None of that has changed. Photoshop CS uses memory almost identically to previous versions. It may allocate the scratch space a bit faster if you have lots of RAM, but that’s about it.
You’re either reading the wrong numbers (a common mistake). And yes, it boils down to the fact that you probalby don’t know how it works, so you’re jumping to very incorrect conclusions (like you did in your initial post and topic title).
Just because a number is different between versions, does not mean that something is wrong. You have to understand what the number MEANS.
If you are seeing an overall performance drop, you need to check the file browser preferences and check your machine for other problems.
Other than the filter gallery filters, and the healing brush in 16 bit – we have found no significant slowdowns in CS compared to Photoshop 7.
All of the slowdowns we’ve seen have been due to external factors (utilities, bad system config, etc.) or the file browser preferences (because it was doing work that people didn’t realize it was doing).
We’re listening.
Are you?
The only logical conclusion I’ve made is that CS is too slow for my company to use in production. Everything else works fine on my system. PS7 works fine. InDesignCS and IllustratorCS work fine. I have a 3 Ghz CPU w/ 1.5 Gb RAM. I religiously defrag, backup, update, and patch to keep performance high. Do you think I’d bother posting here if I didn’t need an answer to a real problem? A problem I’ve seen expressed through a number of other posts? You imply that I, and others, have to check our machines for "other problems". I’ve exhausted those avenues. You have a documented history of personally attacking everyone who brings up this problem. Since you don’t have any answers, please don’t comment at all. I certainly hope your not on Adobe’s technical help payroll.
Since most other people have no problem, the logical conclusion is that the cause of the performance problem is specific to your system(s). And your "memory hog" mistakes have nothing to do with Photoshop’s performance.
READ the other posts – it’s always tracked down to preferences (especially the file browser) or something else on the machine (utilities, bad swapfile/VM settings, corrupt files, bad disk controllers, etc.).
And what the heck are you talking about "a documented history of attacking everyone"? I answer their questions and explain their mistakes. How is that an attack?
I have given you the answers, and directed you to look at existing threads for more background. What more do you expect?
What more do you expect?
Fries.
I will check the file browser settings (what should they be set to for optimal performance? can they be turned off?); in the meantime –
U wrote:
Since most other people have no problem . . .
————–
When did you become omniscient and omnipresent?
U wrote:
And what the heck are you talking about "a documented history of attacking everyone"? I answer their questions and explain their mistakes. How is that an attack? —————
The threads below show you bantering with and belittleing customers until they just go away – problem unsolved. I notice in both threads you always get the last word. You may want to work on your people skills . . .
Michael Gersch "Huge File Size blow out in Photoshop CS compared to version 7" 4/19/04 7:23pm </cgi-bin/webx?13/33>
<
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.2cd0914c>
When I started reading almost every post on the forums, the tech support reports, and a few dozen mailing lists.
All I did was explain their mistakes and try to explain what is really happening. There is no belittleing. Bantering is something I only do with a few users I know personally (and Mike Ornellas). I usually get close to the last word because I’ve answered their questions.
You’re reading a lot into my posts that isn’t there in reality.
Fries.
Cheese would be more appropriate.
Bob
I certainly hope your not on Adobe’s technical help payroll.
LOL! I’m vaguely reminded of a dilbert cartoon where he got laid off then wasn’t qualified to do his own job when they went to rehire him. gordon, check your splash screens on photoshop going back to like version 1…
what should they be set to for optimal performance? can they be turned off?)
set to turn off high quality previews and not to work in the background. also turn off scan subdirectories
see this faq:
Ian Lyons "Optimising Adobe Photoshop Performance" 2/29/04 3:08am </cgi-bin/webx?50>
set to turn off high quality previews and not to work in the background
ALTERNATELY (and this is what I did) set it to work in the background AND to scan subdirectories then set it to work on the root of the drive and go to bed (or go home if it’s your work machine). by morning it should’ve worked through thousands of files and be done making the thumbnails. i haven’t had a problem since i did this.
and finally, it seems most people who experience the slowness are running win2k (anecdotal only). have you tried it on an xp system?
Dave – nope, I started on version 4.
hey me too! small world! 🙂
Thank you Dave, will try file browser "tricks" and comment later. As I mentioned in beginning post, I’m using WinXP Pro, SP1, w/latest patches.
Chris may have written all the code for Adobe, for all I know, or care. Technical chops don’t always solve people problems. This is a customer service issue, and maybe this forum is the wrong place to look for it.
The point is, when multiple customers (some with multiple licsensed products and investment) have the same problem, it should raise a red flag in acknowledgement of that similarity. In the three cases sited here, its thrown back in our face that its our subjective problem, not an Adobe problem. That means that the three of us (and think for a minute of all the users that never report the same issue) have the exact problematic settings on our computers that we would never have known existed if we hadn’t fired up PhotoshopCS! Wow, I guess I should be thankful that CS found bugs in our systems. What are the odds of that?
A few years back, every customer that owned a certain Dell workstation, or one of a few ASUS motherboards, had identical problems: the machine locked up when running Photoshop. Is there a pattern: sure. Was it a Photoshop bug? Nope. It was a hardware defect. Dell and ASUS had to replace the motherboards.
Lots of customers complain that Photoshop displays images with funny colors. Sure, it’s a pattern. But it’s not a bug. It’s a bad display profile on their system, or failure to calibrate their display.
Lots of customers complain that Photoshop crashes when they use the scanner from within Photoshop. Yep, another pattern. But the crashes occur INSIDE the scanner driver – where Photoshop can’t do a thing about it. Or a few crashes have been traced to scanner drivers that overwrite memory (and several that leak memory like a sieve). Is this a Photoshop bug? Of course not.
You are trying to create a pattern from too few samples.
I doubt all of you even have the same problems — the slowdowns are likely due to different causes (although if there is a common cause that hasn’t already been discussed, I’d LOVE to know what it is).
And yes, Photoshop tends to find a lot of system bugs (software and hardware) because it drives the system harder than most other applications.
"I’m gruntled that I bought an upgrade that doesn’t work."
That would mean that you’re pleased that the upgrade you bought doesn’t work, eh?
Please leave the serious, improv word wrangling to those of us who know how to properly bork and tell.
Stick with the words you were taught. Study some languages…Latin helps heaps. You can only break the rules after you know the rules.
😉
gordon_morris wrote to Chris Cox:
I certainly hope your not
on Adobe’s technical help payroll.
You have *absolutely* not idea who Chris is, do you?
On my Windows XP/Home system, CS is definitely a memory bulldog. Once it grabs hold of memory it never lets go; you have to kill it to get the memory back. I have explored this in some detail with the aid of the Windows Task Manager. I work with files of about 200 mb and it is easy to get CS to grab on to almost all of the available memory from the 1.5 gb of RAM. Then even if I close all the open files the memory allocated to CS remains at the maximum value it has grabbed on to. Other programs opened while CS is still open must then operate from the disc with resultant very slow response. To reduce the maximum RAM allocated to CS is not a solution because that would cause CS to slow down. CS is clearly deficient in not releasing unused memory to the system.
danial it’s been repeated in this forum many times… when you assin memory to ps, it will allocate up to that amount of memory and then hang on to it. the risks of memory fragmentation and speed in deallocating/reallocating memory were reasons given for this behaviour. IOW, it’s not a bug it’s a feature.
To reduce the maximum RAM allocated to CS is not a solution because that would cause CS to slow down
if your other apps are thrashing, then yes, this is the solution. you need to do your own experiments on your systems to find the happy medium. unless you need all that memory in photoshop, then your answer is, if you need more memory in photoshop, and more memory to run other apps at the same time, you need more memory in your system. how is that adobe’s fault?
Daniel – then you need to turn down the maximum memory percentage in Photoshop’s preferences. Photoshop is acting as it should, but it sounds like you set the preference too high.
To Gordon and all the others (including myself) who have been slighted in this forum:
Our degree of disappointment is relative to our expectations. We keep expecting to be treated professionally and respectfully only to have one or more of these losers use our post as a way to display their immaturity and ignorance. But they are to be pitied, not hated. They don’t realize how stupid they make themselves look because, well, they’re too stupid to know it.
It’s like asking a jackass to be a horse — it just doesn’t know how to be anything BUT a jackass. So quit expecting reciprocal respect and you’ll be less disappointed. They don’t deserve the benefit of your advice, and they enjoy taunting you — so don’t give them what they want. Let them wallow in their ignorance.
The last word may be theirs, but the last laugh is ours.
but the last laugh is ours.
Nope. Sorry. I called dibs on it last week.
Tim – you have been treated professionally and with respect. I have yet to see any of you "slighted". Yes, you do need to learn about some things you didn’t know or understand before – but that is to be expected, or you wouldn’t be here asking questions.
Chris, I have a question, and I think you’ve responded to it before (my machine is hosed). But, bear with me:
Why, oh why, does PS CS behave differently (slower) on the same machine that PS 7 flies on? If it’s my machine that is hosed, WHAT about it is hosed? And WHAT about PS CS is causing it?
Nick – without the complete details of your machine (having it in hand), I don’t know. There could be any one of thousands of things slowing it down. We’ve tried to list all the known and probable causes in previous threads.
For most people, CS is the same speed as 7 (except for the previously noted exceptions of the filter gallery plugins and the healing brush on 16 bit images).
As for what might be causing it – almost anything. Just changing the name of the application (ie: the version number) has been known to cause malfunctions in some third party utilities.
OK, thanks. But..
There could be any one of thousands of things slowing it down.
What I’m getting at, or trying to figure out, is what about CS is making my machine act differently than PS 7? I think this is a fair question.
a fairer (and more relevant) question would be what about your machine is making cs act differently from the many people who aren’t experiencing problems.
and tim. yes. you’ve got us. those of us that volunteer our time here to help out aren’t here because we learn far more than we help. it’s to laugh at all the people we can’t help. yup. busted.
Interesting post, Tim.
Completely off the mark, but interesting just the same.
Bob
dave,
a fairer (and more relevant) question would be what about your machine is making cs act differently from the many people who aren’t experiencing problems.
I disagree. Again (and I’m getting tired of asking this question, as I’m sure Chris is getting tired of it), what in PS CS changed to make my machine act differently? I didn’t change my machine, Adobe changed the software. You don’t think that people are having problems? Of course they are. Some (like me) understand that they need to change their File Browser settings, etc., tweak their memory settings (been there, done that), etc.
You’re quick to jump in with stuff, often helpful, and I thank you for that, but my question is fair. I want to know what it is that Adobe did. I didn’t change a flipping thing.
No Nick, you didn’t. But you installed a brand new application and you’re expecting it to act like the old one.
Perhaps Chris isn’t at liberty to disclose every change that’s been made to the program.
Bob
what in PS CS changed to make my machine act differently?
just today read a post that some of the api calls changed due to xp logo requirements. what are you going to do with that info. i disagree with you disagreeing! <g> if most others aren’t experiencing problems, it’s gotta be something on your system that’s different from most other users. by definition.
I want to know what it is that Adobe did. I didn’t change a flipping thing.
I understand, but my thing is, what difference does it make WHAT adobe did. They did what they did to abide by the standards set by the operating system vendor. The question you gotta be asking is what are you going to change to make it work.
The drastic solution is to format and load your os and load photoshop and nothing else. then start adding stuff back, checking photoshop each time. when you find the slowdown you’ll have your answer.
I know that’s not what most people want to hear, but sometimes the best thing to do when troubleshooting is to simplify the equasion by removing everything but the basics, then rebuilding until you find the problem. It’s not the most glamorous way to troubleshoot, but it always works.
No Nick, you didn’t. But you installed a brand new application and you’re expecting it to act like the old one.
I did not install a brand new application, Bob, I installed an upgrade to a program that has run well on the same box. The same application that I’ve been buying since ver.4.
dave,
The drastic solution is to format and load your os and load photoshop and nothing else. then start adding stuff back, checking photoshop each time. when you find the slowdown you’ll have your answer.
That does seem a drastic solution. However, I have done just that, and more. BTW, I didn’t have to "start adding stuff back" as you suggested. PS CS, on it’s own, is slower than PS 7 on the same machine, all by itself. Actually, it seems worse than drastic to me, given the hours I’ve put in on this and the money that I paid to Adobe to be able to put myself through it.
Are you trying to tell me that nobody is having problems with this? If so, uh, never mind.
OK, make it R/O. I have no idea if my problem is Memory Hog related, I’m probably off topic.
PS CS, on it’s own, is slower than PS 7 on the same machine, all by itself.
then you’ve found the problem and it’s your machine. now you start to look at the hardware and drivers specific to your set up.
I’m not saying there’s not something that adobe can’t do once something is found, they’ve worked around other’s problems before (kpt3 + ps7 comes to mind), but they can’t fix what they can’t find.
I did not install a brand new application,
yes. you did.
Are you trying to tell me that nobody is having problems with this?
nope. of course not. what do you think i don’t believe you? of course i believe you and others are having problems. i’m just saying most people arent’ experiencing the problems. some obviously are, but as i said above, if adobe can’t reproduce it, if they can’t find it, they can’t fix it.
Nick – we don’t know, we have no idea what we changed that makes your machine act differently. Again, just changing the NAME of the application could have caused it. It shouldn’t, and it doesn’t on most systems – but somehow on your system it did. Without your system in my hands to pick apart (or image and restore) I can’t tell you what is causing it.
Relatively few people are having noticable slowdowns – and most of those have been tracked to the causes already discussed in other topics (or the two things that we know are slower).
FWIW I’m a user who keeps lurking in this forum with the hope of reading about a patch that will resolve Photoshop CS’s poor performance. I live with this problem because it’s new tools are worth the pain. But I’m convinced there IS something wrong and neither Chris Cox nor Dave Milbut will convince me otherwise. Suggestions to turn RAM usage down to 50% (or lower!) to get it to work better is IMO absurd! I think Gordon Morris is justified in his frustration. But I do not think there IS an answer just yet. I suggest Gordon should do like me, and I suspect many other PC (and MAC) users are doing, …. wait for a fix.
Suggesting that there is something seriously wrong appears to be a wasted effort. It results in something akin to the doctor saying that "it’s all in your head… take an aspirin".
I’m defending Gordon because respondents to this kind of thread appear eager to declare that the ‘messenger is to blame’. Perhaps cooler heads should prevail and a more serious investigation should be made into this issue. The solution might be as simple as adding a ‘Preferences’ button that offers "Maximize performance for large files if you have lots of RAM" or "Disable the Fluff". I understand that ‘Fluff’ to one person is ‘what I need the most’ for someone else…. whatever.
As a Photoshop teacher in a Commercial Photography course I get many calls from students and other teachers asking "what’s up with Photoshop CS?.. my system’s crawling" (Mac users as well). All I can answer is I’ve read about performance issues on this forum and so far I don’t see many real answers, other than the same answers over and over that don’t really resolve the issue to the satisfaction of users like me and apparently to Gordon either. A agree that they do help somewhat.
Russell
Pentum4-3.0
875 chipset Intel mobo
2GB Kingston RAM
Matrox Video
15k Atlas LVD SCSIs
Adaptec 39160 controller
Granite Digital Cabling
(This should be as close to ‘a reference platform’ as Adobe can get.)
Well russel, you have a better machine than me (2.8c 1gig) and mine is pretty fast. What does that mean? Nothing. It means absolutely nothing. But it also means that PS works on some systems and apparently there’s some combo of sw and/or hardware that stresses it. I don’t have that combo, you do. What can you do except try to diagnose and fix the problem. Ranting just gets everyone trying to help upset and on the defensive. Like a poster above said, and I already responded to, do you think the people who hang here on their own time trying to help do it because we like to laugh at other’s misfortune? Get real. We’re trying to help because we like to help and we hang out here because we learn how to better use the program that we spent all this $$$ on!
FWIW, I have nothing to do with adobe. I’m a PS hobbyist. But I know computers – hardware and software, use and design – going back to the first IBM PC days and DOS. Please don’t think anything I say in any way comes from or reflects adobe’s position. I’m trying to give the benifit of my experience – on my own time.
When people come in ranting rather than trying to diagnose and fix the problem it kinda sets the tone for the rest of the thread.
I can see I’m not helping here anyway. I’ll just shut up. Keep ranting, wait for a fix.
Russell: if you can’t help us figure out what it is about your system that is slowing things down – then there is nothing we can do. Nobody else has your system, and nobody else has your exact problem.
Only a few people have unexplained performance problems (which have nothing to do with the memory percentage). Read the threads – most of them find it’s caused by some utilty, a fragmented swapfile, corrupt files, a bad drive, etc.
Until you find the cause on your own system, we’re stuck. Maybe the cause on your system will be the same cause as on someone else’s system, and maybe not.
But you’re going to have to find the cause yourself – because this is clearly not an overall Photoshop or CS problem.
But you’re going to have to find the cause yourself – because this is clearly not an overall Photoshop or CS problem.
Like I said… we’ll agree to disagree. My system does ‘fly’, don’t get me wrong. I work on 500mb+ files for trade-show kiosk collaged images, so I do use what I have. I don’t think I have a huge problem after turning off most of the browser background processing and turn RAM usage down to 65% or lower, set un-do’s to 2-3 with BIG images. Even then I still do get the occasional "not enough memory" warning. I can live with this.
BUT… many simple tasks seem to run slower than in earlier versions of Photoshop. I used to crank the RAM up to 80% or higher with no problem. I’m now told that ‘brush presets’ or some such thing are part of the cause. Except for the healing and history brushes I use pretty well the same brushes I’ve used since v2.5. I don’t need fluff… but I do need 16bit layers and layer adjustments. So that’s the price I pay.
But suggesting that performance issues are simply caused by the user’s own hardware/software configuration … like I said… we’ll agree to disagree.
No big deal guys. Sorry, I don’t intend to flame. It’s a GREAT program. It’s working well enough. I’d just like it to get better.
Russell 🙂
So to expound on Nick’s situation:
– PS7 flies and is quite happy on his system.
– his combination of hardware and software work like a charm in PS7 – install PSCS and it all goes to to he** in a handbasket? – PSCS doesn’t fly and doesn’t like his combination of hardware and software. – there have been no changes in his system (hardware or software). – and the suggestions here say it’s his system that has caused this problem, not PSCS?
to me, it doesn’t seem a logical leap to be his system.
Sorry GH, but…..
CS is a totally new proposition. PS 7 runs on ’98/ME, CS doesn’t. That in itself MUST indicate a huge differences between 7 & CS.
So something in Nick’s box objects to CS. That does not mean that CS is at fault, it just means that CS is a totally new app so will not necessarily run fault-free on the same box that 7 did.
Lord knows I had my problems with CS and 2GB dual channel RAM. But Chris’s patience (he’s the programmer, I’m just a photographer, after all) finally dispensed the understanding I needed, and now CS runs just fine on my box (makes 7 look antiquated, in fact).
I can’t put it more succinctly than this – just because 7 works on a box does NOT mean that CS will, and that this is NOT necessarily CS’s fault.
Even though the 1’s & 0’s of computing seem to indicate infallable logic, I think it’s time that we accept that computers are yet in their infancy and that which appears to be obvious and logical need not necessarily be so.
I’ve eaten humble pie, and I think its about time some other super egos do the same. Either that or buy out Adobe and show them how it should be done.
Fred.
Thank you, Grass Hopper, that’s a fair summary and it’s nice to know that someone else can see the logic in what I’m saying.
Like Russell, I’ll continue to use the program. It has some excellent new features that are useful in my work. Beyond that, I guess I’ll just swallow my disappointment and go on about my business.
Well spotted, P.C. Just goes to show that this big world is really incredibly small.
Fred.
I did not install a brand new application
As already pointed out, you most certainly did. You’re making the same mistake as everyone else in thinking that it’s the same program. The name is the same but something in the programming has changed just enough to make it slower than previous versions.
That doesn’t make it the application’s fault.
Bob
and the suggestions here say it’s his system that has caused this problem, not PSCS?
Nope. The suggestion is that PSCS doesn’t like something on his system. You can’t compare 7 and CS because they are different programs.
Fred,
You posted:
"Lord knows I had my problems with CS and 2GB dual channel RAM. But Chris’s patience (he’s the programmer, I’m just a photographer, after all) finally dispensed the understanding I needed, and now CS runs just fine on my box (makes 7 look antiquated, in fact)."
Could you share with us the understanding that allowed CS to run just fine on your box? Maybe a link to the exchange between you and Chris that solved your problem.
Bob,
I did not install a brand new application
As already pointed out, you most certainly did.
OK, I phrased that badly. Obviously, PS CS is a different application. My point was, and is, that it doesn’t run as well for me as the application that I upgraded from, on the same machine (which far exceeds Adobe’s minimum requirements).
I’m not here to fix blame or irritate people or argue semantics. In fact, think of me as not here at all.
I’m hoping all of this is solved with CS.01. Good luck Nick et. al.
Just installed Lizardtech’s Genuine Fractals v3.5 which is 16 bit compatible. Photoshop v7 loads the Save As (stn) instantaneously while CS takes almost 6 seconds. This is with CS RAM usage set to 65% while v7 is set to 75% (could set it higher if I wanted).
ALL other 3d party plugins are removed.
Only stating this to demonstrate how even the most recently designed plugins are not performing as well with PSCS.
Any way I to remove PSCS components that I don’t need? Has anyone posted a recommended ‘Lean’ configuration that might return to CS the kind of pep we were used to in previous versions?
Russell
Russell – in that case, the GF plugin has all the control.
in that case, the GF plugin has all the control.
Hi Chris.
I’m not clear on which ‘case’ you’re referring to?
v7? cs?
Thanks,
Russell
When GF is opening or saving – it is taking almost all the time, not Photoshop.
Just joined this interesting "discussion". I am not here for flaming or ranting just looking for some constructive advice. If this post is considered as ranting or a flame then I apologise as it was not intended that way.
I do support work for small to medium companies (general IT support and testing of software and hardware). My wife uses PS and as can be expected I support her systems (at work and at home).
We use Dell Dimension machines with the following specs:
At Home
Windows XP SP1 (Home Edition)
P4 2.8 Ghz (400 / 800 MHz Motherboard)
1 GB DDR 400 MHz
120 GB SATA Hard Drive
ATI 9800 128 MB Graphics Card
At Work
Windows 2000 Pro SP4
P4 2.6 GH (533 MHz FSB)
1 GB DDR
160 GB ATA
ATI 9700 128 MB Graphics Card
My wife generally works with files of between 50 MB and 400 MB swapping between PS Illustrator. Her work PC is running CS and is incredibly slow inside Adobe apps, which in turn causes other apps to be slow. When not running Adobe it gives good speed.
Home PC is also running CS and the speed is good in Adobe but the other apps are slow due to the high memory usage (to be expected due to the file size).
This is not my issue, the question I have is why do the Adobe products not release the memory. I have tested this closing all apps except PS at COB (current memory usage approx. 680 MB for PS and 180 MB for Illustrator. I leave the machine on over night and the next morning Adobe still has the memory. This was experienced on both the machines.
Both machines are using different MB’s, memory CPU’s and graphic cards. I have also tested this by just running Adobe and shutting down all non-essential processes and had the same result, the memory is not released even after 12 hours.
Does anybody have an idea (short of running a memory manager)?
Marius
marius,
why do the Adobe products not release the memory
adobe engineers have told us that it’s because the memory can get fragmented if released and then it needs to be reallocated. also there’s speed issues in releasing and reallocating that much memory. lastly, that’s how much you told it to take in your prefrences.
and I doubt a memory manager would do anything. that’s for reclaiming "lost" memory, but ps’s mem isn’t lost, it’s legitimately allocated.
Chris Cox wrote:
When GF is opening or saving – it is taking almost all the time, not Photoshop.
Ok. But why is there ‘near instantaneous response’ when launching GF3.5 from within previous versions of PS? I suspect you’re going to answer "go ask LizardTech" 🙂
Russell
that’s good.
being crass will get your issue answered…..
Mike,
If I wanted to be crass it would have been 😛 and not 🙂 I’m merely defending the unaccepted notion that PSCS’s design (or some part of it) might indeed be responsible for PSCS sluggishness reports that I hear and read here from numerous users. The standard answer from Adobe has been "it’s not our fault". I’m merely pointing out that an established software designer has just released a new plugin that takes advantage of features unique to PSCS (ie: 16 bit fractal based upsampling). I cannot believe that they designed it without first consulting Adobe on PSCS specific rules regarding plugin design. Chris would have us believe that LizardTech ‘got it wrong’ and somehow misunderstood the proper way to make a PSCS plugin. Had they done the job properly, it would perform as well (if not better) than it did in previous versions of PS. I’m reluctant to use older ‘pre PSCS’ plugins as comparison examples to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt.
There’s nothing crass intended in my reply. I’m trying to ARGUE a point and not insult anyone!. I’m merely frustrated with a prevailing "there’s nothing wrong here" attitude that flies in the face of so many reports to the contrary.
Chris,
You might very well be right and I WILL (I promise – I PROMISE) be the first to publicly eat crow when LizardTech posts a ‘now with improved PSCS performance’ patch for their plugin after realizing what it is that they misunderstood in Adobe’s recommendatons re: plugin integration with PSCS.
Russell
Most of our plugin developers don’t consult with us until they run into BIG problems. I don’t know what they might have done, right or wrong.
am runhning CS on a mac G4 dual 500 with 1.5 gig memory and 80% memory devoted to CS and 7. I am working with 200-500 MB files and it is nearly impossible to use the healing brush in CS because it is so slow. We use 7 for the healing brush and it works much faster. CS is slower in this case, cause we use the two progams side by side (one at a time) with same configuration. any suggestions on how to speed up the system?
Elliot – this is the Windows side of the Photoshop user forums, and the healing brush is known to be slow in CS when used on 16 bit images.
I had slowdown problems moving to CS until I reassessed my memory configuration. I had Memory Usage set to 75% when using PS7, but this setting caused many functions to crawl even though I’m running 2gb of RAM.
Writing to this forum, it was suggested that I set RAM Usage down to 50%. This fixed the problem and it has not recurred.
Best suggestion I can offer is to disable the File Browser – kill that puppy dead – and set your RAM usage to between 50 and 65 percent. PSCS does not fly as fast as previous versions, but it has more capabilities than the older builds. It’s a classic trade-off. You want the good stuff, you have to pay for it, one way or another.
Bob and Dennis (et al),
I’m BACCCCCK! If you set RAM usage down to 50%, doesn’t PS start writing to disk at 51%? Didn’t most of us invest in more RAM so that PS wouldn’t have to write to disk?? This is a viable workaround? I’ve tried all the "tricks" posted here and none have improved PSCS’s performance substantially. Could it be a hitch in the product activation? Or the hidden anti-counterfeiting scanning routines that are sucking up resources? Bottom-line: I still can’t use PSCS in the workplace . . .
doesn’t PS start writing to disk at 51%?
ps starts writing to disk as soon as it starts. it uses the hard drive as it’s main memory and RAM like cache memory to speed up operations. haven’t we been down this road before?
Bottom-line: I still can’t use PSCS in the workplace . . .
could you have a really slow device (cd, dvd, etc.?) on the same controller as your hard drive? if so, seperate them!
I’m having all kinds of trouble with files as small as 1mb with no other files or apps open on my machines. It really is ridiculous. Being almost solely a web-designer these days, I rarely ever work on files that take up more then 50mb in RAM and I can’t even move a selection soemtimes without CS locking up my entire machine for 2 to 3 minutes at a time. This is happening both at home and at work on XP systems, one a dual 1.6 machine, the other a brand new Dell 3.2 that’s got very little on it other then Photoshop and Dreamweaver. Soemthing is not right with this software if it’s having that much trouble with a common system function or piece of software and is causing so many users so much strife.
You are perhaps seeing a very biased view of PSCS if you judge by this forum as this is the place where people air their complaints and problems. I for one am very happy with its performance on both my machines. If you are having such consistent problems across several machines, perhaps it is something to do with the way you have set it up. Have you got the file browser open set to allow background processing.
To address the setup question, I haven’t changed any memory preferences and I never use the file browser at all. The only thing I think I changed is the recent documents list and the units from inches to pixels. I have my pallets set up in a manner which I prefer but other then that, it’s as is with a default installation on both machines. At home, no big deal, I can use PS6. At work, I have no choice but to use CS due to compatibility issues with older PS files and as one might imagine it’s geting incredibly frustrating. I just had it hang up again dragging a copy of a selection on a 1024×768 72dpi 8bit file with 3 layers in it. That’s hardly the kind of graphic or function that should require the kind of processing power it’s using to complete.
Setting RAM allocation to 50-55% and turning off file browser options in preferences have helped PSCS performance somewhat (thanks forum users) but it is still slower than PS7 for me. And Mick, you miss the point in common of this thread: everybody that has posted here with a problem has the same unbiased "PSCS is slow" problem.
Boys,
Be good!
Regards
Mark
Jay – if it hangs on something like that, you need to be looking for bad RAM, a problem with your hard disk, or a really corrupt OS.
Normally I would agree Chris, but with two completely different machines having the same problems with the same software I don’t think that would help. I have had CS on my new work machine since it was about two weeks old and it immediately was giving me the same problems as CS was on my home machine.
Jay – again, something is wrong on those systems.
Did you add any utility software? Some font managers had problems, and some firewall products.
Did you add any fonts or color profiles to the systems? They could be corrupt and causing problems (at the OS level).
Are you connecting to a printer on the network? This can cause delays when it is unavailable.
Have you tried resetting the preferences? (just in case)
I hate to say it, Chris, but both of your first two posts in this thread come off as EXTREMELY hostile. That is not the proper attitude for a tech support person to have.
For the record, I am noticing that Photoshop is using an extremely large amount of ram after running for a while, but it is not visibly slower for me than the old verson.
didn’t realize this thread was 75 posts long at first; I only saw the first three posts – why doesn’t this forum show all posts by default????[/edit]
sean Chris is not part of tech support, he is a software engineer… he comes here on his spare time…
Well, as long as he’s in here, he’s playing the roll of a tech support person, so the attitude is still inappropriate.
I think the problem is that maybe he’s a little too defensive about his own code. He seems to be insisting that everything and eeryone but himself is to blame. A more logical response would be to ask for details and try to actually get to the bottom of it rather than jumping to an immediate conclusion that someone else is at fault with no real evidence to prove it. For all he knows, there’s a bug in the code that most systems never encounter but is still technically a problem with Photoshop. Denying that it exists won’t make it go away. 😉
I think the problem is that each system is so unique that it would be very difficult for Chris to find the problem unless he actually had your machine in his hands. He does give people plenty of things that they can check on first to try to optimize PS.
On the hostility issue, I’m not going to say that he hasn’t been rude in the past, but I think he’s been very courteous as of late, specifically in this thread.
Chris wrote:
Chris Cox – 12:01pm May 27, 2004 Pacific (#70 of 74)
"Jay – if it hangs on something like that, you need to be looking for bad RAM, a problem with your hard disk, or a really corrupt OS."
If this were the case, then PS7 wouldn’t work very well either. Heck, a lot of applications would be having problems on a machine with the above "specs". The point is that all other applications (including in my case, PS7, Acrobat, InDesign, Pagemaker, Illustrator) are working just fine, thank you. Its PSCS thats having a problem. Although you’re really good at it, jumping to the above conclusion makes as much since as blaming the prisoners at Abu Ghraib for their treatment. 😉
On the hostility issue, I’m not going to say that he hasn’t been rude in the past, but I think he’s been very courteous as of late, specifically in this thread.
I can only help but haugh at that one. If that fits your definition of courteousness, I can only imagine what must qualify as rudeness for you. 😉
Whether he’s tech support or not, he is very much representing Adobe on this forum, and so should be held to the same high standards one would expect of any customer service representative. Anything less makes the company look bad.
Although you’re really good at it, jumping to the above conclusion makes as much since as blaming the prisoners at Abu Ghraib for their treatment.
Funnily enough, I think that’s even been tried.
Everyone who even so much as knew about it without trying to stop it should lose their job. Right up to the president, for creating a situation that enabled it if not encouraging it through his labeling of Guantanamo Bay prisoners as anything other than POWs and blatant skirting of international law there and elsewhere. He needs to learn firsthand what Truman meant by "The buck stops here."
Due to the fact that we still don’t have a system to debug this slowdown problem with, we’re still in need of one to work with here in San Jose. If you have a system where you think PS CS is really running slow, and are willing to give me concrete numbers to prove it, please email me directly at: ajerugim (at) adobe (dot) com
I’m especially interested in systems that are in the Bay Area, but I encourage you to contact me even if you are located somewhere else.
thanks,
-Adam
Sean – while I am in here, I’m just another user.
And what part was hostile?
I’m just answering questions (based on a bit more knowledge than most users have access to), correcting mistakes, and making suggestions.
Sean – we’ve been asking for details, repeatedly.
And thus far the evidence indicates that there is only a problem for relatively few users, and that most of those users have found the cause to be something specific to their system. In some cases it has been caused by third party software, in some cases it’s been corrupt files, and in some cases it’s been bad hardware.
As of yet, we have zero evidence that it is caused by a problem in Photoshop itself, or anything general about the OS interaction with Photoshop.
Sentinel, for me, the main difference betwen the two computers is not the 200mhz difference, but a wider front side bus, and maybe, in a minor scale, hypertreading. At work, does she have an antivirus running?
Where exactly does she encounter major speed differences? boot time, performing certain tasks (wich ones?)on what kind of files, etc…
Just to clarify, I didn’t find your posts particularly rude Chris. Unfortuantely, I don’t have a whole lot of control over what is or isn’t on my machine @ work. Our computers are very well locked down and have little other then the necassary software for us to do our jobs. I can tell you I have anti-virus running on both my home and work machine but it is two different packages. I do have a lot of fonts installed on both machines. I have no firewall software @ work but I use ZoneAlarm at home. The only real consistancy I can figure out other then a few standard graphics applications (mainly Adobe’s) is XP and CS.
Another slowdown I dealt with yesterday was in trying to open the liquify filter. I had a 510×500 pixel img with a BG layer, a photo with a stroke and drop shadow layer effect, and one more layer with about 75×75 worth of data that I wanted to warp a little with the liquify filter. When I tried to open it, CS locked up immediately and all my palletes turned white while the hourglass sat there. I managed to get the Task Manager open and for around 1 minute my processor was at 100% usage. Just to open the liquify filter on such a small image? These are the exact same symptoms I get trying to drag selections on graphics, paint lines with the brush tool, and on and on.
That sounds like you have the memory percentage set too high, and the OS ran out of address space (and then tried to free space and rearrange things so it could continue working). Reducing the percentage of memory given to Photoshop should help that.
Chris,
File Browser! All in the sort mode. Using a Canon 10D to take wedding pictures and Canon Zoombrowser to
download the images. I separate them into 4 folders. Brides, "Home" "Church" "Gardens" and "Hotel".
Software allows me to number from .001 right to the end. OK
I now open File Browser and everything is fine. 4 Folders all numbered in order .001-.350 say. Now, if you
remember in a previous thread I mentioned about deleting images and the wee black border around them
in v7, (Which has now gone) I have to use the new feature "Date Modified".
BTW, I’m trying to keep this short AND without hijacking this thread, it’s just I know your here.
Now, when I select "Date Modified" all the numbers get muddled up. Instance! In the "Home" folder numbered
..001 – .027 under either "Filename" or "Date Created" the numbers are in order BUT when I select "Date Modified"
this is how I’m presented with the numbers.
001-004, 007-010, 013-015, 017-027, 005-006, 011-012, and 016.
Here’s the problem I encounter.
1. I haven’t "Modified" ANY files at this point
2. Usually in the "Gardens" folder I have on average about 150-200 images to deal with and if they’re all
muddled say one set of parents on No 150 and then another set of parents at No 153 and they are at opposite
ends of the file browser, it gets annoying to scroll every few minutes to make sure the actual "in order" images were
taken in the first place.
3. (Not entirely YOUR fault) I bought CS to speed up not increase my workflow
4. When I select and drag images into CS and say adjust levels, if I don’t use "Date Modified" and work
on a batch of 20 images, they still ALL remain highlighted in blue so the only way to know if they are
"Modified" is to use "Date Modified" which as previously pointed out muddles my "In Order" numbers.
(I’m obviously having a problem with spelling "subsequent" or "consecutive") or hope and pray they
were originally taken view and when rotated they change to upright in which case is fine ‘cos I can see
they HAVE been "Modified" in which case I don’t need "Date Modified" anymore. It’s only when i have a "View"
image I want to remain "View" so I have to adjust the levels, usually white point down to 253 so as it looks
like it’s modified so I can sort the images.
Chris, this is a help thread and i’m pointing out the difficulty i’m having and don’t rush off and say it’s the Canon
software or XP or something else. I had a lightning workflow using v7 browser and i’m not saying revert
back ‘cos it’s got useful features but it’s slowing me down badly and we’re coming into the wedding season hot and heavy
and I need my time for designing the wedding albums as well as trying to make slideshows (I’ve a feature request under Chris
PDF Slideshow) amongst trying to get DVD slideshows and Movies in other Adobe Apps etc etc.
Chris ANY ideas would be appreciated or if your looking at it give me a "smack in the mouth" hint that you are
‘cos I know you’re busy too. Please reply ‘cos I don’t want to start another thread.
Regards
Mark
You should have created a new thread anyway. (hopefully some moderator will help us out here)
Yes, something odd is happening.
First, try resetting Photoshop preferences.
Also, the data modified thing could be an OS issue – but I’m not sure without being able to reproduce it.
Chris, I have CS on both M/C’s here and the same for both. I thought about the OS issue. I had probs using the MS Image downloader (Default) The images were eveywhere literally so I phoned Canon and they said NEVER use MS Downloader and yet with our Canon D60 all the image D/L no problem but still the D60 images get muddled for no reason as well.
There’s something maybe screwing up between the OS and the order in PS CS. Not wanting to go on, but I noticed a discrepancy between the actual reporting of the total amount of images in the File Browser and the numbers in the contact sheet.
I counted one folder of 120 images using file browser but when I run contact sheet there were only 113 images on the sheets.
Four 10 x 8 sheets all set to 5 across by 6 down (30 per sheet). BTW this is kinda slow when processing but when running it’s slightly faster. Strange behaviour this CS beast, LOL!
Regards
Mark
Ps Chris, Here’s that thread in Feature Requests
Chris, Thanks for the Slideshow in PDF but!!!!!!!!<
Chris
I have noticed the Canon 10D less stable than the D60. We are up to version 2 firmware with the 10D ALREADY and it’s not out that long really.
I’m wondering maybe MS haven’t or aren’t reporting the drivers properly as some conflict seems to be going on.
If this WAS the case, how would you go about either fixing or reporting to either Microsft or Canon and is it the camera or the software?
Any Ideas
regards
Mark
The firmware upgrades for the 10D have included new features, and only a few bug fixes. It’s been very stable for me.
I have no idea what the problem could be – and again, it could still be Photoshop.
In article , says…
Tim – you have been treated professionally and with respect. I have yet to see any of you "slighted". Yes, you do need to learn about some things you didn’t know or understand before – but that is to be expected, or you wouldn’t be here asking questions.
You should realize that there are people out there (especially on USENET) who, if given a million dollars, would complain that it is green and wrinkled.
Simply giving them the BEST PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE THAT EVER EXISTED for a reasonable price is NOT enough. You must individually troubleshoot each of their computers, and say "thank you very much sir" when you are done.
—
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
