I am running PS-CS2 on a Dell XPS 400 with a Pentium 4 – 3.20 GHz with 4GB of RAM. The program should be zinging along – but it is slower than it ran on my older machine with less RAM and lower processor speed. I have reset preferences; adjusted Cache size (as recommended by Adobe) and done just about everything I can think of. The program still runs agonizingly slow. It can take 2-3 minutes or more to simply load an image longer to convert a RAW image. Executing commands, even simply adjusting levels can take minutes. I purposely bought this system so that I could run PS and also run Word or upload to the Internet while keeping PS open. When I try to do this the system simply slows to the point that it has almost stopped. I have very little else on my computer and constantly run spyware (Ewido and Norton) checks and check for malware and viruses daily. This problem does not seem to affect other aps unless I am also trying to run PS. Does anyone have any ideas/help to offer? Thank you, to anyone who can offer any insights.
I run Norton Security suite; no fax, no other firewall. I am using Windows XP -service pack 2. Please note that this is a brand new computer with very little other than PS and MS Office Pro is also loaded. No games, no music files, no video files. I store my images on an external hard drive and work from that.
Okay – a confession; I am a writer/photographer, and my computer knowledge is limited to what I need to know for my work. I am not sure what you are recommending, Chris" "let Bridge cache all your image files…" I do know what PS scratch means, but why should the scratch disk not be the external? Are you suggesting that I make C the default scratch? I have a huge harddrive (500GB) should I partition it so that one partition is solely for PS image files? I’m sorry to be so ignorant, but I really don’t understand what you kind folks are recommending! Thank you, for your help.
I am not sure what you are recommending, Chris" "let Bridge cache all your image files…"
If you point Bridge at the root of your images directories and set it to "Cache all sub directories" it will chug away and build the thumbnails and previews. That way, when you navigate through the folders all the hard work will already have been done, speeding up the browsing process.
Similarly, if you save files in the PSD format always use "Maximize compatibility" (you can set it to ALWAYS in the prefs). This will make Bridge build new previews faster.
Rob’s description of the role of "scratch" is accurate. It follows, therefore, that the faster this happens, the better. An external scratch disk is a no no. Ideally, scratch should be set to a HD other than the one containing your data and/or OS.
Your 500GB could be partitioned – one for programs, one for data. Then get a new HD exclusively for scratch. Then, when you are working on large files, there will be no read/write conflict when Photoshop scratch and the OS virtual memory try to access their disks at the same time.
If you only ever work on small files, you can leave scratch on the main (C:) drive.
I have only two internal hard drives. Most of my pictures are on the second drive. Windows is loaded on the C: (first) drive. Which drive is best for the Photoshop temp files? (Windows will get the other drive for its temp files.) Thanks.
The second HDD is the best for Photoshop temp files (PS scratch), while the first one is for Windows swap.
I wish someone would do some tests on this and verify the conventional wisdom. In this case, are we *sure* that the second drive would be the best choice? Assuming that Andrew (or any other user with the same setup) is loading an image from his second drive, Photoshop would be reading image data from that drive and also writing scratch data to the same volume. I suppose that once the image is loaded, performance would not be affected but during the loading process I would expect a slowdown.
As far as having Windows Pagefile and PS Scratch on the same drive, I once hosted them both on a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive (after trying various permutations of pagefile/scratch/drives A,B,C, and I concluded that having them both on the same drive didn’t make a nickel’s worth of difference from a performance standpoint.
Are you running other programs at the same time as Photoshop? Can you turn off EVERYTHING else – unplug from the web and turn off all anti-virus anti-spyware anti-whateverware software. Turn off everything you can except for Photoshop and see if it helps. Don’t forget to reboot when you’re finished to re-enable all your ‘anti-ware’ before reconnecting to the Web.
– I assume you are using only 1 hard disk? (the 500 GB drive)?
– How much "memory usage" have you assigned in Photoshop’s ‘Preferences -> Memory & Image Cache’ ?
– How large are those images that require 2-3 minutes to load? I just opened a 1.07 GB cmyk image (628 M on disk) in about 60 seconds using a P4 3.0 GHz system with only 2 GB Ram.
– Is your videocard a separate card or built onto your motherboard?
– When did you get the computer? Perhaps there’s a hardware (memory?) defect that only Photoshop (a BIG memory user) has exposed?
Assuming you are running your whole system (operating system and applications) on a one unpartitioned hard disk, I think there’s something seriously wrong that needs to be fixed. HDFS formatted hard disks (unlike the older FAT32 format) are not seriously affected by fragmentation to the extent that would cause the kind of problems you describe.
I hope your exchanges in this forum leads to a solution.
Ho, you are correct but partly, since Photoshop is ordinary application that is subject of Windows swapping. Therefore one has to find ‘the happy medium’ in «swap’n’scratch» allocation…
Russell – I am running PS alone, no other programs running. I have tried turning off everything – yes, everything – but it made no difference. Yes, I am running only on the one HD – except that I store images on an external HD. I assigned 70% of memory to PS – I just changed to this much on the advise of someone else. The images that I load average + or – 10mb in RAW format and 60MB in final format (generally Tiff). The computer is about 2 months old – a Dell. The video card is separate.
For everyone who is trying to help – THANK YOU! FYI: because of this and many other issues affecting the initial system I purchased from Dell, they finally sent me a replacement system (new, not a refurbished). I had high hopes that the problems with PS were related to the problems with the initial system’s RAM simms. While the replacement system runs much better – no more instability – PS continues to run very slowly. I have tried every suggestion offered, except to add a dedicated HD for PS. Nothing has made a difference. The whole cache and scratch disk thing is confusing to me, without real computer training, but I have made those changes. I do notice a slight increase in speed with smaller image files, but nothing that would make me say "yeah – that was the problem".
I spoke with another photographer who uses PS CS2 and he told me that he has no problems running the program on an older Pentium 3 with only 1GB of RAM. He also keeps all his images on a hard drive with tape backup. Odd.
Irene, don’t focus your attention on PS’s scratch and Windows swap file locations. Their resideing on separate partitions (or even HDDs) is just the optimal decision. For example, I have a laptop, where is the only Disk C and both swap and scratch are there. Not aloud problematically for PS performance. I’d advice you set your Windows’ swap as min=max=1.5RAM. I.e., if you have got 1Gb RAM set swap (paging file) min=max=1.5Gb. You may do it in System Properties > Advanced > Performance > Setting > Advanced > Virtual Memory > Custom Size. How much RAM does your Windows see? All 4 Gb? Decrease Photoshop memory to 55-60%. Turn off hyperthreading in BIOS if it is.
I’d advice you to set your Windows’ swap as min=max=1.5RAM
Pipkin,
There seems to be a lot of opinions out there re: max/min Windows Paging file size and its affect on performance. I really don’t think Irene needs to go there (yet) to solve the problems she’s having. Sounds like there’s some serious issues to resolve before tweaking the Windows Paging file size.
I am running only on the one HD – except that I store images on an external HD.
Try copying some "test" images to your hard disk and see if they open quicker from there. If it’s a lot faster then the problem is with your external drive, its connection, or the way that it’s being controlled by Windows.
I assigned 70% of memory to PS
Set this back to 50% and see if that helps. Setting it too high can cause problems and Photoshop can only use 2 GB RAM anyways, so there’s no point in using 70% of 4 GB (= 2.8 GB)
The images that I load average + or – 10mb in RAW format and 60MB in final format (generally Tiff).
Those are quite typical file sizes so there’s no reason you should be experiencing 2-3 minute waits for them to open (yikes!).
the computer is about 2 months old – a Dell. The video card is separate.
I asked this because onboard videocards use system RAM (part of your 4 GB) whereas add-on boards use their own built-on memory. Thought there might have been some ‘dancing on your partner’s feet’ going on with the memory. What videocard are you using (though not a likely cause, there might be a connection…).
because of this and many other issues affecting the initial system I purchased from Dell, they finally sent me a replacement system (new, not a refurbished). I had high hopes that the problems with PS were related to the problems with the initial system’s RAM simms. While the replacement system runs much better – no more instability – PS continues to run very slowly.
Something is certainly not right. Unfortunately it’s not easy to troubleshoot a system over the Web 🙁
I am running PS alone, no other programs running. I have tried turning off everything – yes, everything – but it made no difference.
So you were able to completely shut down the Norton Security Suite? I am not familiar with it, but you need to *know* that all components of it are disabled. Note also that Norton may use invoke some of its functions as Services which have to be dealt with differently. Take a look in the Processes tab of Task Manager (cntrl+alt+del) to see most of what’s still running after you’ve shut off "everything." You can view the running Services in Control Panel>Administrative Tools>Services. Also, Dell may have some garbage installed that is contributing to this issue, with such seemingly desirable functions as "Diagnostics" or "Upgrade Advisor", etc. Finally, partitioning your 500G drive can be desirable for a couple of reasons, but performance is not one of them.
Opening images from an external will take longer. I agree that you should move them (or at least your current work in process) to your HD and use the ext. for backup only.
It is also entirely possible that you have BIOS settings that are not permitting your system RAM to run at full speed. Actually, there are a number of things in the BIOS that could be causing a slowdown, but they are beyond the scope of a hardware newbie. If killing Norton, moving your working images to your HD and setting your memory allocation back to 50% don’t improve things dramatically, I would suggest finding a computer savvy friend to come check out your system. If you don’t know anyone that you can trust, you may want to have a computer shop check it out. Just make sure to get references/recommendations if possible. Some people (me, for one) will take a new computer built by the likes of Dell and wipe it clean and start from scratch. This is certainly a viable option if nothing else works.
Some people (me, for one) will take a new computer built by the likes of Dell and wipe it clean and start from scratch. This is certainly a viable option if nothing else works.
Ho,
We’re ‘on the same page’ here. Unfortunately many system vendors are fussy about retaining "their install" if you want any future support. "Oh, you did not keep our installation. Sorry, we cannot assist you any further…".
The hardware is still under warranty. They just won’t help you with software problems.
I explain this to friends/clients who request my help in getting their systems to purr. You have to be sure that all the hardware works ‘out of the box'(make sure that all the hardware does what it’s supposed to) before reformatting the drive and doing a clean install from scratch. I agree that system vendors tend to preload all sorts of garbage (are paid/bribed to do so I suppose) and this can really hurt a Photoshop system.
Nevertheless, I find it very hard to believe that Dell would ship a system crippled in the way the Irene describes.
I agree that her system should be configured correctly out of the box, i.e., BIOS settings are most likely NOT the issue. I still think 90% of her problems stem from Norton.
I still think 90% of her problems stem from Nortonread ALL the reviews I linked to.
Ho,
I got rid of Norton stuff long ago (when they were sold to Symantec). McAfee’s also evolved in a way that it too (IMO) degrades system performance and may cause as many problems as it cures.
I use f-Prot antivirus and have been very pleased with what it offers.
With the cost of hard drives these days I despair that super-users are constrained to a single platter.
Besides, I am a confirmed non-RAID user.
Maybe Adobe should (somewhere) suggest that an optimal arrangement on a Windows system is at least a 3 (preferably 4) platter system where programs are on one platter, user data on another, PSCSx scratch disk on the third along with Temporary internet files, system controlled page file on C: (I use the term loosely), PSCSx scratch on E: (ditto) and an extra min=max= XXXX pagefile on D: (ditto)?
If propsective customers don’t understand the above maybe Elements is the better option?
To the suggestion that Norton is the root of all evil with the system: I am certainly aware that anti-virus/security programs can cause as many problems as they are supposed to eliminate. However, since I can run PS CS2 on my older computer (not the first Dell) without issues; and since that system has Norton resident also, I have to question that being the cause. Of-course, I may be wrong and will try disabling Norton and seeing if that helps.
To the idea that Adobe should only market PS to advanced computer users – IMO – not realistic and a little elitest to my way of thinking. I’m a photographer. PS is designed for photographers and other artists. Yes, I know my way around a computer; I can do basic upgrades including installing RAM and other hardware. The fact that I have issues with PS does not mean that I should go to Elements! It means that I need input from others who – more than likely – have also had their issues.
I am convinced that the issues I continue to experience are somehow related to either a hardware problem or an OS conflict of some type. My next step is to do a full disk reformat and reinstall for the OS and to reinstall only those elements that I need. I will run the system for a bit and then load PS and see what happens.
To all of you who have and who continue to try to help – Thank You!
Irene, I think this is a good move on your part. I would suggest that you install *only* the OS and CS2 and test your results, working with images stored on your internal HD. If you find that Norton is not at fault, at least you will have eliminated the possibility. If your system runs as you thought it should all along—without Norton installed—and you need to connect to the Internet to download patches and upgrades for your other software, use the demo versions of NOD32 antivirus and Sunbelt Kerio personal firewall to protect your computer while you gather your updates. You may wish to continue using them. Both do their jobs while not draining system resources.
I’ll second NOD32. I currently use an older 733 MHz computer and have always run Norton. I had to reinstall the OS a few months ago and decided to try the NOD32 30-day trial and have since paid for the license because it is much less of a load and lets my system fly, comparatively speaking.
My next step is to do a full disk reformat and reinstall for the OS and to reinstall only those elements that I need. I will run the system for a bit and then load PS and see what happens.
Irene,
You might wish to try the test install on another (borrowed?) hard disk or back up your existing drive using Microsoft Backup or a 3d party solution like Acronis. That way you can always put the system back to the factory install in case there’s a serious problem in the future and you need Dell’s cooperation.
Since you say you’re comfortable with installing RAM you might also try removing 2 sticks of RAM. Make sure you leave the two remaining pieces in the appropriate slots to run in Dual-Channel mode. Just a hunch that the system might not be using the 4 GB RAM properly.
Otherwise I’m stumped and would proceed with a fresh install. I hope you got the Windows install disks with your system. If not you might have to borrow install disks from a friend and use the serial# on the sticker that came with your system.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
