Re: OT: Photoshop CS (legal copy) sources?
If you have access to a student discount program, that's usually one of the cheapest source. Another way to get a good price is to buy an older version at a greatly reduced price and then purchase the upgrade. A third way is to use the coupon sale along with the PSE license delivered with most printers or scanners to obtain PS at a discount. A search with http://www.pricegrabber.com will identify a number of sellers with widely varying prices. Godfrey --- Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone have any tips regarding the cheapest place to purchase a legal copy of Adobe Photoshop CS? Thanks, Mark __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
Yes Rob, I just installed 30 minutes ago - the plugin (you seem to remember I couldn't get it to work in Photoshop 6.0). I have Phase One LE for batch Raw conversions, but it's nice to have the option to see RAW files in Photoshop as well. Regards Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. februar 2005 09:41 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: OT: Photoshop CS On 4 Feb 2005 at 8:02, Jens Bladt wrote: I finally got arround to installiung Photoshop CS on my home mashine too. I's amazing what this Highlight/Shadow tool can do! Pretty cool isn't it :-) Have you installed the Camera RAW plug-in and are you shooting RAW files yet? If not there may be more pleasant surprises in store for you! Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On 4 Feb 2005 at 8:02, Jens Bladt wrote: I finally got arround to installiung Photoshop CS on my home mashine too. I's amazing what this Highlight/Shadow tool can do! Pretty cool isn't it :-) Have you installed the Camera RAW plug-in and are you shooting RAW files yet? If not there may be more pleasant surprises in store for you! Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
So don't buy PhotoShop. Do your RAW conversions with the crappy Pentax software. It won't hog memory, but your results will suck. But if you have nothing better to compare them to, you probably won't care. On May 16, 2004, at 9:19 PM, Shawn K. wrote: I'm going to be pissed, and in response to my being pissed, I wont be buying Photoshop in the future, that's what it amounts too. Ill probably send them an email too, and tell them what a POS program they have on their hands. I'm not old either (24) but really fucking bitter, yes, I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted because of corporate greed or just the sheer ineptitude of others, money I make doing what I perceive to be a damn good job at what I do by the way. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Mark Roberts wrote: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:38:53 -0400, Shawn K. wrote: Whats the point of that??? Are you trying to say we can't be pissed about [memory hogging inefficient software]? who cares if thats why, all that matters is the state of things at the moment, not the pathetic reasoning behind it. BINGO! Bingo again! (I agree) So you guys plan to be pissed about every version of new software that comes out until the end of times? :-) Gee, you guys must be pretty old and bitter. /Henri
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sunday 16 May 2004 17:51, Henri Toivonen wrote: FJW I'm not aware of a single piece of software that has actually got FASTER FJW with a new version. I just installed SuSE linux 9.1, I was using version 8.1 before. This new one is faster, thanks to the new kernel. -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
It used to be that the cost of photoshop was a barrier for me, it now appears that not only is money an issue, but the bloatware that photoshop has become, is another barrier for me. Sounds like Adobe have followed Microsoft's lead (perhaps even using the latest MS tools) in creating slower, fatter versions of their software. I'm not ready to spend even more money to up my memory along with the cost of the software. So far, PictureWindow Pro is adequate - only costs $90 and runs just fine in 512MB. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, May 15, 2004, 11:05:15 PM, you wrote: SB Working with 16-bit color files, adding a few layers and doing some SB retouching, CS will sometimes use all available memory, However, I've not SB had it installed for more than 24-hours, and may be missing a few SB memory-saving options in the way it's set up. However, it is slower than SB PS7 on my setup, and that's obvious ... and disappointing. SB Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/15/2004 10:40:03 PM Subject: RE: OT: Photoshop CS On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:19:07 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 2gb ... For the work I do, on the workflow I use, if it hits the scratch disk with 2GB of memory, it's a piece of crap. I don't know if it does or not, since I don't have either CS or 2GB of memory. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Sunday, May 16, 2004, 7:34:53 AM, Doug wrote: DF On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:05:11 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: However, and this blew me away, someone said that throwing more memory at CS is a waste of time. DF Well I though that CS was supposed to be a complete rewrite. DF Apparently it has even more bone-headed memory management than its DF predecessors, though. Geez, virtualized memory has only been around DF for 40 or so years, you'd think they'd figure it out by now. Well, Adobe is learning, certainly. Every version from 5.0 upwards (I have seen the really older ones only on Mac so I can't compare) is more and more memory hungry even when doing the exact same operations. Also it doesn't reallocate the space it used. Fragments up memory severely. etc. I am looking into customising Gimp to look and control just like Photoshop :) Although I am afraid the Gimp's win32 port is not so stable as the main unix one, at least it wasn't few revisions back. Or I could go back to PS 5.0 which I got with a scanner ;-) Nah, there were definitely improvements in the later versions, that's true, but at severe cost. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
The only reason I felt that I had to have Photoshop CS was the RAW converter. After using it for a couple of months, I could never go back to the Pentax software. In terms of fine tuning the image before conversion and the quality of the results, there is simply no comparison. For an *ist D photographer PhotoShop Cs is a must have. Paul On May 16, 2004, at 2:28 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: It used to be that the cost of photoshop was a barrier for me, it now appears that not only is money an issue, but the bloatware that photoshop has become, is another barrier for me. Sounds like Adobe have followed Microsoft's lead (perhaps even using the latest MS tools) in creating slower, fatter versions of their software. I'm not ready to spend even more money to up my memory along with the cost of the software. So far, PictureWindow Pro is adequate - only costs $90 and runs just fine in 512MB. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, May 15, 2004, 11:05:15 PM, you wrote: SB Working with 16-bit color files, adding a few layers and doing some SB retouching, CS will sometimes use all available memory, However, I've not SB had it installed for more than 24-hours, and may be missing a few SB memory-saving options in the way it's set up. However, it is slower than SB PS7 on my setup, and that's obvious ... and disappointing. SB Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/15/2004 10:40:03 PM Subject: RE: OT: Photoshop CS On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:19:07 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 2gb ... For the work I do, on the workflow I use, if it hits the scratch disk with 2GB of memory, it's a piece of crap. I don't know if it does or not, since I don't have either CS or 2GB of memory. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Well, if one can afford an *istD, and Photoshop CS, then one should be able to afford a new computer to run it on. Let's see, *istD, Photoshop CS, new computer, accessories. Yep those digital cameras will certainly save me money over my MX, $0.50 a roll film, $69 scanner, and PS 5.5 educational version (given to me by someone who bought 6.0). Tell me again, just how many 50-cent rolls of film I need to shoot to pay for that upgrade to digital? (Ok, ok! So I got a real deal on some discontinued film, but even when you figure $5 per roll SLR-digital still does not look like the bargain it has been made out to be. Digital was, to an extent, a bargain up untill they started coming out with really computer intensive file types. If all you are running is a 3mp digital PS saving everything as JPEG, then you don't need all the jazzy computer upgrades. I don't really have much issue with how CS runs, although I did a fairly major computer upgrade quite recently. I tend to just accept that the tool is what it is. I don't pretend to know more (or anything) about programming than the people who write the stuff, so I don't have any assumptions about how efficiently or inefficiently a particular piece of software is. William Robb
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
GIMP is free, but still clearly inferior to even PS CS. And its actually slower than PS CS too, at least, the windows version of it is. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 6:30 AM To: Doug Franklin Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Sunday, May 16, 2004, 7:34:53 AM, Doug wrote: DF On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:05:11 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: However, and this blew me away, someone said that throwing more memory at CS is a waste of time. DF Well I though that CS was supposed to be a complete rewrite. DF Apparently it has even more bone-headed memory management than its DF predecessors, though. Geez, virtualized memory has only been around DF for 40 or so years, you'd think they'd figure it out by now. Well, Adobe is learning, certainly. Every version from 5.0 upwards (I have seen the really older ones only on Mac so I can't compare) is more and more memory hungry even when doing the exact same operations. Also it doesn't reallocate the space it used. Fragments up memory severely. etc. I am looking into customising Gimp to look and control just like Photoshop :) Although I am afraid the Gimp's win32 port is not so stable as the main unix one, at least it wasn't few revisions back. Or I could go back to PS 5.0 which I got with a scanner ;-) Nah, there were definitely improvements in the later versions, that's true, but at severe cost. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:38:53 -0400, Shawn K. wrote: Whats the point of that??? Are you trying to say we can't be pissed about [memory hogging inefficient software]? who cares if thats why, all that matters is the state of things at the moment, not the pathetic reasoning behind it. BINGO! TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:19:56 +0100, Cotty wrote: Well, based on this discussion, and other things I've encountered, I won't be upgrading to CS. Screw them if they can't hire software geeks that know their ass from third base. (Not bitter and twisted ;-) I'm entitled. I'm a senior software geek. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Sounds like Adobe have followed Microsoft's lead (perhaps even using the latest MS tools) in creating slower, fatter versions of their software. I can write pretty good software, even using the Microsoft tools. You don't *have* to use everything that Microsoft provides. Even an MFC application can be fairly lean and mean if you so choose.
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Shawn K. wrote: The problem is Henri, is that Adobe hasn' done much to CS from where I'm sitting to warrant it needing all this memory. its essentially the same program, and thats how its always been with photoshop, the new versions are just tiny steps forward. And yet its suddenly horribly bloated, doesnt make sense even considering the general trend of software. its just bad design. And for the money it costs it shouldnt be that badly designed. -shawn Hey, I dislike the current trend in software as much as anyone else. But the fact remains that I'm not at all surprised by this, because this is how it has been for a long time. Although I agree that the jump up in memory usage is unusually large, especially considering how small the changes are. There will probably come a patch at some point that fixes this overly aggressive memory allocation, as you say, considering the money it costs and the small amount of changes that has been made. This reminds me of what the comments were about windows xp when it first came. It barely ran on less than 192mb ram and the base install used up almost 3gb of space. And hell, the changes weren't that big. There was barely a single thing that was new, except for the odd gui changes here and there (not consindering that big blue-green gui hell, which I disable). Today, when people have newer and faster machines, nobody gives a rats ass. So what if it uses 100mb more ram when I have 1024mb. Microsoft predicts that the next version of windows will have a _minimum requirement_ of something like a 2ghz cpu and 1gb of ram. And I bet it will look and feel about the same as windows xp. /Henri
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:24:34 +0200, Henri Toivonen wrote: So you guys plan to be pissed about every version of new software that comes out until the end of times? :-) Gee, you guys must be pretty old and bitter. I do and I am, but what it boils down to is that it's going to determine where my bucks get spent. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:24:34 +0200, Henri Toivonen wrote: So you guys plan to be pissed about every version of new software that comes out until the end of times? :-) Gee, you guys must be pretty old and bitter. I do and I am, but what it boils down to is that it's going to determine where my bucks get spent. As Shawn K said: its just bad design. And for the money it costs it shouldn't be that badly designed. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
In a message dated 5/16/2004 2:25:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Today, when people have newer and faster machines, nobody gives a rats ass. So what if it uses 100mb more ram when I have 1024mb. Microsoft predicts that the next version of windows will have a _minimum requirement_ of something like a 2ghz cpu and 1gb of ram. And I bet it will look and feel about the same as windows xp. /Henri -- OTOH, Photoshop CS may actually be BUGGY. Just because it cost a bunch, doesn't mean it can't happen. (Actually, it happens all the time. And not all software sold over the counter is nifty keen, even if not literally buggy -- or very buggy. Some needs some serious reworking. And that happens all the time too.) So let's stop apologizing for Adobe, okay? I think they messed up, personally. Marnie aka Doe (At least based on what I've heard here.)
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Well, based on this discussion, and other things I've encountered, I won't be upgrading to CS. Screw them if they can't hire software geeks that know their ass from third base. (Not bitter and twisted ;-) I'm entitled. I'm a senior software geek. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Consider yourself dispensated! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Photoshop CS sounds very much like a relatively new code base that now needs some serious cleanup and optimizing. Forgive me for butting in here Bruce, as I know absolutely nothing about software creators or the business practices therewith entwined, but isn't that what all the usual round of updates are for, at $XXX a time? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
No. What basically happens is that a product architecture is designed and coded and a product is built. It goes through several rounds of bug fixes, optimizations and updates. You see these as new versions which do make money for the software company. Somewhere along the way, it is decided that a new architecture is needed for some fundamental reasons. In the case of Adobe, it could be 16 bit or some such. Anyway, this usually requires a fairly major ground up rewrite to accommodate the new system. This effectively gives you a version 1 codebase again that will have more bugs and less optimizations. It usually doesn't even fully harness and exploit the new design. Long term, the new design may be better, but it is difficult for the user base to swallow initially. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, May 16, 2004, 3:26:22 PM, you wrote: Photoshop CS sounds very much like a relatively new code base that now needs some serious cleanup and optimizing. C Forgive me for butting in here Bruce, as I know absolutely nothing about C software creators or the business practices therewith entwined, but isn't C that what all the usual round of updates are for, at $XXX a time? C Cheers, C Cotty C ___/\__ C || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche C ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps C _
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
I run PS CS on a dual processor mac G4 1.25 gigahertz, 1.5 gig RAM. I give the software 750 megabytes of memory. My primary scratch disk has 50 gig of open space, my secondary disk has 25 gig of space. In all operations I've encountered, the speed is very good. I've never had to wait. I don't care how much memory PS7 used. PS CS does awesome RAW file conversions. That's all that matters to me. paul On May 16, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Shawn K. wrote: Yeah, I personally know that, and it's not the problem. I have a gig of Ram, and almost 200 gigs of harddrive space, I typically allow windows the use of 5 gigs of scratchdisk, if I have anything else using memory or scratch disk Photoshop oftens runs out of scratch disk. Thats just retarded amounts of memory to be using. PS 7 never used that much memory. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Doug Franklin wrote: That's just insane. That's 1000 times the size of the 40MB image Shel mentioned. It's 300 times the size of the 130MB images I typically work on. I'd love to know what the lower limit on scratch disk is. If I was working on several dozen images or layers at the same time, I might understand, or doing long stretches of work that ended up as dozens of undo/history copies. But I typically load the image, adjust the ppi setting, crop a bit, adjust colors/curves, zap with a little unsharp mask, and save. At worst, that's 520MB of images, undo/history, etc. I'd think 1-2 GB ought to be plenty for the type of work I do. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Youknow, you can always lower the amount of mem it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, also how many Cache levels and how many history states it saves. Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Or if you want more in RAM and less on disk, juice up the maximum ram setting and lower the rest. /Henri Toivonen
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On May 16, 2004, at 5:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: As Shawn K said: its just bad design. And for the money it costs it shouldn't be that badly designed. I can't see where it's bad design. it runs great on my computer, and the RAW converter is awesome. It's the best thing that ever happened to digital photography. I see no slowdown compared to PS 6, although I never ran PS 7. I'm running it on a Mac G4, dual processor 1.25 gigahertz. I can't imagine how well it must run on a G5, 2 gigahertz. (Okay, I can imagine, but I can't afford it right now.) Paul
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
I'm going to be pissed, and in response to my being pissed, I wont be buying Photoshop in the future, that's what it amounts too. Ill probably send them an email too, and tell them what a POS program they have on their hands. I'm not old either (24) but really fucking bitter, yes, I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted because of corporate greed or just the sheer ineptitude of others, money I make doing what I perceive to be a damn good job at what I do by the way. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Mark Roberts wrote: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:38:53 -0400, Shawn K. wrote: Whats the point of that??? Are you trying to say we can't be pissed about [memory hogging inefficient software]? who cares if thats why, all that matters is the state of things at the moment, not the pathetic reasoning behind it. BINGO! Bingo again! (I agree) So you guys plan to be pissed about every version of new software that comes out until the end of times? :-) Gee, you guys must be pretty old and bitter. /Henri
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
Its absolutely absurd, and in actuality, using that much memory will slow the program down no matter what. Acessing the swap disk is orders of magnitude slower than main memory, and main memory is orders of magnitude slower than the CPU. So you see, using all that memory just slows everything down even so if you have enough memory for CS, its still going to be slower than PS7. -Shawn -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 4:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS So you guys plan to be pissed about every version of new software that comes out until the end of times? :-) Gee, you guys must be pretty old and bitter. /Henri Nope. We're resigned to software getting larger (and, often, slower). It's a matter of degree. Photoshop CS seems to have taken this concept to ridiculous levels, using five times the memory (or even more) than V7, and beating the swap disk to death even on systems with 1.5GB of memory allocated to it. That's absurd, if you ask me.
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
Its piss poor, I feel ripped off, I wish I could return it and go back to PS7 which was the best program I owned. Maybe it's because I've never had trouble with the Adobe Software I use, like Illustrator, and Photoshop, but I feel PS CS is overpriced bloatware. when you get down to it, 750 dollars new, compared to the free GIMP, and no matter what your reasons, it almost seems delusional to use PS CS at all... Therefore, in my estimation, PS CS better run like a finely tuned race car for the money spent. Not to mention the hoards of sub 100 dollar packages that are gaining on Adobe with each new release. It's only a matter of time before Adobe gets forced out of the market at this rate. Half the tools Adobe includes in their software border on utterly useless too. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS On May 16, 2004, at 5:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: As Shawn K said: its just bad design. And for the money it costs it shouldn't be that badly designed. I can't see where it's bad design. it runs great on my computer, and the RAW converter is awesome. It's the best thing that ever happened to digital photography. I see no slowdown compared to PS 6, although I never ran PS 7. I'm running it on a Mac G4, dual processor 1.25 gigahertz. I can't imagine how well it must run on a G5, 2 gigahertz. (Okay, I can imagine, but I can't afford it right now.) Paul
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
Not to defend what, to some, may be poor design on Adobe's part, many of the useless tools have a very real function outside the realm of photo editing. Frankly, it's kind of neat to play around with those tools. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Shawn K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Half the tools Adobe includes in their software border on utterly useless too.
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:54:15 -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote: I think CS does allocate a lot more scratch disk memory to some operations. I make sure I always have at least 50 gigabytes of firewire scratch disk available. Then it flies. That's just insane. That's 1000 times the size of the 40MB image Shel mentioned. It's 300 times the size of the 130MB images I typically work on. I'd love to know what the lower limit on scratch disk is. If I was working on several dozen images or layers at the same time, I might understand, or doing long stretches of work that ended up as dozens of undo/history copies. But I typically load the image, adjust the ppi setting, crop a bit, adjust colors/curves, zap with a little unsharp mask, and save. At worst, that's 520MB of images, undo/history, etc. I'd think 1-2 GB ought to be plenty for the type of work I do. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Doug Franklin wrote: That's just insane. That's 1000 times the size of the 40MB image Shel mentioned. It's 300 times the size of the 130MB images I typically work on. I'd love to know what the lower limit on scratch disk is. If I was working on several dozen images or layers at the same time, I might understand, or doing long stretches of work that ended up as dozens of undo/history copies. But I typically load the image, adjust the ppi setting, crop a bit, adjust colors/curves, zap with a little unsharp mask, and save. At worst, that's 520MB of images, undo/history, etc. I'd think 1-2 GB ought to be plenty for the type of work I do. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Youknow, you can always lower the amount of mem it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, also how many Cache levels and how many history states it saves. Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Or if you want more in RAM and less on disk, juice up the maximum ram setting and lower the rest. /Henri Toivonen
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
the major point is having an empty partition. Herb... - Original Message - From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:32 PM Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS That's just insane. That's 1000 times the size of the 40MB image Shel mentioned. It's 300 times the size of the 130MB images I typically work on. I'd love to know what the lower limit on scratch disk is.
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:39:14 -0400, Herb Chong wrote: the major point is having an empty partition. That's just insane. That's 1000 times the size of the 40MB image Shel mentioned. It's 300 times the size of the 130MB images I typically work on. I'd love to know what the lower limit on scratch disk is. But an empty partition (better yet, drive) of what size? 50GB sounds outrageous to me. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:39:16 +0200, Henri Toivonen wrote: Youknow, you can always lower the amount of mem it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, [...] Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Sure, and you drive it to the swap file/partition/drive that much quicker. What I want to know is how efficiently it's using the memory I have to give it. From the original description, it sounds like PS CS may not be as efficient as PS7 was. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Doug Franklin wrote: On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:39:16 +0200, Henri Toivonen wrote: Youknow, you can always lower the amount of mem it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, [...] Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Sure, and you drive it to the swap file/partition/drive that much quicker. Hey, if you wan't to be witty you could atleast quote everything I say. I am aware of how it works, thats why I said that: Or if you want more in RAM and less on disk, juice up the maximum ram setting and lower the rest. Newer versions of software _always_ eat more ram/disk/cpu. This is how it has worked since I started using computers back in -86. Why? Probably so people go out and buy new computers. /Henri
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:50:12 +0200, Henri Toivonen wrote: Hey, if you wan't to be witty you could atleast quote everything I say. I am aware of how it works, thats why I said that: Or if you want more in RAM and less on disk, juice up the maximum ram setting and lower the rest. And, to reiterate the part you edited out: What I want to know is how efficiently it's using the memory I have to give it. From the original description, it sounds like PS CS may not be as efficient as PS7 was. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Doug Franklin wrote: And, to reiterate the part you edited out: Ditto; Newer versions of software _always_ eat more ram/disk/cpu. This is how it has worked since I started using computers back in -86. Why? Probably so people go out and buy new computers. /Henri
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
it is until you try buying a fast one. then you can't find much smaller unless you want 15,000 RPM SCSI. Herb... - Original Message - From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:42 PM Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS But an empty partition (better yet, drive) of what size? 50GB sounds outrageous to me.
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
Hi Doug ... Since getting this started, I've been exploring a number of PS discussion sites, and found that CS is, indeed, the memory hog that Herb says. However, and this blew me away, someone said that throwing more memory at CS is a waste of time. I've been allowing it at access about 1.5 gigs of memory, and that just sucked up memory. I trimmed its allowable memory back to a gig, and amazingly, memory management, while not as sweet as that of PS7, seemed better. Still experimenting, so there are no real conclusions yet. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/15/2004 5:46:22 PM Subject: Re: OTC: Photoshop CS On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:39:16 +0200, Henries Olivine wrote: You know, you can always lower the amount of memo it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, [...] Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Sure, and you drive it to the swap file/partition/drive that much quicker. What I want to know is how efficiently it's using the memory I have to give it. From the original description, it sounds like PS CS may not be as efficient as PS7 was. TTY, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
1.5gb?!? How much ram do you have on your PC?!? tan. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2004 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Hi Doug ... Since getting this started, I've been exploring a number of PS discussion sites, and found that CS is, indeed, the memory hog that Herb says. However, and this blew me away, someone said that throwing more memory at CS is a waste of time. I've been allowing it at access about 1.5 gigs of memory, and that just sucked up memory. I trimmed its allowable memory back to a gig, and amazingly, memory management, while not as sweet as that of PS7, seemed better. Still experimenting, so there are no real conclusions yet. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/15/2004 5:46:22 PM Subject: Re: OTC: Photoshop CS On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:39:16 +0200, Henries Olivine wrote: You know, you can always lower the amount of memo it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, [...] Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Sure, and you drive it to the swap file/partition/drive that much quicker. What I want to know is how efficiently it's using the memory I have to give it. From the original description, it sounds like PS CS may not be as efficient as PS7 was. TTY, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
2gb ... Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: TMP [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/15/2004 9:16:25 PM Subject: RE: OT: Photoshop CS 1.5gb?!? How much ram do you have on your PC?!? tan. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2004 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop CS Hi Doug ... Since getting this started, I've been exploring a number of PS discussion sites, and found that CS is, indeed, the memory hog that Herb says. However, and this blew me away, someone said that throwing more memory at CS is a waste of time. I've been allowing it at access about 1.5 gigs of memory, and that just sucked up memory. I trimmed its allowable memory back to a gig, and amazingly, memory management, while not as sweet as that of PS7, seemed better. Still experimenting, so there are no real conclusions yet. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 5/15/2004 5:46:22 PM Subject: Re: OTC: Photoshop CS On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:39:16 +0200, Henries Olivine wrote: You know, you can always lower the amount of memo it uses. In preferences you can set the maximum ram used by PS, [...] Lower everything by a notch and PS won't use as much RAM. Sure, and you drive it to the swap file/partition/drive that much quicker. What I want to know is how efficiently it's using the memory I have to give it. From the original description, it sounds like PS CS may not be as efficient as PS7 was. TTY, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:05:11 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: However, and this blew me away, someone said that throwing more memory at CS is a waste of time. Well I though that CS was supposed to be a complete rewrite. Apparently it has even more bone-headed memory management than its predecessors, though. Geez, virtualized memory has only been around for 40 or so years, you'd think they'd figure it out by now. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:55:32 -0400, Herb Chong wrote: it is until you try buying a fast one. then you can't find much smaller unless you want 15,000 RPM SCSI. Well, based on this discussion, and other things I've encountered, I won't be upgrading to CS. Screw them if they can't hire software geeks that know their ass from third base. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: OT: Photoshop CS
On Sat, 15 May 2004 21:19:07 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 2gb ... For the work I do, on the workflow I use, if it hits the scratch disk with 2GB of memory, it's a piece of crap. I don't know if it does or not, since I don't have either CS or 2GB of memory. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
