Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: CS4 VERY NICE!  (Read 72273 times)

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2008, 09:23:50 pm »

Quote from: DiaAzul
I have roughly the same system on order, though with Core i7 rather than Q9550. Just tried your speed test on my current computer and beginning to think that an upgrade isn't going to be worthwhile ;-)   Took 4min15 for CS3 and 3min5 for CS4  

I went back and did the speed test on my prior machine... CS4 took me 4 min 40 seconds to complete the same test. Talk about an upgrade!!

Lightroom is super speedy on the new box too. I imported 200 RAW files from the 5D and it can build the 1:1 previews at a rate very close to 1 second per image! Lightroom on the old machine was soooooo slooooow... it was what ultimately forced me to upgrade.

Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2008, 10:50:14 pm »

64 seconds.

I didn't close all my programs, like firewalls, scanners, sound etc.

Are you suppose to hit the stop watch as soon as you hit the start button, or wait for the test to make it's first move? It just sits there for a few seconds. I started it immediately as I pressed the start button.

CPU: AMD x2 64 4800
RAM: Corsair Extreme 4GB (Overclocked to 200Mhz)
Video: 7800GTX
Mian Board: Asus A8N Premium SLI
OS: Vista 64
PSCS4

This system was built by me in July of 2005. At that time the CPU, RAM, and Video was the hottest you could buy.

Your new system is over three times are fast as mine with this test. 18 seconds is smokin' for that. Makes me want to upgrade, but in real world use, I'm not sitting around waiting for things to happen, unless I'm doing same radical rendering like that test does, which isn't often. All the same, it would save me time during days that heavily I process and design.

There is another test thatn likes to circulate also. It's based on radial blur. Apple likes to use it to show how much faster Macs are than PCs. The problem is that when you run a test like this one, Macs get hit hard compared to PCs, but taht was back in the days before Mac went to Intel CPUs.

In any event, it would be fun to see what you system clocks on the radial blur test.

Instructions:

1. Down load the file:
[attachment=9919:20056453...46016_rs.jpg]


2. Open it in PS.

3. Choose Filter, Blur, Radial Blur:
Amount 100%
Blur Method: Spin
Quality: Best

4. Set your PS image window to "Timing." This will automatically time it for you. When the blur is done, read the time in the bottom left of the image window.

I did it in:
1st test: 56 sec. on a fresh PC and PS start.
2nd Test: 34 sec. Closed the image, reopen it. Ran test. .
3rd test: 29 sec. Closed PS, restarted PS, reopened image. Ran test.

This is the exact same speed I got running CS and Win XP back in 2005.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 04:41:00 am by dwdallam »
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2008, 10:57:13 pm »

Quote from: pom
I don't think you can run your calibration in x32 then have the computer use the profile in x64 but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thing is that my original spyder has always been perfect for my CRT's (I don't use LCD's) and gives me perfect colour matching, I'm scared to mess with a winning combination!  


I don't think it matter as far as the profile goes. Just try it. Shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes. If you download Acronis True Image you can create a boot disk that has the boot level Acronis TI program on it. It never expires and the download is free. After you get the boot image create on a CD you can remove TI from windows, as it is only a trial. If you have 32 bit already installed, make an image and then restore that image to your external hard drive. Then load 64 on your main drive. If thta doesn't work for some reason, use the image of your 32 bit system you made to restore your main drive. Takesa bout 10 minutes and you're back in business again.

In fact, everyone here working professionally should have a boot level True Image disk and an image of your C drive and program partition, if you partition. It's so nice to have that image ready when you boot in and for some reason all your dlls are corrupted. Saved my ass several times now.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2008, 03:35:41 am »

Unless there is a way to disable the Adobe Auto-Run_No_Matter-What-You-Do Updater, this is another serious infraction from my perspective. It's pegs CPU and clogs bandwidth. Poorly written for sure.

For those of you pulling your hair out over this in Windows, here you go:

Browse to:
C:\program files (x86)\common files\adobe\updater6\adobeupdater.exe
Change the file name to something like: adobeupdater.exe.STOP

So tired of that stiupid program launching every time I open an app.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 03:36:18 am by dwdallam »
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2008, 04:20:58 am »

Quote from: dwdallam
1st test: 56 sec. on a fresh PC and PS start.
2nd Test: 34 sec. Closed the image, reopen it. Ran test. .
3rd test: 29 sec. Closed PS, restarted PS, reopened image. Ran test.
Photoshop Elements 4.01, PowerMac Quad G5 with "automatic" performance (i.e.: the processors are running slower and cooler until you need the processing power), 6.5 GiB RAM (no RAM disk, PS El is allowed to use up to 3072 MiB):

1st test: 33.3s (PS El was in the background and was "woken up" for the test)
2nd test: 20.7s (Closed the image, set CPU performance to maximum, reopened the image)
3rd test: 28.3s (Closed PS El, restarted, reopened, CPU perf still at maximum)

I don't think I can run the Action-based test with PS El 4, though. I guess I could download a trial version of CS4, but that will have to wait a bit.

The Quad G5 was acquired three years ago.
Logged
Jan

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2008, 04:41:54 am »

Quote from: jani
Photoshop Elements 4.01, PowerMac Quad G5 with "automatic" performance (i.e.: the processors are running slower and cooler until you need the processing power), 6.5 GiB RAM (no RAM disk, PS El is allowed to use up to 3072 MiB):

1st test: 33.3s (PS El was in the background and was "woken up" for the test)
2nd test: 20.7s (Closed the image, set CPU performance to maximum, reopened the image)
3rd test: 28.3s (Closed PS El, restarted, reopened, CPU perf still at maximum)

I don't think I can run the Action-based test with PS El 4, though. I guess I could download a trial version of CS4, but that will have to wait a bit.

The Quad G5 was acquired three years ago.


Yep it's a test developed for the MAC CPUs.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2008, 10:28:49 am »

that "speed" test is not very demanding on the system as it won't force scratch.  My 2-generation old MacBookPro 15", 2.6/4G RAM (2g to CS4), did it in 31, 32 and 29 seconds. I'll run it on my desktop on Monday just for fun.
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2008, 03:09:35 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
that "speed" test is not very demanding on the system as it won't force scratch.  My 2-generation old MacBookPro 15", 2.6/4G RAM (2g to CS4), did it in 31, 32 and 29 seconds. I'll run it on my desktop on Monday just for fun.

Why do you want to test your hard drive with scratch? My system never writes to the scratch disk, or more technically, the "Page" file. If it did, I'd go from 4 to 8 GB of RAM. The point is to get PS off your hard drive for manipulations. Am I missing your point?

and yeah your MAC will score good on it because it runs best on a MAC. That's why MAC used it back in the day. It was something the MAC CPU could do well, even better than the AMDs and Intel's of the time, until AMD broke open teh flood gates wit the X2 64 generation Dual Core CPUs back in 2005. That's about the same time MAC tossed in the chips and went Intel.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #48 on: November 29, 2008, 09:42:39 am »

Quote from: dwdallam
Why do you want to test your hard drive with scratch? My system never writes to the scratch disk, or more technically, the "Page" file. If it did, I'd go from 4 to 8 GB of RAM. The point is to get PS off your hard drive for manipulations. Am I missing your point?

First off, page and scratch can be two different things; using accepted jargon, page generally refers to the OS caching or swapping back to the OS drive while scratch generally refers to CS paging for itself.  

The point folks tend to not be aware of (miss) is that CS is still poorly coded when it come to memory utilization. It will reserve scratch even if it has excess RAM available "just in case." It generally needs a fairly large file, like 50MB to force it to start that, so if you only shoot P&S jpegs and don't use many layers and don't open a bunch of images at the same time, then you'll probably rarely scratch.  However, if you regularly work with 16MP DSLR files with a few layers and have multiple files open at the same time, CS will scratch in the background if only to save history states. IOW it reserves scratch by actually setting up the file even if it doesn't need it. If you don't have a scratch disk, you'll see your system temporarily "hang" while it reserves that space on your base volume if you don't have a dedicated scratch partition.  

As for the spin test being Mac specific, I don't think so.  It was posted online several years back, BEFORE Intel Macs came on the scene.  As for Macs being better with the CS spin filter, why should they be any different than PC's -- I mean they're using basically the same hardware nowadays aren't they?  

FWIW, my main machine has 16G RAM and I run a RAID-0 stripe for my CS scratch volume and I see a significant difference in performance over a single-drive scratch.  If you read Lloyd's article in the link above, he explains the why very well.  Here's a better, direct link (note that the section on CS performance holds a lot of good info for BOTH platforms!): http://macperformanceguide.com/
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 09:56:16 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

mcbroomf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
    • Mike Broomfield
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #49 on: November 29, 2008, 02:53:01 pm »

FWIW here are some more numbers with a PC..

XP Pro, Core 2 Duo, E6700 (2.66GHz), 4GB (with /3GB switch)

Without a shutdown, but closing all other apps;
28.7
Close/reopen file
19.6
Restart system
27.8
Close/reopen file
19.7


Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #50 on: November 29, 2008, 04:48:37 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
The point folks tend to not be aware of (miss) is that CS is still poorly coded when it come to memory utilization. It will reserve scratch even if it has excess RAM available "just in case." It generally needs a fairly large file, like 50MB to force it to start that, so if you only shoot P&S jpegs and don't use many layers and don't open a bunch of images at the same time, then you'll probably rarely scratch.


Care to explain the "poorly coded" comment? I would argue that Photoshop is very well coded considering it almost ALWAYS pushed the sphere of engineering at the time a particular version comes out. Also, since version 3, Photoshop automatically creates a scratch disk upon launch based on the amount of ram it has access to. This is to ensure that VM operations are always tuned to be available since Photoshop doesn't know whether the next image opened will be a tiny jpeg or massive scan in 16 bits.

The way to determine your relative in-ram performance vs. scratch is in an open doc window at the lower left, click the flyout to select Efficiency. As long as your Efficiency remains 100% then all operations will be performed in ram. If the normal work you do causes the Efficiency to drop under 90% you're hitting a lot of scratch disk and need to either get more ram or work on smaller or less open images. Many people forget that it's the total number of open images x file size x screen caching that dictate your ram needs...so it's useful to not open multiple images at once unless you need to.

But I sure wouldn't describe Photoshop's VM coding as poor...far from it. There is however a lot of poor understanding out there regarding optimizing Photoshop's performance.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2008, 06:27:58 pm »

Quote from: Schewe
Care to explain the "poorly coded" comment?

Hi Jeff:

Specifically how or what processes it uses to decide when to scratch...  I am running 7200 RPM SATA2 drives striped that will do both sustained reads and writes at around 120MB/S on real-world data, yet the fastest the I/O clock on CS scratch to the fastest partition on that striped array is only about 50MB/S --- obviously something inside CS coding is limiting the I/O process.   Full disclosure, that was an I/O test I last ran on CS3 and have not tested it yet in CS4, but my seat of the pants tells me CS4 is not significantly better. As far as performance in CS, I have lots of RAM, scratch on the fast part of a dedicated RAID-0 array that nothing else is running on (obviously), use bigger tiles (yes it helps on overall performance) and use the "turn off scratch compression plugin" which helps quite a lot. The VM buffering plug-ins are useless so I don't use either and let CS manage that automatically. I've even set up RAM disks and used them for scratch to no benefit -- at the end of the day, CS still cannot scratch to free RAM at anywhere near capability and in fact is not appreciably different than scratching to my striped array!  So again, I am pretty confident the bottleneck is in CS's coding...  Maybe you have some legacy code buried in there that hasn't been looked at in a while?
 
Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2008, 08:53:28 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
So again, I am pretty confident the bottleneck is in CS's coding...


And I'm pretty confident you are wrong...and you are wrong about the Force VM buffering if you are running on Leopard. It can make a huge difference (it's on by default with Windows).

So, just understand, depending on the amount of ram allocated to Photoshop, Photoshop will ALWAYS create a scratch file of a certain size when launched. Whether or not you hit the scratch heavy or at all is viewable using the Efficiency reading. If you are at 100%, neither you nor Photoshop are depending on scratch. What's your standard efficiency %? And I can't comment on your Photoshop performance unless you give the specs. As far as Photoshop's VM and performance, it's pretty darn high-end and not in the least bit "poor". I would look to your system and setup as poor if it's not performing up to speed. Really...
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2008, 09:34:29 pm »

Quote from: Schewe
And I'm pretty confident you are wrong...and you are wrong about the Force VM buffering if you are running on Leopard. It can make a huge difference (it's on by default with Windows).

So, just understand, depending on the amount of ram allocated to Photoshop, Photoshop will ALWAYS create a scratch file of a certain size when launched. Whether or not you hit the scratch heavy or at all is viewable using the Efficiency reading. If you are at 100%, neither you nor Photoshop are depending on scratch. What's your standard efficiency %? And I can't comment on your Photoshop performance unless you give the specs. As far as Photoshop's VM and performance, it's pretty darn high-end and not in the least bit "poor". I would look to your system and setup as poor if it's not performing up to speed. Really...

Jeff,

With all due respect, I know my way around setting up both computers and CS efficiently -- and I am confident my machine is up to snuff on both.  FTR it's an 8-core 3.2 new version MacPro with 16G RAM and really fast drives, and blows all the normal benchmark tests off the charts.

My normal efficiency is 100% except on large prints. When files go over a gig, my efficiency usually dips to around 95% on sharpening or filters, etc. My really big print files can get up to 6 gigs with a couple layers, and then efficiency drops down to 55% or so. This is when I see my I/O running way below what my drives are capable of --- and not only that, I watch all 8-cores move almost to idle while CS is slowly paging away...  And FWIW, I am *not* the only person who has noted this behavior from CS in high horsepower Macs with large files.  

As for force VM buffering, it only made a small difference on my machine with larger files, but actually slowed down operations on smaller, more normal files. Since I use both regularly, it's why I said it was useless on my system and why I let CS choose when to apply it.

Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #54 on: November 30, 2008, 01:15:52 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
My normal efficiency is 100% except on large prints. When files go over a gig, my efficiency usually dips to around 95% on sharpening or filters, etc. My really big print files can get up to 6 gigs with a couple layers, and then efficiency drops down to 55% or so. This is when I see my I/O running way below what my drives are capable of --- and not only that, I watch all 8-cores move almost to idle while CS is slowly paging away...  And FWIW, I am *not* the only person who has noted this behavior from CS in high horsepower Macs with large files.

My experience as well.

Besides, just compare the opening time of tiff files in PS CS3/4 vs other apps like Helicon focus or PTgui and it will be VERY obvious that PS I/O performance isn' that great on fast macs.

I have not done any rigorous tests, but those apps are at least twice faster opening files.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #55 on: November 30, 2008, 02:45:23 am »

Quote from: dwdallam
Your new system is over three times are fast as mine with this test. 18 seconds is smokin' for that. Makes me want to upgrade, but in real world use, I'm not sitting around waiting for things to happen, unless I'm doing same radical rendering like that test does, which isn't often. All the same, it would save me time during days that heavily I process and design.

There is another test thatn likes to circulate also. It's based on radial blur. Apple likes to use it to show how much faster Macs are than PCs. The problem is that when you run a test like this one, Macs get hit hard compared to PCs, but taht was back in the days before Mac went to Intel CPUs.

In any event, it would be fun to see what you system clocks on the radial blur test.

Instructions:

1. Down load the file:
[attachment=9919:20056453...46016_rs.jpg]


2. Open it in PS.

3. Choose Filter, Blur, Radial Blur:
Amount 100%
Blur Method: Spin
Quality: Best

4. Set your PS image window to "Timing." This will automatically time it for you. When the blur is done, read the time in the bottom left of the image window.

I did it in:
1st test: 56 sec. on a fresh PC and PS start.
2nd Test: 34 sec. Closed the image, reopen it. Ran test. .
3rd test: 29 sec. Closed PS, restarted PS, reopened image. Ran test.

This is the exact same speed I got running CS and Win XP back in 2005.

Mine does it in 8 seconds... tried it a couple different ways with no difference.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2008, 02:46:07 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I have not done any rigorous tests, but those apps are at least twice faster opening files.

You want to open large files quick? Set your image cache to 1. You have no idea what goes on under the hood when opening large multi-layered files...Ps must decode all the layers, the masks, the adjustments and then pop the image open at the end. That takes enormous cpu time, and fast disk i/o is not a factor. Course, if you do then zooming into large files will suck. It's always a trade off.

Performance WOULD be much better if Apple had not killed Carbon 64 and Adobe had been able to do a Mac 64 bit version. Unless you actually see a fully loaded Vista 64 multicore running CS4 64, you don't know how pissed you should be at Apple :~(

As for the dual quadcores, Apple's implementation of the memory across all 8 cores suck...but if you have 16-32 gigs and are working on large files, Force VM will speed things that have to hit disk a lot.

Photoshop's VM is pretty high-powered although getting a bit long in the tooth which is why it would have been great to be able to feed Photoshop more ram. It'll happen for CS5 (I'm pretty darn sure) and Mac users will be happy then.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #57 on: November 30, 2008, 03:14:52 am »

Quote from: Schewe
And I'm pretty confident you are wrong...and you are wrong about the Force VM buffering if you are running on Leopard. It can make a huge difference (it's on by default with Windows).

So, just understand, depending on the amount of ram allocated to Photoshop, Photoshop will ALWAYS create a scratch file of a certain size when launched. Whether or not you hit the scratch heavy or at all is viewable using the Efficiency reading. If you are at 100%, neither you nor Photoshop are depending on scratch. What's your standard efficiency %? And I can't comment on your Photoshop performance unless you give the specs. As far as Photoshop's VM and performance, it's pretty darn high-end and not in the least bit "poor". I would look to your system and setup as poor if it's not performing up to speed. Really...


That's exactly how I've understood it and using efficiency many times I've not seen my system go under 100% with 4GB available ram while working on 1DS3 files, sometimes two open at once or more with light room open in background too. At two GB I was hitting scratch so often I bought 2GB more RAM. If I do hit the scratch it's not for rendering. When I'm applying heavy manipulation and the scratch disk goes off, I buy more ram. That hasn't happen yet with 4GB and working on 1DS3 files. I'm doing a 4'x2' graphics banner at 300ppi soon, which should be a good test of my available RAM.

Also, CS464 opens on my drive in 11 seconds flat on a fresh start and 4 seconds on startups after the first one.! I'm running a single hard drive (For my OS and PS), which is an Enterprise HD from Western Digital (RE series at 7200RPMs. A fast drive, but not what you would call extra fast in single HD mode.) I had coffee and a shave while opening CS3. It's a real improvement in taht regard, at least for me.

There are things I've noted that I would like to see in the future, but I'm still saying this is a damn good effort by Adobe with PSCS4. PSCS4 is running very crisp and responsive on my rig (Don't know what the deal is with the clone stamp lag though.)

I am, however, not running a MAC, which may be the difference.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 03:40:19 am by dwdallam »
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2008, 03:20:36 am »

Quote from: Sheldon N
Mine does it in 8 seconds... tried it a couple different ways with no difference.

LOL. nice! Damn that is smoking.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
CS4 VERY NICE!
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2008, 03:33:25 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
As for the spin test being Mac specific, I don't think so.  It was posted online several years back, BEFORE Intel Macs came on the scene.  As for Macs being better with the CS spin filter, why should they be any different than PC's -- I mean they're using basically the same hardware nowadays aren't they?  

FWIW, my main machine has 16G RAM and I run a RAID-0 stripe for my CS scratch volume and I see a significant difference in performance over a single-drive scratch.  If you read Lloyd's article in the link above, he explains the why very well.  Here's a better, direct link (note that the section on CS performance holds a lot of good info for BOTH platforms!): http://macperformanceguide.com/


Yeah I posted that before MACs went to Intel that was one of their tests to showcase the MAC CPUs. But enve though MACs use Intel CPUs does not mean they are the same CPUs that PCs use (I don't know if that is true, but just stating the fact it's not necessarily equal). MACs, I think, still have proprietary MBs too, right? And then you have a completely different  OS too. I don't have any idea if that would make a diff or not.

But the point of the test is to test your CPU performance, not hard drive performance. If you want to test Hard Drive performance, use Hard Drive Tack or something like that. If you're hitting the scratch disk, then your work efficiency is suffering. Again, when and if this happens enough to annoy me again, I'll go to 8GB of RAM or maybe even 16. I'm not worried about HD speed using this type of program that is designed to use RAM to prevent hard drive usage--in theory. Well, especially now with 64 bit OS's and CS4, since you can now use as much RAM as you need to keep from scratching.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up