«

On May 27, 12:19*am, John Turco <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>
> > > On 2011-05-15 18:41:39 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:
>
> > BTW: Your clock, or your server's clock seems to be several hours
> > out of whack again.
>
> It's his damned, unreliable Macintosh machine...Apple can't even
> make an accurate computer clock, apparently.

Neither can PCs, you don;t need so called accurate clocks fro telling
the time
that's what time servers are for. Clocks in computers have never
needed to be accurate.

>
> Also, have you ever noticed that "nospam" >never< uses uppercase
> letters? It's another indication of faulty hardware (i.e., "Shift"
> and/or "Caps Lock" keys), I fear.

Or just doesn't see the need for them.

>
> Seriously, though: In your retirement, you have lots of free time,
> to build your own PC(s). It's fun, and I should get around to my
> 4th assembly, after delaying it for some three years.

It can be fun if you have the time and patience.
There's genuine advantages for some but for others it's just a pain.
Friends have done it, if you're a gamer it's the best option but for
most
casual users it's a waste of time.
Few people have the skills to compare all the available products and
decide which
is right for them and why.
It can be difficult enough deciding which Mac to buy and there's only
relatively few
6 or less compare that to the number of PCs to choose from ....

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> >> Hopefully, one day someone will write true 64 bit image processing
> >> >> software and I will stop running out of memory when I have too many
> >> >> large images open.
> >> >
> >> >many companies already have.
> >>
> >> I would be interested to know who. All I have looked at turn out to be
> >> 32 bit.
> >
> >photoshop, lightroom, aperture, pixelmator. i'm sure there are more.
>
> Golly!
>
> The last time I looked it was only 32 bit and loaded into the x86
> folder. Is it now a true 64 bit program?

both 32 and 64 bit versions are available.

i think windows defaults to installing the 32 bit version so you may
need to manually install the 64 bit version. on mac it's one universal
app.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > The performance of my own 64 bit machine is limited by disc I/O.
>
> So is the performance of a typical 32-bit machine. Disk and network I/O are
> the sources of delay in almost all types of desktop applications and computers
> nowadays.

nope. frequently, it's cpu bound.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > totally wrong. 64 bit apps are generally faster than 32 bit apps,
> > sometimes dramatically so, on the same processor.
>
> Do some measurements. You'll be surprised.

take your own advice before spouting more nonsense.

i *have* compared both versions (as have others) and the difference is
very noticeable.

On 5/27/2011 11:32 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article< >, Mxsmanic
> <> wrote:
>
>>> The performance of my own 64 bit machine is limited by disc I/O.
>>
>> So is the performance of a typical 32-bit machine. Disk and network I/O are
>> the sources of delay in almost all types of desktop applications and computers
>> nowadays.
>
> nope. frequently, it's cpu bound.

Don't forget bus speed.

--
Peter

In article <270520110832355674%>,
d says...
>
> In article <>, Eric Stevens
> <> wrote:
>
> > >> >> Hopefully, one day someone will write true 64 bit image processing
> > >> >> software and I will stop running out of memory when I have too many
> > >> >> large images open.
> > >> >
> > >> >many companies already have.
> > >>
> > >> I would be interested to know who. All I have looked at turn out to be
> > >> 32 bit.
> > >
> > >photoshop, lightroom, aperture, pixelmator. i'm sure there are more.
> >
> > Golly!
> >
> > The last time I looked it was only 32 bit and loaded into the x86
> > folder. Is it now a true 64 bit program?
>
> both 32 and 64 bit versions are available.
>
> i think windows defaults to installing the 32 bit version so you may
> need to manually install the 64 bit version. on mac it's one universal
> app.

On Photoshop CS5, if you have a 64-bit OS, the 64 and 32 bit versions
both install (I seem to recall that there can be issues with some third-
party plugins on the 64-bit so they do both to provide a workaround
until the plugin vendors get their act together). If you have a 32-bit
OS the 32 bit version installs.

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam <> said:
>
>> In article <4de09c38$0$2191$>, Ray Fischer
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> 32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
>>> because they don't need to access memory as much.
>>
>> 64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit counterparts.
>
> Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <4de09c38$0$2191$>, Ray Fischer
><> wrote:
>
>> 32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
>> because they don't need to access memory as much.
>
>64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit counterparts.

The moon is made of swiss cheese.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams <> said:
>
>> On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam <> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <4de09c38$0$2191$>, Ray Fischer
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
>>>>> because they don't need to access memory as much.
>>>>
>>>> 64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit counterparts.
>>>
>>> Yup!
>>
>> Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
>> puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.
>>
>> Have a fine Memorial Day!
>
>On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
>Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
>considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

In article <irrggj$q19$>, John McWilliams
<> wrote:

> >>> 32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
> >>> because they don't need to access memory as much.
> >>
> >> 64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit counterparts.
> >
> > Yup!
>
> Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
> puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

actually, it's not that simple. one major advantage for 64 bit are the
additional cpu registers which allow for code optimizations, and that
can help regardless of how much memory there is. another benefit is
being able to directly address huge amounts of memory. there are also
situations where 64 bit may be slower.

however, 64 bit photoshop & lightroom *are* faster (and this is trivial
to test) unless the images are small, in which case adjustments are
going to be instant so it won't matter either way. on the other hand,
if the images are large, there can be a significant performance
improvements with 64 bit, in some cases 10x or more.