On Mar 26, 6:49=A0am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> >> Just a hint, it aint happening since Photoshop isn't optimized for
> >> 64-bit. You can have 10GB of memory and it aint making any
> >> difference. =A0The only thing significant here is you are in total
> >> bliss with thinking the placebo of having extra memory is actually
> >> helping when it is not. =A0Anything past
> >> 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop.
>
> > totally false.
>
> How so?
The issue here is not 32-vs-64 addressing, because 1.5GB is well
within 32 bit addressing limits.
Since contem****ary OS's run virtual RAM and swaps out to the Hard
Drive (HD) whenever the user has more stuff running than physical RAM,
the system's performance takes a hit from the I/O access speed
differences between RAM and HD.
This is why there's a performance gain from adding more physical RAM,
and that this is more significant than Disk I/O - - simply put, RAM I/
O is faster than any hard drive configuration in existance today.
Granted, these performance gains will be an area of dimini****ng
returns, since the RAM is displacing Disk I/O. Dimini****ng returns
means that the first +1GB of RAM has more benefit than the next +1GB
of RAM added, etc.
Thus, when someone like "Rita" claims that anything more than 1.5GB of
RAM is a "waste", they're merely speaking for their level of personal
need. Thus, I'm not surprised to hear "Rita" claims.
For everyone else, the metric to use is to examine one's Page-In/Page-
Out ratio after a period of typically serious use of Photoshop, etc,
to then decide if the frequency with which the OS hits the HD due to
lack of Physical RAM is acceptable to them or not.
The exercise is left up to Rita to post a screenshot of their Page-In/
Out values so as to back up that pesky little "Anything more than
1.5GB is a waste" claim. Its trivial to do this on a Mac. :-)
-hh
|
