Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS4 VERY NICE!  (Read 58549 times)
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 10, 2009, 03:18:50 AM »
ReplyReply

btw, something I never noticed for awhile until I pushed down the mouse scroll button by accident...the application windows pop up as thumbnails and you can select which application you want to jump to with the mouse.
Also, Alt+Tab is a very elegant and simple solution, it speeds through the programs just by holding down the Tab key


I think alot of the drama here is that the different OS have different working methods and workflows to achieve similar results.
I personally much prefer XP even though I have a MBP for my Leaf software. I find it extremely customizable, whereas I feel locked down by the Mac OS.
There must be an easier way to be able to close the Macbook Pro screen without it going into hibernation.
I like how barebones XP is, no fancy transitions, nothing too organic and round (yes I actually like my sharp edged digital looking fonts and menu bars, I like them 2D not 3D)

Quote from: jjj
I considered this for quite a while and still cannot see why I would ever do what you suggest. I think this is where a video screen grab is needed as sometimes these things can make far more sense when viewed in action.
This idea may work fine for you, but it just seems unecessary, I would simply tile the two images. The fact that one is background and one foreground is irrelevant. You also said 'both [images] cannot be displayed at same time' How would you have this issue? As that sounds like a programme isue and not anOS issue.


It's still Alt+Tab actually.
Do it quickly and you simply switch to last app, that's the one I use the most.
Alt+Tab and if you don't release Tab, you cycle through the apps. Let go when it hits whatever you want, how simple is that?
Alt+ repeated Tab to step cycle through is also so easy, I certainly wouldn't want to use a mouse to select the icon. Plus it isn't really a good option if using mouse left handed, as I do.
Alt+Shft+Tab does it backwards. Cntr+ Tab cyles through document and shift is also modifer for opposite way there too. Though Apps aren't too consisentent about this, Firefox does it really clumsily when moving through tabs and Opera does it well.
Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #121 on: January 10, 2009, 03:22:19 AM »
ReplyReply

btw I've gone back to CS3 because I found CS4 to boot up very quickly but seemed to slow down my process overall...the clone and heal previews are great but require much more processing power to render the previews, plus redrawing seemed to take more time than usual (I zoom in and out with my mouse scroll wheel quite alot)

I'm back on CS3 and I only use CS4's ACR for RAW conversion
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #122 on: January 10, 2009, 04:01:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jing q
btw I've gone back to CS3 because I found CS4 to boot up very quickly but seemed to slow down my process overall...the clone and heal previews are great but require much more processing power to render the previews, plus redrawing seemed to take more time than usual (I zoom in and out with my mouse scroll wheel quite alot)

I'm back on CS3 and I only use CS4's ACR for RAW conversion

There are definitely requirements to have CS4 run smoothly. But I have an old system, AMD x2 64bit running at 2.4Ghz, and it runs wonderfully. You must have a very old system, since mine is 3.5 years old now  and runs it very nicely.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #123 on: January 11, 2009, 02:14:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, just upgraded to XP 64 bit with 8gb RAM and raid 0 disk for page file/scratch disk/cache, ran the Retouch Artist test in CS4 - 69 seconds on a 2.2ghz dual core. Does that make sense or should it be faster? To be honest I have to try it on my regular XP partition because the entire rest of PS/Bridge seems no different at all speedwise. Bit of a disappointment actually 8gb doesn't feel any faster than 3gb.

*edit* Just ran it on my regular XP, running with 3gb ram and no raid, 120 seconds exactly. Somehow I though the over double ram and raid 0 would give a bigger boost in speed than that...
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 02:52:53 PM by pom » Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #124 on: January 11, 2009, 04:16:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Well, just upgraded to XP 64 bit with 8gb RAM and raid 0 disk for page file/scratch disk/cache, ran the Retouch Artist test in CS4 - 69 seconds on a 2.2ghz dual core. Does that make sense or should it be faster? To be honest I have to try it on my regular XP partition because the entire rest of PS/Bridge seems no different at all speedwise. Bit of a disappointment actually 8gb doesn't feel any faster than 3gb.

*edit* Just ran it on my regular XP, running with 3gb ram and no raid, 120 seconds exactly. Somehow I though the over double ram and raid 0 would give a bigger boost in speed than that...
Why?

You've managed to reduce the time for the benchmark by over 40%. That's no mean feat, considering that you've merely upgraded RAM and disk, and not done anything to your CPU.

The rest of the system won't feel any faster unless you need more RAM to do your job and the application is capable of taking advantage of it and the operating system manages large amounts of memory efficiently (which XP does not do very well).

((When I write "not very well", it simply means "not" and "very well", not that it does it very badly.))
Logged

Jan
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 12, 2009, 01:51:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Well, just upgraded to XP 64 bit with 8gb RAM and raid 0 disk for page file/scratch disk/cache, ran the Retouch Artist test in CS4 - 69 seconds on a 2.2ghz dual core. Does that make sense or should it be faster? To be honest I have to try it on my regular XP partition because the entire rest of PS/Bridge seems no different at all speedwise. Bit of a disappointment actually 8gb doesn't feel any faster than 3gb.

*edit* Just ran it on my regular XP, running with 3gb ram and no raid, 120 seconds exactly. Somehow I though the over double ram and raid 0 would give a bigger boost in speed than that...

There is something wrong. I can get it in 54 seconds with my AMD 4800 running at an overclocked 2600Mhz.  I think you should be a lot faster than that. Did you make sure your CPU was idling before you started the test? It almost sounds like you CPUS are not spooling up to their full 2.2 level.

EDIT---
I just read Janis post. You didn't upgrade the CPU? You got 40% increase in speed upgrading RAM, so yuo were HD swaping. I think you did good, but I thought a 2.2 Dual Core would cripple my AMD 4800 x2 64. I think I posted my test score here. Scroll up and see.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 01:54:10 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #126 on: January 12, 2009, 01:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
Let's say that I have limited screen real estate, and that I'm editing a photo.

While editing it, I have the need of comparing another photo.

Both cannot be displayed at the same time, but I don't need to view more than the part I'm editing at a single time, yet still need to occasionally view a larger view of the image.

It's far quicker to demote the working . . . .

I think I know what you mean now. You can, what is called in Windows, "Keep on top" a windows you are wanting to see while using teh windows below it. The windows you want stays on top of all other windows, even if they are active. YES!  I wish Windows could do that. That has always pissed me off. I hate it. Some programs allow you to tick an option "Always on top." But that is no anywhere what you want, and what I've always wanted. You should be able to right clock any window and choose "always on top," or "Demote," whichever method is more productive.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #127 on: January 12, 2009, 04:48:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
There is something wrong. I can get it in 54 seconds with my AMD 4800 running at an overclocked 2600Mhz.  I think you should be a lot faster than that. Did you make sure your CPU was idling before you started the test? It almost sounds like you CPUS are not spooling up to their full 2.2 level.

EDIT---
I just read Janis post. You didn't upgrade the CPU? You got 40% increase in speed upgrading RAM, so yuo were HD swaping. I think you did good, but I thought a 2.2 Dual Core would cripple my AMD 4800 x2 64. I think I posted my test score here. Scroll up and see.

I left my antivirus running but that was it. I didn't watch what the ram usage was with this test but PS doesn't seem to be using more than 2gb and usually less when you would assume it would want more, very intensive filters, etc. I have 5gb dedicated to PS in the preferences, assumed it would use the RAM to go faster rather than taking ages at 1.5gb usage..
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 04:58:11 AM by pom » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #128 on: January 12, 2009, 04:56:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
I left my antivirus running but that was it. I didn't watch what the ram usage was with this test but PS doesn't seem to be using more than 2gb and usually less when you would assume it would want more, very intensive filters, etc. I have 5gb dedicated to PS in the preferences, assumed it would use the RAM to go faster rather than taking ages at 1.5gb usage..

You must have a first generation Core. Are you sure it's a Core 2 Duo? If it's a Core 1 then that's about right.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #129 on: January 12, 2009, 04:58:39 AM »
ReplyReply

For example, running lens blur on a selection from a 5D file took 3.5 minutes, PS was using 450K of RAM and 50% CPU usage, not touching PF. I'm going to run the test again this time watching how much ram it actually ever uses.

BTW it is core 2 duo.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 05:00:23 AM by pom » Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #130 on: January 12, 2009, 05:07:18 AM »
ReplyReply

OK just ran the test again, 53 secs, photoshop used the max amount of RAM (just over 5gb) and 99% CPU. Weird.

Whats even weirder is that every subsequent test (restarting PS in between each test) took exactly 65 seconds.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 05:23:38 AM by pom » Logged

antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #131 on: January 12, 2009, 09:41:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
I've noticed now that the clone stamp tool on my system is REALLY laggy. I can hit it ten times and put my tablet pen down and the cursor is still click moving.

This drove me insane and would have been a deal breaker if I hadn't figured out how to stop it. Disabling Open GL rendering makes it responsive and accurate again.

Now does anybody know how to get the palettes to stop floating and have PS respect their positions when zooming in and out like it used to? CS4 keeps putting the window behind the palettes, and then I have to minimize them to get to the corner of the window so that I can resize it so it's not behind the palettes, and then the next time I zoom out I have to repeat the process. How do I set it to behave like previous versions of Photoshop?
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #132 on: January 12, 2009, 10:17:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: antonyoung
This drove me insane and would have been a deal breaker if I hadn't figured out how to stop it. Disabling Open GL rendering makes it responsive and accurate again.

Now does anybody know how to get the palettes to stop floating and have PS respect their positions when zooming in and out like it used to? CS4 keeps putting the window behind the palettes, and then I have to minimize them to get to the corner of the window so that I can resize it so it's not behind the palettes, and then the next time I zoom out I have to repeat the process. How do I set it to behave like previous versions of Photoshop?

Go to the preferences, disable tabs, animated zoom, flick panning and enable floating window docking. That together with a disabled Open Gl make life so much more worth living!
Logged

antonyoung
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #133 on: January 12, 2009, 01:26:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Go to the preferences, disable tabs, animated zoom, flick panning and enable floating window docking. That together with a disabled Open Gl make life so much more worth living!

Yep, I already have it set like that, with the exception of floating window docking, which I like. I tried turning it off on your suggestion though and unfortunately still get the same result. Interestingly, a fresh installation does not exhibit the problem- zooming takes the window up to the palettes and stops there like it used to. After the palettes have been moved around though, I can't get them back to that behavior. Zooming a window will put the right half behind the palettes, and the palettes float on top. On my main machine zooming a window will also now expand it behind the tools on the left, so it drives me crazy from both sides.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #134 on: January 13, 2009, 03:53:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: antonyoung
Yep, I already have it set like that, with the exception of floating window docking, which I like. I tried turning it off on your suggestion though and unfortunately still get the same result. Interestingly, a fresh installation does not exhibit the problem- zooming takes the window up to the palettes and stops there like it used to. After the palettes have been moved around though, I can't get them back to that behavior. Zooming a window will put the right half behind the palettes, and the palettes float on top. On my main machine zooming a window will also now expand it behind the tools on the left, so it drives me crazy from both sides.

I used to have the same thing but then when I reinstalled from a format I unchecked all the boxes before even opening the first image and it worked like you have seen. I also hated the way it worked before that, Adobe seem to have gone very wierd recently, I wouldn't have touched CS4 if it wasn't for the new ACR (dodging and burning has changed my raw processing forever) and the huge improvements to bridge.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #135 on: January 13, 2009, 05:19:51 AM »
ReplyReply

All those things seem to bother me much less tehse days. I think it's the Nafazodone. Try it.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #136 on: January 16, 2009, 08:36:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Vaguely on topic -
I did some PS speed tests a while back where I did so with an empty desktop [on the Mac] and then one with some files on it.
The empty desktop was faster. I'd heard this was the case and was why I was testing it.
This is only the case for Macs not PCs IIRC.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #137 on: January 17, 2009, 03:39:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Vaguely on topic -
I did some PS speed tests a while back where I did so with an empty desktop [on the Mac] and then one with some files on it.
The empty desktop was faster. I'd heard this was the case and was why I was testing it.
This is only the case for Macs not PCs IIRC.
I don't know if that's true, but on Windows (XP and earlier), the amount of installed software has a bearing on the performance of the computer.

In earlier versions, the amount of icons visible would bog down performance quite a bit, whereas in XP it apparently is the implementation of software management (i.e. the registry) that causes the problems. This is why selling "registry cleaners" etc. has become pretty popular.

In addition, Windows is often slowed down by anti-virus and anti-spyware software, which is not quite as critical a need on the Mac - for now.
Logged

Jan
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #138 on: January 17, 2009, 05:00:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
I don't know if that's true,
I thought it odd, so tested it and my results confirmed it.
Quote
but on Windows (XP and earlier), the amount of installed software has a bearing on the performance of the computer.
Could also be the quality of the software. And the more there is, the more likely the chance of iffy software.

Quote
In earlier versions, the amount of icons visible would bog down performance quite a bit, whereas in XP it apparently is the implementation of software management (i.e. the registry) that causes the problems. This is why selling "registry cleaners" etc. has become pretty popular.
Which I'd heard did sweet FA.

Quote
In addition, Windows is often slowed down by anti-virus and anti-spyware software, which is not quite as critical a need on the Mac - for now.
Norton simply being installed could screw up your computer and used to be harder to remove than a virus - which would be ironic if it wasn't so annoying.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2009, 05:11:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Sheldon N
Mine does it in 8 seconds... tried it a couple different ways with no difference.

I'm wondering what system you have.

I just finished building my new system and got 11 seconds with the radial blur and 16 seconds on the Retouch Pro test. I did have things running in teh background though, like Anti-virus, etc., but that should not affect performance.

Vista 64
PSCS4
CPU: Core i7 920 @ 2.7Ghz (no overclocking, but that is coming
MB: Gigabyte x58 UDF5
RAM: OCZ Triple Channel Performance Series Matched Set @ 12GB
PSU: 1000wt Kingwin Mach 1 Moduler
Disks: (2) 640GB Western Digital Caviar Blacks in RAID 0

Test: Radial Blur 11 sec
Test: Retouch Pro Eagle: 16 sec

From my old system listed above, I tripled my performance in the radial blur and quadrupled it in the Eagle test.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 05:24:56 AM by dwdallam » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad