My 3 year old (refurbished at that) Dell XPS 410 with Win XP SP3 and 4GB
RAM (not all usable in Winders of course) and 250GB hard drive runs
PhotoShop CS3 just fine on 5D raw files.
But that doesn't mean PhotoShop isn't a memory hog. It is. But
performance tuning software is a labor intensive business and PS won't
get any better until there's a more effective competitor.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/27/2010 9:53 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Now, I'll freely admit that my laptop is getting a bit long in the tooth and
> it never was the biggest/baddest machine around. But I'd like to think that
> it is representative of what the masses have. If you compared it to what all
> the list members have, it's probably right in the middle. It was one of the
> more potent machines available when I got it and the processor is still
> competitive.
>
> I loaded up the latest/greatest version of Lightroom. Yup. No difference
> than the previous versions of Lightroom. Slow? I think we need to offer
> apologies to Olympus for calling Studio slow. Honestly, it runs no less than
> 3X slower than Studio on the exact same files. Memory? Hog central. My other
> converters and sort programs run circles around Lightroom.
>
> What about editors? I use a selection of Photoshop Elements, The GIMP and
> Picture Window Pro 5.0. Most everything is done in PWP. What takes 3-4
> seconds in PWP is usually a 30-40 second process in Elements.
>
> Once in a while, I'll check on memory usage. Every Adobe product will just
> slam the daylights out of the memory even before ANY file is opened. It's
> insane.
>
> I'm not picking only on Adobe as there are other programs out there that are
> as wasteful, but Adobe and Microsoft seem to have "bloat" down to an
> artform. Something that can be done with four lines of code are literaly
> 3000-4000 lines of code because they just copy entire modules and then alter
> the snippits.
>
> Since I deal as much with 35mm scans as well as digital camera files, there
> is no way I can use any Adobe product in my normal workflow unless I
> specifically need to. I'd have to do what you guys have done and spend $5000
> USD on a new computer just to be able to load up and run the latest version
> of Photoshop which costs more than my total spending on digital cameras!
>
> For those of you who are perfectly content with Adobe products and have
> spent the $5000+ on a computer to run it, I'm happy for you. Enjoy life--at
> least until you have to go through the upgrade treadmill all over again and
> you discover that 8GB of RAM still isn't enough to do basic sorting of files
> in Lightroom, much less fire up layers in Photoshop.
> A buddy of mine went pro 33 months ago. Bought all new equipment to start
> his business with. His buy-in costs were right around $25000. Of that, not
> even $10000 was camera equipment, lights and backdrops. The rest was
> computers and software.
>
> ...and people pick on me for my buying habits and the camera equipment I
> use?
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|