At the game company I work for we have 15 artists all with brand new Photoshop CS’s…. we all have slightly different systems…but basicly WIN 2000, P4 1.5 gig, gig of ram, and 4 gig scratch disk…. all of us seem to feel CS is running slow….the list of slow things are….
:: program opens slow (this is most likly fonts being loaded) :: opens files (of all types) slow :: runs filters slow…also opening the new filters workspace is painful :: saves files slow….even small PNG files
…..we all feel like this program is stuck in low gear….
what we would like to know is…do we have something seriously setup wrong or are others out there finding CS just to be slow-poke??? Thanks.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
This has been discussed at length and is still being kicked around. A search will bring up relevant threads. One thing that helped me immediately was not letting the Browser run in the background, at least until it has finished cataloging all your images. Also, try setting your cache level at 6 and tweaking your memory allocation downward. As I said, some tips can be found if you are willing to look for them.
I just upgraded from PS 7 to PS CS and I to noticed it seems to run slower. Currently I am running a P4 2.6Hz with 1GB PC2700 DDR Ram using Windows XP Pro. Thinking about a newer system, Intel Pentium 4 processor 2.8C GHz with Hyper-Threading (HT) Technology 800MHz frontside bus, 1GB PC2700 333MHz DDR RAM. Would this system make that much of difference in operating performance when using PS CS?
Also if I purchase a newer system will I be able to install PS CS on to the new system even though I have on the older system?
Mine runs super fast I dont see any of the problems you guys are having but I do run a firewall blocking outgoing access to the web when Im running because of the spyware installed with Photoshop. Get ZONEALARM and see if it speeds thigns up for you. Otherwise I dont know what to tell ya your specs look good sooooooo your on your own I guess.
I was replying to the posting which seems to be removed:
———————————————————— ——– DV8R – 07:10am Dec 19, 2003 Pacific (#3 of 4) Edited: 19-Dec-2003 at 07:11am PST
Mine runs super fast I dont see any of the problems you guys are having but I do run a firewall blocking outgoing access to the web when Im running because of the spyware installed with Photoshop. Get ZONEALARM and see if it speeds thigns up for you. Otherwise I dont know what to tell ya your specs look good sooooooo your on your own I guess.
———————————————————— ——-
Also I noticed my original posting had been removed:
———————————————————— —
Stuart Schaefer – 07:07am Dec 19, 2003 Pacific (#2 of 2)
I just upgraded from PS 7 to PS CS and I to noticed it seems to run slower. Currently I am running a P4 2.6Hz with 1GB PC2700 DDR Ram using Windows XP Pro. Thinking about a newer system, Intel Pentium 4 processor 2.8C GHz with Hyper-Threading (HT) Technology 800MHz frontside bus, 1GB PC2700 333MHz DDR RAM. Would this system make that much of difference in operating performance when using PS CS?
Also if I purchase a newer system will I be able to install PS CS on to the new system even though I have on the older system? ———————————————————-
Could someone please explain why these postings where removed?
I doubt that you will see any really significant difference in PSCS performance with such a minor upgrade. I have a P4 2.4G laptop and a new desktop Athlon 2800 both with 1G of RAM and PSCS flies on both.
Because of hardware problems with the desktop, I had to do a lot of switching of parts, running memory at different speeds etc. I did various speed tests in PS just to see what would happen. My finding is that there is a minor difference between 400 Mhz and 266 Mhz memory speed, certainly not significant in the real world. I also orignally had an Athlon 3000 400FSB processor which appears to have been the culprit in the hardware problems. I swapped this for a 2800 333 FSB processor and the two run at almost identical speeds. I expect that you would not find any significant change moving from a P2.6 to a P2.8. If you really want to upgrade, it would be more sensible to go for a much higher spec processor.
However, the most amazing thing I have discovered in my speed testing was the effect that reformatting the hard drive on my laptop and reinstalling XP had on the speed of PSCS. Before this, the laptop was about 30 to 50% slower than the Athlon for most PS operations. After the reformat, it runs as fast for many or for some operations even faster than the Athlon. I don’t know if you would see the same effect but this would be what I would suggest to anybody following my experience.
I had no problem reactivating PS either. And you can install on two machines by the way.
m reason the posts were removed – my guess is that DV8R was sitting on his keyboards and blowing hot gas at it when he posted. Complete c**p to put it mildly.
I really do not want to put any money out at this time for a new system. But had just been wondering if the new Hyper-Threading (HT) Technology would make any real difference. You have answered my question.
By the way I did install PSCS on my laptop with no problems.
You’re welcome, Stu. In a previous version of the forum, you could specify in your preferences how many previous messages you wanted to display. A handy feature, but alas, it’s history.
Stuart I have to admit complete ignorance on hyperthreading and whether it is even supported by PS. I have seen it mentioned in a few threads but haven’t paid a lot of attention. I guess the main point I was making is that there are probably several factors affecting performance and one of then is probably condition of the OS and the hard drive. All other things being equal, the differences I have seen between the P2.4 and the Athlon 3000 are minor. I don’t really want to admit it to myself but I didn’t really need to spend a grand on a new machine. Good luck
No spyware. A bug where Version Cue always looks for a local server even if it’s shut off. If you looked at the firewall log, you’d see the contact address was localhost.
HyperThreading has very little effect on the performance of Photoshop. That’s pretty much true of HyperThreading in general. It can keep the system seeming more responsive if a single application is very busy, but in general, HyperThreading is not a substitute for a multiprocessor system.
The answer you receive to that question depends largely of whom you ask it. The Adobies will tell you good things, the occasional magazine or web site test may paint a different picture. Some parts of PS are better able to harness the power of duals than others, so the amount of boost you see may be different than the gain that I experience. I spent the better part of an afternoon using PS6 on a dual PIII machine and I was left feeling ambivalent. It was no dog, but it didn’t blow my socks off either.
Having said all that, I intend for my next machine to sport duals just because I sometimes have several irons in the fire at once: FreeHand, InDesign, Photoshop, plus misc. utilities and minor apps all up and running at the same time. Once in a great while my ‘puter has a seizure and goes into brain lock for a few seconds if I’m really pounding it hard. Once in a greater while it becomes an unrecoverable stoppage that requires a reboot. Work lost. Bad. I am hoping duals my help to cure that.
Thanks for the the input. I think for the time being I will stay with my present system: P4 2.6Hz with 1GB PC2700 DDR Ram. After much research I do not see there would be much of advantage upgrading to the HyperThreading from what I have now.
I am also running Photoshop CS on an XP system with a plenty big-enough hard drive. I also wonder if I have things set up wrong. It takes 2-3 minutes before the program fully loads each time. I have more plug-ins loaded into PSP8 than I do Photoshop CS and Photoshop CS takes easily 3-4 times longer loading. Any suggestions?
I have just installed the Tryout for Photoshop CS.
In all the tests that I have done so far, with the exception of loading,it is faster than Photoshop7.01. It takes 15 secs to load wheras 7 takes 7 secs. The Shadow /Highlight tool is terrific as are the Photo filters. I cannot decide if it is really worth buying.
i’ve recovered dozens of underexposed images already w/shadow hilight. mostly outdoor night shots. several dozen more to go. that was worth the upgrade price for me alone.
check out the new patch tool’s preview. healing to a seperate layer. type on a path…. much more!
I agree with you 100% about the shadow highlight feature. Have gone back through many of my night shots and this feature really brings out the hight lights.
Have not tried the patch tool yet, however that is next on my list.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
