But I did shoot Nikon before the D3 :-/
Actually the one very brief stage that I had a Canon, I couldn't get used
to
the change in systems and went back to the dark side :-p
Mick Brown
On 27/3/08 3:38 AM, in article 2suku3pdabmgj6au5v6vq7qb2299abvo0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"TRoss" <tross003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:49:56 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
> <ritaberk2008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>>>> photoshop doesn't benefit from 64 bit as much as people think it
>>>>>> does, and i assume lightroom is reasonably similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can use 50% more ram, 3GB vs 2GB and then use what is leftover
>>>>> for it's scratch space. That isn't significant?
>>>>
>>>> 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. The 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. Anything past
>>>> 1.5GB of RAM is a waste for Photoshop.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. Look at
>>> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/photoshop_overview.pdf
>>>
>>> High-capacity RAM compatibility.
>>> Make the most of systems running 64-bit processors. Photoshop CS2 can
>>> address approximately 3.5 GB of RAM on a Power Macintosh G5 running
>>> Mac OS X, a Windows XP 64-bit Edition system running an Intel® Xeon
>>> processor with EM64T, or an AMD Athlon 64 or Opteron processor"
>>
>> Yep, just as I suspected, you are beyond placebo bliss. That reads
like a
>> late night infomercial. I think once you start seeking out unbiased
sources
>> of information you might find out the real deal.
>
> I think we can all see the folly of using Adobe as a source of
> information about Photoshop. That would be a foolish as, say, asking a
> Nikon Pros if they really, really shot Nikon digitals prior to the
> release of the "magical" D3.
>
> It would be much more prudent to ask someone like you about how
> Photoshop allocates and uses memory. After all, it was you, in the
> "crabbing" thread, who told us Nikon Pros secretly shot Canon 5Ds up
> to the release of the D3.
>
> FWIW, on p172 in the CS-era _Photoshop Masking & Compositioning_,
> Katrin Eismann writes,
>
> Photoshop currently can address 2 GB of RAM.Hardware and
> operating system manufactures, as well as Adobe Systems, will
> hopefully address this limitation soon.
>
>> Photoshop CS3 gets its best
>> performance gains from disk I/O and SMP upgrades, not memory.
>
> Keeping in mind RitaLand is wrong turn past Strawberry Field (where
> nothing is real) and that most real-world experiences do not apply
> there, if Performance Boost == Operating Efficiency....
>
> Adding a second monitor is gave me the biggest Photoshop performance
> boost. If given the choice of running Photoshop on my mothballed
> Pentium Pro system with 512MB RAM and two monitors or a properly
> configured, fully tricked-out Dual Xeon system with one monitor, I
> would choose the Pentium Pro.
>
> For me, adding RAM ranked 5th in the performance enhancements I've
> done over the years ... behind adding a Spyder and a Wacom tablet, and
> upgrading Photoshop.
>
> TR
|
