Ric: System specs always help. Did you do a search for your problem, there are several ‘slowness’ threads operating at this point.
Awe,
Yes I did and it looks like my video card (GeForce4 MX 420) is one of the ones that does not seem to work with PS2. I could not find a definitive recommendation on a replacement that would work. It seems that many different video cards have the same sluggish performance, i.e. ATI, nVidea, etc.
– Ric
Ric,
Have you tried turning hardware acceleration down a bit at a time to test it out?
Bob
Bob,
Yup, tried that too. No change.
– Ric
What video card are you using?
Have you tried disabling any utilities you have installed (anti spyware, anti virus, etc.)?
Photoshop CS2 was well tested – but it would be near impossible to test with every available video card, motherboard, OS, driver, etc. combination out there.
And the image memory usage is most likely not a problem – just you not understanding what all Photoshop uses memory for.
It seems most people upgraded with no problem, and the new features are well worth the shake-down period. The Lens Distortion filter (or whatever it’s called) is worth the price of the upgrade for some of the stuff I have to deal with.
Be patient. It’ll all get worked out. You now have an excuse to get a new video card! How can that be bad?
I have the same issue with totally unacceptable CS2 redrawing times on NVidia and S3 video cards. CS1 worked fine. On the other hand, redraw times on an ATI Radeon 9500 is instanteous. Adobe has a severe problem that they need to resolve. Period. No more excuses. All I want to hear is that CS2 engineering is working on a fix.
Maybe it’s a combination issue: nVidia with a particular mobo. In my case (Gigabyte + Radeon 9700) CS2 is faster then CS1. No redraw probs either.
All I want to hear is that CS2 engineering is working on a fix.
either you’re not listening or you’re not hearing.
They can only fix the problem if (a) the problem can be identified very precisely so they know which of the millions of lines of code to go over; and (b) the problem is in Adobe’s code and not several video drivers’ code. If Adobe’s code properly called video API function X to do a particular type of display, it’s up to the display adapter cards and their drivers to actually do X efficiently when the function is called. The fact that some people have a problem and others don’t suggests that the problem may lie in some video drivers. If those drivers don’t do X efficiently, or at all, there is nothing Adobe can do except (i) bring the specific problem to the attention of the card and video chip vendors in the hope that their drivers will be improved or (ii) use a workaround to avoid calling function X (e.g., do Y then Z then ABC).
One of the problems facing Adobe and its users is that the video card vendors primarily cater to gamers, who need cards with 3d rendering functions and DirectX stuff, so the cards and their drivers tend to optimize the API functions that relate to these features, while perhaps neglecting to optimize or even implement API functions needed for efficent operations in 2d programs like Photoshop. For example, Photoshop might use an API call akin to "spray a gallon of FFCC03 into this region" and the function is implemented by spraying that color one drop [pixel] at a time instead of setting a block of VRAM to that value quickly and efficiently. If the card doesn’t do it efficiently with the latest driver, there is little Adobe can do.
A loud round of applause for Michael.
That is the best "layman’s terms" explanation I have read on this entire forum regarding the "slow screen-draw" problem.
You can bet this post will be referred to zillions of times in the coming weeks and months as other users pop their questions – or have a rant – before doing their own forum searches on this subject.
I would go as far as to suggest it should be elevated to the FAQs
Well done!
Yes, Many thanks for that, Michael…
An excellent account. Certainly helped me, as very much a layman in such things, see a lot more clearly what the complexities here look like…
Plus: it seems sense that the most recent version of Photoshop runs with the most recent API versions and protocols
I understand the complexities you’ve described but that does not explain why my test file takes 65 seconds to load in CS2 and only 10 seconds to load in CS1. Video related issues also do not explain why my test file uses 299MB in CS2 and 174MB in CS1. Lousy memory management does. Also, I’m using a very common pc – Dell 4550 with all stock equipment. There is absolutely no excuse why CS2 should have these issues and CS1 and 7.0 run fine – same video card in the same computer. You’d think Adobe would have tested CS2 on a 4550 or two or three! Give me a break!
Ric,
I’m running it on a 4550 myself. Maxed out at one gig and the perfomance on CS2 is just about equal to CS1.
I’ve been running a lot beta stuff on this machine and it’s just about time for complete blowout. I’m also shopping around for parts for a new system. Taking a lot of notes in here about video cards.
I’m tempted to just stick with the new offering from Matrox. Been using the 400 Max for years now without a hicup. They update their drivers more often than any other manufacturer out there.
Bob
Bob,
Can you please tell me the exact model number of the video card you are using. I will go buy one today!
Thanks,
– Ric
Bob,
Thanks very much. I’ll look into the Matrox G series.
– Ric
Ric, how many memory have you in your system?
Pierre,
I have 1GB of RAM.
– Ric
What did you expect to find with a brand new release?
Bob
Bob,
I expected much more in terms of quality and testing from a company like Adobe.
– Ric
What did you expect to find with a brand new release?
What does anyone expect from a new release? Improvements would be nice, wouldn’t they?
I haven’t seen any more in the way of complaints from this release than there was in any others. Were you here when CS came out? No. Why? Because you were happy with it.
Bob
Bob,
That’s not exactly true. I had owned CS for quite a while but also found it much slower than 7.0 and also more of a memory hog. I used it only occasionally for creative work on digital photographs. It was virtually unusable for use on large, multi-layered files that I create every day in the course of my job. It was not until a friend of mine in the UK advised me to download some patches from Adobe that together with lowering the amount of RAM that Photoshop uses should clear up the problem. It did and I have been using it every day. I was hoping that when I called Adobe and offered to pay for Tech support that they would have a solution. They did not.
We as consumers should hold companies that provide us with products and services to a high level of quality. We demand that we get what we pay for. In this a usable piece of software. If this was a beta release then fine, I would expect major issues. But this is not an interim release and therefore I don’t think it’s too much to ask that it should work "almost" as well as the previous release. I’d happily settle for that. But CS2 is completely unusable for me in its current state.
– Ric
Ric,
Your comments really do a bit of an injustice to Adobe. The folks behind this application are the best in the business. They visit this forum regularly, and take true ownership over issues. They are not about denial. If they find a bug with their software, or a "misfire", they take it quite personally.
So while that doesn’t help your specific situation, you aren’t helping them, or yourself by whining. I don’t care what your background is, but if you think you can draw conclusions on performance and how things should perform better than them, then perhaps you should apply for a job there.
You say it takes longer to do this that or the other thing than the previous release. Are you suggesting that they threw crap together and threw it out there? Do you think they might have tested it? Do you think it’s possible that some folks with certain configurations, OS patches, or hardware, might not be optimal for the new release? Do you think that because you can find people who have trouble with the software that all of those people are engineers and know what they’re talking about.
I’m sorry to slam on you, but the tone and candor of your posts suggest that Adobe has tossed a lemon out into the market. I don’t understand why you would take that position when Adobe, of all organizations, is the MOST responsive software company for a product as complex as this, that I’ve seen.
<shrug>
Why does CS1 work fine but CS2 is a dog? We’re talking basic 2-D Windows dialog box redrawing here. This is functionality that was perfected by video card manufacturers 10 years ago — are you telling me that all the 2D benchmarking software over the last 10 years failed to uncover a gross flaw in NVidia and S3 drivers? Yeah, right. Adobe broke something in CS2 and their testing failed to reveal it. They need to fix it.
If you would stop being an Adobe cheerleader for a minute, you might want to explain to us why, when redrawing simple Windows dialog boxes, CS2 is running like it’s on the original 5Mhz IBM PC and CS1 is just as speedy as EVERY OTHER Windows app?
YrbkMgr,
This is real simple! Adobe should have done a much better job of testing CS2 before releasing it. The issues that I am describing are not unique to me. What angers me is that CS1 was released with similar issues and it wasn’t until a patch was offered that the problem was corrected. I can’t help but believe that Adobe was completely aware of the issues I describe but choose to ship the product anyway and address it later. How could they have missed it? The file load time lag is huge and the memory use compared to CS1 is significant. There is simply no excuse for shipping a product with this problem.
I have the utmost respect for the designers of Photoshop and the other software products offered by Adobe. But I am seeing a pattern that here concerns me, specifically shipping products too early. As a consumer of Adobe products tou should expect more!
Answers to your questions follow:
You say it takes longer to do this that or the other thing than the previous release. Are you suggesting that they threw crap together and threw it out there?
I wouldnt say crap but I would say they severely underestimated the extent of this problem. Either way, theres no excuse for shipping it in this state.
Do you think they might have tested it? Do you think it’s possible that some folks with certain configurations, OS patches, or hardware, might not be optimal for the new release?
Of course they tested it and therefore they could not have missed the issues I describe. As far as certain configurations, OS patches or hardware go – I can certainly understand that. So tell me please what I need to change on my system so CS2 works as it should. As I pointed out, CS1 and 7.0 work fine on my machine but CS2 does not. You say optimal, the problems I am describing are examples of abysmal performance.
Do you think that because you can find people who have trouble with the software that all of those people are engineers and know what they’re talking about?
Im guessing that most if not all of these people are not engineers, but what I can say is that there is a clear pattern of problems with CS2 relating to performance and memory use, period.
Do you have the background to control variables and draw conclusions on issues such as these? Or are you just observing behavior and drawing conclusions without data?
I believe that the test that I performed was logical and clearly shows that there is a problem. The Adobe Engineer I spoke to agreed with my findings and noted them verbatim in his log and I was not charged for the call. Thats not to say that using a debugger and a test bed of machines isnt a better way to go to accurately diagnose and correct this problem. Lets hope that Adobe follows through and does just that!
– Ric
Ric: Looking through those links you posted shows most people really enjoying the release.
I’ve been using the trial on a dual PIIIGhz rig w/ 2GB of PC133 RAM and a Matrox G550 card and it really isn’t much slower than 7.
As far as a ‘clear pattern of problems relating to performance’, I just don’t see it, this release clearly is a lot better at memory handling than any previous release. Looking at the task manager, it clearly uses and releases memory quite rapidly when completing any task I’ve thrown at it and doesn’t choke like v7 on large images. I’ve been uing a 200Mb/16bit image while testing CS2.
It’s been a real champ!
Ric, if you’re looking for the G400 Matrox card that Bob mentioned, do a search on ebay. There are a dozen or so being offered from $5 – $20.
Myself, I’m using the Matrox G550 on two different machines, no problems here.
Nick
Awe, Nick,
I’m going to give Matrox a call on Monday and they’re willing to letting me return it if it doens’t rectify my CS2 problem then I’ll go for the G550.
Thanks,
– Ric
This is functionality that was perfected by video card manufacturers 10 years ago
All evidence to the contrary.
Bob
If you would stop being an Adobe cheerleader for a minute, you might want to explain to us why, when redrawing simple Windows dialog boxes, CS2 is running like it’s on the original 5Mhz IBM PC and CS1 is just as speedy as EVERY OTHER Windows app?
<taking cheerleader dress off – stop looking!>
Do you mean on your machine, or on the hundred thousand other machines?
Look, I’m not saying that there’s not an issue, what I abhor is that people bounce in here and say "Adobe, shame on you". I’d be willing to bet that they’ve tested on more machines than you have. And the consiracy theory that they know of these problems and release it anyway is entirely inconsistent with how they behave when there is an issue. I’ve been participating in this forum for over five years now, and I’ve never seen evidence of that posture.
Wrote:
It seems most people upgraded with no problem, and the new features ar well worth the shake-down period. The Lens Distortion filter (o whatever it’s called) is worth the price of the upgrade for some of th stuff I have to deal with.
Be patient. It’ll all get worked out. You now have an excuse to get new video card! How can that be bad?
I see your address being Adobe Forums. Apparently you read them. Ho can you say most have not had problems.
Go to any forum that accomodates PS CS2 (including Adobe Forums) and i quickly tells you there are numerous problems with wide audiences.
And as far as the video card, many are being told to replace the card but Adobe has left you with a crap shoot for selection when replacin it.
And Bridge is miserably slow. Adobe says the made it a standalone so i can do its thing while you carry on in PS. If Bridge is creatin previews, etc., for a folder, Photoshop comes to a stand still, jus short of frozen. (Pentium 4 3GHz 1MB mem XP Pro SP2) Besides the fac they destroyed the functionality "Favorites" had in CS. The sortin capabilities leave something to be desired as well. It is completel out of metaphor for a Windows product. Does anyone know if a MA computer sorts like Bridge does? (i.e. Windows can have folders at th top with files below in an Ascending order- this is quite typical. Yo go to Bridge and you have to change the way you think with sorting)
Also, in the Windows world, customizable menus, as Adobe claims, is farce if not false advertising.
Also what is it with Adobe that they just refuse to allow icon too bars that are truly customizable (any function or menu you desire to b assigned to a toolbar icon) i.e. I use USM a lot. Is icons for babies o something? Why can’t I assign it to an icon on the toolbar. I reall don’t get that. I’ve programmed for a living, this is easy to do. It i apparently some ego thing with Adobe. Shortcuts are great, but PS ha shortcut overload.
Don’t misunderstand me, there are some grand new functions. But, would have preferred some improved functionality in the GUI an improved user customization for the GUI. Maybe someday that will come
—
McMilla
———————————————————— ———– McMillan’s Profile:
http://www.highdots.com/forums/member.php?userid=5 View this thread:
http://www.highdots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65620
If you are in Los Angeles, you can have my old Matrox G450 for free 🙂
I now have the Matrox P750, don’t see any slowdown in CS2 compared to CS.
–John
Ric,
Quit whining and get a new video card. We all need to upgrade our equipement from time to time, I’ll bet when 64 bit Windows comes out you’ll hear loud howling from people who think a computer is like a toaster, you just plug it in and it works.
It’s more like a car, you have to maintain it and you might have to change the tires once in a while.
I repeat my earlier question: Why are you upset that you now have an excuse to get a new video card? Seems to me, if my on-board VIA didn’t work with CS2 then I’d dance over to the store and get a brand new sooper dooper video card.
Alas, the pedestrian video card I have works just fine, and I’m not a gamer so I have absolutely no excuse to buy a new card.
Dana,
If replacing the video card does the trick then great! I have my doubts that it will solve the file load time issue and the memory usage issue, but I will be contacting Matrox on Monday to see if it can be returned if the problem is not fixed.
John,
Thanks for the offer but I’m in NY. if I’m going to replace the video card I might as well get the most up to date version, but thanks again.
– Ric
Um, here’s just a little observation about the "replace the video card" bit of advice. It can be easier said than done.
There’s lots of issues to consider when buying a new video card. We can thank all those gamers out there for turning such an issue into a potentially complex chore. Before anyone flames me for a seemingly flippant remark, gaming hardware has turned into quite a high priced "arms race" of an industry. I digress. Back to the issues of buying new video cards.
First you need to consider the existing computer, its operating system and what kind of video card slot it has. PCI? AGP? And if it’s AGP, does it max out at AGP 2X, 4X or 8X?
Next thing to consider is the size of the card and the amount of space available in the existing computer case. Some cards will hog out the space of an adjacent PCI slot due to extra stuff on the card (larger fans, power connectors, etc.). If all your slots are filled then all bets may be off.
A real deal-breaker can be the power supply of the CPU case. Many of the newest 3D gamer cards (which is just about the only kind of video card you can find these days in any computer store) requires some serious power supply. Any computer made more than 2 or 3 years ago, or a computer of a lesser than high end variety, may have a power supply totally inadequate for a newer video card with lots of power and on board memory.
Finally you have to consider the arguably extreme prices of some video cards. Yeah, it may not be a big deal to spend $100 or $200 to update the video card in an aging computer system. It is pretty unreasonable for anyone to expect just anyone to drop $400 to $600 on some of the latest and greatest gaming cards.
The unfortunate thing is the "upgrade" many of us have to make after awhile is a new computer system.
Matrox specializes in ‘2D’ cards, that is why they got it right (although they have excellent ‘3D’ performance but not ‘cutting edge’). The point was made in another thread that card manufacturers that specialize in ‘3D’ performance seem to have ignored, or assumed, good ‘2D’ performance and this is where the problems lie.
It explains why Christine’s lab computers with an Intel 8Mb onboard RAM seem to be working quite well, Intel made sure that those chips are optimized for ‘2D’ performance.
While Intel doesn’t release bleeding edge products, they release the most stable products around. I think they are willing to sacrifice being the lastest thing for being the best thing.
Ric’s computer can use just about any AGP card available. I have the same machine. He won’t have any trouble finding a good card.
Bob
Any one that expects a new software release to run faster, use less memory and need less in the computer hardware department is an idiot. Software has never worked that way. Each new version requires more of everything, more computer, more memory, more hard disk space, etc. etc. To expect otherwise is just stupid.
I suppose you all expect Longhorn to run faster, require less computer, less memory and less hard disc space?
Robert
Jay, because it doesn’t like your video card. From what I have been reading a lot of people that have been having these problems also have video cards designed more for 3D games than for running serial 2D Windows applications.
Also, just because the previous version worked with your video card ok, doesn’t mean the new one will. Things change and in the case of computer hardware and software they change quickly. It could be that your video card is no longer appropriate for the job.
My suggestion would be to find a local store that has a Matrox Millennium G550 video card, buy it and try it. I think you will find your problems will go away. Make sure to download the latest video drivers and bios for it. If it doesn’t go away then return the Matrox and look for something else. Make sure where you buy the card has a good return policy.
I have the Matrox 550 and CS2 is just as fast with it as CS1. If it does turn out to be the video card, which I think it will be. Then I would contact the manufacturer and yell at them.
Robert
Ric, CS1 never got a patch. There were at least a dozen problems with it that are still in it to this day. What patch are you talking about?
Robert
Bobby, that is why it is always best to have two machines. One for real work and one for games. More often than not what works well for games simply is crap for real world applications. It also applies going the other direction. Another reason for two is that I have found I have to update my game machine far less often than I do my work machine. For games as long as you have a fast processor, 1GB of RAM, plenty of hard drive space, good sound and video you are pretty much set for a few years. Work PC’s on the other hand almost have to be updated with each new application release. This is one area that I think game publishers do a much better job, you much better mileage out of your hardware with games than you do regular applications. OS upgrades are a whole nother matter.
Robert
I just have to posit that maybe your video hardware isn’t obsolete; that maybe it’s just like Chris Cox has pre-supposed: that CS2 is using a window drawing pathway not optimized by your card.
What this means for us consumers? I dunno. I’ve contacted ATI and my query has fallen on deaf ears. My concern has gotten attention on this forum, but so far my only "fix" is the tab my palettes out of view or to deal with the _slow_ redraw rates. Ain’t no good fix in sight, even if’n I got a spankin’ new $500 video card that can fill textures and triangles at 7000 times the speed of light.
So did I buy the wrong video card? Apparently, I have. If it was supposed to fix CS2’s redraw problems. (But it sure plays Sid Meir’s Pirates really well).
Perplexed? Yes.
Confused? Totally.
Remorse? Just a tad.
CS2 a dud? Only when I try to drag windows or dialogue boxes.
— font9a.
3.06HT 1GB
ATI X850 XT
Has anyone tried running w2k/xp system file checker and setting all MS files back to the original ones to see if maybe it’s an MS or other software replacing files that’s causing a problem? I know many games and other software will write over MS files to make their program run better and maybe its a common prog that everyone has say Nero for exaomple that changes a dll that doesn’t call an API the way photoshop likes. A long shot I know but just curious.
font 9a: don’t give up on ATI. I started a tag with them and they responded by asking for my setup via their utility. I seems as though they are looking into it on their end. I don’t know if it makes a difference what card you have. I have a Fire GL series (not a "gamer" card) and I have problems with the brush cursor as it passes over the active image with the info palette open. Interestingly, lowering the acceleration one notch solves the problem. The explanation in the window next to the Hardware acceleration slider also indicates that this will solve a problem with a corrupt bitmap as well as disabling hardware and cursor accelerations. I think the jury is still out and I’m waiting to hear back from ATI. I would follow up with your tag to ATI. Personally, I would like to give all parties the opportunity to look into this problem.
Robert Barnett said:
"Each new version requires more of everything, more computer, more memory, more hard disk space, etc. etc. To expect otherwise is just stupid."
Yes, this is an unfortunate reality in terms of new computer software. But this is also why I have avoided most upgrades in recent years. The new versions didn’t add features I really wanted, but definitely slowed down performance. I’ve kept old versions of software and installed them on brand new computer systems and seen higher levels of productivity all thanks to less code bloat.
Enough time (and versions) have passed that I see the CS2 package as being a worthwhile upgrade. But I also have a brand new notebook computer with some serious hardware able to run the software. I would not have ordered this upgrade if I didn’t have brand new hardware.
"Bobby, that is why it is always best to have two machines. One for real work and one for games. More often than not what works well for games simply is crap for real world applications."
I have two PCs, a desktop machine and a notebook computer. After 8 hours at work sitting in front of desktop, I’m not in much of a mood to chain myself to another desktop. Notebooks have become powerful enough to handle some pretty demanding graphics chores and I find that to be very liberating.
On gaming machines, anymore I think the PC gaming industry is just a big scam -both in terms of hardware and the games themselves. It’s all very over-priced and both the hardware and software gets obsolete very very quick. The next gaming device I’ll buy won’t be some $4000 PC. It will probably be an X-Box360. The next PC (or Mac) I’ll buy will be another graphics machine. I’m only going to spend thousands of dollars on computer gear that can make me money. I’m not going to get paid playing video games. All I can do is waste a huge amount of time on that.
Why are you people jumping all over Ric’s ass like this? My god the man is simply looking for a solution to his problem with Adobe! He said he has been using Photoshop since it was first released, that does not sound like a man that is coming to this forum to try and tarnish Adobe’s name but it does sound like a man that has every right in the world to demand a solution to his problem without having to spend more money on hardware that ran the version before this just fine. He is not whining as a few people have said but so what if he was? If Adobe wants to charge people 600 bucks then Adobe should be willing to take some criticism when it doesn’t work like a 600 dollar program should and if you don’t like it just don’t read it.
"Robert Barnett – 10:56am May 15, 05 PST (#44 of 50)
Ric, CS1 never got a patch. There were at least a dozen problems with it that are still in it to this day. What patch are you talking about?
Robert"
Robert,
The patch I downloaded was called "Adjusted Refresh plug-in". I was told that using that along with lowering the amount of RAM that Photoshop could use would speed things up. I can tell you that after doing both it absolutely did. What I can’t tell you is simply lowering the amount of RAM used by Photoshop would have done the trick on its own, i.e. without the patch. In any even, I pretty much gave up on using CS1 on a day-to-day basis as I am constantly loading and saving files and require quick performance in that regard. After installing the patch and lowering the memory allocation the performance was greatly enhanced and I’ve been using CS1 8 hours a day ever since.
– Ric
Thanks for your kind words hooligan805.
To reiterate my position, I think Adobe is a great company and one that creates outstanding products that are truly second to none. I would like nothing more than to be using CS2 this morning as I begin my work week. I can even deal with buying a new video card, if that will truly correct the problem. It seems to me that Adobe needs to understand that we (their loyal, long-time customers) expect that serious performance issues are corrected prior to the release of the product. I don’t think that’s asking too much. Also, if you read the "System Requirements" as stated on the CS2 box, my system exceeds most of them, so I have every right to expect that file load times will not increase dramatically from 10 to 65 seconds and that memory utilization should not almost double. If that were the case I would have expected to see something very different regarding the system requirements. The box says that 320MB of RAM is the minimum and (384MB is recommended). I’d bet that the performance of CS2 with only 384MB is pretty slow with medium sized files as the disk light would probably never go out.
– Ric
Everyone: I think it is safe to say that font9a’s demonstration of the problem with a 3.06HT CPU, 1GB RAM, and an ATI X850 XT means that Adobe will be addressing the issue in the very near future. Any further hand wringing speculation is now pointless.
I may have found another problem.
1) Try creating a new file and then doing a "Save As".
2) Select .PSD as the file format and then click "Save".
3) Close the file.
On my system as well as one of my coworkers who tried this test, the file is saved without an extension. So you can’t open it without either renaming it manually by adding the .PSD extension or doing an "Open As". Is anyone else seeing this?
– Ric
Another idea to throw into the ring…
We have to do this in the lab with the crappy computers as we have NO video cards, just Intel controller chips
Have people gone into XP and turned all and I do mean ALL of the Windows eye candy off???
Control Panel>System Properties>Advanced>Performance>Adjust for best performance and turn all of the check boxes off! Then click on the Advanced tabs and set everything in that screen to Best performance then Click on the Data Execution Prevention tab and set it to Windows applications only (first check box)…for some reason on some machines…especially the hateways this seemed to clear up problems when we first installed XP!
I just checked mine, Christine…but opted for "Custom" and checked only the "smooth edges of screen fonts" because that works much better for my laptop display.
The Windows key + Pause Break will open System Properties if you don’t want to go through the Control Panel to get there.
Gene
1) Try creating a new file and then doing a "Save As".
2) Select .PSD as the file format and then click "Save".
3) Close the file.
On my system as well as one of my coworkers who tried this test, the file is saved without an extension. So you can’t open it without either renaming it manually by adding the .PSD extension or doing an "Open As". Is anyone else seeing this?
Hi Ric,
Yes, same thing happened here. I also encountered an issue where I was trying to save as|.psd and it insisted on bringing up the JPG parameters box.
I tried resetting prefs and while it seems to have helped (temporary?) with the jpg parameters issue I still have the missing extension issue and quite frankly that sux.
CMG
Hi CMG,
Thanks for info. Looks like a confirmed bug.
– Ric
Ric/Char: Could not replicate the problem, did it several times to different drives. Been working a magazine, with many embedded files and haven’t had any problems up to this point with PS.
More Info
I have confirmed the same performance and memory usage issues on a completely different system. The specifications for the other system are as follows:
Gateway workstation, Pentium 4, 3.3GHz, 1GB RAM, XPSP2, Very large hard drive with tons of free space (dont know the exact number, but in excess of 50GB free), Video Card: 128MB DDRATT Radeon 9700.
The test results are as follows:
Load test file into CS1: 5 seconds
Load test file into CS2: 50 seconds
Memory used by file in CS1: 174MB
Memory used by file in CS2: 299MB
– Ric
I’ll bet when 64 bit Windows comes out you’ll hear loud howling from people who think a computer is like a toaster, you just plug it in and it works.
It’s already out. For anyone that wants it, GET A NEW, FAST SYSTEM!
It’s more like a car, you have to maintain it and you might have to change the tires once in a while.
I wish everyone would think like you. People buy computers and want them to last for 6 to 10 years. For me it’s not like a car, it’s more like a woman. I can only keep one for so long then I get tired of her when the NEW feeling is gone.
PCI? AGP? And if it’s AGP, does it max out at AGP 2X, 4X or 8X?
You forgot PCI Express.
Any computer made more than 2 or 3 years ago, or a computer of a lesser than high end variety, may have a power supply totally inadequate for a newer video card with lots of power and on board memory.
For something that old, probably calls for an overhaul anyway IMO. Looks like you think so too "The unfortunate thing is the "upgrade" many of us have to make after awhile is a new computer system."
that is why it is always best to have two machines
I couldn’t agree more.
1GB of RAM, plenty of hard drive space, good sound and video you are pretty much set for a few years.
1GB is pretty good but not enough to say a few years IMO. It really depends on your situation. I have a system now with 2GB which means my Virtual Memory is set to at least 3GB. The more memory you have, the more HD space you’re going to need as cooperative space, thus a large HD. As of now with the applications I run, I have about 1.2 or 1.1 gigs of my physical RAM free.
For those that don’t know anything about the paging file, I’m talking about, the space on your HD that your OS needs to use as if it were RAM. You can check yours (in Windows) by holding the Windows key and pause/break key to pull up the System properties. Click the Advanced tab and you’ll see the Total paging file size. Windows XP and Windows 2K are configured differently. If you’re on XP set it to at least two and a half times that of your RAM and make the max size the same size as the initial. Actually, I’m going to shut up about this. You really shouldn’t mess with these settings unless you really know what you’re doing. Ask your admin to check this for you if there is cause for concern. I’m just rambling.
Have people gone into XP and turned all and I do mean ALL of the Windows eye candy off?
That’s not going to solve it and even if it did, it just means you’re going to need a new card soon because the existing card can barely manage.
Ric Hollander,
Quite interesting results you have there. Fast system, good vid card and everything looks good but let me ask you this; is that an actual ATI card or a card with an ATI chipset? The question is bothering me since your results are rather startling.
FWIW, I have an ATI 9XXX and it works fine. I can’t remember for sure right now if I have the 9800 or 9600 but it’s one of those and it’s a real ATI.
Are you going to return your Adobe software?
Ric – the memory really doesn’t matter.
But the file load time should not be any slower in CS2.
The only thing we know of that causes that is having a default printer on the network and it not being available (so when PS tries to initialize print settings for the document, the OS goes away and twiddles it’s thumbs for a while).
Ric/Char: Could not replicate the problem, did it several times to different drives. Been working a magazine, with many embedded files and haven’t had any problems up to this point with PS.
Ric/Bart,
I kept messing about with CS2 and discovered the following:
After I went into Preferences and disabled Version Cue (which I don’t have as I don’t have the entire suite as yet) I am now able to not only save as psd but I don’t have to type in the extension to do so, even after a folder change.
I’m not sure that would change your problem Ric but I would suggest checking to make sure that the Version Cue is disabled (unless, of course you have the suite and use it) and see if it helps. Bart did you either have VC disabled or if enabled are you using the suite?
I also notice that with VC enabled, if I changed the bg layer to a regular ps layer I was able to save as ".psd" without the jpg parameters popping up.
In any event, I’m glad its working here and hope it works for you as well RH 😉
Char
Char – so that sounds like you were using the "Adobe Dialog" aka "Version Cue Dialog" and it had problems with the extensions. That probably explains why most other people aren’t seeing it.
Thanks for that important discovery!
Char – so that sounds like you were using the "Adobe Dialog" aka "Version Cue Dialog" and it had problems with the extensions. That probably explains why most other people aren’t seeing it.
Thanks for that important discovery!
Chris,
My pleasure. I’m just glad I got it fixed and it was something relatively simple. Hope it works for others who are having the same type of problems.
🙂
Char
Seems a little too easy to deny there is a problem and blame the video card for these issues. I know many others with top end ati and nvidia cards that haven’t had any problems like this until PSCS2
I understand new software is going to have issues. But when I spend 600 dollars on a program and it runs like garbage on a computer that smokes any benchmark 3d or otherwise, and then to hear things like "buy a new video card", or "gaming machines don’t run apps well"… not a good feeling. What cards _did_ adobe test cs2 with?
I just hope fixing this is a very high priority for adobe because it doesn’t look good on them.
System specs
ATI X800XT 256MB 1.6ns, catalyst 5.5
AMD64 3500+ (winchester)
msi k8n neo2 platinum
2x 512MB OCZ 3200 Platinum EL Rev2 2-2-2-5
Regards, Chris Skinner
a computer that smokes any benchmark 3d
I haven’t run benchmark 3d for a long time, and don’t recall, but does it have any 2D specific tests? That is, testing only the 2D performance of the system/video card?
Ric, "I hate to do it, but it looks like Im going to send it back and get a refund. " Not much chance in that.
Most retailers will only offer an exchange of software if it’s defective, but not a refund once the box has been opened. This is for good reason.
As for Adobe offering your cash back, if you didn’t get it directly from them, they’ll likely tell you it’s between you and the retailer. If you did get it from them, they’ll likely tell you what they told me when I first had issues with the flaky re-activation scheme: "Thank you for calling Adobe. Is there anything else I can help you with today?".
"After I went into Preferences and disabled Version Cue (which I don’t have as I don’t have the entire suite as yet) I am now able to not only save as psd but I don’t have to type in the extension to do so, even after a folder change."
Hey Char,
Tried disabling Version Cue and as you indicated, the problem goes away, i.e. I can now perform a "Save As" and the correct file extension is saved.
Thanks,
– Ric
Chris Cox – 12:13pm May 18, 05 PST (#62 of 69)
Ric – the memory really doesn’t matter.
But the file load time should not be any slower in CS2. The only thing we know of that causes that is having a default printer on the network and it not being available (so when PS tries to initialize print settings for the document, the OS goes away and twiddles it’s thumbs for a while).
Chris,
I checked and my default printer is connected via USB directly to my PC, i.e. no network. The other system I referenced is also not using a network printer.
Here’s a link to a screen grab of the Printer dialogue from my system:
<
http://www.turnique.com/temp/Printers.gif>
– Ric
Thomas Ireland – 3:11am May 19, 05 PST (#68 of 70)
Ric, "I hate to do it, but it looks like Im going to send it back and get a refund. " Not much chance in that.
Most retailers will only offer an exchange of software if it’s defective, but not a refund once the box has been opened. This is for good reason.
As for Adobe offering your cash back, if you didn’t get it directly from them, they’ll likely tell you it’s between you and the retailer. If you did get it from them, they’ll likely tell you what they told me when I first had issues with the flaky re-activation scheme: "Thank you for calling Adobe. Is there anything else I can help you with today?".
Thomas,
I did purchase the updgrade directly from Adobe and made sure when I spoke to them that it could be returned. Their policy is that it can be returned within 30 days even if it has been openend. As of today I am planning on holding on to it. I have a feeling that Adobe is taking the problems I have pointed out seriously and I am hopeful that they will be corrected.
– Ric
George Bushit says:
Quite interesting results you have there. Fast system, good vid card and everything looks good but let me ask you this; is that an actual ATI card or a card with an ATI chipset? The question is bothering me since your results are rather startling.
FWIW, I have an ATI 9XXX and it works fine. I can’t remember for sure right now if I have the 9800 or 9600 but it’s one of those and it’s a real ATI.
Are you going to return your Adobe software?
George,
I really don’t believe that the file load time has anything whatsoever to do with the video card. I mentioned it only to help point out that this issue occurs regardless of the video card used. I believe (but I’m not sure) that it is a true ATI card.
I’m holding on to CS2 for now with the hope that these issues will be corrected.
– Ric
All,
I created a very boring, but hopefully useful test file that can be used to compare the load times between CS1 and CS2.
You can download it here:
<
http://www.turnique.com/temp/CS2%20Test.zip>
Here are my load time results:
CS1 – 10 seconds
CS2 – 40 seconds
For this test I consider load time to be the time it takes for the file to be opened by Photoshop and be available for edit. I’d be curious to see if others experience a similar percentage increase in load time for CS2.
A more complex file than this was tested on a faster machine then mine, i.e. mine is 2.66 GHz and the other was 3.3 GHz. As I stated in an earlier post, the load times were better than mine but CS2 took significantly longer than CS1, i.e. 5 seconds vs. 50 seconds.
The thing to pay attention to here is the comparison between your CS1 and CS2 load times.
I hope this helps…
– Ric
UPDATE…
I am very happy to report that I was contacted by the Adobe Photoshop product team and have provided them with actual image file that they have labeled "the PS Killer".
They are actively perusing a solution to this problem and I am confident that it will be rectified. I will update this thread as I have more information.
– Ric
Well the "PS Killer" ain’t bothering CS2 on my machine – 7s to open – but it’s taking about 25 with CS. That is with Preserve Embedded Profiles on in the color settings. If convert to working RGB is on it’s a different story. I haven’t waited around to see how long it takes as yet.
Athlon 2800 with 2Gb of RAM
Mick,
To be clear, the sample file I posted here is NOT the actual "PS Killer" but rather a quick file I created to help simulate the problem. The actual image has been given to the Photoshop product team. I did not feel comfortable posting it here as it contains the visual design a product currently under development by employer.
– Ric
Rick
Still it’s pretty strange that the file you have made available opens much faster (X4) in CS2 than in CS on my machine.
Hello
That is some file!!
Well with preserve profile
CS 3 secs and CS2 25 secs.
With convert CS 120secs actual(timer 109secs)
CS2 255 secs, but the timer says 155 secs.
It took 25 secs for the progress bar to appear. I really do not like this progress bar!.
Mike Engles
Here are the times from deebs in m.ss
CS1 3.30 (1.20)
CS1 1.30 (1.00) on hi priority
CS2 2.10
CS2 1.50 on hi priority
The times in brackets are second run times. It may be that I made an error on the first run on CS (sure I didn’t tho)
IrfanView – almost instantaneous
On 2.4GHz intel Celeron, laptop with 480MB RAM 60MB of which are snaffled by integrated graphics
Mick Murphy – 9:49am May 19, 05 PST (#77 of 78) Rick Still it’s pretty strange that the file you have made available opens much faster (X4) in CS2 than in CS on my machine.
No argurment there! That is interesting and very surprising.
– Ric
This is really weird. It definitely has something to do with the way the apps handle memory I would say. I just noticed that I had CS set to the default 50% RAM usage so I figured that was what was slowing it down. I upped it to 85% which is what I have CS2 at but it actually took way longer – about 1 minute. Checking out the scratch usage it had allocated a huge amount of scratch (>3 Gb). WHen I had it set to 50% it had also gone over the limit and was using scratch disk but it was a much lower number. CS2 on the other hand uses about 1.3Gb of the ~1.5 available so never has to use the scratch disk. I’ve gotta go now – the rice is burning but I’ll have another look later.
Chris – except that the evidence very clearly says it’s a bug in the video card drivers.
Chris Cox – 12:12pm May 19, 05 PST (#82 of 82)
Chris – except that the evidence very clearly says it’s a bug in the video card drivers.
Chris,
Can you please explain:
Why does CS2 use API calls that appear to be buggy on a variety of video cards?
Why does CS1 and 7.0 not have this same problem?
How does a bug in a video card driver cause a file load time to increase from 10 to 65 seconds, i.e. before the image is even on the screen?
– Ric
Because CS2 changed the way some things were drawn, and because we had no idea that the APIs were causing problems on some drivers. The few beta testers who had problems solved the problems with driver updates.
Because CS1 and 7.0 didn’t use the same APIs in exactly the same way.
I have no idea why your file load time increased – I doubt that has anything to do with the video driver bugs. But since other people are seeing the load time DECREASE when loading your image in CS2, I suspect there is more to your problem image than just a simple slowdown.
Ric – this is something to do with memory allocation. That file needs a huge amount of memory for its physical size on disk. If I set CS2 to 50% then it slows down to 25s from 7 at 85% because the scratch size is now about 1.3 Gb and exceeds the available RAM. When you are testing do CS and CS2 have the same memory allocation? In any case, no matter which way I do it, CS2 is a lot faster than CS at the same memory allocation.
Mick Murphy – 1:10pm May 19, 05 PST (#85 of 85)
Ric – this is something to do with memory allocation. That file needs a huge amount of memory for its physical size on disk. If I set CS2 to 50% then it slows down to 25s from 7 at 85% because the scratch size is now about 1.3 Gb and exceeds the available RAM. When you are testing do CS and CS2 have the same memory allocation? In any case, no matter which way I do it, CS2 is a lot faster than CS at the same memory allocation.
Mick,
I think you’re analysis that the problem is tied to memory utilization makes total sense. If I’m not mistaken, CS1 could not use more than 1GB of RAM while CS2 can. The load time for the test file was faster with CS2 on your machine probably because CS2 was able to use your full 2GB of RAM, while it resulted in paging on my 1GB machine. I’m hoping that something can be done to CS2 to make it’s use of memory as efficient as CS1 and 7.0. Another clue that I have pointed out in previous posts is the memory that Photoshop says the file is using. On my larger test file (not posted here), the file was reported as using 174MB of RAM in CS1 and 299MB in CS2.
I have them memory size set to 55% in CS2 and 65% in CS1. I did a bunch of tests and those numbers seem to give me the fastest load times.
– Ric
Chris Cox – 12:55pm May 19, 05 PST (#84 of 86)
I have no idea why your file load time increased – I doubt that has anything to do with the video driver bugs. But since other people are seeing the load time DECREASE when loading your image in CS2, I suspect there is more to your problem image than just a simple slowdown.
Chris,
Please sync up with Adam Jerugim as I have provided him with the actual file that I used. I suggest you do your comparison on a machine with 1GB of RAM first.
– Ric
Ric
You are actually mistaken about CS in that it can use the same memory allocation as CS2 – around 1770 Mb. Where they differ (on my machine at least), and this is purely from unrecorded off-the-cuff observation, is in their scratch allocation. CS seems to allocate more scratch at a given file size than CS2. In the case of your file, both allocate a lot more than one would expect for such a small file but CS scratch outstrips the available RAM whereas CS2 doesn’t on my machine – hence it is a lot faster.
Increasing your RAM if that is possible might be a good idea. Memory is really cheap at the moment.
Mick,
Thanks for clarifying the memory utilization for me.
– Ric
Ric,
That’s some crazy file you made. I gave up timing when it went over 1min 30sec. On another note, photoshop open, no file – 66meg used. Open your file – 709meg used *gulp*. Another interesting note, I closed the file and let PS sit for 10min idle. It did not release the memory, it was still using 709meg.
Peter McNeill – 2:33pm May 19, 05 PST (#90 of 90)
Ric,
That’s some crazy file you made. I gave up timing when it went over 1min 30sec. On another note, photoshop open, no file – 66meg used. Open your file – 709meg used *gulp*. Another interesting note, I closed the file and let PS sit for 10min idle. It did not release the memory, it was still using 709meg.
Peter,
Thanks for trying to load the file. How much RAM do you have on your machine?
– Ric
Ric, I have 1gig. After trying it again I did notice your file is 550meg umcompressed. ok, that explains the memory usage but still, PS sems to be using more than the file size. I tried a file I did with ps7 that was 23/23 meg and ps went up to 109 meg from 66mb. Seems a bit excessive overhead just to display a window.
I got the file from Adam.
The time difference is spent allocating memory and disk space. The difference between versions is due to differing tile sizes in the Photoshop VM system (and in CS it’ll depend on whether you installed the Adjusted Refresh plugin or not).
I’m still trying to figure out why this file shows such a huge difference though.
PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!!!
Hats off to Adam Jerugim the Photoshop QE Product Lead and his team for solving the file load time issue. I have received a plug-in from Adam and am happy to report that it works!
The memory required for the test file has dropped from 299MB back to 174MB, just like CS1. The load time is a bit slower than CS1 but totally acceptable. Adam will be working out the details for distribution of the plug-in with management.
Thank you to everyone who weighed in on this issue. Apparently we were heard by the right people and our passionate discourse has made a difference and brought this issue to a close.
To all those who told me to "Go Away!" I say – "Youre Welcome!". Photoshop CS2 will now be a faster less resource intensive application – as it should be.
– Ric
In my tests: 57% of the time was spent in the OS allocating memory and disk space (it would be more if you’re low on memory or have a slow disk). Less then 30% of the time was spent in Photoshop. The rest of the time was in other system calls.
This seems to be an edge case because you have a document with several hundred layers and not much image content on those layers.
For people with different documents, decreasing the tile size (which is what the plugin does) would slow them down considerably.
The memory usage is just a byproduct of the change in tile size – a few more pixels are left over on the edge of the larger tiles, and thus the image takes up a little bit more RAM.
Ric – also, try changing the image cache levels in preferences to 2. Then quit and relaunch Photoshop and try loading your file.
Chris – are there any guidelines for changing cache levels for different usage profiles of CS2?
I mean, I use CS2 primarily for interface development on images less than 2MB in size. I don’t really do much hue/sat or levels adjustments on an everyday basis. I use levels when I do "select color ranges". Where can I find info on what my optimum cache levels should be?
I also use CS2 when I edit my "really bad" digital camera images taken at 5 M pixel. But this is not part of my professional work, and Histograms are helpful, but not necessary for most of my adjustments.
thank you,
— font9a
Chris,
I did the test you suggested of lowering the cache levels in CS2 preferences from 6 down to 2. Opening Ric’s file resulted in the following times:
Cache levels 6: 1min 35sec
Cache levels 2: 2sec
I’ve made no other changes except lowering the cache levels, and it’s a phenomenal difference. Would you suggest one leaves cache levels at 2 or would there be a better reason to up it to 6?
Thanks,
Beyers
To all,
Correction on the above post – it should read:
Cache levels 6: 1min 35sec
Cache levels 2: 1min 2sec
My apologies for any confusion caused.
Beyers
Chris Cox – 8:27pm May 19, 05 PST (#96 of 99)
Ric – also, try changing the image cache levels in preferences to 2. Then quit and relaunch Photoshop and try loading your file.
WOW!!!! Chris, making that change results in CS2 having a FASTER load time than CS1. My test file opens instantly!!!!
Thanks for your help,
– Ric
If you work with large images, you need the higher cache level setting to speed up previews and improve the display quality.
For screen sized images, 2 should be fine.
But the higher setting should not have hurt performance that much. I’m still trying to track down the cause.
IMPORTANT NOTE – the tile size reduction and lowering the cache levels are just temporary workarounds for this issue.
Chris,
I’m not sure how significant this is but when the file is opened on any of my Mac’s I get an alert dialog to asking me to update the layout for vector output (see enclosed screenshot). If I click the No button and then view the text in layers palette I see a further alert indicator on every text thumbnail (screenshot also enclosed). The tooltip for the text layer says that the font is on my system but the layout needs updated
Whoops screenshot wasn’t attached 🙁
I had the equivalent message running CS1 on Windows but the message appered just the once before opening. Clicking ‘No’ did not generate any more messages.
On CS2 the message did not appear – I hope this helps in some shape, manner or form
Hello
Ditto deebs message
Mike Engles
Gotta be the luckiest person on this thread, it takes about 9 secs in PS7 (if you subtract the error messages being dispatched) and about 12 secs in CS2 to open the test file. Yes, I checked the times again.
It takes an incredibly long time to open in CS2 if I have my colour prefs set to ‘convert to the current profile’, it spends over a minute doing that part of it.
Ian – the text layer warning doesn’t matter.
No I must be luckier. CS2 is blazing fast for me, much faster and more stable when loading images and generating previews than CS1. I’ve got a good machine, but nothing spectacular. A couple things I’m doing that might help
first, do the steps Adobe recommends (on adobe.com) to tweak performance (that should be a given: proper cache locations, settings, and so on. If you don’t understand them you shouldn’t even be posting your problems…
Second, try using a RAID0 (Mirrored pair of disks) as your primary cache. PS does a ton of swapping to the disk and that (for me) seems to have always been the slowest part. I am just using 80GB SATA disks, but a pair of Raptors would be even better. Make those guys dedicated swap disks for Photoshop only because it can fill up quick.
When I use bridge, I am viewing large quantities of up to 250MB files: Tifs, jpgs and NEFs, all over a network(!) and its still way fast. Remember that, when PS generates them, it saves the info in a cache. You can also determine where that cache is saved – (here is a question is it OK to have that on the same location as the primary swap?). You can control the size of this cache as well, and again the main bottleneck will be disk access speed.
You can limit the maximum file size that is previewed. So if you have a few giant images in a folder along with a bunch of small ones, the
giant ones might be holding you back. In Edit-Prefs-Advanced-Do Not Process Files Larger Than… you can set this cut-off to something reasonable.
Finally, be careful with overclocking. A couple times I was trying to be a speed demon with my Athlon XP and Photoshop became unstable. Its not really the CPU thats holding you back anyway.
That said, kudos to Adobe once again for a killer upgrade. Ive seen talk on here about Bridge having bloated code, etc. As a former software developer, I am going to call BS on that one – you dont know what you are talking about guys, stop spraying, stick to your configuration and you’ll get it right. Its not the code.
Well, in some cases it IS the code.
But the code is not bloated.
Hello,
It’s been a while since I have posted or visited here. I have been spending the past day or so researching performance issues with PS CS1 and I thought about talking to Tricia or Steve H. there at Adobe to see what their take was on the subject or perhaps have them ask some other folks that they know what’s going on.
Then I found this thread here, ouch, talk about bloated :>) lots of info here. Some test findings I found with Ric’s file are below.
I recently uninstalled PS 6 and installed CS1 and noticed an immediate performance hit. Some of my work like alot of us involves heavy or large files. I have some tif files that are 100+mb and some PSD files that are 40+mb. PS 6 handled these without a hitch really, opened them almost instantly. But CS1 takes nearly 15-40 seconds to open the same files.
After resaving some of these files for some work that needed to be done, I began to wonder if it was memory, my graphics card or that "Maximize compatibility" when saving PSD files (BTW, what is this for really, should I turn it off or what, I’m new to CS so I am not totally sure).
* ** One minor but really annoying thing I also noticed is that the thumbnails PS creates when saving files become corrupted. They are either half black or all scrambled with many lines of color.
So anyhow I thought I would post my findings with Ric’s test file and lend some extra input here.
System specs:
WinXp pro service pack 2
PS 6.01
PIII 1.2ghz laptop
32mb ATI Radeon Mobility card
1 gig of ram
cache: 4
Mem: 50%
Doc info says: 17.9m/340m
Some minor errors in layer data being lost or corrupted and is being discarded but I’d imagine that is due to the CS 2 version.
Time to open: 24-26 seconds to open (depending upon how fast I click ok on the error or text update dialogs)
Other system specs
Athlon XP 1.7
1.5 gig of ram
PS CS1
128mb Nvidia Quadro FX 1100
Cache: 6
Mem: 35%
Doc info: 17.9m/617.5m
Time to open: 39sec
Same system just different settings
cache: 4
Mem: 65%
Doc info: 17.9m/617.5m
Time to open: 16seconds!
I am going to try that "adjusted refresh plugin" and see if that helps. But something tells me to doubt it.
Tom Juliano
Dang it, I forgot to post (include) my test with the refresh plugin installed.
Athlon XP 1.7
1.5 gig of ram
PS CS1
128mb Nvidia Quadro FX 1100
cache: 4
Mem: 65%
Doc info: 17.9m/340m – NOTE THE CHANGE!
Time to open: 5 seconds! – holy cow it acutally worked!!!
At least for now I can hope or better yet feel confident that you folks will find a fix for CS 2 memory management.
Tom
while that’s all great info tom, this thread is about cs2 not cs1. cs1 was running pretty well for just about everyone after the multiprocessor and the adjusted refresh plugin. from what i understand they’re’ve been major changes under the hood in several key areas of cs2 so what you see in cs1 may or may not be applicable.
you’re about 18 months late for the cs1 party. 🙂
The thumbnails and file reading errors are NOT normal — it sounds like you have a bad drive.
I get an alert dialog to asking me to update the layout for vector output
Ian – the text layer warning doesn’t matter.
I get the same warning on every file I open (WinXPPro) that has text. If it doesn’t matter, why do I get the warning? I got the same warning when I moved from 7.01 to CS1 when the text engine changed and the text was different enough that I had to recreate far too much of it.
The thumbnails and file reading errors are NOT normal — it sounds like you have a bad drive.
Chris,
System(s) in question,
Athlon XP 1.7
1.5 gig ram (crucial non ECC if I recall)
Asus A7N8X-8 mobo
Maxtor drives (80g on raid 0+1, 40g OS drive Win2k with split partition) Nvidia Quadro FX 1100 128mb
PS CS
Laptop
PIII 1.2ghz M
ATI Radeon mobility 32mb
1 gig of ram (crucial)
40g drive (split partition)
PS 6.01
As to your reply, I thought of that a while back. But after running various programs on the drive in question (ie. Ontrack, Maxtor’s own utility, etc) everything came back fine no errors or even the slightest problem. So after some time of lengthy use, I eventually ran a zero out program on the drive in multiple alternating patterns to see if that helped. It hasn’t happened since.
But now that I upgraded to CS some of the old files created in 6.01 and resaved in CS create scrambled thumbnails (not the individual file thumbs but the "preview" image that Windows shows on the left side of the folder). Hmmm… So I then turned off "high quality previews" under pref/file browser. That changed the "scrambling" just a tad but still evident. Then I turned off maximize compatibility as I saved certain PSD files and of course the preview goes away. So…
Now it only seems to be occurring at random or on occasion. So I brought some these files into my laptop that has PS 6.01 and the files save just fine after a few changes. No scrambling at all.
If you don’t suspect the program, how about memory or perhaps the raid channel itself. This drive in question is running off a Raid channel.
Thanks for any input you can provide. BTW, feel free to move to a new thread as this is getting a bit off topic somewhat.
Tom
The thumbnails and file reading errors are NOT normal — it sounds like you have a bad drive.
Hey Chris,
Whether or not this may be relevant in the new version, but your comment about file reading errors here made me curious. The errors I get are ONLY on my laptop with Windows XP Pro service pack 2. My thinking here is that maybe there is a little history with "maximize compatibility", am I correct that this feature is for backwards compatibility with previous PS versions?
If so, then maybe these popup dialogs I am seeing in PS 6.01 upon opening a FRESH downloaded version of Ric’s test file could lend some help in finding possible issues.
As for any text errors, the only thing I notice on both machines (Win2000 PS CS and WinXP PS 6.01) when opening the file is the usual "vector output update" dialog and that’s it. Otherwise these are my error popups that I am getting on the laptop.
<
http://members.cox.net/tjwebpost97/1stpopup.jpg>
<
http://members.cox.net/tjwebpost97/2ndpopup.jpg>
Hope that helps,
Tom
The average files I deal with are 25mb and up. I design event flyers or partys and stuff like that. I deal with 10 to 15 of these jobs on a weekly basis. I too am trying to troubleshoot where these lags in time are coming from on CS2. I tried every thing in the forums but to no avail. I think I am going to try to buy a separate disk and make that the scratch disk alone.
Just in case anyone wants to know I am running
AMD Dual Athlon MP2600
2gb of RAM
ALL in Wonder ATI Radeon 8500 w/64mb RAM
SATA 120gb Seagate drive
two external USB 250gb drives (not used for scratch disks, for backup and storage)
I use C: drive for scratch disk and my D: holds my page file in windows along with the work I am working on.
The other machine I work on is a:
3ghz Intel
2gb Ram
SATA 160gb Seagate
nVidia Ti4200 with 128mb RAM
one external USB 250mb for same reasons as above
both machines are connected to a KVM with monitor resolution at 1600×1200 set to 75 hertz refresh, and this is how I have always worked. I have been using Pshop since version 3, I have been designing for clients for over 9 years. This is the first time I can truely say i cannot figure what the lag is. There have always been adjustments in newer releases that I adjust my windows to handle the latest version of the greatest software to mankind but this one stumps me for the first time. I updated both bios’ the vid cards. The Intel machine works faster then the AMD performance wise in Pshop. But all this talk is making me just go out and buy a dual Opteron machine with a RADEON X850 card. I dont know if I should upgrade or wait a little longer for a fix.
I’d wait a bit to see what shakes out of the tree…
