nospam wrote:
> no, it's because photoshop has a much better idea of which parts of an
> image will be needed, depending on what the user is doing. do you
> think adobe has nothing better to do than reimplement what's already
> there?
No, it's because Adobe realizes the idea of a 1.5GB barrier is harder to
sell to the rubes that just got done paying MSRP for CS3. How many people
would buy CS3 if they told you that you need a computer with excellent
disk
I/O and SMP? I'll give Adobe credit for following Microsoft's model of
just
throwing more RAM in the box. I guess one can look at RAM, at least in
this
case, as a cheap pacifier till the rube realizes they got no benefits. I
always laughed at the posts we'd get about people whining about why they
didn't see any improvement in performance after adding several GB of RAM.
Rita
