«

George Kerby <> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>What the hell? Fish-Rot, you have gone completely insane! You think people

Like a little shitty chihuahua dog that no one pays any attention, you just
bark on, begging for attention
kryby in <C6CD2583.33D14%>

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

On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
> 18.5-20.5 MB range.
>
> I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
> iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
> to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
> same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
> My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
> of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
> installed on each of my computers.
>
> ...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
> version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
> scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
> minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
> away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.
>

I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in another
thread.
BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

--
Peter

On 5/28/2011 8:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-05-28 17:13:54 -0700, PeterN <> said:
>
>> On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
>>> 18.5-20.5 MB range.
>>>
>>> I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
>>> iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
>>> to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
>>> same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
>>> My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
>>> of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
>>> installed on each of my computers.
>>>
>>> ...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
>>> version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
>>> scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
>>> minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
>>> away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.
>>>
>>
>> I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
>> waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in
>> another thread.
>> BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?
>
> Not that I recall.
> That said, there are several other participants in the general fracas of
> photo newsgroup discussions who have yet to provide evidence of even
> basic photographic skill.
> Our most prolific poster remains our Peruvian pal Manuel.
>

Miguel?

--
Peter

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> 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.
>
>Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
>18.5-20.5 MB range.
>
> I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
>iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop.

Which makes it an unequal comparison.

> Prior
>to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
>same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
>My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
>of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
>installed on each of my computers.

I don't believe anything that isn't objective numbers measured with an
accurate timer.

Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

THAT's the test I'll accept.

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

PeterN <> wrote:
>I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
>waste of bits and time.

My, what a reasoned response you write. Not one word address the
subject. Just another bitter whine.

>BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

Have you?

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

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > wrong. if the bottleneck was i/o then a faster computer wouldn't make
> > much of a difference, and it does.
>
> No, it doesn't. Many applications take almost exactly the same time to open on
> a fast computer as they do on a slow computer, and that's because almost all
> the delay is disk I/O.

some do, some don't, and the time to open an application is irrelevant
anyway. what matters is actually *using* the application to do real
work.

> In fact, one of the consistent disappointments of getting a faster computer is
> that things really don't run that much faster, if they do any kind of disk
> I/O. And today's bloated software does huge amounts of disk I/O. I've seen
> browsers do thousands of disk I/Os before they even create their first visible
> window.

you obviously need better software.

> > also wrong.
>
> I've measured it.

so have i. you're wrong.

In article <4de2b286$0$2168$>, Ray Fischer
<> wrote:

> > Prior
> >to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
> >same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
> >My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
> >of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
> >installed on each of my computers.
>
> I don't believe anything that isn't objective numbers measured with an
> accurate timer.
>
> Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
> hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

the os is 64 bit. the apps can be either 32 or 64 bit, toggled by a
single mouse click.

> THAT's the test I'll accept.

it's been done, but you'll no doubt find something to further your
preconceived notions.

the fact remains that 64 bit photoshop is faster than 32 bit on the
same hardware except in edge cases such as editing postage stamp sized
images where it doesn't matter.

In article <4de2c803$0$2197$>, Ray Fischer
<> wrote:

> >> Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
> >> hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.
> >
> >the os is 64 bit. the apps can be either 32 or 64 bit, toggled by a
> >single mouse click.
>
> And that's supposed to be the same as a 32-bit OS running a 32-bit
> app?

the only difference is the app. everything else is the same. that's
what you asked for.

> >> THAT's the test I'll accept.
> >
> >it's been done,
>
> Where?

adobe, intel, and by many many users.

> >the fact remains that 64 bit photoshop is faster than 32 bit on the
>
> Where's your evidence?

my computer as well as reports from other users who have used both
versions.

why do you refuse to accept it? where's *your* evidence that it's not
faster?

On 5/29/2011 4:50 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> nospam writes:
>
>> wrong. if the bottleneck was i/o then a faster computer wouldn't make
>> much of a difference, and it does.
>
> No, it doesn't. Many applications take almost exactly the same time to open on
> a fast computer as they do on a slow computer, and that's because almost all
> the delay is disk I/O.
>
> In fact, one of the consistent disappointments of getting a faster computer is
> that things really don't run that much faster, if they do any kind of disk
> I/O. And today's bloated software does huge amounts of disk I/O. I've seen
> browsers do thousands of disk I/Os before they even create their first visible
> window.
>
>> also wrong.
>
> I've measured it.

A faster bus and memory contribute much to processing speed.

--
Peter

On 5/30/2011 1:34 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> PeterN writes:
>
>> I never said it did. But any time we have I/O a slow bus will act as a
>> bottleneck ...
>
> Not true. The bottleneck for disk I/O is in access times, not transfer rates.
> Processor speeds have increased by orders of magnitude, and memory speeds
> nearly as much, along with bus speeds. Transfer rates for disks have increased
> a lot as well. But access times have only slightly improved in the past half
> century or so, and now they are the leading bottleneck in most computer
> systems, along with network delays.
>
> Things like RAID have only slightly improved performance. The access times are
> still huge compared to all other performance factors. Likewise, disk cache has
> only slightly helped: unfortunately, disk cache only works if there is
> significantly locality in disk access, and often there is none, meaning that
> wanted pages are almost never in cache. Write-into cache has also had only a
> moderate effect, since you still have to physically write promptly, and this
> still requires a very slow disk access.

So you are saying that a machine with a 1,200 front side bus won't be
any faster than the identical machine with a 400 front side bus.
(both machines theoretical, of course.)

--
Peter