Bob & Glenna Marin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way an OS sets up a RAM disk is by "stealing" or allocating some RAM
> from main memory.
I'm aware of that. I program computers for a living. :)
> This is, essentially what PS is doing normally.
In some respects yes - for things like the workspace for the working image.
> I would find it very hard to believe that a RAM disk would help speed
> things up when 1) there is now less main memory, and 2) everything
> would now have to go through some program code that handles or
> manages the RAM disk.
I think I mentioned that I was only talking about the scratch files.
The overhead of a RAM disk program will be insignificant
compared to the overhead of using Hard Drive I/O. I didn't
say it would *definitely* work. I was asking if anyone had tried
it as a way to fool PS into not using the hard drive so much.
> thing that gets to use the RAM disk is PS. Better yet is to shut
> everything else down that isn't necessary - leaving only PS
> using main memory and, of course, investing in more RAM.
But we have people with more than 256MB of RAM complaining about speed,
and the speed problems are apparently caused by PS using the hard drive
despite having vast amounts of RAM to play with. Editing a 2700dpi film
scan shouldn't require 384MB or more of RAM. I just opened a scan and
it's what, about 25MB? What does PS do with 384MB of RAM that it still
needs more, or still uses the hard drive?? Granted 4000dpi scans will be
bigger but even doubling the 25MB to 50MB still makes me wonder where
all the RAM is going.
Tony answered this to some extent - 16bits per channel and layers will
chew up a LOT of RAM.
I also asked whether the OS makes a difference. Windows NT or Win2K
should have much better memory management than any version of Win9x.
> Even Windows likes more RAM and although MS says Windows will run in
> meager RAM, it only does so by swapping on and off code segments from
> hard disk. Ever notice how much hard disk is consumed by temp files?
Actually, my computer doesn't swap very often, and I only have 160MB of
RAM, but then I'm not doing hours and hours of editing on a picture in PS.
Any version of Windows will run happily with 64MB of RAM (OS alone).
If you're editing 50MB scans in only a PC with only 128MB, the OS won't
leave a lot to play with. But I still can't see why PS needs half a GB
before it runs happily.
Anyway, it probably comes back to another option of speeding the machine -
a faster hard drive system. We already talked about this (RAID arrays etc).
Rob
