Elusion opened this issue on Nov 24, 2003 ยท 5 posts
Elusion posted Mon, 24 November 2003 at 2:00 PM
Hi! A faithful long time (since version 3 for the peecee) Photoshop user, I was thinking of skipping the CS version update because of one flaw in the proggie that is driving me nuts with P7 - the 1.6 gigabyte cap on memory usage. I can impossibly be the only person with more than 1.6 gigs of ram, memory prices in most of the USA being what they are, and yet Photoshop 7 doesn't even use all of the memory. I have a vast, regularly defragged separate scratch drive, but accessing it still slows down my system, whereas working straight off memory doesn't seem to. This is somewhat to very mission critical to me, because of the need to create very high resolution textures with more layers than I dare confess to (I anm allergic to flattening layers because I can never make up my mind). Does anyone know whether Photoshop CS recognizes a larger amount of memory, or whether its still capped at 1.6 gigs? Thanks! Moyra
retrocity posted Mon, 24 November 2003 at 4:51 PM
I think there's still an allocation issue over 1gig... not sure, as i don't have that much mem, but have the same adversion to "flattened images" ;) are you running XP also?? :) retrocity
Elusion posted Mon, 24 November 2003 at 5:45 PM
Thanks for answering, retrocity! Yep, XP Pro...with 3 gigs of, all of which of course neither Photoshop nor Poser 4 use. Grrr... Moyra
B-P-M-peror posted Mon, 24 November 2003 at 8:37 PM
maybe so, but at least you'll be able to have photoshop, poser, and anything else you need running at the same time AND at full capacity... I'm gonna be going triple boot soon, WinME (for audiop stuff, XP and 2K don't like my M-audio quattro), RedHat for Maya, and only maya (as it didn't like XP or 2K either), and XP Home for everything else... Mainly gonna be adding my old XP recovery disks back into the mix because while Photoshop runs fine on ME, it did run a lot better on XP, which begs the question, if I turned off my scratch disk entirely (about 60 gigs of it free), and just ran on the 512ddr memory, think it'd run better on WinME? I'd rather not have to install XP again...
RHaseltine posted Tue, 25 November 2003 at 6:32 AM
Reading the spate of news items spawned by the new AMD processors, it sounds as if NO single application can use more than 2GB under WinXP - you need a 64-bit version for that - so there isn't that much room for growth beyond 1.6GB anyway.