Re: Processor for photo editting

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. wrote:

    >>>> photoshop doesn't benefit from 64 bit as much as people think it
    >>>> does, and i assume lightroom is reasonably similar.
    >>>
    >>> It can use 50% more ram, 3GB vs 2GB and then use what is leftover
    >>> for it's scratch space. That isn't significant?

    >>
    >> Just a hint, it aint happening since Photoshop isn't optimized for
    >> 64-bit. You can have 10GB of memory and it aint making any
    >> difference. The only thing significant here is you are in total
    >> bliss with thinking the placebo of having extra memory is actually
    >> helping when it is not. Anything past
    >> 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop.

    >
    > Wrong again. Look at
    > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/photoshop_overview.pdf
    >
    > High-capacity RAM compatibility.
    > Make the most of systems running 64-bit processors. Photoshop CS2 can
    > address approximately 3.5 GB of RAM on a Power Macintosh G5 running
    > Mac OS X, a Windows XP 64-bit Edition system running an Intel® Xeon
    > processor with EM64T, or an AMD Athlon 64 or Opteron processor"


    Yep, just as I suspected, you are beyond placebo bliss. That reads like a
    late night infomercial. I think once you start seeking out unbiased sources
    of information you might find out the real deal. But hey, if it makes you
    feel good throwing more sticks of memory in the old box, by all means......
    It's not going to hurt, but it isn't buying you any real world benefits
    either. It gets worse with CS3 and 64-bit. Photoshop CS3 gets its best
    performance gains from disk I/O and SMP upgrades, not memory.





    Rita
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 26, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Berkowitz

    TRoss Guest

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:49:56 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
    <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >>>>> photoshop doesn't benefit from 64 bit as much as people think it
    >>>>> does, and i assume lightroom is reasonably similar.
    >>>>
    >>>> It can use 50% more ram, 3GB vs 2GB and then use what is leftover
    >>>> for it's scratch space. That isn't significant?
    >>>
    >>> Just a hint, it aint happening since Photoshop isn't optimized for
    >>> 64-bit. You can have 10GB of memory and it aint making any
    >>> difference. The only thing significant here is you are in total
    >>> bliss with thinking the placebo of having extra memory is actually
    >>> helping when it is not. Anything past
    >>> 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop.

    >>
    >> Wrong again. Look at
    >> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/photoshop_overview.pdf
    >>
    >> High-capacity RAM compatibility.
    >> Make the most of systems running 64-bit processors. Photoshop CS2 can
    >> address approximately 3.5 GB of RAM on a Power Macintosh G5 running
    >> Mac OS X, a Windows XP 64-bit Edition system running an Intel® Xeon
    >> processor with EM64T, or an AMD Athlon 64 or Opteron processor"

    >
    >Yep, just as I suspected, you are beyond placebo bliss. That reads like a
    >late night infomercial. I think once you start seeking out unbiased sources
    >of information you might find out the real deal.


    I think we can all see the folly of using Adobe as a source of
    information about Photoshop. That would be a foolish as, say, asking a
    Nikon Pros if they really, really shot Nikon digitals prior to the
    release of the "magical" D3.

    It would be much more prudent to ask someone like you about how
    Photoshop allocates and uses memory. After all, it was you, in the
    "crabbing" thread, who told us Nikon Pros secretly shot Canon 5Ds up
    to the release of the D3.

    FWIW, on p172 in the CS-era _Photoshop Masking & Compositioning_,
    Katrin Eismann writes,

    Photoshop currently can address 2 GB of RAM.Hardware and
    operating system manufactures, as well as Adobe Systems, will
    hopefully address this limitation soon.

    >Photoshop CS3 gets its best
    >performance gains from disk I/O and SMP upgrades, not memory.


    Keeping in mind RitaLand is wrong turn past Strawberry Field (where
    nothing is real) and that most real-world experiences do not apply
    there, if Performance Boost == Operating Efficiency....

    Adding a second monitor is gave me the biggest Photoshop performance
    boost. If given the choice of running Photoshop on my mothballed
    Pentium Pro system with 512MB RAM and two monitors or a properly
    configured, fully tricked-out Dual Xeon system with one monitor, I
    would choose the Pentium Pro.

    For me, adding RAM ranked 5th in the performance enhancements I've
    done over the years ... behind adding a Spyder and a Wacom tablet, and
    upgrading Photoshop.

    TR
    TRoss, Mar 26, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. But I did shoot Nikon before the D3 :-/

    Actually the one very brief stage that I had a Canon, I couldn't get used to
    the change in systems and went back to the dark side :p

    Mick Brown


    On 27/3/08 3:38 AM, in article ,
    "TRoss" <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:49:56 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>> photoshop doesn't benefit from 64 bit as much as people think it
    >>>>>> does, and i assume lightroom is reasonably similar.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It can use 50% more ram, 3GB vs 2GB and then use what is leftover
    >>>>> for it's scratch space. That isn't significant?
    >>>>
    >>>> Just a hint, it aint happening since Photoshop isn't optimized for
    >>>> 64-bit. You can have 10GB of memory and it aint making any
    >>>> difference. The only thing significant here is you are in total
    >>>> bliss with thinking the placebo of having extra memory is actually
    >>>> helping when it is not. Anything past
    >>>> 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop.
    >>>
    >>> Wrong again. Look at
    >>> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/photoshop_overview.pdf
    >>>
    >>> High-capacity RAM compatibility.
    >>> Make the most of systems running 64-bit processors. Photoshop CS2 can
    >>> address approximately 3.5 GB of RAM on a Power Macintosh G5 running
    >>> Mac OS X, a Windows XP 64-bit Edition system running an Intel® Xeon
    >>> processor with EM64T, or an AMD Athlon 64 or Opteron processor"

    >>
    >> Yep, just as I suspected, you are beyond placebo bliss. That reads like a
    >> late night infomercial. I think once you start seeking out unbiased sources
    >> of information you might find out the real deal.

    >
    > I think we can all see the folly of using Adobe as a source of
    > information about Photoshop. That would be a foolish as, say, asking a
    > Nikon Pros if they really, really shot Nikon digitals prior to the
    > release of the "magical" D3.
    >
    > It would be much more prudent to ask someone like you about how
    > Photoshop allocates and uses memory. After all, it was you, in the
    > "crabbing" thread, who told us Nikon Pros secretly shot Canon 5Ds up
    > to the release of the D3.
    >
    > FWIW, on p172 in the CS-era _Photoshop Masking & Compositioning_,
    > Katrin Eismann writes,
    >
    > Photoshop currently can address 2 GB of RAM.Hardware and
    > operating system manufactures, as well as Adobe Systems, will
    > hopefully address this limitation soon.
    >
    >> Photoshop CS3 gets its best
    >> performance gains from disk I/O and SMP upgrades, not memory.

    >
    > Keeping in mind RitaLand is wrong turn past Strawberry Field (where
    > nothing is real) and that most real-world experiences do not apply
    > there, if Performance Boost == Operating Efficiency....
    >
    > Adding a second monitor is gave me the biggest Photoshop performance
    > boost. If given the choice of running Photoshop on my mothballed
    > Pentium Pro system with 512MB RAM and two monitors or a properly
    > configured, fully tricked-out Dual Xeon system with one monitor, I
    > would choose the Pentium Pro.
    >
    > For me, adding RAM ranked 5th in the performance enhancements I've
    > done over the years ... behind adding a Spyder and a Wacom tablet, and
    > upgrading Photoshop.
    >
    > TR
    Michael Brown, Mar 26, 2008
    #3
  4. Michael Brown wrote:

    > But I did shoot Nikon before the D3 :-/
    >
    > Actually the one very brief stage that I had a Canon, I couldn't get
    > used to the change in systems and went back to the dark side :p


    Funny, everyone has to sample the old Canon at least once to put perspective
    on how much they would miss if they left Nikon. The old Mk III as great as
    it is has made me appreciate Nikon even more.




    Rita
    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 26, 2008
    #4
  5. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Michael Brown wrote:


    >> Actually the one very brief stage that I had a Canon, I couldn't get
    >> used to the change in systems and went back to the dark side :p


    > Funny, everyone has to sample the old Canon at least once to put perspective
    > on how much they would miss if they left Nikon. The old Mk III as great as
    > it is has made me appreciate Nikon even more.


    Most smokers *try* kicking the habit many times ... and find how
    much they miss their coffin nails. The same is true for many
    other drugs, including things like crack or heroin.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 27, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lou

    editting forwarded emails

    Lou, Aug 2, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    440
    Moz Champion
    Aug 2, 2005
  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: Processor for photo editting

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 24, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    445
  3. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: Processor for photo editting

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 26, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    632
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: Processor for photo editting

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    279
    Paul Allen
    Mar 28, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    694
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page