🚀 go-pugleaf

   Miro wrote:

> "Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c1d2n8$1g7mmv$6@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>Found in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, comments requested.
>>
>>In article <c1d21m$1haird$1@ID-192964.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>"Thomas M. Goethe" <xspamxgoethe11xyz@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>>news:IKd_b.79107$IF1.58871@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>>>what's the advantage that you see to having multiple partitions rather
> 
> than
> 
>>>>just using multiple folders?
>>>
>>>   Data in one, OS and software in another. When you have to do an OS
>>>scrub, the data is safely tucked away in another partition. Still smart
> 
> to
> 
>>>keep data backed up elsewhere, but you don't have to copy it all back
> 
> over.
> 
>>>   If you get smart and force all of your programs to store templates
> 
> and
> 
>>>the like on the data partition, so much the better.
>>>
>>>   I can't confirm it, but there is also some thought that things like
> 
> swap
> 
>>>files and scratch disks for Photoshop are best kept on a separate
> 
> partition
> 
>>>as well. I may try that next time around. The Photoshop scratch disk is
>>>often accused of scrambling hard drives.
>>
>>Any of you aus.photo/computers gurus like to comment on your
>>experiences with PS in this regard, please?
>>
>>What about swap files generally?
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 

True, but I think many an OS have the same problem! Not that you'd be 
running PS on it, but I've certainly seen various flavours of UNIX go 
down when the swap space does the same! You can see it about to happen 
some times... the little task-bar swap space meter starts climbing, and 
then it hits the top of the bar graph and zap... it's all over (:

There's not really any excuse for filling them to the brim anyway, I 
reckon! Well, unless it's not your computer, or the boss wont spring 
$100 for another drive! (:

 >
> 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
> 
> 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.
>

Yeah, the FAT system is crap anyway. If it's running on NT or XP, it 
should be running NTFS in my opinion.

>
> 6/ Photoshop is not compatible with accelerators or add-on memory managers
> sometimes seen loaded with 3D gaming setups. 
 >

Do you mean video accelerators? I definitely dont think that's true. It 
works fine with pretty much any card on the market. You'd be 
hard-pressed to find a non-accelerated card these days anyway. Even if 
you did, it would be so painfully slow that youd ditch it pretty quickly.

 >
> 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.
> 

True, but I think it's also a luxury. 'The more the merrier' of course, 
but you can do perfectly well with a 'normal' high end PC, i.e., single 
processor with a decent amount of RAM. But in terms of extra hardware, 
the non-3D components of the video acceleration certainly make a difference.

 >
> 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.
> 

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. Photoshop may indirectly cause the 
system to fail, but only because it is very resource intensive while it 
runs. I think if the people with the problems had run any other resource 
hungry programs, rather than PS, they would still have encountered the 
problem.