a significant speedup with their bit version over their bit version.
Also, in bit land, you can use blocking algorithms to get by memory limitations. Not all operations must be done over the entire file, requiring all the data be in memory at the same time so it isn't like bit can't. Re bit is no panacea Score: 4 , Insightful. Apple has already announced and shipped with And since all of Adobe's products except Lightroom are Carbon applications, they have no access to GUI-integrated single process 64bit support. Adobe has been dragging its feet on a port to Cocoa about which everyone saw the writing on the wall a long time ago , aided by Apple's thinking that it was going to give 64bit Carbon a future rescinded quite some time ago.
I don't know why this is at all surprising to anyone. According to this [apple. You are running 64bit on the wrong OS! Also I have a powermac G5 real mac running tiger. GIMP is very fast on that too! So I am not missing anything. Unless I'm mistaken the only thing 64bit color has to do with 64bit processing is that they both start with the number It'll let the program have more memory. Or 16 bits per CMYK if that's the way you swing. Just, you know, so you don't look silly next time you post. Score: 4 , Funny. Re: Score: 2 , Interesting. Re: Score: 2.
I'd reckon that not creating software for a specific platform indicates not supporting that platform. How does one support software that doesn't exist? The one who needs a clue is you. They are still supporting cs4 on OS X, they are just taking longer to convert to cocoa from carbon, carbon can't do 64 bit so until cs5, no 64bit on os x. That has absolutely nothing to do with flash player. Though I do think there is no chance of a PPC linux flash player. That's life.. Score: 5 , Funny. Aw cmon, porting isn't that hard!
You just run "replace all" a few thousand times and then fix compile errors until it runs! Then you hand it to your QAers. I vote Apple Score: 2. Apparently Apple suddenly mentioned that carbon would not be supported in 64bit, meaning that a lot of code will have to be ported to cocoa. Re:I vote Apple Score: 5 , Insightful. Didn't Apple say nearly 10 years ago that Carbon was a stopgap solution and that you shouldn't particularly rely on it anyways?
It's not much of a stopgap if you many millions of lines of code written against it. Which I expect Adobe have. Yeah, but even Apple still writes some stuff in Carbon, and up to the point where they suddenly changed their mind, they had been telling everyone that bit carbon was coming. Nobody's really saying that Apple sucks for moving away from Carbon, the argument is that they should've communicated the timeline better to developers.
Not that I think giant developers neccessarily deserve special treatment, but you'd think it prudent to at least not waste a ton of time for a developer of one of the most significant. No, my recollection is that they said exactly the opposite: that Carbon and Cocoa were co-equal and would be kept feature-comparable. I don't have my notes from WWDC , however. Wasnt sudden at all, the writing was on the wall when Apple released OS X. That was it. Adobe had no issues writing new programs in Cocoa Lightroom but continued to drag its feet on a port for the 64bit version of its landmark products, content to add GUI bullshit that many are not even sure was a improvement.
Please keep in mind that the cocoa framework has changed significantly in every release of OSX since the beginning. It wasn't until the last couple of years that it started stabilizing and applications remained compatible with new releases of the OS. They're still adding new features and improving the way things work internally, and applications, although they run, have some weird glitches with new OS features; namely, older applications sometimes behave strangely when one uses Spaces. I agree, adobe should h.
Re: Score: 3 , Funny. Re: Score: 2 , Informative. You're wrong as of