Photoshop 7.0 speed test

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ogun7
How can I get the beta?

I second that question... I know we will have the final release at some point, but I would like to try out the 'beta' version.

I did the same with QXP 5 and liked it. I am actually getting ready to pick up a full copy of that, just need to call and talk with them first. Need to see how good a deal the offer really is (reduced since I tried the beta out ).

 

[Choppaface]

if you tried the beta illegally, then they probably won't give you a discount

you can find copies on like carracho and stuff, but I'm pretty sure that if they don't release it publicly like how apple released os x, then they only give it out to private parties and they DONT want anybody else using it (so if you have it and you're not supposed to...be quiet about it he he)

 

[AlphaTech]

I tried the beta of Quark 5 legally, hence the discount offer email I have received. I just need to find out how much if you never purchased a copy before. In the past, it has always been provided by the company I work at. Granted, I only had it on my work computer. I would like to get a copy for home, since I do occasionally need it. I refuse to go out and get Adobe's product (ineptdesign)..

I also need to get the Illustrator 10 update (going from version 8 that I picked up a couple of years ago).

 

[Choppaface]

remember you lose all your 3rd party filters when you go to 10
i had to keep my copies of both in order to use this 3d filter....
AI 10 is a bit faster though I must say...it certainly doesnt feel like it but when you put a stopwatch to it there's a 10 sec or so diff doing some heavy blends and gaussian blurs

 

[miller250]

ALMOST

It's just a tad slower on my powerbook 500... im sure that the release will be just as fast

 

[evildead]

no.. sorry

Originally posted by erova
evil...did you use 43 prior to 58? any differences? i definitely thought the 43 beta was a little slower on my Powerbook g4 500 with 768 of ram...i randomly tell myself to hope that the hesitation is a beta issue and not my machine...

razor...i emailed you a question about your font on your website...i once went about three weeks before i realized someone emailed me on here so if you get a chance check it..thanks...

No sorry.. I hadnt used any older versions of the beta. Version 58 is the only one I have. I was told that some of the older Betas were not even worth looking at. I havent heard anything about v.43 that I havent read here.

 

[evildead]

b62

Just installed PS b62. It works great. I didnt see much diffence between 58 and 62 but I guess there was some progress some place. Loads fast and opens and saves files fast.


This is probably a mute point... rumors of the full version as early as monday, Feb 25 knid of kill the exitement of some beta verison.

 

[beatle888]

liquid sky

i remember a movie titled liquid sky but it was about
alians sucking some chemical out of humans that
we supposedly produce during orgasm.

fun stuff

old movie

 

[crassusad44]

Re: b62

Originally posted by evildead
Just installed PS b62. It works great. I didnt see much diffence between 58 and 62 but I guess there was some progress some place. Loads fast and opens and saves files fast.

Have installed b58, will try out b62 in a short while. b58 is a great improvement over b43, and many of the new functions (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop) are there and working (they were not in b43).

 

[Onyxx]

Re: PS7b performance

Originally posted by RazorMouse
I use a G4/400 for work, with a Radeon card. The Radeon really means the world for smooth graphics performance (also in OS X). Not in Photoshop 7, though...

How you can afford a Dual 800 is beyond my imagination. And I'm a pro with my own company. Apple's G4 prices are simply ridiculous at the moment.

what are you talking about? apples's g4 tower prices are the lowest they have ever been! I was more than a little happy about the new prices, so please can it.

 

[Ensign Paris]

Just out of interest here are my PShop speed tests:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php3?threadid=2473

 

[keithcobbett]

Re: PS7 is NOT faster than PS6

Originally posted by RazorMouse
That's just plain untrue! The Photoshop 7 beta is nowhere near as fast as Photoshop 6. All due to the horrible graphics handling of Aqua (no proper hardware acceleration - try scrolling through an image, and you'll instantly know what I mean). I'm sure some of the filters will be nearly as fast as the OS 9 version, but in my experience it is buggy and slow. I didn't make the upgrade to version 6, and it looks like I won't upgrade to 7, either.

Not until they sit down and program a proper native app in Cocoa. OR Apple releases a chip that is truly faster than Pentiums and Athlons.

And no, I'm NOT an Apple basher. Just a true pro.

True Pro? You are a True Idiot!!! If you are currently using Photoshop 5.5, which I can only assume that you are since you stated that you never upgraded to 6, how does it run on your Pentium. Nice??? Now try it on a G4 Mac. Don't care which one, it still will run a lot cleaner. Version 6 was neither buggy or slow. They were a lot of decent modifications to the code and great overall performance increases. Version 7, from what I hear from my sources at Adobe, smokes Version 6. Hands down.

And as far as the "chip" comment, get a clue. The G4 is a ton better than the P4, P3 or Athlon chips out there. Plain and simple.

 

[evildead]

beta 69

Im now using beta 69. Works great! Cant wait for the full thing. Interesting note: I had problems installing b65. After a failed install i could not revert to b62.. that install faild too. b69 worked fine. and on install, you have to give an admin password. that was not asked for in the previous versions. I guess they are putting things in admined owned folders. I wonder if my old problems were related to permissions.

 

[eyelikeart]

re: Liquid Sky

I've been running b43 aka "Liquid Sky" for a couple months now....runs well....a little slow in my opinion....and not so impressed with the redraw when zooming in and out...

so evildead....how well does b69 run? he he he...

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Re: PS7 is NOT faster than PS6

Originally posted by keithcobbett

And as far as the "chip" comment, get a clue. The G4 is a ton better than the P4, P3 or Athlon chips out there. Plain and simple.

I'm afraid not. It's better (much better) at a few things:

1) anything that uses a lot of SIMD math (Photoshop, for example)
2) anything that needs a good performance to power usage ratio

However, for tasks that don't use a lot of Altivec, the G4 loses against either the P4 or AthlonXP and that gap is going to keep getting bigger until they release either a major update to the G4 (7470) or the G5 (7500?). An analogy would be to compare the engine of a Mazda RX7 to a big Ferrari. The Ferrari is more powerful, but its engine is about 4 times the size of the RX7's. The P4 and AthlonXP are both huge, and both draw ridiculous amounts of power (an AthlonXP 2100 draws about 70 watts). The G4 is tiny, and draws only about 18 watts (last time I checked), but it doesn't have quite the performance.

take a look at http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html for more information

 

[Choppaface]

well I'm getting a dual athlon 1900XP soon, theoretically it should be about 4 times faster than my dual 500 g4 but we shall see

 

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by Choppaface
well I'm getting a dual athlon 1900XP soon, theoretically it should be about 4 times faster than my dual 500 g4 but we shall see

and soon we'll see why a theory is called just so...

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Choppaface
well I'm getting a dual athlon 1900XP soon, theoretically it should be about 4 times faster than my dual 500 g4 but we shall see

Actually, if you go by just the MHz of the system (I know, I know.. MHz myth)... the AMD would be 3x faster at most (1900xp is really about 1.6GHz, not 1.9) and that depends on what you will be running. I suspect that in Photoshop tasks the speed diferential will be much closer.

 

[evildead]

b74

I just got my hands on b74 last night. From my limmited testing, it looks good. I dont see much diffrence from b69 but... hey more builds the better. I just hope that Adobe get all the bugs out before they ship it. I mean... InDesine 2.0 wouldnt even install before they shipped that installer fix. They are under a lot of pressure to get it out the Door. Now they are even selling it pre-order.... they better be done with it. I would rather waite for a polished product than a rushed one.

 

[Choppaface]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Actually, if you go by just the MHz of the system (I know, I know.. MHz myth)... the AMD would be 3x faster at most (1900xp is really about 1.6GHz, not 1.9) and that depends on what you will be running. I suspect that in Photoshop tasks the speed diferential will be much closer.

true....i was thinking though the faster bus, ram, and caviar HD might make up for sloppy math. but ya I'd expect stuff like photoshop, illustrator, and the like to be closer, but other to stuff to be a lot faster

especially SETI units. I've seen 6 hour SETI units cranked out on a single 1900XP poking around their site

 

[evildead]

update on PS b74

I installed b74 the other night and it is working great. One thing I tought I should post is that if your upgrading PS bxx from any other beta, you need to go and trash the PS folder in you applications folder. Or at least move it some place else before you install. If you dont, you wont have a new version. The installer does not replace existing files like it should. When I do a getinfo on them, I see that they were modified but, when I start it up... its still the old beta I was running before.

 

[Choppaface]

well I ordered it. i should have the full version in april

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Re: update on PS b74

Originally posted by evildead
I installed b74 the other night and it is working great. One thing I tought I should post is that if your upgrading PS bxx from any other beta, you need to go and trash the PS folder in you applications folder. Or at least move it some place else before you install. If you dont, you wont have a new version. The installer does not replace existing files like it should. When I do a getinfo on them, I see that they were modified but, when I start it up... its still the old beta I was running before.

i hadnt installed anything since b51 and b74 is much better. much faster. is this your experience as well? anyway, i see this as a good sign that adobe is focussing on speed

 

[sparkleytone]

has anyone attemped to use The GIMP under XDarwin?? I hear this is a pretty amazing program for an open source imaging program.

 

[tallscot]

Quartz ain't a factor

Quartz is PDF display and OpenGL and is not even used by any of the major applications like Illustrator, Photoshop, Freehand, Flash MX, Painter 7, AfterEffects, Lightwave...

The only application that I have that uses Quartz is OmniWeb and MS Office, and Office's use of it is limited. Quartz is slow, though. OmniWeb is slower than IE because it uses Quartz and IE doesn't. But that's why OmniWeb looks beautiful compared to IE. But both of them are slow.

Photoshop uses its own graphic engine.

The reason Razor thinks Photoshop for OS X is slow is because OS X's GUI is slow - period. It isn't hooked into the GPUs of our graphics cards like OS 9 or Windows is. Turn off your ATI or nVidia extensions in OS 9 and see how slow the Finder gets. That's how OS X is all the time. As soon as Apple hooks OS X up to the GPUs of the graphics cards, the Aqua UI will be much faster. But I've noticed that all of the functions in Photoshop, like filters, mode changes, etc., are all very fast.

Also consider that a lot of these developers are just learning OS X development. Some are better than others. For example, Flash MX is down right snappy in OS X, but Freehand is not at all.

Razor, Flash doesn't display everything as a vector. How do you convert a bitmap into a vector?

Where can you buy a dual Athlon? I priced the parts for a dual Athlon and it came out to $2,500 with Win XP Pro. I priced a dual Pentium 4 Xeon and it came out to over $4,000. I don't think the $2,799 price of the dual G4 1 Ghz is too high at all.