This killed me haha![]()
The sad thing is, in a laptop this would be true.
This killed me haha![]()
Geez, still bearing a grudge 10 years later! Oh come on, it's not like it was the first time that Apple have done a u-turn. Go back through Apple history and IBM and Microsoft have both been the enemy, far more so than Intel. <snip>
The problem at the time of Apple's Intel switch wasn't the Power Mac G5, it was the lack of viable portable options in PowerPC CPUs.
As an aside, I booted up my old dual 2GHz G5 the other day and watched both processors spike near 100% just rendering a modern web page. As much as I love the thing, as shown by the fact I still have it after all these years, a modern Mac Mini will run rings around it.
I don't think that is as much a limitation of the processor (but it does play a part) as much as it is the pure crap that most web pages have anymore. We're still in "OH MY GOD, EVERYTHING MUST BE SHINY AND TAX THE SYSTEM" mode on the web. It'll take a while before we get our Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind moments in webpages.
The moment that happens, expect something good.![]()
I'd be prepared to give it a try....
![]()
It was tongue-in-cheek. Photoshop would be limited to 3GB of RAM anyway...
My 2009 Mini would run rings around the G5, despite being smaller than it's optical drive!
Is this a joke?16 GB is pretty much the floor for serious Photoshop work.
Agreed. Apparently I've never done any serious photoshop work. Maybe 16GB for After Effects..Is this a joke?
Aside from waiting five minutes, you're going to run out of RAM almost immediately. 16 GB is pretty much the floor for serious Photoshop work.
You can call it pure crap all you like, but it's the way the technology is heading. We're never going backwards.
Web pages are easy. I'd hate to open a 2 GB .psb file on the thing.
16 GB is pretty much the floor for serious Photoshop work.
Is this a joke?
I understand the necessity for more RAM when you're processing huge files but I don't think the criterion to measure whether work is professional or amateur is the file sizeConsidering I routinely work on multi-GB .psb files, no. Photoshop with less than 16GB is useless for me, unless I'm doing some small personal project.
Interesting Photoshop benchmark test here:
http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/2...for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/
My Quad completes in 74.7 seconds...beating amongst others a 2010 i7 Macbook Pro. Forget the internet - this is where PowerPC can still compete. Oh and that's with 'only' 7Gb RAM...I'll run the test again when my Quadro FX4500 arrives, though I suspect it won't add much to the number crunching.
I understand the necessity for more RAM when you're processing huge files but I don't think the criterion to measure whether work is professional or amateur is the file size![]()
Curious Post Script--I did agree with you on the processor playing a part. You going on the attack afterward is only making me side against you.You never continue attacking when someone admits common ground.
So, tell me-how does one use more than 3gb of RAM in Photoshop CS4?
BTW, I have some 4x5 drum scans dating back to the mid-2000s that are close to 2gb in size, and my G5 can handle them in CS4 with zero issues. Much of the drum scanning hardware out there these days is getting very long in the tooth and is still being operated by turn-of-the-century Macintosh or Windows machines for compatibility reasons. A drum scanner can pretty much output any file size you want, and these older machines are still handling the workload just as they always have.
No offense taken - I understand your point now I know you work in that field. I used to work in print too - however, the only time I'd process multi Gb files was when doing exhibition graphics - I'd edit the Photoshop file at a manageable size, then resample it at distilling stage when it moves through Indesign to PDF.I didn't mean to cause offense: I was in a hurry. In my world, which includes print, and lots of huge files, 16 GB is pretty much the floor simply because of the way Photoshop manages memory.
No offense taken - I understand your point now I know you work in that field. I used to work in print too - however, the only time I'd process multi Gb files was when doing exhibition graphics - I'd edit the Photoshop file at a manageable size, then resample it at distilling stage when it moves through Indesign to PDF.
I fotgot that CS4 can be 32-bit. It's been years since I used it.
As far as I know, all versions of CS4 are 32 bit. Even on my Quad-a fully 64 bit computer-with 10gb of RAM CS4(and earlier) will still only let me allocate 3gb.
I have scratch disks on both of the hard drives which are, of course, slower than RAM but do speed things up by giving Photoshop its own designated partition to play with. I think that I have the scratch disks at about 10gb each and toward the front of the drive.
There a reason you've stuck with CS4? Any time Photoshop can't fit the entire image in RAM it will slow down to a crawl as it pages in and out.
Interesting Photoshop benchmark test here:
http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/2...for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/
My Quad completes in 74.7 seconds...beating amongst others a 2010 i7 Macbook Pro. Forget the internet - this is where PowerPC can still compete. Oh and that's with 'only' 7Gb RAM...I'll run the test again when my Quadro FX4500 arrives, though I suspect it won't add much to the number crunching.
LR6 and CS6 are where the road ends with me on Adobe products for the forseeable future, as I won't buy into Creative Cloud.
Unfortunately, I can't do that. Clients send in files in CC, I have to be able to open them.