On windows xp some people recommend moving the swap file to a faster drive for better performance Would this affect Photoshop's performance? TIA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe that the biggest improvement you can make is to add ram up to the point where PS can make effective use of it. In a windows system today this is about 2 gig with PS set to use about 1.7 gig.Having more RAM than this helps, too, since that will be available to other applications.
Speaking about scratch, I stitched 24 d2x images with PTgui yesterday (4 rows of 6 images), the resulting cropped image is 17.000 by 11.000 and the tiff file is 2.4 GB...And it's finished already?
During cropping, the PS scratch went up to 11 GB...
Sorry, I didn't input my question properly What I meant was windows paging file and not the scratch file My computer > properties > advanced > performance > settings > advanced > virtual memory > change If the disk is faster - 7200 rpm - then it supposedly delivers a better performance How does that affect Photoshop? TIAThe answer is "it depends".
The answer is "it depends".
If you're allowing Photoshop to use more memory than you've got RAM, or Photoshop is paged to disk, then the performance of that harddrive matters, to a similar extent as the performance of the disk used for Photoshop scratch space matters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And it's finished already?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Where does this leave the notebook users among us - where a 2nd disk is not an option, unfortunately (unless if using an external USB / Firewire drive).As a notebook user, you've already sacrificed performance on the altar of convenience.
I guess, that a 2nd drive of similar speed wouldn't add much value in any system (desktop or notbook), if one may assume, that normally _either_ the scratch file _or_ the Windows page file are accessed, but never both of them simultaneously?That's an assumption which I don't think you can rely on. It's not unlikely that both are accessed simultaneously, especially considering the stupid way Windows uses its page file.
I.e. a 2-disk-setup only makes sense at all having the 2nd disk's speed far beyond USB/Firewire levels, if I got it right?Not necessarily. The important thing is to have the second disk on a separate channel. USB is unfortunately rather unsuitable for this, but Firewire could probably work. The downside to this is that you're creating a shackle by adding that external drive.
If so, then the primary option left to tackle performance issues on single-disk-systems such as notebooks is probably down to the amount of memory - what's a reasonable amount on notebooks? what are the notebook users amoung yourself experiencing / suggesting?A reasonable amount would be 4 GB, but I don't recall seeing that possibility in a notebook. There might be a laptop or a portable with that kind of capacity, but notebooks are in general just too small to fit that amount of RAM right now.
It just finished 5 minutes ago...
That 8 GB quad G5 is becoming more attractive every day... I am not sure whether I can wait for Vista to show up...Keep in mind that in current versions of MacOS X, GUI apps can't address more than 4 GB of RAM anyway.
...Keep in mind that in current versions of MacOS X, GUI apps can't address more than 4 GB of RAM anyway....Right but if the application is developed by a clever team they can split the GUI front-end from the working code (different app)...We did just that with medical imaging software earlier this year.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd buy that RAM from another vendor than Apple, though, Apple is charging way too much money.The only good thing about buying RAM from Apple is that it is covered by the AppleCare extended warranty... Frankly, I'm not sure if it's worth the hefty price tag (well, IMO, i'ts not).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right but if the application is developed by a clever team they can split the GUI front-end from the working code (different app)...We did just that with medical imaging software earlier this year.Yes, but we're discussing Photoshop here, not some recently developed app.
The only good thing about buying RAM from Apple is that it is covered by the AppleCare extended warranty... Frankly, I'm not sure if it's worth the hefty price tag (well, IMO, i'ts not).Yes, that's a point.
Yes, but we're discussing Photoshop here, not some recently developed app.Right, I forgot that it was about Photoshop only - Sorry.
Photoshop CS2's limit is 3.5 GB, BTW. I think that program could do well with a recode of several core elements as well as parts of the user interface.
Yes, that's a point.
....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, I forgot that it was about Photoshop only - Sorry.No problem. It's a useful reminder that Adobe should get around to fixing this.
From Adobe support website it looks like Photoshop can really take advantage of more than 4GB of RAM:No, it's not Photoshop taking advantage of it, but the operating system.
..If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB (Windows) or 8 GB (Mac OS)), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop, is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system...It depends on your usage patterns.
I've never bothered to perform tests on my Macs to see if the ones with 8GB are really that much faster than the ones with only 4GB.
...
Here's how to create a 4 GB ramdisk on the command line (you probably need to do it differently to ensure that it happens at every boot, though); lines beginning with the $ sign is the command, and the following line(s) is(are) the output from the command:$ hdid -nomount ram://8388608....
/dev/disk1
$ hdiutil mount /dev/disk1
Initializing...
Attaching...
Finishing...
Finishing...
/dev/disk2 /Volumes/untitled
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]