Photoshop CC / Windows 8.1 HiDPI / Retina scaling support

[middlep1]

Hi,  I am currently running the latest CC apps on a Windows 7 machine and am currently looking to upgrade my PC hardware, I have my eye on either the new Dell XPS15 with Haswell CPU/HiDPI screen (3200x1800 resolution) or the equivalent new Dell Precision m3800 when available in November with identical specs.  After testing a number Windows 8/8.1 systems over the last few days with Photoshop CC (14.1.2) It appears that Adobe has still yet to implement retina style UI scaling for any of it's CC apps for the Windows platform. They all seem to default to a predefined pixel font size. Potentially making Photoshop and other apps unusable on a 3200x1800 15.6" laptop screen if they do not scale like their Mac counterparts.  Can anyone confirm or elaborate on whether this feature exists for Adobe products on Windows yet, if it ever will or when it will become available in the near future?  Thanks

[Noel Carboni]

gishnetwork wrote:

you're not rebuilding the application from ground up - all the effects have worked on any resolution, any monitor size, and at any zoom level, so we're ONLY talking about UI - the controls and menus.

Did you consider things as 1 pixel wide marquees?  Pen tool lines?  Overlays for Crop or Transform, etc.?  Patterns?  It may be "ONLY the UI" but it's turned out to be more complex than you think.  Plus even for really basic stuff, like scrollbars, Microsoft hasn't made it easy to do such simple things as use your own color and theme.

Precisely because Adobe's flagship software is old does it have dependencies on pixel size, how controls work pixel for pixel, etc.  That's how early Macintosh programs were written, back when graphics was an amazing new thing.  Back when there weren't such things as GPUs.

By the way, I've got 20 more years as a software engineer than you do as a developer. If you feel the need for continued disrespect, perhaps you should just roll out your own fully featured graphics editor program and eat Adobe's lunch.  Someone's saying it's easy to do.

-Noel

[BryanCrow]

It's a lot of work, but Microsoft took the time to go through all the new API hooks in Windows 8.1 that allow for per-monitor DPI scaling. I'm curious what API hooks Adobe feels they're still missing as they seem to have pretty comprehensive support for how DPI changes are calculated and passed to the applicaiton. Take a look: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2013/4-184

[Chris Cox]

Again, we are still working with Microsoft on these issues - which also means they're still covered by NDA.

[patcatone]

What is NDA?

[Noel Carboni]

"Non-Disclosure Agreement".

It's a legal contract and is how big companies manage temporary partnerships.  It limits what people can say.

I'll bet it never occurred to you folks who demand that Chris / Adobe "fess up and tell it like it is" that maybe he / they aren't allowed to.

We're lucky to have people like Chris who are in the thick of it at Adobe being willing to talk to the likes of users here at all.

-Noel

[deliciousmark]

We're lucky to have people like Chris who are in the thick of it at Adobe being willing to talk to the likes of users here at all.

That is a sorry statement. Without its customers, Adobe would not have employees like Chris, as the last I heard, the "growing money on trees CC" thing didn't pan out. What is lucky is that all these kind customers are still paying adobe $50 every month. Though, because Adobe has no competition, and because they recently went subscription-only, they have a guaranteed income stream no matter what they do or don't do. Kinda scary if you ask me.

Chris, maybe that NDA thing would have been something to say months ago. Odd that you bring it up now after repeating almost no information many times over. It's also odd how very little Adobe has actually said. That must be some NDA!

And as for the issues you have described above Noel, Adobe solved the execution in Retina, so it is only a matter of implementation in Windows. So "considering" is moot, only "doing" matters. Furthermore, these issues were brought up 3 years ago to Adobe. Luckily for them, shortley afterward they switched to a subscrioption model.

[deliciousmark]

Though, because Adobe has no competition, and because they recently went subscription-only, they have a guaranteed income stream no matter what they do or don't do. Kinda scary if you ask me.

I'll go one step further, Noel. Because they are practically a monopoly, and only have subscriptions, the users here complaining are the ONLY thing prodding Adobe to focus on this as market forces are currently not in play here.

[Noel Carboni]

Users complaining here are like whining children in Narnia. 

Rational adults in the real world do what makes sense regardless of children's complaints.

Who's twisting your arm to buy a subscription?  If you don't find the value proposition to your liking, then don't enter the partnership until such time as you find it acceptable.

If you actually had the talent / expertise to do something no one else could do, you'd be charging what you could too.

Here's a parting dose of real world business for you: 

If you are perfectly happy with the price of something, then the seller isn't charging enough.

-Noel

[deliciousmark]

You misunderstand. It's not about the cost, it's about the inability to vote with our dollars. That is a cornerstone of the free market.

[deliciousmark]

Users complaining here are like whining children in Narnia. 

Oh, and that classic. Precisely why people hate monopolies that have removed their ability to vote entirely.

[Noel Carboni]

So vote already.  Cancel your subscription.  Who's stopping you?

-Noel

[deliciousmark]

Adobe, and their monopoly position.

Adobe, and the inability to use the tools without giving them more money, like you could do with perpetual licenses.

[Guest]

gishnetwork wrote:

Adobe, and the inability to use the tools without giving them more money, like you could do with perpetual licenses.

This statement is entirely false.  With a perpetual licence once the program is purchased there are no more upgrades, only bug fixes.  How long will you have to wait to get HiDPI with CS6?  Can you envision never?  You can still use CC 14.0 for the next 18 months, rather than accepting updates, so it would be just like the licenced version.

[deliciousmark]

Curt Y wrote:

gishnetwork wrote:

Adobe, and the inability to use the tools without giving them more money, like you could do with perpetual licenses.

This statement is entirely false.  With a perpetual licence once the program is purchased there are no more upgrades, only bug fixes.  How long will you have to wait to get HiDPI with CS6?  Can you envision never?  You can still use CC 14.0 for the next 18 months, rather than accepting updates, so it would be just like the licenced version.

But someone could still use CS6 without being forced to pay for features that they can hardly use effectively. I feel like it is AdobeCare. If we didn't have to upgrade then Adobe would then say "Hey, why aren't as many people upgrading? Oh, I guess we better get on that". In the free market, if Adobe wants to maximize sales, it will ensure it can grab all customers that are migrating to HiDPI. In this market, Adobe has the ability to drag its feet. Like I said, they were notified at least 3 years ago.

I mean, let's face it, I like upgrades, but the 99% of the new features that are coming out are not critically required for my business, and I doubt for anyones. People were putting out great content on CS6.

In fact, the thing I most appreciate in InDesign was the upgrade that let us rotate the view, and that was some time ago. Why can't InDesign honor blend modes in the linked PS documents? I mean, what's up with that? But I'm supposed to give Adobe a hand job every month because of the little pittly crap in its smaller updates? Some are good, few are great, most are ho-hum, and almost all are not critical for work on a daily basis.

You can still use CC 14.0 for the next 18 months, rather than accepting updates, so it would be just like the licenced version.

And then I retire? I was an early adopter of the cloud, so I am not sure what you are trying to say. I think the last version we all actually bought was CS6.

Listen, I am not here for me. I work on a system with 4x 24" screens. My Yoga is a backup system or when I rarely work in the field. When I do, I can always connect it to a large screen. I can afford the subscriptions. But it irks me when a company takes away my voting ability and does not stay up with the times. It's simply unfair, and I now trust Adobe less.

What is funny is that people like Noel are probably the first to complain when At&t wants to buy T-Mobile, or when Cox merges with Time Warner for the same reason I am complaining here. But for me, I am not an Adobe apologist, nor am a cheerleafer that likes to give Adobe handjobs when it doesn't actually deserve it.

[Noel Carboni]

Ah, so the water doesn't come out the tap in your house and the lights don't come on unless you're running the very latest version of Photoshop?

Either the product is providing enough value for you to continue to use it, or it's not. 

Clearly it's the former.  Clearly you can't stand to use Photoshop Elements or some other program - not even Photoshop CS6 - because none of those is quite good enough for you and your special imaging needs.  You've GOT to stay on the cutting edge.  I get it.  And those evil Adobe people won't give you the software to do it for free, because you certainly deserve it.

Perhaps you're just trying to poison the waters so you'll be one of fewer people running Photoshop CC - it's that good.

Did you ever hear the expression, "if you want to play, you have to pay"?

Can I suggest something constructive?  Why don't you try actually helping other people.  I promise it's a lot more enjoyable than whatever it is you're trying to do now.

-Noel

[deliciousmark]

I get it.  And those evil Adobe people won't give you the software to do it for free, because you certainly deserve it. 

Perhaps you're just trying to poison the waters so you'll be one of fewer people running Photoshop CC - it's that good.

Did you ever hear the expression, "if you want to play, you have to pay"?

I used to pay $2000 a pop. Now I pay $50/m.

Now I see. I am not paying ENOUGH. Thanks for putting it clearly Noel.

[BIT-101]

Cancelling a subscription is one way to "vote". Not a very effective one since Adobe has no idea why you cancelled it. A forum like this exists (at least in theory) so that users can have direct feedback and tell Adobe what they like and don't like. If this gets brushed off as "whining", then it's a sad day for the company. The only reason people are here complaining is because they are passionate about the product and have a serious upset with it.

Personally, I've given up on this thread because no matter what is said, the only answer is "we are working with Microsoft to resolve this," and this has gone on for months with no visible progress. So I'm now apathetic. Adobe will fix it or they won't.

Put it this way: if ALL users had this issue, it would be fixed immediately. Or it would never have been released. As it is, it's a subset of Windows users on very high res screens - mostly people who own a Yoga 2 Pro or Samsung Ativ whatever with the 3200x1800 res screen. So it's not top priority for them. I understand that. Business is business. Bugs get triaged and assigned urgency. This is not urgent.

All other Adobe apps work OK in high DPI situations, as far as I know. That means that PhotoShop is doing something differently. Even if you take it as a fact that there is a problem with MS's APIs, there is obviously a way to work around this, because the other Adobe apps do this. I'm sure that they could re-engineer the UI code for PhotoShop so that it worked as well, without MS's help. But it would be a major undertaking. While it's only a handful of users who have a problem, they're not going to do this. I don't like this because I'm one of those users, but I understand it. But it also separates Adobe from one of those companies that goes out of their way to make sure that every user has a great experience. And puts it into the category of companies that operate strictly on the bottom line.

[BIT-101]

Let me amend that. "This is not urgent." I mean this is not urgent to Adobe. If all the users on high res screens cancelled their subscription, it might make a tiny dent. But not all will.

But this is very urgent to those who use PhotoShop on these devices. I'm going to guess that the people defending Adobe and calling others "whiners" do not have to use PhotoShop day in and day out on one of these devices. Or, you have freaking amazing eyesight. I literally cannot read the menus. The text is maybe a couple of millimeters tall. The icons are about that square. I need to lean in to the screen and squint. It's really not just a minor cosmetic issue that people "need to get over". If all users had this problem, there would be a class action suit or people storming Adobe HQ with torches, etc. Again, though, it's only a small amount of users, so we can just call them whiners and delete their posts if they get too vocal about it.

And sure, you can say, if you don't like it don't use it. Fortunately or unfortunately, PS has become the defacto standard though. If I'm a one man shop, sure, I can use some other program that probably doesn't have all the features, and get by. But get real, if you're doing design work on any kind of team, you need PhotoShop.

[Noel Carboni]

BIT-101 wrote:

I'm going to guess that the people defending Adobe and calling others "whiners" do not have to use PhotoShop day in and day out on one of these devices.

Why would I buy "one of these devices" without knowing whether it would do what I need? 

Did you stop to think that it's YOU who are responsible for integrating the hardware and software you buy into a working system?

Do you make multi-thousand dollar purchasing decisions on a whim?  It's hard to plead ignorance - you found your way here after the fact.

Are you really trying to make your having bought a new toy without thinking through the details someone else's problem?

-Noel

[deliciousmark]

Why would I buy "one of these devices" without knowing whether it would do what I need?

Adobe does not state "Lack of HiDPI" support on the Photoshop page, Noel.

[BIT-101]

Noel, I do appreciate your enthusiasm for and knowledge of PhotoShop, but your support for Adobe is sounding almost religious here. I feel like my last two posts were pretty well reasoned, not emotional or whiney. I understand Adobe's actions. I just don't like them. You don't need to go on the attack for every critical thing anyone says here. Adobe should be welcoming negative as well as positive feedback in order to improve their products. They don't need you standing guard to defend them. If they don't want my negative feedback, they can ignore it. I would hope that they listen to their users.

[Noel Carboni]

Look I'm not trying to be an antagonist here.

I hope Adobe finishes their high dpi support work soon for all your sakes.

They've already said they're working on it.  Coming here to vent doesn't accelerate that, and it tends to upset the locals who have "felt the good in Darth Vader", despite the black cape.

I apologize for getting wrapped up in this.  Rant about me all you like, I'm outta here.

-Noel

[BIT-101]

Noel Carboni wrote:

I apologize for getting wrapped up in this.  Rant about me all you like, I'm outta here.

-Noel

[Noel Carboni]

BIT101, if it pleases me to comment here, I'll do so.

P.S. Please try out one of my plug-ins some time and let me know what you think of my high ppi implementation.  Perhaps you'll come to understand that I know what's involved as well as anyone here.  What looks and seems simple to laymen most certainly is not!  Been there, done that, though without anywhere near the baggage Adobe has to carry.

-Noel

[Noel Carboni]

The scaling you get with the manifest hack is nothing like the real scaling of the controls that's needed where they're DRAWN with more pixels, instead of just being upsampled graphically as the hack does.  Plus, with the manifest hack, the actual IMAGE preview pixels are upsampled as well - completely destroying the high dpi advantage of having more pixels.  Ideally, we want the UI elements drawn upsized, but retain the ability to use every single one of the higher density pixels for the image preview itself.

With the Retina work Adobe has done for Macs, I believe all the Photoshop controls and fonts are exactly doubled in pixel count in each dimension (i.e. made from 4 times the number of pixels).  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Noel