Sondage : who has desinstalled CS and is using v7 again?

MS
Posted By
Marc_Sublet
Jan 15, 2004
Views
942
Replies
43
Status
Closed
I was too disappointed by CS.
Back to 7.0.1 !
It opens a 150 Mo file with ~40 layers in 4-5 sec. versus 20 sec. (!) for CS. The windows aren’t sluggish and they feel responsive too. I will use CS when this product will be finish and usable…

Not a very good job Adobe and I am hungry to have paid so much for this CS beta…

Intel P4 3.0 HT 800Mhz Bus
2 Go of DDR400 (4 x 512)
80 Go SATA HDD
Sony Trinitron 21"
Windows XP Pro SP1

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

FN
Fred_Nirque
Jan 15, 2004
Marc,

Do an archive search for the previous threads on Photoshop problems with 2GB of dual channel DDR RAM. Adobe have admitted there is a problem here with no short term fix, but winding back the RAM allocation to Photoshop in Preferences to around 40% seems to help.

The problem was also present in PS 7.0.1 on my machine (similar spec to yours), so there may be another reason for your problems.

With RAM allocation set to 40% and the file browser preferences all unchecked, PSCS is faster on my machine than 7.0.1, with only some filters and a few custom actions still giving me problems. But as I said, these were a problem with 7.0.1 as well.

Fred.
MS
Marc_Sublet
Jan 15, 2004
Hi Fred,

Thanx for the reply,
I have spend some time to read a lot of posts concerning the 2 Go DDR400 bug. For me, the system runs like a charm with PS7.0.1, 2 Go of Ram (75% for PS) and it has never crash since i have my new system (since july 03).
Now, a 2 Go machine is very common for a creative workstation and it’s written in the specs that PS can play with 2 Go !!! and not 2 Go at 40%. They just have tested 1 computer or what?
I will use PS7 till Adobe find a solution to that because I am very happy with the 7.0.1, I find it very fast. I would use the CS version for the raw and the native 16 bits support. But I will try that in 3 months when I will be in holidays because customers don’t care about crappy coding…
It remembers me a little the Apple OS X first version which was very expensive and which was less functional than the beta…
I have to say I was a very big fan of Adobe before but now I am very disappointing. Why announcing a new Photoshop after 14 months when it’s not finished? I know it’s only about commercial and money things, but the pros are tired to change every year their software and when they do that they are waiting for a solid as rock thing for optimize their workflow (with a good memory management and a responsive interface)! not a toy for digital hobbyists who want pink hearts textures/kitsch gallery effects. They have Photoshop Elements for that sort of things.
Watch Apple, the have understand that and they have 2 lines of products: the pro ones and the iSuite.
But I am sure Adobe will fix that soon and I will have my big smile again ;o]
MK
Monte_Krause
Jan 15, 2004
CS was not ready to sell. I have encountered numerous bugs and sluggish performance. One major bug are "Layer Sets" that cannot be moved if any "layer set" above it is "locked". I am also encountering sticky, erratic performance of my Wacom Tablet in the CS version.
I am hoping Adobe will post an update soon.
CC
Chris_Cox
Jan 16, 2004
CS is finished and quite usable.

A few users are seeing performance problems, but so far we’ve traced most of those to issues on the user’s machine (background tasks, hardware problems, FAT32 scratch disks, etc.).

Monte – sounds like you need to update your tablet driver.
FN
Fred_Nirque
Jan 16, 2004
Chris,

That’s not what you told me.

Fred Nirque "PS 8 Photomerge and RAM" 1/8/04 6:53pm </cgi-bin/webx?13/18>

And if this forum is a guide, it’s potentially more than just "a few users" – the constant of P4HT combined with 2GB of dual channel RAM being problematic must surely be worrysome, because lets face it, this will soon be a standard configuration for most computers.

Do you think that Adobe might publish a concise list of known problem areas and workarounds with this sort of hardware setup so that we can implement whatever fixes we can without having to trawl through these acres of forum Q&A’s to possibly find a cure, or trying to decipher vague references such as your "etc." above?

Fred.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 16, 2004
Also, just checking Chris, when cs first came out, I believe it was Marc who told us to up the cache to 6 to speed things up. Some users are reporting errors with this that going back to 4 seems to solve. Is this a problem? Just wondering if I should keep giving that out as advice or should I hold off on it?

thanks, dave
MS
Marc_Sublet
Jan 16, 2004
hi Dave,

It’s not me for the cache level value to 6.
I had problems to opens some files (done is ps7 with complex styles attached) with my preferences set to 6. And I have found to reset the value to 4 to "fix" the problem (for me it’s not a fix because the bug is here and want to increase my cache value and play with my 2Go of DDR400 set at 75% on my p4 3.0 HT! I don’t want to work on my old Athlon 850 with 512 Mo of PC133, I am sure it will work but i don’t see the advantage and the need of using CS to retrograde my hardware…). All my others apps are working like a charm (PS7, AI10, AE6, INDD2, Maya 5, Flash MX 2004, Director MX)

And, Chris, CS is NOT working properly! Check the forum if you don’t agree, i know you have to defend your baby but this time the result isn’t very good…
Recaps of some problems :
File browser working in background and/or with high quality thumbs (CS problem) Cache Level Value (CS problem)
2 Go of DDR400 (CS problem)
Size of the temp files (CS "problem")
It seems the major next challenge for Adobe engineers is to work on the memory (ram and physical) management of photoshop.
I am sure Chris, you can only agree with me but I am sure you are already on the thing to release soon the CS 8.0.2…

Best regards

marc
MA
mutator_accessor
Jan 16, 2004
I moved back to PS7 several weeks ago. I couldn’t get any work done. To much crap to deal with in CS. Maybe (and that’s a big maybe), when Adobe issues a patch, but we will see. I am having a difficult time justifying activation and may give up altogether on Adobe. Who knows, now that I am back to PS7 and if I don’t miss anything that CS had, I will stay at PS7 permanently. I am now looking at alternatives very seriously. I hate it when company’s think that they are a monopoly – their heads get so big, they forget that they actually need customers. Customers only stay customers when they are happy. I am not happy.
CC
Chris_Cox
Jan 16, 2004
Dave – yes, the cache is a problem. There are competing problems, but the best solution is to leave the cache level at 4.

Fred – I never said anything about CS having a problem. There are some things that I’d like to improve if I had more time, but there is nothing critical (other than 2 MP bugs that I’m still tracking down). You’ve got to remember that what you see on the forum is a biased sampling of customers. And most of the problems here boil down to RTFM or repair your own computer. (but I do wish I could find out why FAT32 formatted disks slow down for some people and not others)

Marc – most of those "problems" are not problems or bugs, or are very minor and have clear workarounds. There is nothing stopping you from using your newer machine, and the only real limitation you have is keeping the cache level at 4. (and I haven’t heard anything about "2 Go of DDR400").

Overall, CS has been a very clean release (I wish I could say that same of many customers’ machines).
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 17, 2004
Chris, I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look into the File|Open dialog delay issue but I’d like to know if it is possible to turn off the file preview in the dialog box, it appears that the preview is cached in the File Browser folder which really hurts if there are large files in the folder and you haven’t cached the FB. I thought that the ShowWinThumbnails reg key was supposed to do this but it doesn’t seem to do anything. Is this reg key mispelled in the Goodies folder on the CD?
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 17, 2004
Dave – yes, the cache is a problem. There are competing problems, but the best solution is to leave the cache level at 4.

Gotcha. Thank you.
CC
Chris_Cox
Jan 17, 2004
Derrick – someone else is looking into it. But we can’t explain it yet.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 17, 2004
Thanks for getting back to me, Chris.
CM
craig_mullins
Jan 17, 2004
It is back to 7.01 for me as well. I have a brand new clean system that runs 7.01 fine. PSCS is extremely slow when working with large files (of course, files that 7.01 has no problem with).

I have spent a lot of time looking for solutions here and elsewhere, but I have to get work done. I have tried every suggestion I could find, none make any difference.

I don’t know how to be helpful solving this, but I hope that it can and will be solved. I won’t bore anyone with system specs or other specifics, unless asked. Just another voice out here in the wilderness.

This is the first upgrade that I have had to give up on, since 2.0.
CR
Chris Roske
Jan 17, 2004
I too have been having problems with sluggish performance and other odd acting behavior which was never present in 7.01, thank goodness my software vendor decided to take the upgrade back.

Windows XP Pro
Abit BE7 Raid
Intel P4-2.4 @ 2.8
1Gb Samsung PC 2700
Dual IBM 120Gb, 1 IBM 80Gb
MSI TI 4400 128 Mb
Enermax FS/710 400W
TM
Trevor_Morris
Jan 17, 2004
Chris,

So what’s the issue with FAT32 Scratch partitions? Should I be using NTFS instead?
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 18, 2004
Trevor,

I’ve yet to find a specific post about why FAT32 is worse to use with PSCS than NTFS, but since Chris’s comments suggest there are problems, I’m going to convert my scratch disk partition and pagefile partition both to NTFS. I thought they were until I just checked, but even as FAT32 I’d never have suspected any significant performance hit. Here’s one long thread that may contain some specifics, but I got tired of browsing it: ID. Awe "NTFS vs. FAT32 for PS CS" 12/11/03 6:58pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/0>

Regards,

Daryl
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 18, 2004
Well, for whatever difference it may make to use an NTFS scratch disk vs. a FAT32 one, perhaps that difference is only noticeable on systems faster than my dual 550MHz P3. Using a test action and image to assess the execution time of PS CS both before and after converting my scratch disk partition and page file partition from FAT32 to NTFS, the time of execution was equal down to the second. So, at least in my case the file system format appears to be irrelevant.

Daryl
I
ID._Awe
Jan 18, 2004
Well it is irrelevant to a certain degree in the case of temp files and pagesys because essentially they are just big files that do not have much time to get fragmented, but my part to the discussion concerned the optimal NTFS cluster size which I put at 4095 (4K) versus the standard 512 (.5K) for disks in general. This is particularly important on disks that contain tens of thousands of individual files for the reasons I stated in that thread.
FN
Fred_Nirque
Jan 18, 2004
Chris,

I’m getting a bit weary of the attempt to universally shift blame to the machine (see my previous posts and below for items replaced as "faulty" when they weren’t)- I deliberately based my setup on Asus componentry (see below) that had been about for a while, and went for the 2GB PC3200 DDR dual channel RAM option as Adobe clearly claimed the capability of PS to handle up to 2GB RAM.

So alright, I might appear dead stupid in my understanding of the intricacies of programming, (I’m only a dumb photographer, after all – surprising that I should be wanting to use software named "Photoshop") but if PS has got it so right, then why is it that I have to drop the "maximum RAM used by Photoshop" to under 40% of available RAM before Photoshop (both 7 & 8) will run some filters and custom actions on this machine, when it ran them just fine on a P3 1GHz 1.5GB SDRAM machine with the allocation at 75%?

The fact that the machine comes up with "not enough storage" or "not enough RAM" dialogs when it comes to a stop after enabling more RAM access, and completes tasks after having RAM access reduced to below 40% of available makes absolutely no sense to me. Particularly when the 121 other programs I have on this machine (including other Adobe products) run perfectly well utilising any and all the RAM the machine can supply.

And the throw-away line that I won’t notice much performance difference in reducing this allocation is garbage – I have an action that involves 12 lasso steps – with allocation at 75% PS screams through these at around a quarter second each. Wind the allocation back to 39% to get the complete action to work, and things hit the wall around the 5th lasso step, the remainder taking 6-8 seconds each to complete with the hard drive light continuously on.

Machine Specs:

Asus P4P800 deluxe mobo (twice – also Gigabyte P4 mobo), Asus 9520 Video, 2GB Kingston PC3200 Hyper X matched sets 4×512, (also Kingston VR PC3200 matched sets, also Corsair PC3200 CL2 matched sets) and Seagate 120×2 SATA Raid 0 setup, all NTFS – this is not a machine with Flower Petal Lotus Blossom mobo, Shining Butterfly video and Giant Turtle RAM – the componentry is well-known brand name stuff. If PS has trouble running on this sort of machine, then what on Earth combination am I expected to run it on?

And more to the point – will it really work on THAT machine? And why doesn’t Adobe give a list of compatible hardware if the machines are so much of a problem?

Fred.
I
ID._Awe
Jan 18, 2004
Re: "And why doesn’t Adobe give a list of compatible hardware if the machines are so much of a problem?"

Oh Fred, you know the answer "we cannot possibly test our software on every machine configuration and yours is one of those configurations, so it has to be your hardware!"

Well I don’t think it is the hardware, but 121 other apps? Like what do you have in that thing? Could be another software stealing background cycles? Do you have KaZaA installed?
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 19, 2004
ID,

Thanks for summarizing your observations regarding NTFS partitions. Since I hadn’t read through the full threat about NTFS vs. FAT32, I’d not (or overlooked) seen your comments.

Daryl
CB
chobb_barnett
Jan 19, 2004
I’m deeply unimpressed to hear comments like ‘Overall, CS has been a very clean release (I wish I could say that same of many customers’ machines).’ from Chris Cox (#9 above). I have read many comments like this that suggest we users have ‘too many processes running’ – we don’t. We have the processes we want to be running. If Adobe need to suggest we turn our PCs into pure Photoshop machines (and whatever you do, don’t have any other software running as well) then they are living in a dream world. Here in the real world, our PCs perform a variety of uses, Photoshop being one. To expect users to have to install Photoshop CS on a clean machine with nothing else running for it to work is a joke.

If Adobe are testing CS using test rigs that bear no relationship to a real-world PC (Anti-Virus, Messenger, whatever) then of course they won’t get the same slowdown. They need to admit that it runs slow and do something about it, rather than getting users to adapt their PCs to Photoshop’s exclusive use.

I’m at least glad that Adobe released a Demo. I had budgeted to upgrade our 10 copies of Photoshop from 7.0.1 to CS, but after installing the demo on 3 different test machines, I have decided to wait. It runs ridiculously slow and is frustrating to use.
FN
Fred_Nirque
Jan 19, 2004
ID,

I know what the answers are going to be, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right or acceptable, so like a thorn in their side, I’m going to keep asking the questions until Adobe realizes that these are customers they are answering, not just troublemakers.

As to the 121 programs – open your programs folder and sub folders and count – you’re in for a surprise!

I do not have a bucketload of things running in the background, either. I am acutely aware of exactly what loads at startup, and there is absolutely nothing there that I don’t need. I most certainly do not have KaZaA!

My computer is used primarily for Photoshop (which is why I’m getting so stroppy over the way PS isn’t working on it), but I also do all sorts of other things – I’m really into recording live music and video editing as hobbies (so I am totally aware how RAM can be handled by machine in in high use situations). Unfortunately, I also use business and authoring programs as a necessity of conforming to government regulation.

Even with the P4 3.0 HT technology, I rarely have more than one desk-top app running at the same time, however, and dear old Mr Norton is disabled in all but auto-virus protect. I don’t use ZoneAlarm either, preferring Sygate Personal Firewall instead, which I find to be a much less buggy and annoying product than ZA.

Fred.
MK
Monte_Krause
Jan 19, 2004
….my PC is a Photoshop machine. I’m extremely PC literate and know when to fuss with performance settings and when to not. I’m sure Adobe is working hard to correct the programming problems with their new version software. I have found bugs that have brought my work progress to a standstill and made the call to Adobe (Adobe should at least make an "800" number available for "bug awareness" calls). I say, whomever is responsible for beta-testing the CS version, did a L O U S Y job.
So, Adobe, when will there be an update/patch? Now, let’s move on.
TM
Tony_Mans
Jan 19, 2004
I am using a P4 2.4, 1.5RAM DDR333….All was amazingly fast with PS 7.0. Now with PSCS, I feel that my system is not good enough. All my other programs are working fine, except for the PSCS…. It is noticeably slower than ver. 7.0.
I was told by someone that PSCS requirer ECC RAM. Anyone heard about this?
P
progress
Jan 19, 2004
And why doesn’t Adobe give a list of compatible hardware if the machines are so much of a problem

you mean like Alias does, taking the time to at least certify gfx chipsets so they know what possible problems people may run into.
FN
Fred_Nirque
Jan 19, 2004
<<I’m sure Adobe is working hard to correct the programming problems with their new version software>>

Monte,

That’s a nice thought, but it would appear that Adobe now think that PS8 is perfect and it is all us cretins out here with faulty hardware or faulty brains that is the problem. With this attitude, I doubt very much that any such action would be deemed necessary by Adobe.

Fred.
MK
Monte_Krause
Jan 19, 2004
Hello Fred and all,
It would be very irresponsible of Adobe to think the initial CS version of Photoshop is bug-free. On my dime, I made them aware of a major problem with locked layer sets preventing other layer sets from being nudged or moved. I fully expect Adobe to correct the problem in short time along with the other bugs that have been encountered by other users of the program.
As I mentioned in a previous message to the forum, the beta-testers let Adobe down. Is there anyone monitoring this string/forum representing Adobe that could clue us all in as to where they stand on an update?
Y
YrbkMgr
Jan 19, 2004
I doubt very much that any such action would be deemed necessary by Adobe

All due respect, but "not quite". Issue no. 1: What is the problem? Issue no. 2: What could be causing it? Issue no. 3: can we reproduce it in house? Issue no. 4: if we can’t reproduce it in house, how do we solve the problem? Issue no. 5: if we cannot find out what is causing it, and the varaibles are all over the map, how many resources do we throw at it? Issue no. 6: How many people are having a problem with something we cannot reproduce in house or in the field?

Solving "performance" issues isn’t easy with an "open standards" environment like windows.

That does not negate existing issues, but it’s one thing to toss a broken object and say "fix it", and another thing to actually fix it when you don’t know what’s wrong.

Adobe have been very good about solving identifiable problems.

Just my two cents.

Peace,
Tony

edit: re:

Is there anyone monitoring this string/forum representing Adobe that could clue us all in as to where they stand on an update?

Chris Cox would be that person. But I’m sure he wouldn’t comment on an update until it’s ready for prime time.
MK
Monte_Krause
Jan 19, 2004
Hello YrbkMgr,

The bug was duplicated successfully on both platforms while I waited on the phone for them to tell me whether I was crazy or not. – Monte, e-mail:
Y
YrbkMgr
Jan 20, 2004
That’s good news Monte. If Adobe can replicate the problem, they can solve it, and my money is on the fact that they will; or at least document the issue for all users, in the case that it’s an oddball situation.

Peace,
Tony
MK
Monte_Krause
Jan 20, 2004
Hey Tony, As I mentioned, Adobe did replicate the problem but I can’t say they aknowledged to this or any other forum or by menas of a mewsletter they were made aware of the bug and will provide a fix shortly – which, in turn, makes me wonder.
Y
YrbkMgr
Jan 20, 2004
Monte,

Understood. My personal opinion is that there is a lot behind the scenes. Certain folks from Adobe have gotten their wrists slapped by the proverbial corporate nuns for sharing too much information. All I can say is that whenever Adobe has identified a problem they DO work on it; when they have a solution, they post a fix.

I’m not saying 100%, but that’s been the experience I’ve seen here over the past two years.

Also bear in mind that CS is a new release and due to the rather political issues of late (activation, anti-counterfeit technology), I wouldn’t be surprised to see them less likely to share until they can be certain and stand behind a particular issue with conviction.

On the other hand, what the heck do I know? I’m just like you, so… your mileage may vary <grin>

Peace,
Tony
I
ID._Awe
Jan 20, 2004
Fred: Didn’t mean to get on your nerves with the ‘KaZaA’ thing. As as far as the 121 apps installed, I can’t even get to 20, so I had to ask.

Although I haven’t coughed up for PSCS, I have IllCS and it is a real dog compared to 10. If this is what I can expect from the CS suite, I think I’ll wait this round out.

The new goodies are all well and good, but the magazines I work on are really excellent and I really can’t see how the new crop of apps will accentuate the quality of my current workflow.

Well…….. I guess I could get my nose all out of joint and despise anyone who doesn’t do as much as possible in 16 bit or whatever, but hey, I’m not stupid, I know that ID2, Ill10, & PS7 are more than skippy with me. Heck, even the Appleheads don’t know I run PC, the output bureau wishes everyone could prep files as good as I do and the publisher, well she pays the bills immediately and can’t say enough good things about my work.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 20, 2004
Curious, Illustrator CS runs a lot quicker than Ill 10 on my machines, mainly due to the much better screen redraw

Although I haven’t coughed up for PSCS, I have IllCS and it is a real dog
compared to 10. If this is what I can expect from the CS suite, I think I’ll wait this round out.
I
ID._Awe
Jan 20, 2004
My start time is 50/25 for start times (initial and subsequent versus 12/12 for 10) and using the new rotate tools, well try it with a pattern fill. It is a dog compared to 10 on my machine, one thing I do like about it is that when I select a .TIF file and select ‘Edit Original’ it does not give me the ‘Cannot find the associated app’ error message, which I find incredibly annoying, using both for the time being. Hopefully things will improve.

CorelDraw forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TM
Tony_Mans
Jan 20, 2004
I think I know why PSCS is so slow…. I believe it comes with some sort of spyware….

(I do not mean to offend anyone, but I am so frustrated, just like everyone else on this topic)
PD
Patrick_Donegan
Jan 20, 2004
Adding my 2ยข…

Have a dual pentium III/1GHz mobo with 64MB PCI video, and 4GB RAM. CS runs slow on this machine, as well as three others (mostly off-the-shelf versions) I have installed it on. If there’s a magic machine combination for this program, it ain’t here in my shop.

Seriously, I had to go back to v7 to get things done. Maybe I should inquire about the beta testing programs so I can avoid this in the future?

Waiting for the fixes,

Patrick Donegan
Digital Eyes Custom Photo & Digital Imaging
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 20, 2004
Sounds like something is wrong. Never bothered to time the starts before but I just did and it was 15/4, I uninstalled 10 the first day I got CS.

My start time is 50/25 for start times (initial and subsequent versus
12/12 for 10) and using the new rotate tools, well try it with a pattern fill.
I
ID._Awe
Jan 20, 2004
Maybe this is an Adobe plot to make sure you only have the latest version installed. (THH).

Kidding: It appears to enumerate fonts differently with this version, although I have 2700 fonts active, with 10, it is merely a blip (as if it references the size of the font list for changes and carries on if there are no changes), with CS it seems to enumerate the fonts comepletely each time.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 20, 2004
Maybe this is Adobe’s method of saying "We told you not to have that many fonts active" ๐Ÿ˜‰
What happens if you turn off Font Previews? Mine seems to load even faster, the "updating font menu" in the startup dialog is barely noticeable Just to keep this on topic, Photoshop CS doesn’t seem to be any slower than
7.01, with the exception of the File|Open dialog delay when very large files
are present

Kidding: It appears to enumerate fonts differently with this version,
although I have 2700 fonts active, with 10, it is merely a blip (as if it references the size of the font list for changes and carries on if there are no changes), with CS it seems to enumerate the fonts comepletely each time.
I
ID._Awe
Jan 20, 2004
Thanks Derrick, I’ll try that. Corel has font preview and it still opens way faster.

Nope, didn’t help!

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups ๐Ÿ”ฅ

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections