What is Digg?71 Comments
- Wartz, on 11/03/2007, -14/+52buried for suggesting a mac is faster at running PS than a PC
- nerdvernacular, on 10/30/2007, -21/+55I'm on a Mac Pro at work. Nothing but pinwheels all day when I'm working with large files. Bring it home to my self-build PC that cost much less and I don't have to wait for anything. Want PS to run fast? Punch an Apple fanboy.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -3/+25"Next up is the History States and Cache section. The more history you want Photoshop to keep track of, the more RAM Photoshop uses to store that information. I experiment a lot with my images, so I keep it at 20."
I keep mine at 900. - sadsadrobot, on 10/30/2007, -17/+35Save some money. Don't get a Mac.
- sambapati87, on 10/31/2007, -0/+16Mine's 11 inches.
Oh, wrong thread. - lostdiggacct, on 10/25/2007, -0/+14No, more like 11x8.5 (for Americans) documents at 300-600dpi which is pretty standard.
- ChromaVita, on 10/27/2007, -2/+13Mine's over 9000
- nakile, on 11/01/2007, -1/+10What version of Photoshop is it? If it's CS2, then I have no doubt that it will run slow because you have to emulate it under Rosetta. CS3 runs natively on Intel Macs and is a hell of a lot faster because of it.
- alwayzambitious, on 10/25/2007, -3/+12I am thoroughly disapointed that sometimes i want to cry.. i work at a flipping advertising agency.. and its embarrasing to as i work in front of my coworkers sometimes who want a quick change.. i have to say my comp is slow. or make up some excuse..
im sorry but the world is blind.. i like macs alot but my major complaint is that their speed is horrendous.. even firefox is faster than safari.. its sad - arcangelgabriel, on 10/26/2007, -3/+11Amen brother...
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+9Your comment? Sure.
- Frozo, on 10/25/2007, -2/+9Ive been using it for 15 years actually, which may explain why Im offering common sense alternatives to keeping a history cache at wasteful levels. And if you knew how to use Photoshop efficiently, then you would understand that what I am saying is true. Keep at it though, you'll get there--it will just take longer if you ignore efficient and sensible suggestions from someone who actually uses Photoshop as a career.
- Frozo, on 10/26/2007, -7/+13Holy crap! How often do you really need to undo more than 20 times? 200?? 1000??? Think your moves ahead, make separate duplicate groups to try something new and delete them if they dont work. Or do a "save as" and try something new with a new file--then if you prefer one, you can delete the other. Or try layer comps. Nobody should EVER have to go back even 100 moves in Photoshop.
- chobbney, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7These 'tweaks' should be known by anybody who uses Photoshop seriously.
And you can ***** off thinking that Macs are faster. My experience of both platforms says otherwise. - dbr_onix, on 10/25/2007, -1/+6I agree, 900 steps of undo is kind of excessive. The little camera icon in the history palette is useful, it will save the state of an image, kind of like a selective history. If you're about to make a change your not sure about, or the you're happy with the image and want to fiddle with it more - hit the snapshot icon, and fiddle away.
It also has the benefit of not losing most of the history if you go back a few steps and then make a change (Which wipes the history-steps after the current point), it's effectively like re-saving the image to a new file, but neater.
Relying on the undo history for thousands of steps is silly. If you depend on that regularly, I think your doing something wrong.. As 'Frozo' suggested, there are plenty of features pretty much designed to address that (layer comps, snapshots, the 'duplicate' button, File>save as... etc) - and they actually stay in the image when you quit Photoshop or close the image.. - thebellmaster1x, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5Ever use blending modes? I frequently click on the box and just flip through them with my mouse wheel. Every change counts as 1 history state, and I can build up dozens just trying to decide which to use.
- dbr_onix, on 10/25/2007, -1/+6What are you doing to cause all that? I've used Photoshop on a range of spec'd machines, from CS1 on old G4 Towers, and those brightly-coloured iMacs (Which were about 500MHz at most, with less then 512MB memory), CS2 on a G5 iMac with 512MB of memory, CS2 (using Rosetta) and 3 on a Macbook Pro. And I've never once had a problem with the speed.
Now PS CS3 is a native application on the Intel Macs, there's no reason that it will be slower, and I'm sure if I really cared, I could find benchmarks to prove that. Could it be that you're just not used to using Photoshop on OS X, so are not using it correctly for that platform...? (Bad analogy time) It's like deeming [extremely fast car] is fecking slow because you don't know how to change gears in it.. - alwayzambitious, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4I feel sorry for u man.. i had a 1gig and i immediately had to upgrade it to 2gigs.. 512 is low
- windmillninja, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Wow. You fail. I create images for billboards all the time. I've rarely seen one go over 45MB when all is said and done.
- windmillninja, on 10/25/2007, -1/+5Well, yeah, if you're just going to edit photos of your kids birthday party to make it look like it was "painted" on really cheap paper, sure thing, man. Go all out. Screw progress! Why don't more professionals who make thousands of dollars a year off their work think like you? Also, my comment will get buried.
- NF102307, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6Marked as Lame for not resisting your fanboy tendencies.
- uptown, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Mine's 2 inches...... from the ground!
- WhoDoneIt, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Serious?
I make thousands of dollars off Photoshop and I don't use the latest version. It should be noted that the latest versions really cater towards digital photographers and fixing digital photos, not just the tools used most for graphic designers.
Give me Photoshop 5.5 and I would work wonders and do everything I need to do to get my job to print. - KSUdesigner, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3FYI, billboard files are relatively small. You don't actually design them at their full dimensions.
200MB files are quite common in photoshop, especially when working in high resolution with many layers, smart objects and layer styles. This is why designers tend to spend a small fortune on their computers. It's essential that we have the fastest machines we can get our hands on. - Calcularius, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3People have been making "thousands of dollars a year" (ooooooooh) with Photoshop long before the latest string of versions that have had no real upgrades other than rearranging all of the hot keys.
If subby had not spent his money on the latest version of CS3, he would have plenty of money to buy RAM to make CS1 work even finer. - ejde, on 10/26/2007, -3/+6Why so defensive? If you would have bothered to RTFA, you'd have noticed that it was written for and published by Macworld. The tips are therefore specific to Mac users. Are you gonna cry foul about Macworld publishing an article targeted at their readers?
- sk2134, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4What a mac user.... LOL
- indyGuy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Most of these tips are also valid in PS for Windows (PS CS3).
- Frozo, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Right on, brother. Good point with the camera icon too.
- luet, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3200 right now but on my old desktop I kept it at 1000
- solid12345, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2I interned at an ad agency this summer and was stuck with photoshop 5. I was a little nervous at first since I hadn't used such an old version in ages but really, I realized there is not much more in the CS packages I truly needed.
- skinjester, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2and equally obvious
- MutatedNantuko, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Ewww, I learned something from a mac site.....
But seriously, just back up your stuff more often, guys. It's as easy as Ctrl+S. That being said, I only use CS3 to make stencils for t-shirts and other touch up stuff. I'm no artist. - NocturnVitae, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2That sounds a little fishy. I have a Mac and PC and neither is particularly slow. I would certainly not say the Mac version is a lot slower than the PC version. In fact, I don't even notice a difference in speed. Seriously, you may want to check your config or up the RAM in the Mac. Truthfully I use the PC version more than the Mac version but it is not for any particular reason other than most my files are on that machine.
- MorbenDK, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Performance degradation compared to what? If you're booting it to Windows, you're using an Intel powered laptop with an Apple logo on it. You won't see a difference between that and an equally equipped PC laptop, because there isn't any.
- solid12345, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Well you are probably dealing with webheads who don't know the difference between CMYK and RGB.
Trust me, a 24 X 36 300 DPI poster with lots of layers can eat up space....quick. - nevioth, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1While i couldn't live without Photoshop CS3's new layer group function and the general ability to fully reorder windows panels and sets, i must agree that the installation process itself of all CS3's applications, especially those of the Creative Suite is HORRENDOUS.
- pak314, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1If you are working with scanned images and 600 dpi or higher, they can get big pretty fast since you can't really save them in a lossy compression format while manipulating them.
- uptown, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Sorta related .... anyone know if there's any performance degredation if I run my Windows copy of PS on a MacBook Pro that's booted to Windows? I'm about to make the leap into Apple w/ a new laptop, but don't have the money to buy a new license of PS right now. Thinking of dual-booting it as a temporary solution.
- DinosWillDie13, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Ya no kidding. Photoshop runs so slow on my Mac Book Pro. This article helped a lot.
- Randinn, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1hehe, running Vista, you obviously are a mac-boy if you think the rest of the PC world's running Vista.
- linuxeventually, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3I think the point of the headline is 4+gb of RAM.
- windmillninja, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1artard...that's a new one
- windmillninja, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I wasn't stating it as fact. "dissing your Vista" just sounded better.
- windmillninja, on 10/26/2007, -5/+6Really? Where'd it suggest that? Or do you just automatically assume that because it's an article BY Mac users FOR Mac users that it's "dissing" your Vista?
- kickarse, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I can tell that the waters cold peeing off a bridge.
- nevioth, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1i guess it's not a rule whatsoever...on my MBP Safari opens always (really!) up in 2 seconds max, while Firefox takes much more...
- indyGuy, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3Mine's only at 100 - I feel so inferior
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -0/+0 Don't get a Mac. Save some money))
- carlskov, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0LOL! :o)
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is