RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Dana Trout]

A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file and
reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk light
never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!

BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
  --Dana
----------
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows
Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM

< snip >

On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
drive.
 A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
25%.
 Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
still.
 Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
with
film scans on my PC.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com