i’ve been using photoshop on a pc with windows 98, but the files i’m working with are so big that i need to increase the system memory. since win98 can only accomodate 512mb, i’m going to get a new system which can accomodate more memory and install a newer version of windows. my question is, which new version of windows works best with photoshop? what are your recommendations?
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!
use windows 2000 with 384MB ram. But since i switched over to CS it is so terrible slow. A simple photomerge (three images, 25mb each) takes more than ten minutes! I’ve gave PS all the available memory but the only thing i hear is the harddrive sissling and almost smoking during a photoshop session. Does anyone know what to do?
CS needs more room (memory wise, all respects) than any previous version of Photoshop. I run it on both XP and 2000 (same machine) with 768Mb of RAM and find it to be useable, at least running under 2000. XP and my computer don’t play well together. Add CS to the mix and the result really sucks.
I didn’t notice that you weren’t specific about which version of PS you are using. If it is anything prior to CS, then you can probably make your present system work.
CS is not a major slug on my machine compared with PS6; in fact, some (few) things are a bit quicker. However, ample memory and a fast scratch disk (I use a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive and long for a RAID setup) are required if you want to retain your sanity.
I am not very technical understanding hardware but my comp is allready almost 4 years old. Sometimes i read about an extra harddrive just for photoshop. What is the use of that and what are the advantages? And if i decide to buy one, what can you give me for advice? Or should i consider a new computer?
A separate HD (hard drive) for Photoshop is a definite plus. It allows the Windows Pagefile (Pagefile = virtual memorywhat your computer uses when it runs out of RAM) and Photoshop’s scratch disk (again, virtual memory) to reside on different HDs. This is a good thing, since Windows and Photoshop will be issuing simultaneous requests to your single HD. It can, essentially, only accommodate one request at a time. Regarding RAM, install all your computer will hold.
Photoshop makes extensive use of its virtual memory scheme, so anything you can do to remove a slowdown here will produce results you can see. When I added an Adaptec SCSI controller and a fast SCSI HD ($), I saw some PS functions become dramatically faster. Some of the PS hard core types use RAID ($$) for even more speed. RAID uses at least two disks which act as one, and that’s all I’m going to say about it. I don’t want your eyes to glaze over.
IF you choose to make the investment in new hardware, you won’t be disappointed. As to whether you should invest in a new computer, I think you should consider it; I know I am. You could always invest in a new HD (doesn’t have to be SCSI, you know; any new HD you add will provide a boost) and move it to your new computer when the time comes. Much has been written about this, in more detail and more understandably than what I’ve provided here. Do some reading, make your own judgments about what your needs and wants are, and go for it. Life is good. Don’t spend it watching the "progress bar" crawl across the bottom of your monitor like a snail with a limp. 🙂
If your computer is four years old and you want to use Photoshop, especially a newer version, it’s time for a new computer.
Exception: if you will only be doing images for the web, you can get by on much less computer. Your old one might be OK.
You might try getting a used copy of Photoshop 5, 6 or 7 and seeing how you like the performance. If it’s OK, you’ve saved a bunch of money.
If you get hooked on Photoshop and *must* have the latest version, you’ll spend a lot of money on Photoshop CS and a new computer, but you’ll zoom and do all sorts of cool stuff.
Good luck. — Walter Donavan www.revelation7stages.com www.1stbooks.com/bookview/15479
Thanks for your help Ho, I am going to read myself into it and hopefully find some answers which are usefull to me. Before these messages i never thought about a new or an extra harddrive. I take a dive in the matter (if you know some good sites ?)and i will let you know the changes afterwards, oké?
I have two physical HDs, with the windows page file on one and PS scratch on the other, as is often recommended here. However, I have a barebones motherboard (no raid, scsi or sata), so both drives are on the same IDE channel. I seem to remember reading somewhere that trying to access two HDs simultaneously on the same IDE channel can result in a significant slowdown. Has anyone noticed this?
(or smaller) statement in system.ini to keep it from wasting the second 512MB.
You can use Cacheman to address the full 1GB on Windows98SE.
You can also install the unofficial Windows 98SE "Service Pack 1.5," (10.5MB download) organized by Alper Coskun. See <http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html> for information. This is real; it is not a scam or spyware–just an MS enthusiast trying to earn points and to contribute to the community. Here are some download mirrors:
Confused? Apparently so are the "experts". I tend to side with the "split ’em up" camp because two drives on the same channel can’t be accessed simultaneously. Even though you have a bare bones system, you still have 2 IDE channels. Make each hard drive the Master of its respective channel. The drive you boot from normally has to be the Master of the Primary channel.
keep in mind that putting a hard drive on the same channel as a cd/dvd will slow it down.
Is this really true? I thought all modern IDE controllers were able to assign independant timing/transfer modes to devices on the same channel, meaning an optical drive won’t negatively affect a HD provided that all devices are UDMA…
At any rate, I think if you have mulitple IDE devices, you want the two that are used the most to be on separate channels. With regard to removing bottlenecks in Photoshop, it would seem to make sense to have the HD used for PS scratch on the Secondary channel.
well it was always true in the past… and we recently had a post where the OP was having slowness issues with an ide with a cd on the same channel that get better when he moved it to his other channel (i want to say tim lookinghill? but i could be mistaken – recent, last couple of months).
I just upgraded to a 3.0 GHz, 1 GB RAM, PC with Windows XP Pro and it runs like a top! I have had Outlook, the Internet, and many photos open in PSCS simultaneously and no slow down or crashes, yet.
I had InDesign 2 (with one big book open), Acrobat 6 Reader (with several big files), Mozilla (with several tabs open), MS Word 2000 (with two files open), and TextPad going at the same time a little while ago, and it ran like a top, without disk churning.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, it’s a 500MHz machine with 256MB of RAM, running Windows98SE.
