🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.