Photoshop CS and large font list

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:50:39 GMT, "Darrel Hoffman" wrote:

I have alot of fonts. I mean, almost 2000 of them. Photoshop CS seems to take a great deal more time loading fonts than previous versions did. My time from double-click to program open is about 1:30, and when I first click on the Text tool, the program pauses for about 30 seconds before it responds again. (It’s only the first time I use the text tool after loading the program. Every time after that it’s fine.) By contrast, PS7 on the same machine loads in 25 seconds, and the Text tool pops up instantly every time. Has anybody else noticed this discrepency? And is there anything I can do (not that I expect there is) to speed it up? System is Win2K P3, 1.4 Ghz, 512MB DDR, and the HD (80GB, 7200rpm) has plenty of scratch space on it. Should be more than sufficient for the task, I think…

Get a font management program like Bitstream Font Navigator so that only the fonts you actually need are loaded.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate is right about the font management. More than a 100 fonts is a known (MS knowledge base) hinderance to Windows operation. Any application which needs to read all the fonts before it loads, will benefit (however little) from font management.

I might offer another suggestion that a 1.4 GHz P3 is getting a triffle long in the tooth. Service Pack 4 improves 2k quite a lot but at the end of the day, it might be timely to look at more grunt – lots more!

Some 80g drives lack enough on-board cache to smooth out data flow. Certainly IDE drives cannot hope to match the speed and smooth data flow of SATA drives which are now freely available. Certainly too, the 133 MHz front side bus speed of a P3 can never hope to equal the 800 MHz of the newer P4 systems.

Personally, at the prices being bandied about for a new PCs, I wouldn’t hesitate to upgrade. It’s your call. Bitstream costs money …in fact any software solution will cost money. Hot Rodders just put more horsepower in their cars to make ’em go faster. Me? I buy a faster car! The Yowie
——————–
"Darrel Hoffman" wrote in message

I have alot of fonts. I mean, almost 2000 of them. Photoshop CS seems to take a great deal more time loading fonts than previous versions did. My time from double-click to program open is about 1:30, and when I first click on the Text tool, the program pauses for about 30 seconds before it responds again. (It’s only the first time I use the text tool after loading the program. Every time after that it’s fine.) By contrast, PS7 on the same machine loads in 25 seconds, and the Text tool pops up instantly every time. Has anybody else noticed this discrepency? And is there anything I can do (not that I expect there is) to speed it up? System is Win2K P3, 1.4 Ghz, 512MB DDR, and the HD (80GB, 7200rpm) has plenty of scratch space on it. Should be more than sufficient for the task, I think…

Personally, at the prices being bandied about for a new PCs, I

wouldn’t

hesitate to upgrade. It’s your call.

Actually, it’s my boss’s call, and he’s pretty tight-fisted with the budget. Don’t think I’ll be seeing an upgrade any time soon… Oh well. I can live with a small delay if that’s what it takes. I’m still getting paid for that 1:05 extra I spend waiting…

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:05:23 GMT, "The Yowie" wrote:

Some 80g drives lack enough on-board cache to smooth out data flow. Certainly IDE drives cannot hope to match the speed and smooth data flow of SATA drives which are now freely available. Certainly too, the 133 MHz front side bus speed of a P3 can never hope to equal the 800 MHz of the newer P4 systems.

Actually, at present, with the SATA 150Mhz drives, there is very little difference in throughput. An IDE RAID system, for example, is faster, though, of course, a SATA RAID system is faster still. But not by much. I have seen no tests which show more than a 1-2% advantage with current technology. When SATA speeds increase that will change, but you are also limited by other factors.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Sata has faster real world speed because the interference and corruption from flat ribbon cables almost guarantees IDE drives will send at least some of their data twice just to get it clean. 80 wire IDE cables only partly overcame the interference and only while they are not twisted or otherwise distorted out of flat. I don’t ever recall seeing a flat ribbon cable in a working PC which didn’t have at least 1 twist in it.

The whole purpose of having a cable with neutral wires between the active ones is to separate the wires and stop interference. Fold, twist or bend the cable and you defeat the purpose. The 1-2% gain you quote is closer to 10~15% in a working PC with a SATA drive, compared to an EIDE drive. All PCs are limited by "factors". Many factors. Whenever you mention one, it’s always a good idea to be specific.

Yowie
——————————————-

"Hecate" wrote in message

Actually, at present, with the SATA 150Mhz drives, there is very little difference in throughput. An IDE RAID system, for example, is faster, though, of course, a SATA RAID system is faster still. But not by much. I have seen no tests which show more than a 1-2% advantage with current technology. When SATA speeds increase that will change, but you are also limited by other factors.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:38:35 GMT, "The Yowie" wrote:

Sata has faster real world speed because the interference and corruption from flat ribbon cables almost guarantees IDE drives will send at least some of their data twice just to get it clean. 80 wire IDE cables only partly overcame the interference and only while they are not twisted or otherwise distorted out of flat. I don’t ever recall seeing a flat ribbon cable in a working PC which didn’t have at least 1 twist in it.

You can get cables for ATA drives which aren’t like that.

The whole purpose of having a cable with neutral wires between the active ones is to separate the wires and stop interference. Fold, twist or bend the cable and you defeat the purpose. The 1-2% gain you quote is closer to 10~15% in a working PC with a SATA drive, compared to an EIDE drive. All PCs are limited by "factors". Many factors. Whenever you mention one, it’s always a good idea to be specific.

Can you please provide a reference online where I can see those figures. As I’ve said, no tests I’ve seen have shown more than a 1-2% increase. I’d be interested to see the article showing this large increase. Thanks.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

What reference? These are ‘real world’ figures. That means they come from the real world, not a test bench in a laboritory. I do this all the time for my clients. If I lied to them or couldn’t demonstrate the gain, I wouldn’t have a business. Last time I relied on "printed references" I lost the sale of 6 laser printers when I couldn’t duplicate the thruput of a Canon laser printer in the ‘real world’.

If a 80 gig EIDE (seagate – 7200 RPM) drive with XP and some other MS trash pulls a 20 MB file 15% slower than an 160 gig (seagate -7200 RPM) SATA drive in the same system with the same (ghosted) software, the SATA’s 15% faster, right? No rocket science there.

Yowie
——————
"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:38:35 GMT, "The Yowie" wrote:

Sata has faster real world speed because the interference and corruption from flat ribbon cables almost guarantees IDE drives will send at least

some

of their data twice just to get it clean. 80 wire IDE cables only partly overcame the interference (snipped)

Can you please provide a reference online where I can see those figures. As I’ve said, no tests I’ve seen have shown more than a 1-2% increase. I’d be interested to see the article showing this large increase. Thanks.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 05:14:44 GMT, "The Yowie" wrote:

What reference? These are ‘real world’ figures. That means they come from the real world, not a test bench in a laboritory. I do this all the time for my clients. If I lied to them or couldn’t demonstrate the gain, I wouldn’t have a business. Last time I relied on "printed references" I lost the sale of 6 laser printers when I couldn’t duplicate the thruput of a Canon laser printer in the ‘real world’.

I’m sorry, but in the real world anecdotal evidence isn’t evidence, it’s hearsay. In the real world scientific measurement takes place producing repeatable results which can be achieved by any experimenter anywhere using the same equipment.

Benchmarking, using real world applications (rather than just using throughput speed) is the way that figures are developed for comparison. So, whilst I accept you believe that what you say is true, you give me no change my mind as I have seen repeatable data.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui