🚀 go-pugleaf

Miro,

what would be the ideal PS setup (skip quad and eight processors :-) atm)

I am unfortunately stuck in IDE land, with a few four-channel cache
controllers AHA-2400A
and I am frustrated by not finding a good way to set this up or rather tired
of trying :-)

what would you recommend?

thanks

Henrik


" Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:403a93fb$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Unknown" <thisandthat@hereandthere.oz> wrote in message
> news:IQt_b.322$zm1.10343@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > " Miro" <miro01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:403a5966$0$28870$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > It is not the swap file that is the problem - IMHO the problem is
> entirely
> > > this
> > >
> > > 1/ Data files and system swap files get fragmented leaving Photoshop
> with
> > > non-contiguous cache areas.
> > >
> > > 2/ NT4, Win2000, XP all have inherited an intolerance for 99.99% disk
> > usage.
> > > It is a known bug in the kernel of the OS from the original DEC OS
port.
> > As
> > > you know ..... PS can take all the space and still keep asking for
more
> > >
> > > 3/ A second drive is ok, so long as it isnt an IDE slave. The presence
> of
> > a
> > > slave kills the performance of the software
> > >
> >
> > Have you checked out if a RAID makes a difference there? What about SATA
> and
> > PATA?
>
>
> **** As I dont use software raid then I dont see the difference. All
volumes
> are transparent in hardware raid.
>
>
>
>
> > > 4/ Inadequate ram installation makes the PS cache larger leading to
> > problem
> > > #2
> > >
> > > 5/ Any inherent faults in the FAT table will be compounded by
Photoshop.
> > If
> > > you intend to use PS then perform a Windows check of the file tables.
An
> > > unstable Windows installation doesnt get more stable when running
> > photoshop.
> >
> > Checked out NTFS to see if any differences there, too?
>
>
>
>
> ***** NTFS has a FAT table too. FAT = file allocation table. If you want
to
> see XP repair it just hard reset randomly 3 or 4 times. I dont know why
> people think that FAT is non existant. Apple has one too.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > 6/ Photoshop is not compatible with accelerators or add-on memory
> managers
> > > sometimes seen loaded with 3D gaming setups. The best way to run
> photoshop
> > > is with Gigs of ram and on a twin or quad processor setup running a
> > generic
> > > install of the OS. Any extra booster technology doesnt actually do
> > anything
> > > profound.
> >
> > Well that bit I actually CAN comment on with some experience. Used PS
with
> > accelerators under WIN98 and XP Home and never seen that to be a
problem.
> I
> > can only assume that PS for Windows either disables the accelerator when
> > loaded and enables when exited or doesnt have a problem with most
> > accelerators using Geforce. Havent used it with ATI yet though.
>
>
> **** How does a 3D card accelerate a bitmap ? It doesnt. The clock and cpu
> on the video card is where the redraw muscle is. The GLINT drivers are
just
> banana skins at best.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > In most cases the hard drive is the victim and Photoshop is the
suspect,
> > but
> > > there is no basis for this assumption. A lot more has to be stuffed
> before
> > > that will happen.
> > >
> >
> > There is one thing you can do to get over this problem. Real time mirror
> > imaging. Have you any experience with PS and that running?
>
>
> **** Mirror imaging under PS ? That is a fresh idea. I cant say I ever
> thought of doing it to see what happens. Seem to recall something about
> ignoble science and the patron Saint of lost causes.
>
>