Tom's Hardware: Topic 2 Gigs of RAM...
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123823215.459734.102370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Brian Baird wrote ...
>>
>>I only upgraded for the RAW converter. THE RAW CONVERTER!
>
> Hate to break it to you but the Capture One converter is better than
> the CS converter and costs only $99, and the Raw Shooter Essentials
> converter is better than the CS converter and it's free. So you didn't
> have to upgrade at all ...
Thank you William!
I had not heard of "Raw Shooter Essentials" before, and WOW!!
I love it!
I've got both CS and Capture One, but this one is really slick.
I love the interface, and ease with which I can inspect many files
quickly...without fiddling...just to see if I've got something worth working
on. 
What a relief.
In fact, it is so good at presenting a decent rendition without ANY
tweaking, that it's changed my perception about the quality of my recent
trip. I had been feeling disappointed in my zillion photos--but it turns
out that a lot of my disappointment was due to the crummy initial rendition
of my RAW files C1 and CS was giving me.
Yippee!
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Brian Baird wrote:
> ...and Photoshop CS is now running a little less like a hog.
Oh, just wait till you try CS2. I've got 2 GB RAM on my work machine,
and that Pentium 4 3.2GHz is feeling as sluggish as a Celeron 466. 
Adobe is the last of the big bloatware companies. It's just a shame
everyone has "grown up" on Adobe interfaces, else changing to something
else would be so much easier.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <11fpu2re2l3hg7f@corp.supernews.com>, Isaiah Beard says...
> Oh, just wait till you try CS2. I've got 2 GB RAM on my work machine,
> and that Pentium 4 3.2GHz is feeling as sluggish as a Celeron 466.
> Adobe is the last of the big bloatware companies. It's just a shame
> everyone has "grown up" on Adobe interfaces, else changing to something
> else would be so much easier.
Is CS2 really so much slower than CS ?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
> > Oh, just wait till you try CS2. I've got 2 GB RAM on my work machine,
> > and that Pentium 4 3.2GHz is feeling as sluggish as a Celeron 466.
> > Adobe is the last of the big bloatware companies. It's just a shame
> > everyone has "grown up" on Adobe interfaces, else changing to something
> > else would be so much easier.
>
> Is CS2 really so much slower than CS ?
Yes. And wait until you try Bridge.
steve
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <11fpu2re2l3hg7f@corp.supernews.com>, Isaiah Beard says...
>
>> Oh, just wait till you try CS2. I've got 2 GB RAM on my work machine,
>> and that Pentium 4 3.2GHz is feeling as sluggish as a Celeron 466.
>> Adobe is the last of the big bloatware companies. It's just a shame
>> everyone has "grown up" on Adobe interfaces, else changing to something
>> else would be so much easier.
>
>Is CS2 really so much slower than CS ?
I just went from Photoshop 7 to Photoshop CS2 and didn't notice a
significant change in speed.
(But I'm boosting my RAM to 2 gig anyway...)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <11fpu2re2l3hg7f@corp.supernews.com>,
sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com says...
> > ...and Photoshop CS is now running a little less like a hog.
>
> Oh, just wait till you try CS2. I've got 2 GB RAM on my work machine,
> and that Pentium 4 3.2GHz is feeling as sluggish as a Celeron 466.
> Adobe is the last of the big bloatware companies. It's just a shame
> everyone has "grown up" on Adobe interfaces, else changing to something
> else would be so much easier.
Photoshop 4.0 was a lean little program. It had to be, it ran on my PII
400 mhz back in the day. I edited some pretty big files back in the
days of film scans...
Nowadays Adobe expects you to drop the serious cash on the high-end
system to run their performance hogging software. Fneh.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Steve Wolfe" <unt@see-signature.com> wrote:
>> > Oh, just wait till you try CS2. I've got 2 GB RAM on my work machine,
>> > and that Pentium 4 3.2GHz is feeling as sluggish as a Celeron 466.
>> > Adobe is the last of the big bloatware companies. It's just a shame
>> > everyone has "grown up" on Adobe interfaces, else changing to something
>> > else would be so much easier.
>>
>> Is CS2 really so much slower than CS ?
>
> Yes. And wait until you try Bridge.
If you haven't downloaded the latest update for Bridge, do so right
away. Much faster.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:55:00 GMT, Brian Baird wrote:
> Of course, I just bought a second SATA drive and am thinking of doing a
> RAID 0 for the read/write performance. But that's a lot of trouble so I
> might just mirror folders onto it for backup.
Unless I'm mistaken RAID 0 is also known as disk duplexing, where
only two drives are used and the are essentially duplicate copies.
One of the two drives can fail and the computer can continue
operating. But as with most RAID modes the main advantage is faster
read times when used with large files that are updated infrequently
(such as databases) and read repeatedly. Most RAID modes are
actually often slower for disk writes. For RAID 0 it probably
wouldn't be. When I used duplexed disks, each one was attached to
its own controller board so both drives were written to
simultaneously and there was no 'write penalty'. I'm not too
familiar with SATA, but assume that it's either fast enough or smart
enough so that even if a single controller is used there will be
either an insignificant 'write penalty' or none at all. All this is
a roundabout way of saying that while RAID (in any of its modes) can
speed up many computer operations significantly, I wouldn't expect
more than a slight benefit at best with programs such as Photoshop.
And if you do implement RAID 0, to maximimize its benefit, Windows
should be installed on a different disk, even if you have to install
it on your old EIDE drive. If RAID 0 is used, Photoshop should load
much quicker though.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On 12 Aug 2005 20:05:11 -0700, wavelength wrote:
> No,
>
> RAID 0 is striping, or setting up the drives in serial to make more
> space. It does increase throughput by benefit of dispercing the load
> over the two drive.
Thanks for the correction. The mirroring/duplexing RAID I
mentioned was actually RAID Level 1, not Level 0. This isn't the
first time I've gotten them mixed up. As for speed increases, it
depends on the hardware used, and fortunately modern gear is better
than it used to be. When I used RAID it was pretty much down to a
choice between IDE and SCSI. If you used IDE and didn't want to
lose lots of speed you needed to use an IDE controller or channel
for each drive. But each IDE channel would use the slowest I/O mode
used by any drive on the cable, so if your computer had its hard
drives on different channels (so they could operate almost but not
quite simultaneously), you's better not put a slow CD on the same
channel with either of them.
> Downside is, you lose a drive, you lose the whole sheebang. Better to
> get a PCI card and do 0+1. Thus you achieve better performance and have
> fault tolerance. Problem is that you have to buy 4 drives.
Well, that's because RAID level 0 isn't really RAID. That's
why I've preferred Raid Level 1, which because it doesn't do
striping is virtually foolproof, even if a drive fails.
> http://www.acnc.com/raid.html
There's another website that although it was written from the POV
of a Novell network describes the various RAID permutations in
greater detail, and its diagram of RAID 0+1 (aka RAID 10) might be
enough to scare off all but the most dedicated. It does have some
good RAID information as well as links to other sources.
http://www.certifiednets.com/walter/articles/raid.html
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news
dm6hn$dkt$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>> bhilton665@aol.com says...
>>> So either wait until FB has finished generating all previews (best
>>> course of action) or close FB after you open the file you need or don't
>>> use FB and you'll find that CS is actually faster than V7 ... at least
>>> for the system I'm running it on.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> I'm comparing it to 4.01, so there is bound to be a greater difference.
>>
>> While 4.01 couldn't do a lot in 16 bit mode, it certainly did everything
>> I needed it to do: levels, etc. CS is a dog in 16 bit mode, and won't
>> refresh my mouse pointer. Bizarre and annoying.
>
> Hmm. It still sounds to me as though you've got something set up wrong.
> The history file is one thing that I find I have to reset to essentially
> zero (i.e. only keep one previous state of one image). Or it could be
> something wrong in the OS, e.g. a virus checker running in the background.
How can you live with only a single state in history?
Do you mean after you close a file you do this?
Yipe. If you really utilize only a single state, you must be awfully sure
of your actions...
???
I typically keep it set anywhere from 20 to 50 states, and set it lower for
large files.
I guess I'm sloppy, aye?
Not a problem until I do this with numerous files.
(2GB RAM)
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> "Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>>> bhilton665@aol.com says...
>>>> So either wait until FB has finished generating all previews (best
>>>> course of action) or close FB after you open the file you need or don't
>>>> use FB and you'll find that CS is actually faster than V7 ... at least
>>>> for the system I'm running it on.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> I'm comparing it to 4.01, so there is bound to be a greater difference.
>>>
>>> While 4.01 couldn't do a lot in 16 bit mode, it certainly did everything
>>> I needed it to do: levels, etc. CS is a dog in 16 bit mode, and won't
>>> refresh my mouse pointer. Bizarre and annoying.
>>
>> Hmm. It still sounds to me as though you've got something set up wrong.
>> The history file is one thing that I find I have to reset to essentially
>> zero (i.e. only keep one previous state of one image). Or it could be
>> something wrong in the OS, e.g. a virus checker running in the
>> background.
>
> How can you live with only a single state in history?
It's more a matter of how could I possibly live with more? The files I deal
with are 16-bit 4000 ppi scans of 6x7: 95MP. (That's MP, not MB<g>.)
(Truth in advertising: I usually downsample to 2400, 2200, or 2000 ppi, so
the files aren't that gross: 34, 29, and 24MP, respectively.)
I maintain an "original" that never gets touched. Then I create a few
intermediate state files.
> Do you mean after you close a file you do this?
> Yipe. If you really utilize only a single state, you must be awfully sure
> of your actions...
> ???
> I typically keep it set anywhere from 20 to 50 states, and set it lower
> for large files.
> I guess I'm sloppy, aye?
>
No: if you are dealing with smaller files, and find that a useful use of you
DRAM, it makes sense.
By the way, I don't mean to be harping on this: it's the thing that I have
to do. There may be something else.
My main compaint with PS7.0 is that it builds a font cache every time it
starts. Even though I've never used text in Photoshop. Picture Window Pro
starts up instantly.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
newsdninj$4p0$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>> "Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
>>>> bhilton665@aol.com says...
>>>>> So either wait until FB has finished generating all previews (best
>>>>> course of action) or close FB after you open the file you need or
>>>>> don't
>>>>> use FB and you'll find that CS is actually faster than V7 ... at least
>>>>> for the system I'm running it on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> I'm comparing it to 4.01, so there is bound to be a greater difference.
>>>>
>>>> While 4.01 couldn't do a lot in 16 bit mode, it certainly did
>>>> everything
>>>> I needed it to do: levels, etc. CS is a dog in 16 bit mode, and won't
>>>> refresh my mouse pointer. Bizarre and annoying.
>>>
>>> Hmm. It still sounds to me as though you've got something set up wrong.
>>> The history file is one thing that I find I have to reset to essentially
>>> zero (i.e. only keep one previous state of one image). Or it could be
>>> something wrong in the OS, e.g. a virus checker running in the
>>> background.
>>
>> How can you live with only a single state in history?
>
> It's more a matter of how could I possibly live with more? The files I
> deal with are 16-bit 4000 ppi scans of 6x7: 95MP. (That's MP, not MB<g>.)
>
> (Truth in advertising: I usually downsample to 2400, 2200, or 2000 ppi, so
> the files aren't that gross: 34, 29, and 24MP, respectively.)
>
> I maintain an "original" that never gets touched. Then I create a few
> intermediate state files.
>
>> Do you mean after you close a file you do this?
>> Yipe. If you really utilize only a single state, you must be awfully
>> sure of your actions...
>> ???
>> I typically keep it set anywhere from 20 to 50 states, and set it lower
>> for large files.
>> I guess I'm sloppy, aye?
>>
>
> No: if you are dealing with smaller files, and find that a useful use of
> you DRAM, it makes sense.
>
> By the way, I don't mean to be harping on this: it's the thing that I have
> to do. There may be something else.
You're dealing with huge files....so of course that makes sense for you.
How many MB is your average 95MP image? Your file sizes would certainly
pose a list of challenges most of us don't deal with.
> My main compaint with PS7.0 is that it builds a font cache every time it
> starts. Even though I've never used text in Photoshop. Picture Window Pro
> starts up instantly.
Ya, Photoshop does seem to go through quite a little parade of this adn that
as it starts up.
Perhaps it's more annoying since it TELLS you what it's fiddling with,
rather merely showing the annoying splash screen...
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:07:59 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>> Downside is, you lose a drive, you lose the whole sheebang. Better to
>> get a PCI card and do 0+1. Thus you achieve better performance and have
>> fault tolerance. Problem is that you have to buy 4 drives.
>
> Well, that's because RAID level 0 isn't really RAID. That's
>why I've preferred Raid Level 1, which because it doesn't do
>striping is virtually foolproof, even if a drive fails.
Yes, but...
With RAID 1, whatever happens, data-wise, on one drive happens on both
drives.
So if, for example, you manage to put a piece of malware on one drive,
it's on both. If you accidently delete a file, it's gone from both. If
a piece of malware deletes a file, it's deleted from both. If there's
a power spike that takes out both drives, all is gone.
RAID 1 doesn't remove the need for a good backup solution,
unfortunately.
--
Bill Funk
funktionality.blogspot.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:28:58 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>> Well, that's because RAID level 0 isn't really RAID. That's
>> why I've preferred Raid Level 1, which because it doesn't do
>> striping is virtually foolproof, even if a drive fails.
> Yes, but...
> With RAID 1, whatever happens, data-wise, on one drive happens on both
> drives.
> So if, for example, you manage to put a piece of malware on one drive,
> it's on both. If you accidently delete a file, it's gone from both. If
> a piece of malware deletes a file, it's deleted from both. If there's
> a power spike that takes out both drives, all is gone.
> RAID 1 doesn't remove the need for a good backup solution,
> unfortunately.
Yes, but...
Neither does RAID 0. (see below).
It also doesn't provide water if you're dehydrated in the desert.
As far as I can tell this discussion was about Photoshop
performance, not backups, except for BB's comment that if the second
SATA drive he just bought is too much trouble to setup for RAID 0
"for the read/write performance", (and implementing RAID 1 can be
much simpler), he might just use it to "mirror folders onto it for
backup". This is where your comment may really be pertinent. If
the mirroring is real-time then there's no malware/deletion
protection. If it isn't then the protection is very limited,
compared with having the ability to search through multiple backups
for the most recent uncorrupted files.
Does RAID 0 protect you from malware or accidental deletes? Nope.
FWIW, when I used RAID 1 I also performed full weekly backups,
daily differential daily backups, and saved each weekly backup for
at least 6 months before thinning them out and only retaining
quarterly backups. That (and rotating recent backups through a
commercial offsite storage facility) provided adequate protection
from carelessness, malware as well as hardware problems.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
Related Content
- how to delete protected files
- sounds for cs 1.6
- what is the benefit of windows 7
- raid 1 performance
- how to delete protected file
- mouse pointer speed keeps resetting
- remove raid 1
- benefit of window 7
- swap file sizes
- what is the swap file size for windows 7
- cs 1.6 run in window
- which raid mode to use
- upgrade for cs 1.6
- photoshop cs2 windows 7
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 01:00 rapid1 won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 sinfulpotato won the Freshman badge
- 03:16 warmon6 won the CPUs badge
- 01:00 riscguru won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 Clydefrog won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 vandurith won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 arod7569 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 voodoosoul won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 intoxikation won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 cyoulden won the Uniformed badge