CS2 and 4GB RAM on XP32

H
Posted By
hpowen
Jan 13, 2006
Views
836
Replies
30
Status
Closed
I just installed an additional 2GB of RAM this afternoon for a total of 4GB. I added the /3GB switch to the boot.ini file and XP reports
3.37GB. Fine.

The problem is that Photoshop CS2 says I only have 1761MB available @ 100% usage. I was under the impression that I would see more RAM available is this dialog box (Edit>Preferences>Memory & Image Cache). As it is, it’s unchanged–I had the same amount available when I had only 2G installed.

What am I missing?

Master Retouching Hair

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.

DF
Derek Fountain
Jan 13, 2006
wrote:
I just installed an additional 2GB of RAM this afternoon for a total of 4GB. I added the /3GB switch to the boot.ini file and XP reports
3.37GB. Fine.

The problem is that Photoshop CS2 says I only have 1761MB available @ 100% usage. I was under the impression that I would see more RAM available is this dialog box (Edit>Preferences>Memory & Image Cache). As it is, it’s unchanged–I had the same amount available when I had only 2G installed.

What am I missing?

Windows has an OS-based limitaion of 2GB per process. :sigh:
A
adykes
Jan 13, 2006
In article <43c774e8$0$66038$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:
wrote:
I just installed an additional 2GB of RAM this afternoon for a total of 4GB. I added the /3GB switch to the boot.ini file and XP reports
3.37GB. Fine.

The problem is that Photoshop CS2 says I only have 1761MB available @ 100% usage. I was under the impression that I would see more RAM available is this dialog box (Edit>Preferences>Memory & Image Cache). As it is, it’s unchanged–I had the same amount available when I had only 2G installed.

What am I missing?

Windows has an OS-based limitaion of 2GB per process. :sigh:

You’re right, but it’s better describes as 4GB, virtual, but the OS maps the top half for itself. Lots of real(tm) operating systems have worked like this, for decades.

Rembember, this is *virtual* memory. A PC with 1 GB could have 20 processes running, each using 2GB or memory.

At the hardware level, 32 bit windows has a 2GB limit (3GB with a switch in boot.ini).

Clear as mud, right?


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
DF
Derek Fountain
Jan 13, 2006
At the hardware level, 32 bit windows has a 2GB limit (3GB with a switch in boot.ini).

Hardware level? The hardware doesn’t restrict that, does it? I thought it was the VM code in the kernel. If it is a hardware restriction then Linux can bypass it!
A
adykes
Jan 13, 2006
In article <43c7bf62$0$66452$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:
At the hardware level, 32 bit windows has a 2GB limit (3GB with a switch in boot.ini).

Hardware level? The hardware doesn’t restrict that, does it? I thought it was the VM code in the kernel. If it is a hardware restriction then Linux can bypass it!

The hardware limit is, first of all, set by the manufacturer on parts cost and target market basis and the technology of the day. We’ve been runing 32 bit windows on mobos that tapped out at 64MB, max, (Remeber those old days?)

In those days, mobo manufacturers could have made a board that had 16 memory slots for 64MB simms but nobody would buy it. All the glue chips and PC board space for thise slots cost real money to manufacture.

Today we can buy a cheap mobo with 3 GB slots and run the same 32 bit wondows on it. The OS hasn’t changed for the purposes of this discussion.

There have been, for almost 10 years, server mobos with the ability to use more than 4GB ram. They had a hardware feature called "PAE" (which wasn’t free for the manufacturer) that allowed *more* 2GB processes to be resident in memory, but dodn’t allow any one process to exceed the 2GB limit, (really 4GB, but hardwired in the x86 architecture.)

PAE had overhead but it was lots lower than page swaping.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
J
Jim
Jan 13, 2006
"Al Dykes" wrote in message
In article <43c774e8$0$66038$>,
Derek Fountain wrote:
wrote:
I just installed an additional 2GB of RAM this afternoon for a total of 4GB. I added the /3GB switch to the boot.ini file and XP reports
3.37GB. Fine.

The problem is that Photoshop CS2 says I only have 1761MB available @ 100% usage. I was under the impression that I would see more RAM available is this dialog box (Edit>Preferences>Memory & Image Cache). As it is, it’s unchanged–I had the same amount available when I had only 2G installed.

What am I missing?

Windows has an OS-based limitaion of 2GB per process. :sigh:

You’re right, but it’s better describes as 4GB, virtual, but the OS maps the top half for itself. Lots of real(tm) operating systems have worked like this, for decades.

Rembember, this is *virtual* memory. A PC with 1 GB could have 20 processes running, each using 2GB or memory.

At the hardware level, 32 bit windows has a 2GB limit (3GB with a switch in boot.ini).

Clear as mud, right?


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
It is clear but incorrect. Windows XP usually limits the virtual memory for user code to 2GB. The /3GB switch changes this limit to 3GB. That is virtual memory. Why the OP found that selecting /3GB made no difference to PS seems a question best addressed to Adobe.

As for the amount of physical RAM, that depends on the number of address lines on the motherboard. For example, some DEC Alpha machines only had 48 bit memory address lines. So that situation made it impossible to address all 64bits that the Alpha processor had. I am sorry to say that no OS can make the motherboard address more memory than the number of address lines permits.
Jim
H
hpowen
Jan 14, 2006
OK, I rewrote the boot.ini file and now it works–I have 2700MB available to PS @ 100%. Apparently it was user error… 🙂

The improvement factor:

Time to open 3 images simultaneously for editing (2GB) = 73 seconds Time to open the same 3 images simultaneously for editing (4GB) = 35 seconds

Now if I just had a solid state HD for scratch…
A
adykes
Jan 14, 2006
In article ,
wrote:
OK, I rewrote the boot.ini file and now it works–I have 2700MB available to PS @ 100%. Apparently it was user error… 🙂
The improvement factor:

Time to open 3 images simultaneously for editing (2GB) = 73 seconds Time to open the same 3 images simultaneously for editing (4GB) = 35 seconds

Now if I just had a solid state HD for scratch…

How big are the images?


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
H
hpowen
Jan 14, 2006
They range in size from 140MB to 225MB on disk. With layers and masks they consume 2GB+ when open in Photoshop.
A
adykes
Jan 14, 2006
In article ,
wrote:
They range in size from 140MB to 225MB on disk. With layers and masks they consume 2GB+ when open in Photoshop.

Add a 37GB 10K SATA disk (and a PCI SATA controller if you neeed it) and make it your PS work disk, and I’d put XP swap and TMP there, too.

The disk is about $110. A controller is cheap.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168221442 00

Actually, before I spent any money I’d use perfmon.exe to graph disk and measure how often and when you are waiting for disk IO to complete. If it’s never a bottleneck, speeding it up doesn’t get you anything.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
H
hpowen
Jan 14, 2006
Thanks Al. I have the Scratch disk on a Seagate 7200.9 160GB, single platter drive. It’s really fairly speedy.
N
noone
Jan 14, 2006
In article ,
says…
OK, I rewrote the boot.ini file and now it works–I have 2700MB available to PS @ 100%. Apparently it was user error… 🙂
The improvement factor:

Time to open 3 images simultaneously for editing (2GB) = 73 seconds Time to open the same 3 images simultaneously for editing (4GB) = 35 seconds

Now if I just had a solid state HD for scratch…

Glad it worked for you. Now, refresh my memory, please. The 4GB switch is usable only in XP with SP-2 – is that correct?

Thanks,
Hunt
A
adykes
Jan 15, 2006
In article wrote:
In article ,
says…
OK, I rewrote the boot.ini file and now it works–I have 2700MB available to PS @ 100%. Apparently it was user error… 🙂
The improvement factor:

Time to open 3 images simultaneously for editing (2GB) = 73 seconds Time to open the same 3 images simultaneously for editing (4GB) = 35 seconds

Now if I just had a solid state HD for scratch…

Glad it worked for you. Now, refresh my memory, please. The 4GB switch is usable only in XP with SP-2 – is that correct?

It doesn’t say it, but I’m sure it’s in w2k, also. This has been around for about 10 years.

http://www.sysinternals.com/Information/bootini.html

/3GB

Increases the size of the user process address space from 2 GB to 3 GB (and therefore reduces the size of system space from 2 GB to 1 GB). Giving virtual-memory- intensive applications such as database servers a larger address space can improve their performance. For an application to take advantage of this feature, however, two additional conditions must be met: the system must be running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows NT 4 Enterprise Edition, Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Datacenter Server and the application .exe must be flagged as a 3-GB-aware
application. Applies to 32-bit systems only.

Note the part about "must be flagged". I’m not sure who does that. I’ve only worked worked with server products that ran 3GB right out of the box.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
R
reply
Jan 15, 2006
As I read the Microsoft blurb, this only increases the virtual memory (swap file) space available to programs. I believe you have to set the swap file to a fixed size (currently 4095 MB maximum per disc) on a separate disc to the one used as a scratch disc by PS to actually gain any benefit from that switch. This must be wrong because from what you say, you got the benefit I’ve been trying to reach so I can only assume you have different text in your boot.ini than I do.

Photoshop makes it own swap space (scratch disk) in addition the Windows one and I always thought it was wether or not these 2 swap files are on the same disc that decided on how fast very large PS files loaded.

I have noticed over the lifetime of CS that my average image size has increased from 230 MB to nearly 500 MB as my cameras became able to capture larger images and my printers got larger and needed bigger files to reach the dimensions I now print at. I am vitally interested in this whole issue and I wonder now, what the "Rewrite" of boot.ini actually was in text. Could you possible post the contents of the file please?

—-m0o0m

Glad it worked for you. Now, refresh my memory, please. The 4GB switch is usable only in XP with SP-2 – is that correct?

It doesn’t say it, but I’m sure it’s in w2k, also. This has been around for about 10 years.

http://www.sysinternals.com/Information/bootini.html

/3GB

Increases the size of the user process address space from 2 GB to 3 GB (and therefore reduces the size of system space from 2 GB to 1 GB). Giving virtual-memory- intensive applications such as database servers a larger address space can improve their performance. For an application to take advantage of this feature, however, two additional conditions must be met: the system must be running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows NT 4 Enterprise Edition, Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Datacenter Server and the application .exe must be flagged as a 3-GB-aware
application. Applies to 32-bit systems only.

Note the part about "must be flagged". I’m not sure who does that. I’ve only worked worked with server products that ran 3GB right out of the box.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
H
hpowen
Jan 15, 2006
I am using XP Pro SP2. I can’t vouch for how well the 3G switch works for any other OS, although I’ve read that it does not function with XP Home. It appears to be compatible with 2000, but I can’t guarantee that.

As for the flag, there is a line in the header of the executable of CS2 that makes it aware that the 3G switch has been invoked, thereby making an extra 1G of RAM available to PS. CS does not have this capability, if I understand correctly. However, there is a tool, imagecfg.exe, which supposedly can query and append an existing binary to add this function. Theoretically, CS could be made to function like CS2 in this regard. Imagecfg.exe is a free download available here:
http://www.robpol86.com/Pages/imagecfg.php

Here is info on how to edit the boot.ini–a simple, yet dangerous edit. IF your system does not like the 3G switch, and there are a couple of reasons why it might not, you may experience boot failure and a hosed system. Pay special attention to the safeguards in the HP article when editing your boot.ini., or do a complete system backup (Ghost) first.

There is also info from both HP and MS on using the above imagecfg.exe utility to alter exe files to utilize the 3G switch (for the adventurous). BACK UP YOUR EXE before you edit it!

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/hpsub/cache/286185-0-0-225-121.htm l

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=297812
A
adykes
Jan 15, 2006
In article ,
wrote:
I am using XP Pro SP2. I can’t vouch for how well the 3G switch works for any other OS, although I’ve read that it does not function with XP Home. It appears to be compatible with 2000, but I can’t guarantee that.

As for the flag, there is a line in the header of the executable of CS2 that makes it aware that the 3G switch has been invoked, thereby making an extra 1G of RAM available to PS. CS does not have this capability, if I understand correctly. However, there is a tool, imagecfg.exe, which supposedly can query and append an existing binary to add this function. Theoretically, CS could be made to function like CS2 in this regard. Imagecfg.exe is a free download available here:
http://www.robpol86.com/Pages/imagecfg.php

Here is info on how to edit the boot.ini–a simple, yet dangerous edit. IF your system does not like the 3G switch, and there are a couple of reasons why it might not, you may experience boot failure and a hosed system. Pay special attention to the safeguards in the HP article when editing your boot.ini., or do a complete system backup (Ghost) first.
There is also info from both HP and MS on using the above imagecfg.exe utility to alter exe files to utilize the 3G switch (for the adventurous). BACK UP YOUR EXE before you edit it!

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/hpsub/cache/286185-0-0-225-121.htm l
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=297812

Good info.

Before you screw with boot.ini you can make a "boot floppy" for your system that has your current boot.ini and the couple of files necessary to recover if you screw up th editing.

http://www.computerhope.com/boot.htm

boot.ini is a hidden system file in C:\

To see it you need to do this command in a CMD window;

CD C:\
attrib -s -h boot.ini


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
A
adykes
Jan 15, 2006
In article <6Qhyf.216796$>,
m0.0m wrote:
As I read the Microsoft blurb, this only increases the virtual memory (swap file) space available to programs.

It expands the address that each, every, and all processes can use from 2GB to 3GB. To oversimplify, the swap space size on disk is the sum of all the process memory allocation (virtual) for the programs you try to run at once. Obviously, most processes are small compared to Photoshop.

Going into task manager will show you the list of processes in memory at any instant.

It seems there is a 4GB max size limit for each instance of the swap file. I’ve never heard of a desktop system that needed more pagefile than that.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
R
reply
Jan 15, 2006
I ran this configuration and discovered Photoshop CS has no header information. The program added it and Photoshop CS still starts and runs. I loaded a 328Meg image I had interpolated last year and use as a timing file to keep up with any system slowdowns. On my Pentium 4, 3 GHz (Windows XP SP2) with 1.5 gig of RAM and a Maxtor, USB accessed 120 gig storage drive this file came from. The file loads no faster (not surprising) but running a high pass sharpening filter on the image is definitely faster by about 40 seconds. Photoshop goes further before heading for the swap file. So yes, the header modification didn’t affect my installation and it does make Photoshop run faster. Thanks for the information.

I’ve been loath to upgrade the CS2 after running the trial version which made my system unstable and many of my *extras* didn’t like CS2. So I put it in the too hard basket. I almost made the upgrade when it wouldn’t read my new 5D camera’s files but I overcame that by doing a DNG conversion straight off the microdrives instead of just copying the files to the hard drive. Now it looks even more remote that I’ll go to CS2. Maybe when CS3 arrives I’ll buy a new PC and start from scratch but for now, thisldo! Thanks guys.


—-m0o0m

wrote in message

Theoretically, CS could be made to function like CS2 in this
regard. Imagecfg.exe is a free download available here:
http://www.robpol86.com/Pages/imagecfg.php
H
hpowen
Jan 15, 2006
m0.0m,

I’m glad you were successful. Since you have actually done what I’ve only read about, would you mind posting a brief summary of how you used imagecfg.exe to accomplish this feat? There are bound to be others now who will have questions and you are more qualified to answer them than
I.

Thanks.
A
adykes
Jan 15, 2006
In article <OHpyf.217702$>,
m0.0m wrote:
I ran this configuration and discovered Photoshop CS has no header information. The program added it and Photoshop CS still starts and runs. I loaded a 328Meg image I had interpolated last year and use as a timing file to keep up with any system slowdowns. On my Pentium 4, 3 GHz (Windows XP SP2) with 1.5 gig of RAM and a Maxtor, USB accessed 120 gig storage drive this file came from. The file loads no faster (not surprising) but running a

IMO the USB drive is the bottleneck. Try copying the file over to your fastest hard disk, first, and I’d like to hear your results.

If you really want to learn what is slowing you down at any moment, you neet to learn how to use perfmon.exe (included of every version of 32 bit windows)


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
R
reply
Jan 15, 2006
As I said in the message Al… Not surprised that my archive drive – the USB accessed one, didn’t let the image load any faster. I know all about bottlenecks and resolving them. Hell, I hold one every night!


—-m0o0m

IMO the USB drive is the bottleneck. Try copying the file over to your fastest hard disk, first, and I’d like to hear your results.

If you really want to learn what is slowing you down at any moment, you neet to learn how to use perfmon.exe (included of every version of 32 bit windows)


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
R
reply
Jan 15, 2006
Simple as in simple.
Download the file to the WINNT directory.
open a command prompt.
cd (as in change directory) to the Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop directory. dir (as in look at the directory listing) to make sure Photoshop.exe is in that directory.
type imagecfg.exe -e
And the program will install and report that the new header is in place.

You might also care to run pagedfrg.exe …to defragment the paging file and the registry hives.
If you have a second (or third) fast hard drive, you might like to get XP going faster by rearranging some of the functionality of the PC and of Photoshop. PS needs a minimum of 500 meg for it’s scratch disc. Using a separate (ATA100) drive on a secondary controller for the (unrestricted) scratch disc will substantially speed up Photoshop after it hits the ceiling of available RAM.

The ATA bus of a modern computer is crippled by it origins in the RLL (Run Length Limited) layout when drives came out of the stone age and into the past. You would think backwards compatibility would be a good thing but it hold back development in these areas of storage and speed of access to it.

These drives and how only one on the same bus can carry out an operation at the one time, is why you can’t have a scratch drive on the same drive as a swap file and expect maximum performance. Some board makers provide two IDE bus which are really only "split" and not independent of each other so your mileage might vary here, if you have a cheap computer. Serious users have long since adopted the horrifically expensive SCSI drive arrays where all the drives can simultaneously read and write. Serial ATA has not reached the performance levels it originally promised.

Another thing you can do the smooth out Windows (NT, 2k, XP) is to set the swap file to a single fixed size. This stops the kernel from messing around creating larger and larger swap files as the day progresses. Do this from the control panel under "system\advanced". 4095 meg is the largest swap file (virtual memory) Windows can use on one disc. It uses this file to swap out data occupying RAM when a different application needs the RAM space. It prevents the computer from crashing due to lack of memory. Expect to use about 30% to 50% of this file -according to the performance monitor!

The ideal situation would be to have a fixed size swap partition on the first physical drive, dedicated to the Windows swap file. You would then have a second really fast, physical drive on the secondary IDE controller, dedicated to Photoshop’s scratch disk. Not enough room here to go into all the why’s and wherefore but you will get a substantial boost in performance of your PC from this and of course Photoshop will work better too.



—-m0o0m

wrote in message
m0.0m,

I’m glad you were successful. Since you have actually done what I’ve only read about, would you mind posting a brief summary of how you used imagecfg.exe to accomplish this feat? There are bound to be others now who will have questions and you are more qualified to answer them than
I.

Thanks.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 15, 2006
Hopefully Adobe will release a 64 bit version of PS in the not-too-distant future.
ES
Etoin Shurdlu
Jan 16, 2006
"C J Southern" wrote in message
Hopefully Adobe will release a 64 bit version of PS in the not-too-distant future.

ES
Etoin Shurdlu
Jan 16, 2006
"C J Southern" wrote in message
Hopefully Adobe will release a 64 bit version of PS in the not-too-distant future.

That won’t be a panacea. Schlepping 64 bits around has serious overhead. And then the hardware people have to make true-64, ah, true.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 17, 2006
"Etaoin Shurdlu" wrote in message

That won’t be a panacea. Schlepping 64 bits around has serious overhead.
And
then the hardware people have to make true-64, ah, true.

I think it’s closer to mainstream than most realize – desktop processors and boards like the Pentium 4 EE Dual Core HT and the 975XBX support it – and of course WinXP64 is already out. Already market forcasts are for (off memory) 60% dual core CPUs by 3rd quarter of this year – with 64bit support already in some of these processors already.

In my case, all I’m waiting for is a 64 bit driver for the Epson 7800 and a 64 bit version of PS.

Since PS is a high-end app, it wouldn’t surprise me if a 64 bit version came "sooner" rather than "later" (ie next 12 months).

Time will tell
A
adykes
Jan 17, 2006
In article ,
Etaoin Shurdlu wrote:
"C J Southern" wrote in message
Hopefully Adobe will release a 64 bit version of PS in the not-too-distant future.

That won’t be a panacea. Schlepping 64 bits around has serious overhead. And then the hardware people have to make true-64, ah, true.

IMO, If and when 64 bit memory becomes necessary we will need *much* faster disks to keep up. Maybe raid0 with pairs 10k disks will be enough.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
A
adykes
Jan 17, 2006
In article <Pj_yf.15524$>,
C J Southern wrote:
"Etaoin Shurdlu" wrote in message

That won’t be a panacea. Schlepping 64 bits around has serious overhead.
And
then the hardware people have to make true-64, ah, true.

I think it’s closer to mainstream than most realize – desktop processors and boards like the Pentium 4 EE Dual Core HT and the 975XBX support it – and of course WinXP64 is already out. Already market forcasts are for (off memory) 60% dual core CPUs by 3rd quarter of this year – with 64bit support already in some of these processors already.

In my case, all I’m waiting for is a 64 bit driver for the Epson 7800 and a 64 bit version of PS.

Since PS is a high-end app, it wouldn’t surprise me if a 64 bit version came "sooner" rather than "later" (ie next 12 months).

You don’t need a 64 bit app to get the performance hit from a 64bit CPU+OS.

I don’t see how a native 64-bit photoshop gets you anything for, say, a 100MB image. You can keep nearly 20 full layers in memory, right now, in 32 bit system.

disk IO speed is as important as CPU cycles when you get this big, if you want productivity, at least.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
R
reply
Jan 17, 2006
"Al Dykes" wrote in message
In article ,

IMO, If and when 64 bit memory becomes necessary we will need *much* faster disks to keep up. Maybe raid0 with pairs 10k disks will be enough.

The disc performance is available right now Raid 1.
CJ
C J Southern
Jan 18, 2006
"Al Dykes" wrote in message
In article <Pj_yf.15524$>,

You don’t need a 64 bit app to get the performance hit from a 64bit
CPU+OS.

Photoshop will use up to 2GB of available RAM as a disk cache, but from an application perspective, I suspect that’s the only advantage of a WinXP64 when running 32 bit PS.

I don’t see how a native 64-bit photoshop gets you anything for, say, a 100MB image.

It doesn’t – we were talking about bigger projects, and hitting the ~3gb app limits.

disk IO speed is as important as CPU cycles when you get this big, if you want productivity, at least.

Less so if you’re (essentially) caching the entire project in available RAM.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections