Dear Adobe

[Daniel_Buck]

CS3 has memory leaks. It works well most of the time but occasionally it will get confused. I can't believe Adobe would release a product with memory leaks, especially one that is so pricey and has such a large user base.

Don Bryant

very well might be! I've only used CS3 a few times, most of my recent heavy work with photoshop has mostly been in CS2, I have yet to do a big project in CS3 (and since you've mentioned it, I may stick with CS2 just to be safe!) We aren't on the latest versions of all our 3d or 2d programs either, sometimes by choice due to major bugs in the latest versions!

[jim kitchen]

Photoshop CS2 does leak memory...

A few months ago we talked about "Mac Users - How Much is Enough? " and in that discussion I mentioned the memory issue within Photoshop, which exists within the Mac version of CS2, and quite possibly CS3. I do not know about a CS3 memory leak just yet, since I have not used the new application thoroughly, and where I will probably discover whether that issue exists in the very near future.

Adobe did not abandon the original coding for Mac Photoshop, where the code is still Carbon based coding for CS2 and CS3, and within the CS2 coding there is a memory leak, which I describe in the post mentioned above, but whether the error was corrected for CS3 is still a mystery to me. The post refers to the ram requirements for Photoshop versus the ram requirements for the computer's OS, and whether Photoshop plays fair with the ram allocation, and for the moment Photoshop does not play fair. Until Adobe completely rewrites the software to operate as a native application in Cocoa while using 64bit architecture, which happens to be the current Mac OS language, Photoshop should continue to have a memory leak, forcing the application to search the hard drive for incremental space to operate within.

As a side note, I mentioned in a previous post that a few of my files approached 28GB, while marrying two 3.5GB files with layers, and Photoshop CS2 did handle the file, but Photoshop did chug along.

A good example of a Cocoa based Photoshop type design happens to be mentioned above in my previous post, regarding "Pixelmator." This application, although very young, looks very promising because of the newer coding design, which happens to completely incorporate Mac OS Cocoa programming. As a young application it will have a few growing pains...

I am certain Adobe is focused on this talented group of coders.

jim k

[Daniel_Buck]

oh, are we talking about photoshop in Mac then, for the memory leaks? I've only ever used it on windows. I've never (or very rarely, can't remember the last time) had any crashes with CS2 handling large files on windows, even on my home machine which is windows 2000 with only 2 gigs of ram. haha! Slows down for sure, with big files, but doesn't crash. I wish they would make a Linux version though! :-D

how do you check for memory leaking?

[jim kitchen]

jim k,

although it's not for me (I don't have a Mac [yet? ]), I've looked at it. Seems interesting, but nowhere did I find any mention on supported bit-depth of the images. Does it work with 16-bit per channel files? I save all my files as 16-bit p/c JPEG2000, have used this format for several years. It saves a lot of space in the long run (compared with TIFF/PSD. There are very few other formats supporting higher bit-depth). And this pixelmator seems to be reading them (at least as per specification).

Dear Jiri,

This application handles 16bit files, since I am playing within their demo mode at the moment, and I fed the application a 16bit tiff file...

I use tiff files only for printing the final image, and I always work the file as an Adobe "Large Format Document," which significantly reduces the original tiff file through a compression routine known only to Adobe, to a file size that is approximately one-quarter the original tiff file size. This "psb" format does take a while to open and save, but it happens to be my preferred file method while working within Photoshop, because the 4GB file size limitation is rendered mute for my working images.

This newer application will probably open an Adobe 16bit large format document "psb" file, but only if you buy the license for a silly low price.

jim k

[D. Bryant]

very well might be! I've only used CS3 a few times, most of my recent heavy work with photoshop has mostly been in CS2, I have yet to do a big project in CS3 (and since you've mentioned it, I may stick with CS2 just to be safe!) We aren't on the latest versions of all our 3d or 2d programs either, sometimes by choice due to major bugs in the latest versions!

CS2 is much worse than CS3. I much prefer CS3 to CS2. I've been using PS since 3.0 and CS3 the best yet IMO but it still leaks memory (poorly worded I admit). There are development tools that can be used to plub the leaks. As I said Adobe should be ashamed. If there were a better product I would use it.

Don Bryant

[Paul Kierstead]

I am always amazed at how functional, useful and generally well written Adobe products are, and am totally stumped out the company could screw up the updater and installer so badly. It is like they sent all the idiot programmers to that division.

Acrobat Reader displays PDFs very well. Otherwise it could only be described as crap. It is extremely clear that most users suffer very long start-ups and memory usage for a raft of features a very very small subset use. On windows I use Sumatra and on Mac I use preview.

I'd own more of the products if they were more reasonably priced.

I found the list spot on, outside of the photoshop gripe; in my usage it has been spot-on. I've used it both on mac and windows.

[redrockcoulee]

Regardless of how well Photoshop or Premiere or any of their other programs work etc the updateder can be annoying, as can Quicktime which seems to also need to be upgraded on a weekly basis. A complaint against one of their products should not be a rant against the company

[Brian Ellis]

Memory leaks? I thought they were called "senior moments."

[PViapiano]

Someone mentioned Adobe prices? Well, yes, they're very expensive...and it's not just the upfront purchase, it's the annual update subscription usually around $200, so in ten years you've shelled out $600-700 plus $1200-1500 in updates.

Digital photography is like this now as well..."upgrade now because that 3 megapixel cam is terribly inadequate...upgrade now because that 16 megapixel cam is inadequate"...it just a subscritpion that keeps going and going. Same with printers and the rest of the equipment list...basically it's just good for the retailers, manufacturers and the folks who write off gear on their taxes.

The truth is you don't need it. The gear and software you have is plenty good enough to do what you need to do. Simplify, make good choices and get out there and photograph, concentrate more on your seeing, your relationship to the process...that's worth more than any gear or software feature.

[Frank Petronio]

If you have an older system there is usually an advantage to using contemporaneous software. CS4 even on a G5 may not be pretty....