Reading mode: Light Dark

OT: Photoshop CS2 tends to be a dog

Go to last post
You went from "a couple of minutes" to 12 seconds, and you're still worried about it? 12 seconds, one time at startup?

Maybe you need some solid state disk - a 4GB Rocket Drive might serve nicely :)
 
That's actually quite good. I have a 3.8GHz P4 with 2GB of memory and CS2 can still take 8-12 seconds to load initially. That's actually pretty good for a major application. Adobe Premiere and Encore also take a bit of time to start up.
 
I wouldn't expect the final version to run any differently that the trial.

There's no question CS2 is slower than PS 7 for example. But fortunately I'm not running CS2 on the same PC that ran PS7.

All in all I cannot complain about CS2. I have 2GB of memory in my machine and I typically open 100 (Yes, ONE HUNDRED) full-sized 1DMkII images at a time. I shoot a lot of sports and will usually end up with around 300 keepers per field hockey or soccer game. To speed things up I bring up Bridge, batch-rename the images chronologically and then open 100 at a time. I find this helps minimize time wasted opening/saving images.
Surfincb said:
I tried the CS2 demo and it was horribly slow, in ALL ways. Is the
final version the same way?
Click to expand...
 
Frankly, if you've got all your images in one directory, and you use the SAME directory every time you use CS2, no wonder it takes minutes.

Sort your images. Don't use the same directory for everything. I use a single directory for editing. I rarely leave anything there for an extended period of time. And if you do so, leaving Bridge on isn't a bad deal either.

Good luck.

--

Lady Astor once told Winston Churchill 'if you were my husband, I would poison your coffee'. His reply …' if you were my wife, I would drink it ! '.
 
Not enough to justify the cost of an external drive. Things that can help are spanned drives, or drives sold as a size that are really a few drives inside the box acting as one. That can improve some performance, but usually not enough to justify the cost if you're looking for speed.
--
http://public.fotki.com/trekkie
 
You've plenty of RAM and your processor is plenty fast enough. 12 seconds is pretty much ballpark for loading CS2. If you want to trim a few more seconds off, probably the best thing you can do is to fit a fast 10,000 rpm SATA drive (such as a Western Digital Raptor) or a high speed SCSI drive as your main system drive. But I'd suspect this would only buy you 1-2 seconds.

10-15 seconds for an application to load isn't bad for something as powerful as CS2, as long as it isn't sluggish once loaded I wouldn't worry too much.

Cheers
Martin
http://photos.runic.com
JSRomero said:
It actually takes about 12 seconds to load without the Bridge
loading. I still think CS2 is a dog. I wonder if running it on
Windows Server 2003 would make an improvement???
Click to expand...
 
12 seconds seems reasonable to me. Running Server 2003 will like hinder rather than help your performance. Also, the security is very tight on Windows 2003 server manchine. To do many basic functions on a XP system you have explicily enable them on server 2003.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com
 
There are a few things that really matter here...

Version Cue 2, if you have it, it will really slow down the operation of the programs in CS2.

Scratch disk placement, it will cause any program to run about half the speed it should if it's scratch disk is set to the same physical drive as the program is install on.

Hard disk speed, 4500 RPM, 5400 RPM, and other older desktop and laptop drives will really suffer here. RAID can really improve load times and write times for anything and is of little cost compared to a new computer.

The Bridge and Image Browser will eat processor time alive, disable these on startup and only have them open when you must.

Other than that, it is a more complicated program to some extent and will take more time to load. Other things can still effect the load time like how many fonts you have installed, how plugins you have loaded, what other processes are running (including items that you can't see like printer drivers, automatic updates, etc...), if you have a virus (or two, five, twenty, etc...). Good luck, I hope this helped!
--
http://usedtoit03.deviantart.com/gallery
 
What exactly are you running this on?

Dual processor, RAID, dual channel DDR, what are you talking about server class? And running it on Widows Server 2003 has a lot to do with it also, the memory architecture and processing priority system is setup differently on Microsoft Server OS's. Sounds to me like you need a legit copy of Windows XP.
--
http://usedtoit03.deviantart.com/gallery
 
Are you talking about RAID? Oh, certainly worth the cost. If you say it isn't you probably have never worked with it.

An external drive or any kind is going to slow performance compared to an internal drive. Unless it's SATA, but Firewire, USB 2, NAS, these will all be slower when compared to the same drive internal and on IDE or SATA.

If you really want to improve your performance look at setting up multiple RAID arrays, one for windows and programs, one for a dedicated scratch disk, and one for file storage.

RAID 0 on the Windows and programs disk, at least two drives.

RAID 0 on the scratch disk with at least two drives or one 10000 RPM drive dedicated to scratch disk.

RAID 5 on the file storage with at least 3 drives.

This will totally blow your mind for performance and offers redundancy on your data. Or just one RAID array with everything on it will really change performance when compared to just drives on the bus internal or external. It sounds expensive, but it really isn't that much. When 80 GB drives can be purchased for $50 and not bad RAID controllers for $50, a few hundred dollars could change the way you work on a computer.
--
http://usedtoit03.deviantart.com/gallery
 
I recently loaded on a wack of plugins and now it loads really slow. I checked in the CS2 Plugins Folder and Properties indicate that there is over 3 gigs of files. That may have a lot to do with the slowdown. You may want to check your folder as well.
 
WinNT/ Server are not the OS you should be running if you want to run a productivity application.

CS2 is zippy on my 2 gig/ dual core/ RAID 0 Athlon 64 setup
 
If you shut down PS, then start it again, it's MUCH faster, because it leaves a lot of components loaded. I just compared CS and CS2 both on the first start after system boot, and then a second start without rebooting.
This is on an XP system, P4, 2.4Ghz, (no HT), 1.5G RAM.

First run after boot Second run.

CS 36 sec. 8 sec.

CS2 21 sec. 9.5 sec.

I started them by dragging a 434KB image to the program icon on the desktop. I don't use, or start Bridge with CS2.
 
I'm running on a Powerbook G4 with 1mg RAM and don't find that it loads any more slowly than did CS. I have no problem with it at all....
 
I don't use PS for browsing the photos cause that's really slow. I have a Windows Explorer open and I drag the photos from Windows Explorer into PS. That's much faster.

But for RAW and just previewing photos I use DPP that I got with my camera. I think DPP is the best app for such things. I used C1 before I got DPP but I really don't like C1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top