PDA

View Full Version : Photoshop CS2: slowest photoshop ever!!


saiko
04-28-2005, 08:14 AM
have any of you guys tried new photoshop CS2?
it seems damn slow....atleast on my system
(btw: my system has much higher configuration than the minimum system requirement)
the responce time is much higher than PSCS....

is Photoshop CS 2.5 coming soon!!!

are u guys facing the same ?

halo
04-28-2005, 09:23 AM
nope...

what particular aspect are you having problems with?

klingspor
04-28-2005, 11:45 AM
Same here, maybe it's just a problem with the trial version...

This PC (Athlon 2600+, 1GB of RAM), while not the fastest by today's standards, should easily be capable of handling Photoshop CS2, especially considering there've been practically zero substantial changes since version 7 or even 6.

Anyway, the first CS already felt less responsive than the very snappy PS7, but the CS2 trial feels even slower. The menu rendering is a little delayed, as are any dialogs and windows. Switching between large documents takes longer than it used to. It isn't really "slow", it's just that the lag becomes very noticeable over time and is totally unnecessary when compared to prior versions or other applications.

Also painting is more sluggish. I tested with both 7 and CS2 running in parallel to see if my suspicions were correct: While in PS7 I can use rather huge brush sizes without any delay whatsoever, CS2 tends to lag a bit when painting the canvas even with reasonably sized brushes.

Not to talk about that horrid filter gallery... oh, and their new Bridge application takes almost as long to load as Photoshop itself.

For some reason, it feels much like running Photoshop 7 in Linux using WINE, sort of like any time I press something there's a lot more going on than I can see. The program feels, for the lack of a better word, "emulated".

Coupled with the lack of other interesting, non-gimmicky features, I've decided to skip another upgrade and stay with 7 for now. If only their HDRI-support was worth anything at all, now that would be a different story...

Skjoldbroder
04-28-2005, 01:07 PM
speedwise, it's been running okay here. (2.8ghz, radeon x600, 1gig ram)

also: why on earth didn't they implement their brush engine in the vanishing point filter. it could be a really cool thing for painting, but not when you cant use different brushes, or layers, or colour pick like you usually do and so on and so on.

it has good potential though.

klingspor
04-28-2005, 01:26 PM
also: why on earth didn't they implement their brush engine in the vanishing point filter.Probably they've saved that for their "major new feature" in CS3! I can't wait!

OzzyCat
04-28-2005, 03:30 PM
I'm sorry, I'm using Photoshop CS2 from today... finally arrived in the post. I'm using a 3Ghz P4 system with 1GB Ram and this is easily slower than the last version. I'm stunned that it's so slow... simply making an image from scratch takes a few seconds to create... whereas before, it was instantaneous.

I'm unimpressed so far. As far as it being like an emulated version in terms of speed, I totally agree...

I'm not happy with this.

-Vormav-
04-28-2005, 03:42 PM
Not to talk about that horrid filter gallery...
OT, but am I the only one that actually liked CS' filter gallery? I find the ability to use effect layers very useful. :shrug:

mdwsr
04-28-2005, 04:39 PM
Noticably slower here. The "Bridge" is lame. So far I'm disappointed with the limited functionality if vanishing point, it was not what I expected but will still be useful.

Camera raw is excellent, worth the upgrade price all by itself.

I felt the brush behavior was identical to CS, I did not notice a slowdown there.

Smart objects looks promising but I haven't had time to use that very much. I think they will get grief for changing the way you link layers, but I think it is an improvement.

Worth the price? Definately. Get rid of the bridge and update the brush engine, then we'll really have something.

sfox
04-28-2005, 06:38 PM
It drags a little bit on my P4 3.0 but the real problem is some of the 'defaults' have changed.

On my system the scroll wheel zoom is now reversed. Where I used to roteate it back towards me to zoom in, I now have to rotate it the other way which is pretty awkward. It's no real benefit to zooming out because I usually just double click to go to 100% after working on the details. Maybe it can be changed in my Logitech drivers. I'll see.

I am used to loading about 30 files at a time and maximizing the one I'm working on. Then when I closed it, the next files would come up already maximized. Now when I close, all files are tiled (or whatever) and I have to maximize the next one manually.

After making changes to a file, the dialogue warning box comes up asking to confirm. It used to be that the default button was 'yes' and hitting the return key would close the box and save the file. Now the default key is 'no', so I have to confirm by hiiting 'y' on the keyboard or using the mouse. No great feat, but at this point in running my macros my finger is already on the retrun key so it was nice to just be able to hit it again.

Just minor things, but it does slow down my workflow. Not sure why these things needed to be changed. I also had greater hopes for the new 'reduce noise' filter.

halo
04-28-2005, 07:04 PM
i slapped it on my laptop for a play...still waiting for my mac suite to arrive...seems actually faster than CS to me. Mind you i was only playing with low res pics cos i only have a paltry 512mb of ram in that so its hardly a PS machine anyway.

Didnt play with the HDR stuff or smart objects...warp seemed cool and fast, pity you cant add points...photo tools good, new blurs good...filters still the same, inc the next to useless gallery :(...i stumbled upon quite a few nice details here and there that will make it fly a bit smoother. Generally gets my thumbs up. Probably more of a production orientated upgrade than a bangs and whistles thing.

Quite a few people didnt like the supposed speed drop when CS came out compared to 7, but a lot of it was attributable to the new tiling and how people had theyre memory settings.

Dunno, how much ram u guys got...processor speed really doesnt mean shit to PS, especially when the OS and PS probably chew 512mb with nothing open...rams the key...get lots of it....1gb isnt lots.

klingspor
04-28-2005, 08:06 PM
Dunno, how much ram u guys got...processor speed really doesnt mean shit to PS, especially when the OS and PS probably chew 512mb with nothing open...rams the key...get lots of it....1gb isnt lots.Considering that 1gb is adequate to run PS7 (or much larger beasts such as 3D programs or compositors), I don't see why anyone should need to upgrade just for CS2.

There's simply nothing new in it that would justify the increased memory need or the sluggishness many users are complaining about. Basically, it seems all Adobe did was add/modify a couple of plug-in filters, of which many will most likely work flawlessly in previous versions of Photoshop anyway. And if I'm not mistaken, plug-ins are loaded only when they're called by the user, so that can't be the cause of the issues.

The description on their "New Features" page actually sounds pretty good, 32bit HDRI support alone could have sold the upgrade to me. But their lacklustre implementation is simply a joke: You can open and save, but you can't edit the files in any useful manner?!
16bit "support" has been there for a couple of versions now and it still doesn't work with all tools and filters. How long will we need to wait for HDRI support to get to a somewhat useable state?

I'd really like to know when Adobe are going to get their act together and produce a proper update, worthy of the name. Ever since this CS marketing BS started, I haven't seen a single useful release from them. It's almost like the marketing department has taken over the place!

halo
04-28-2005, 09:15 PM
1 gb may be fine for low res stuff...but it isnt anywhere near enough for high res...i've got 2.5gb (only because until now there was no point in anymore)...its woefully in adequate considering my scratch regularly occupies 4-5gb...i'm looking forward to the roof being lifted in cs2 to 4.5 gb for the mac...that alone will pay for my upgrade in about a day.

I think what you maybe noticing is that PS floor memory allocation is higher and it also uses scratch differently in the CS range...but once you have enough to play with in ram terms that problem dissapears.

Native plugins aren't loaded as needed, they indeed are opened at the same time as the application...3rd party ones and the non native plugins may be different. (go try and find the guassian blur plugin on your HD to see what i mean)

ok so it may not be for you...having some HDR editability in PS is a bonus for me.

vanishing point and warp are good +'s, the improved layer control, cursors that show up, smart objects, the camera tools/filters...there are lots of little improvements that probably dont show up too well on cursory inspection.

but at the end of the day if it isnt for you then so be it...you dont lose anything by not upgrading :)

what are you after anyway in your Cs3?

klingspor
04-28-2005, 10:37 PM
what are you after anyway in your Cs3?To be honest, for me all they'd need to do is get 16bit and HDR support to the same level as regular 8bit files. The moment that works, I'll be the first to upgrade. I render a lot in these bit depths, and it would be so nice to be able to fix small problems in PS instead of rerendering or using clunky workarounds in compositors.
The way it is now, it's feels half-baked: They started implementing the support, but didn't finish for whatever reason. I wouldn't be too happy if I had bought the program based on the premise that it "creates and edits" (to quote their website) HDR files only to find out that the support is that limited. At least they offer a trial version.

Oh, and adjustment layers for plug-in filters... I mostly work in DVD resolution or for websites at max, and having adjustment layers at least for basic filters such as blur and sharpen would come in handy! There's a huge thread in the Adobe feature request forum for just this feature, but they don't seem to care much.

As it is, I think Photoshop is a great piece of software already, and unless there's some revolutionary break-through, I doubt we'll see many changes in the coming versions. It seems Adobe also knows this and that's why they're taking so long to fully implement these features... simply so they have something left for the next version.

ArtisticVisions
04-28-2005, 11:06 PM
Has anyone tried the CS2 version of Imageready or PS's web tools yet, and if so, how do they compare to the previous version?
(I haven't upgraded yet and be nice to know it the web features were better or worse in this version)

halo
04-29-2005, 12:33 AM
not yet, theres a downloadable tryout thats available now though for your to play with at adobe. (300mb)

i know what you mean about 1/2 baked ideas and features stefan, its something that constantly bugs me about Adobe recently on its older applications...i think in this version they've at least addressed some, and i hope they've fixed the bugs as well, but i can understand not wanting to upgrade..i think i jumped from 4 - 7 for that same reason.

ArtisticVisions
04-29-2005, 12:39 AM
not yet, theres a downloadable tryout thats available now though for your to play with at adobe. (300mb)
Crap... I'm on dial-up. :banghead:

greyface
04-29-2005, 10:22 PM
Seems fine to me, I'll have to do some testing though, but first thing I noticed is that it starts up faster.

desty

KiboOst
05-01-2005, 12:15 PM
trying it at home right now, it doesn't seems slower at all. Anyway I don't and won't use bridge, too heavy app for a browser, XnView rocks, read also raw etc.

Anyway, I'm very very disapointed by vanishing tool !! Why the hell did they put this outside of the app ? Why not defining grids into a special group and then apply a layer on a grid, with all photoshop controls ? Staying in photoshop, that's it ! Also, it interpret what you want to do without control and some simple things are simply impossible. Adobe should really get betatester that know something into 3D world, this vaniching is totally useless for me, and it was one of the big point for me to update my cs1. Now I doubt I will upgrade, thanks adobe ... hopefully new warp is very usefull !! also new lens distortion will be usefull for us, but these two points make upgrade a bit expensive !!! adobe, wakeup, and stop these stupid external things as liquify, extract and vanishing, totally stupid workflow !

Kib

mdwsr
05-01-2005, 04:43 PM
Has anyone figured out how to get the status bar back down to the bottom, instead of the bottom of the active file window? (Like in CS)

KiboOst
05-01-2005, 04:54 PM
ah yes I would too !!

klingspor
05-01-2005, 06:23 PM
Has anyone figured out how to get the status bar back down to the bottom, instead of the bottom of the active file window? (Like in CS)The word on the official Adobe forums is that the old status bar is no longer and one should apparently deal with the way it is now, like it or not.

mdwsr
05-01-2005, 07:01 PM
The main thing I miss is being able to see the zoom % in the status bar in full screen mode, that and being able to zoom from there to any percentage.

Actually the more I use CS2 the more I miss the status bar. The info pallette is better than before but does not show zoom % and takes up too much space compared to the old status bar.

halo
05-01-2005, 07:48 PM
having used the mac version for so long i'm completely used to the status bar being attached to the bottom of the window and i often find myself having to turn it on for the pc.
I can sympathise with trying to find things again though when adobe move them around.

to see your % look at the filename in the top of the window. to alter it use the nav window when in FS mode.

to be honest i tend to only like working in 25% increments most of the time because odd %'s makes PS display a proxy image which looks wrong in detail and can throw measurments out such as the eye dropper.

you can change what the info palette displays in palette options

hesido
05-03-2005, 07:44 AM
It is indeed slower with respect to draw response. I felt awful with it. what a shame. it some miliseconds lag only but it is frustrating. You try carefully, and you'll notice the drawing is laggy. Most definitely.

edit - this is more easily noticed when you're drawing with a tablet. It just doesn't feel right.
They really have to revamp the engine all together. It is funny they can't implement tools like vanishing point to their engine and yet manage to get a tad slower. They need to OPTIMIZE. Haven't they seen NewTek's Aura? I know their anti-aliasing scheme differs but Aura does show how fast a paint engine can be.

Also there is a lightning fast but relatively simple drawing program that you can edit HDRI with, it is from NVidia and uses full hardware acceleration :) Of course you can't open up a large 300dpi poster but you get the idea :)

Their luqify tools makes up for their really slow smudge tool (tho I know the keyword is non-destructive editing before committing the warps) and the appearance of vanishing point(!) seperate from the engine really makes me wonder how much bloated and inflexible their paint engine is. (Image Nozzle anyone?? They still couldn't put rgb brushes... and we are in 21st century! eheh)

halo
05-03-2005, 09:38 AM
what do you mean by rgb brushes?

hesido
05-03-2005, 02:31 PM
Like image nozzle where we can spray RGBA images all across the canvas (single or multiple, fixed order or random, fixed transform or random). I guess almost all other packages have it.

berniebernie
05-03-2005, 02:59 PM
Yep. Remember when an upgrade meant something in Photoshop ? Like let's say from 6 to 7 ? I'm sorry but I'm definitely not upgrading to CS2 and sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't use 7, not as many gimmicks.


And still no dotted line tool, the Adobe guys are on holiday or what ?

hentsteph
05-03-2005, 09:56 PM
O.K I know almost all of you are on Mac's, but I'm on a WinXP with a 1.2 AMD. I'm thinking of upgrading from Photoshop 7, how is the speed on WinXP?

Thanks,

Steph

www.dsuper.net/~shetlj

halo
05-03-2005, 10:15 PM
fine here :)

klingspor
05-03-2005, 10:30 PM
I'm also on XP, you can read my experiences above...

hesido
05-03-2005, 10:33 PM
I'd advise otherwise. There is fully func. free trial, why not try it for yourself?

To test the paint engine, I say you place fast strokes on the canvas and see the lag for yourself :) Of course, if you are only doing marquee stuff and drawing with paths, then there is no noticable speed decrease in that.

f50
05-03-2005, 11:38 PM
Just "upgraded" from PS7 myself, and well....if it weren't for the neat Liquify and noise reduction filters I'd probly go back to it. Start-up is marginally slower, and menu response is pretty slow (compared to 7).

System: A64 3000+, 1GB pc3200, Radeon 9800pro.

I looked through Adobe help & support though, and found a way to speed things up a little if you have 1gb of ram or more. Just enable an extension located in (winXP):
Adobe Photoshop CS2\Plug-Ins\Adobe Photoshop Only\Extensions\Bigger Tiles
by removing the '~' from the file name. worked pretty well for me to increase response and overall performance in loading and dealing with big files. still a bit slower than in PS7, but oh well. You can find some better explanation of what it does on Adobe's site i think.

Sure hope they hear all the complaints about performance and release an update though.

DigArts
05-04-2005, 07:15 AM
See http://photoshopnews.com/?p=134#more-134 for tips on RAM capacity, benefits and speeding up CS2.

D@D
http://www.gardenhose.com

hesido
05-05-2005, 11:55 AM
I had already turned on bigger tiles, without it, you can see the slowdown even by changing the visibility of a layer!

This doesn't help the paint engine tho..

And one more thing, clipping mask groups now do not move along with the clipping layer when changing layer order unless linked. What workflow enhancement is that? If I make a clipping layer group, It means they are somehow related and move in layer order together, while not being necesseraly linked for transformations. And they changed the shortcut but I can deal with it as there is hopefully an editor.

whookam
05-05-2005, 01:01 PM
I can't say i noticed any slow down with the paint engine, in fact my initial thoughts were that it was better than CS and the brushes looked smoother, more like Barco brushes.

I was using it on a Dual 2.5GHZ G5, OS 10.39, 2.5GB RAM

I haven't done any 'proper' work with it yet but I chucked one of our WIP files (approx. 10 x 8 K, 8bit, 50+ layers, 6GB on scrtach) and it seemed OK.

I'll try pushing it harder tonight.

hesido
05-05-2005, 01:33 PM
You got some machine there!! It is a MAC, it is dual G5, and clocked at 2.5 ghz, heck, you could run weather simulations with that!

I have p4 2.6 ghz 1gigs and that's where it starts hurting. Compared to CS this is easily slower.

PC users could aownload Alias SketchBook Pro Trial and then make real fast strokes on both programs to see the absolute difference, even for ones with higher end machines.

hesido
05-05-2005, 02:18 PM
Here's a test: (I should note that CS1 acts much better with a 100hz ps/2 mouse than with a graphire tablet, but then you don't use mouse to place strokes like these. CS2 doesn't hold up even with a ps/2 mouse)

http://www.hesido.com/display/cgtalk/paintburntest.png

Sorry for the typos in the image.. don't wanna change it anymore..

mdwsr
05-05-2005, 03:53 PM
hesido -

I tried your experiment, I used CS, CS2, Painter IX, and PSP 9. My results:

-CS and CS2 seem identical, but I did get the same jiggly results as you.

-Painter IX: lines were smoother but seemed to be "dampened" somewhat and slower to react.

-PSP 9: somewhere in the middle.

My feeling is that CS might actually be the most accurate, as in reflecting your brush strokes exactly instead of "averaging" them out. Also, one would really need to play with the pen tablet properties to accurately compare. Painter IX has it's own brush tracking settings and PS uses the settings from the tablet driver, so you aren't necessarily comparing apples to apples.

hesido
05-05-2005, 04:13 PM
Those jiggles are not caused by Photoshop's exactness in following the strokes, it is impossible to get such curves at the edges that change direction 90 degress backwards to your drawing direction when you're simply zigzagging like this (the motion starts from bottom to up in my test). You don't wanna know what would happen if you turn off smoothing in Photoshop! So Photoshop does try to interpolate your stroke and it does a bad job at that.

Sketchbook Pro's results is pretty much close to what I would see on paper if I did the same motion.. Corel Painter's response is somewhat slow but it does a good approximation to your actual stroke.

sh'n
05-05-2005, 04:16 PM
Another issue - what graphic/digitalizing tablets (Wacom set aside) is PS CS2 compatible with? Being a user of a Pentagram brand tablet I feel irked with the lack of support for it in the new Photoshop CS2 (especially as it worked with CS1 just fine). Does anybody know what other brands it supports? (And yes I checked all the updates, downloaded the latest drivers, etc...) Help appreciated:)

hesido
05-05-2005, 04:47 PM
Here's a more detailed explained test on CS2, with smoothing on and off.

The speed of my P4 2.6 is now lagging behind high end machines, but it needn't be this inaccurate, as it is perfectly possible to do it really fast like NewTek's Aura and Alias Sketch Book Pro shows.

The frequency of tablet updates is also important, my graphire may be lower in instructions per second than your intuos, but again I can't test it. These are my results, you're free to test it yourselves.

Guys with macs are lucky because it is a whole different compile anyway, for your really nice RISC cpu's.

whookam
05-05-2005, 06:01 PM
I'll do a test on my Mac tonight to see if we can narrow down the problem. I can see what you are talking about though. Might just be a PC or peformance related issue.

whookam
05-05-2005, 09:23 PM
Ok, tested this out on my Mac.

Could only get and problems with either CS or CS2 if I really thrashed it, much faster then I ever would for a real job. Even then it was very slight. If anything, CS2 was slightly better for me. I feel this may be a platform dependent problem.

I used an Intouos2 on a Dual 2.5GHZ G5, 2.5GB RAM

What I really did notice is that the quality of the brushed seems to be a lot better. Use a 100% soft brush and do some overlapping brush stokes. See how smooth they are now?

hesido
05-05-2005, 11:11 PM
Photoshop always rocked on MAC's in terms of speed. For mac, photoshop is very differently compiled for a fundementally different type of processor. And, dual g5 2.5 is insanely powerful, it could run whatever bloated code you throw at it great speeds. You lucky ,you!

wolver1ne
05-07-2005, 03:20 AM
On Adobe PS forums people some say closing the info panel will descrease the interface lag, which does work. However, maximazing the application still takes a sec to render the UI, while with CS it was pretty much instant.

On the other side, it seems to me that CS2 core is much faster than CS. Opening a quite large 16bit file took only 11 seconds in CS2 and 30 (on average after 2 tries) seconds in CS. So most likely the only let down right now is the UI, which makes people bite their lips. If Adobe is to fix the slaggy UI asap, they have a winner application.

thedoc
05-08-2005, 12:03 PM
you guys noticed it too???? It's like an OS all on it's own... i had to get back to CS

KiboOst
05-08-2005, 01:18 PM
Runnning CS2 on a dual opterons, and it is faster than CS in many aspect ! CtrlB and CtrlL now open instantaneously (no more building histograms), opening/saving files is lot faster, and so on.
Feature talking, CS2 is really a nice upgrade ! apart vanishing tools that completely sucks and is totally useless (thks adobe !!), the rest of enhancements are very great ! Multi select layer is simply amazing, workflow so smoother, thks for that !!!

Kib

Topaz
05-08-2005, 03:14 PM
yeaa dual opterons do the job, but the most people dont have such CPU.

KiboOst
05-08-2005, 03:19 PM
The point isn't the dual opteron, cs2 is faster than cs1 that's what I tell. So it also should be faster on any other machine ?
Kib

I-NetGraFX
05-08-2005, 03:59 PM
The point isn't the dual opteron, cs2 is faster than cs1 that's what I tell. So it also should be faster on any other machine ?
Kib


I'm using it on a Dual Xeon 2.8 GHz, 3 GB RAM. So far I couldn't experience any slower actions compared to the previous CS version. Somehow, the layer handling and transforming seems to be much faster then before. Same goes for painting.
I don't get any artefacts (as shown before) with my Intuos2.

Ok, tested this out on my Mac.

Could only get and problems with either CS or CS2 if I really thrashed it, much faster then I ever would for a real job. Even then it was very slight. If anything, CS2 was slightly better for me. I feel this may be a platform dependent problem.

I used an Intouos2 on a Dual 2.5GHZ G5, 2.5GB RAM

What I really did notice is that the quality of the brushed seems to be a lot better. Use a 100% soft brush and do some overlapping brush stokes. See how smooth they are now?

I've tested it on Win2K and experienced quite the same.

hesido
05-08-2005, 04:04 PM
This might mean they are making full use of new technologies like hyperthreading and double cpu's. For me, there is no doubt it is slower on the painting engine on my p4 2.6 . Things like transforming and other stuff did not slow down, I'd give you that (only when bigtiles are turned on, do not forget to turn it on for machines with 1gig and up)

wolver1ne
05-08-2005, 07:05 PM
Again, for those who have slowdowns in painting then hide the Info panel and you will notice the difference.

And as I said, from my own expirience, CS2 is faster than CS, but the UI is the one that makes it slow.

whookam
05-09-2005, 02:14 PM
apart vanishing tools that completely sucks and is totally useless (thks adobe !!),



Actually I used the vanishing tool for the first time the other day on a job. I had to create a floor by cloning just a few floorboards. Would have taken ages doing it manually and having to tweak constantly to match the perspective. I was amazed how well the vanishing point feature worked. I had to do a fair bit of cleanup after but it probably saved me a couple of hours of work.

I initially had it down as a gimmick but I think I might acually end up using it quite a lot. If they could just work some of these plugins (esp. liquify, which I think is great) into the main layer-based part of the program.

I can't believe how much difference turning the info pallette off makes. Takes me back to the days of Barco Creator. I hope this is tweaked by the next update. Using the path tool in 16bit was next to impossible with it turned on.

3dsoft
05-14-2005, 09:17 PM
looks like that CS2 is super slow, period!

Andre41
05-14-2005, 10:24 PM
I have already posted this in a seperate thread, but thought you might want to try it. Forget hiding the info window, that never worked for me, this did

Goto Edit > Preferences > Type

Deselect Font Preview Size

If this works for you too, then I'll be happy that I've discovered something useful. If not, then I'm sorry.

Happy CS2'ing

Andy41

smoothoperator
05-15-2005, 12:51 AM
I'm on a Mac G5 dual 2.5 with 2 gigs ram...
I've been using the CS2 demo for a little more than a week now and I noticed the UI controls to have a problem. Mainly the arrow adjusters/sliders. They don't respond sometimes. Ex:Adjustment Color Balance.
While sketching away..I kinda work fast to stay in the flow so I want to make an adjustment quick and get back to sketching and notice that it sometimes doesn't obey. I sometime click somewhere on the range line of the slider to get the pointer there and it doesnt catch. It doesn't happen all the time but I never had it happen to me before CS2.
The new features are cool like the warp tool. A little limited and would like to add points and/or more grid lines but then again there's liquify.
The remove noise filter rocks! Esp for jpeg compression removal. Overall this one is a great addition.
But what I don't understand is why do they bring you OUT of your comp to another area (liquify, vanishing point etc) Would be nice to keep everything in your regular working place with your usuall controls at your disposal...LIKE ZOOMING! jeezz.
As for the Bridge...I think it's amazing for looking at your files. Zooming in seeing the details etc. The other app that did this on the Mac was iphoto which was limited to photo files only.
Overall..happy with the upgrade...but still waiting for a BLENDING TOOOL! Yes...a BLENDDINGGG TOOOL. artists have had this pleasure for ages outside the digital world. Corel does it well with PAINTER! Why not get one for Photoshop? The brush engine is really good in Painter...too bad PS is lagging behind in this area. :(

+smooth+

ThePumpkinKing
05-15-2005, 03:06 AM
OT, but am I the only one that actually liked CS' filter gallery? I find the ability to use effect layers very useful. :shrug:


Um..........Yeeeeaaaaahhhhhhh........You kinda are.

ftaswin
05-15-2005, 03:29 AM
Photoshop CS2 slow or freezed occationally?

Turn OFF the font preview size in preferences. New features that seem to takes up up to 90% of your cpu when used.

Hope that helps

rkv
05-15-2005, 03:33 AM
very very true :yes:
hope they fix it soon

Son_of_Skeletor
05-16-2005, 03:23 AM
After reading through all the replies in the thread, I don't think I'll upgrade to CS2. I had enough trouble with CS.

Photoshop 7 will always be my favourite version of the program. That ran really smoothly on my systems.

leigh
05-16-2005, 06:15 AM
Can't say I've got any speed complaints - I've run it on a dual Xeon system and a dual Opteron, without any problems.

wolver1ne
05-16-2005, 11:46 AM
Of course you won't have any problems running it on dual highend CPU, how obvious is that. It still not a reason for Adobe to overlook those with 'slower' systems, system which are just capable of running CS2 if it weren't for the slow UI. -_-

berniebernie
05-16-2005, 12:21 PM
After reading through all the replies in the thread, I don't think I'll upgrade to CS2. I had enough trouble with CS.

Photoshop 7 will always be my favourite version of the program. That ran really smoothly on my systems.

Aye aye, I have to agree to that, plus it's got all the best tools.

Except scripting maybe, which I kind of hard to handle without CS.

berniebernie
05-16-2005, 12:22 PM
Hum I double posted but can't seem to be able to delete my thread. Sorry.

jmBoekestein
05-16-2005, 12:58 PM
I haven't used the other version except photoshop elements 2, so I can only compare it to that. I'm running it on a relatively basic system, but switching to 16-bit and doing adjustments in that mode on a 24 Mb file is largely interactive and almost realtime, I can't see any slowdown. You might wana check your system resource usage as it can vary quite a lot between os versions and different systems. I have headroom using only half of my 1 gig ram, but it unloads browser content regardless, if you get my point. The os needs to be in memory for it to work properly.:)

Son_of_Skeletor
05-16-2005, 01:18 PM
It still not a reason for Adobe to overlook those with 'slower' systems, system which are just capable of running CS2 if it weren't for the slow UI. -_-

I totally agree. Seems to me like Adobe should've named this release Photoshop FFCS (for fast computer systems).

I've got an A64 3000+, 1GB of pc3200, Radeon pro 9000 system. Should I expect a lot of lag? (will try the demo and tweak it with the suggestions here)

I'll also try hesido's pen test to see what comes up.

danielson
05-16-2005, 03:29 PM
I've got an A64 3000+, 1GB of pc3200, Radeon pro 9000 system. Should I expect a lot of lag? (will try the demo and tweak it with the suggestions here)

That's the same system I have at home (except I have the Radeon 9800xt) and I get some lag. Saying that though, I just turned off the font previews here at work (im on a 2ghz celeron with 1GB :sad: ) and it seemed to fix everything.

My PC at work is the only one that seems to be affected though so it may be more of a software thing maybe.

leigh
05-16-2005, 06:17 PM
Of course you won't have any problems running it on dual highend CPU, how obvious is that. It still not a reason for Adobe to overlook those with 'slower' systems, system which are just capable of running CS2 if it weren't for the slow UI. -_-

Perhaps you never even read the minimum specs page:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html

Although they mention PIII and P4 and Centrino there, this release is very clearly aimed at high end users. Photoshop is a professional application, and most professionals are running it on good systems.

klingspor
05-16-2005, 07:15 PM
Perhaps you never even read the minimum specs page:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html

Although they mention PIII and P4 and Centrino there, this release is very clearly aimed at high end users. Photoshop is a professional application, and most professionals are running it on good systems.How is it aimed at high end users? The only feature I'd see them wanting for is HDRI support, and that is implemented so poorly that I doubt many of them will see the need.
And considering the total lack of substantial new features or changes, these specs are a joke. Font preview, some additional plug-ins and an inflated info palette should not require anyone to buy a new computer system just to run a program that does little more than predecessor.

Daz
05-16-2005, 07:36 PM
I stick with Photoshop 7, the new versions of photoshop just dont interest me all that much.

halo
05-16-2005, 08:08 PM
How is it aimed at high end users? The only feature I'd see them wanting for is HDRI support, and that is implemented so poorly that I doubt many of them will see the need.
And considering the total lack of substantial new features or changes, these specs are a joke. Font preview, some additional plug-ins and an inflated info palette should not require anyone to buy a new computer system just to run a program that does little more than predecessor.

dont be a berk...of course its aimed at pro users, its not a friggin amatuer hobby application, thats what elements is for or PSP...believe it or not people do actually do stuff with PS apart from piss around with web sized images and make fantasy art. There is a world of PS outside the tiny features you mention, probably 99% of images you see everywhere have gone through PS at one point in time seeing as its the defacto industry standard image processing application across the world.

Just because your system isn't up to it doesn't mean there isn't a whole industry out there just getting on with the new job. 1gb of ram is a paltry amount for PS, your OS will yank 1-200mb of that away to start with, PS another 100mb sitting still at least...with PS needing 3x the image size to start with with history off and no layers its not hard to see why some people are struggling here. PS is a RAM hog...complain about speed when your system is more up to it.

klingspor
05-16-2005, 08:26 PM
Of course Photoshop in general is aimed at high end users, I didn't mean to question that at all. I was merely questioning Leigh's comment implying that this particular release is somehow aimed more at high end users than previous versions.

And as for the specs of my work PC: They are irrelevant. The fact is that CS2's performance leaves a lot to be desired for many users without there being a due reason for it. What's different compared to to version 7 that makes it so much slower on a PC that was more than adequate for PS7 or CS1?
There wouldn't be any problem at all if this release had some great new CPU-hungry feature to justify the slowness people are experiencing, but as it stands, there is none. Correct me if I'm wrong.

halo
05-17-2005, 11:11 AM
What's different compared to to version 7 that makes it so much slower on a PC that was more than adequate for PS7 or CS1?


the way in which it handles memory, offsetting memory needs before operations rather than during...with more memory onboard this has benefits, with less memory it has drawbacks, which is why i said 1gb isn't really enough if you are 1/2 serious about performance on reasonable sized images on photoshop.

Andre41
05-17-2005, 06:33 PM
Okay, I have an AMD Athlon XP 1.8Ghz CPU and 1 Gb Ram and I have no problems with loading and working on large images, speed of CS2 seems on a par if not better than CS1, especially wehn starting up the program, which where CS1 was concerned took up to 3 minutes. I therefore think that the speed problems, which some of you sre still experiencing, has little to do with the specification of your PC and more to do with hardware compatibility of perhaps a software clash. I've heard form people with 2Gb ram and dual 2.5 Ghz CPUs, complaining about speed issues. maybe Adobe will come clean in a few months time and maybe do a point release as they did with 5.5, who knows. It just seems to me that Photoshop CS2 has issues which need to be resolved and I think only Adobe can do it. On final word on CS2, I've heard very few complaints about any of the other programs, ImageReady CS2, Illustrator CS2, InDesign Cs2, GoLive CS2 etc, the only other part of the suite that you hear a lot of complaints about is Bridge, then I never like it when is was a browser. I mean what's the point of having a lot of fancy functions in your browser if you have Photoshop. Just my 2 cents.

liquidben
05-19-2005, 04:32 PM
This is what I came up with . . . I just installed it (CS2) last night and I was messin' around and went to display properties (windows obviously) and the settings tab and changed the colour 'quality' . . haha to 16bit and hit apply an then back to 32bit an apply all while photoshop is running :) and then the performance went like right back to normal instead of being all slow and sluggish (windows redrawing and refreshing) . . wish I didn't have to do that everytime I open photoshop but it works for me . . . can somebody figure out the real culprit? I got the latest vid card drivers . . . still didn't help . . but try that (change colour depth) . .I want to know if it helps anybody else! . . .

-ben

ArtisticVisions
05-19-2005, 10:43 PM
Finally got my CS2 upgrade yesterday (would've had it on Tuesday, but the stupid UPS guy wouldn't leave it without a signature :banghead: ).

So far, I have notice no slowdown at all as compared to my previous version of PS, (which was version 7); however, maybe that's just because my system is kinda high-end (dual 2.66 Xeons with HT and 3GB of Ram). Haven't really had much time to play around with it yet, but I see it has a new way of linking layers and new viewable font examples with the text tool (for me, that's a feature I've wished to have for a long time).

liquidben
05-20-2005, 06:19 AM
After finding the "work-around" I decided to install on another computer . . . installed flawlessly . . . and runs really good out of the box . . . well at least for resizing images! . . the thing is . . the computer is a piece of junk for most ps stuff . . but I wanted to see about the window palettes redrawing an stuff . . the computer stats are like awful . . . but no problem with the refreshing of the app . . alt-tab an such :) anyhow . . . this has to be a device conflict or something . . ah :) pullin' my hair out . . . i tried a dif vid driver for my box an still have to change the colour depth for it to work good . . grrrrrr :) fix it adobe!

halo
05-20-2005, 09:53 AM
how is it adobe's fault if one of your boxes runs it fine but the other doesnt? it would suggest one of your boxes has a problem, otherwise it wouldnt work on the other one.

liquidben
05-20-2005, 02:13 PM
how is it adobe's fault if one of your boxes runs it fine but the other doesnt? it would suggest one of your boxes has a problem, otherwise it wouldnt work on the other one.

eh, because it's not just on one of my computers? :) and it's on multiple computers all over the world? :) talked w/quite a few ps users and they're experiencing the same thing . . . and it's a fresh install and the only thing dif is CS2 instead of CS . . . either they need to address it on their site or something if its a known issue . . . :) that's all . . . might of been a bit out of line sayin' fix it Adobe . . . it was a joke, but anyhow . . . :)

Andre41
05-20-2005, 07:53 PM
You can bet that lot's of people can run it on one machine and not another, even if they both meet the minimum specs. The same probably applies to almost every piece of software out there. Some of us find a way around it, some of us try different hardware/ driveres to fix it, some of us even give up and revert back to what we had before, so here's what to do if you have a problem.

Don't just believe people who say the minimum specification is......try to make sure your kit is above this minimum if at all possible, it's not like the sell/use by date on food. Update all your drivers and stuff. Clean out your system. Only install the stuff you really need. See if the problem has already been solved by others, if so try that. Check for known issues ( apparently InDesign has printing problems and can generate a lot of errors there ) and fix them if possible. Don't upgrade because you can, only upgrade if you need to, in other words does this new piece of software do anything that you couldn't do before, that would be very useful, if not why bother. Finally if all else fails, contact Adobe, tell them what the problem is, explain what you've done to try to fix it, give them the specification of your machine and also any other hardware you have connected and what other software is running. Explain that you would be very appreciative of any help they can give in helping to solve the problem. I fevn that doesn't work and your still not happy, ask for your maney back and explain that, in future you will be taking your business elsewhere.

Thnig is Adobe are not out there to just take your money and then forget about you. Their user base is very important to them, without it they wouldn't know what the end user wants in any future upgrades and they certainily wouldn't be where they are today. So get out there and ask. Remeber though, don't have a go, be polite, a please and thank you can go a very long way.

Just another 2 cents

Andre41

Wife: Take that dog to the vet he stinks something awful

Leter that day.....

Husband: So your the vet what do you think
Vet: How long has he smelt like this.
Husband: Oh, about 2 months now
Vet: Well that how long he's been dead then.

grevenlx
05-23-2005, 01:46 AM
Well i have the same problemas, slowish drawing but CS2 seems to load faster. Hidding the info panel worked for me, it really makes some difference. Thanks for the tips guys.

cg_sprite
05-23-2005, 03:24 AM
well if this version has the same slowdown rate as PSCS was from PS7 then i wont be buying this in a hurry, I will wait till either a pach or a new verion before upgrading my software as i dont have money to burn.

and on the subject of the filter gallery, i dont use filters but if the need arises that blooming thing has me reaching for the Ctrl+Alt+Delete :(

ahrding
05-23-2005, 03:36 AM
Im running it on my AMD 3000+ machine with 512mb of ram and its much slower than cs. When I start it up it sort of freezes for about 8 seconds then goes fine ??. Also iv'e notices if I drag a dialogue (such as the layer style window) over the other panels the dragging lags. Very poor.

halo
05-23-2005, 10:57 AM
Im running it on my AMD 3000+ machine with 512mb of ram

that would be the problem right there...512mb is the minimum spec for opening photoshop...i wouldn't expect any performance with thqt amount at all.

klingspor
05-23-2005, 11:53 AM
that would be the problem right there...512mb is the minimum spec for opening photoshop...i wouldn't expect any performance with thqt amount at all.No, it isn't. Adobe openly states on their page that 320MB of RAM is required and 384MB recommended. Not a word about 1GB not being enough, as you liked to point out several times in the thread. So either Adobe lie in the specs, or you are wrong.

Check for yourself at http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html

mustique
05-23-2005, 12:27 PM
CS2 tryout version is slow as hell on my comp with P4 2.8 GHz, 1 gb Ram and a Quadro2.

The most annoying part is Adobe Bridge. Can't believe how slow it is.
All its got to do is launching a browser!

How dedicated can a browser be!

Oh wait there's a cool link to the cheesy Adobe photo stock on the net.
Wonder why Adobe didn't build a mp3 and divx player on top of that Bridge :P

I hate software makers who try to capitalize your desktop with overbloated apps
and congrats to Adobe for joining them!

halo
05-23-2005, 10:51 PM
No, it isn't. Adobe openly states on their page that 320MB of RAM is required and 384MB recommended. Not a word about 1GB not being enough, as you liked to point out several times in the thread. So either Adobe lie in the specs, or you are wrong.

Check for yourself at http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html

1gb is enough to avoid slowdowns on anything larger than a postage stamp...512 is enough to run at least PS without it using the disk for ram to even start up...

given than the OS on most machines eats 200mb, PS another 150mb open, and an image uses 3x5 its flattened memory mb size per layer + channels you can see why its a little daft to spend $1000's on computer and software if you can't be bothered to spend $100 on a couple of gb ram and a little time cleaning up the system and a little time even offering comparative timings.

smoothoperator
05-24-2005, 12:18 AM
I dissabled font preview and it helps. It's speedier. So try that out. Still get unresponsive scroll bars sometimes..it just gets finicky.
As for Adobe Bridge it works very well for me. An amazing and welcome addition. If you don't like it...pretend it's not there. Simple. As for it's performance issue maybe it's your system and what programs your running at the same time.
I run on an AppleG5 Dual2.5 2Gram.

mustique
05-24-2005, 01:12 PM
I dissabled font preview and it helps. It's speedier. So try that out. Still get unresponsive scroll bars sometimes..it just gets finicky.
As for Adobe Bridge it works very well for me. An amazing and welcome addition. If you don't like it...pretend it's not there. Simple. As for it's performance issue maybe it's your system and what programs your running at the same time.
I run on an AppleG5 Dual2.5 2Gram.

I can see why you're not experiencing any lags, you've got a pretty much high-end mac.
But an app should be develop with mainstream systems in mind.
This is even true for 3D apps.

Also working with a couple of apps open at the same time is not seldom.
So Adobe shouldn't think of Photoshop to be the only app to run in order to deliver faster.

Just my 2 cents.

Zarathustra
05-24-2005, 02:40 PM
I haven't heard anything about this upgrade other then a brief mention that it might let you handle HDRI. So apparently that part is true, but it's very limited? What exactly can or can't you do with HDRI with this new PS?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there still isn't any HDRI editing app for OSX, right? This would essentially be it so I would hope it would be good.

I, too, have a mean machine (2x2.5ghz G5, 3.5 gig ram) and it's frustrating as hell when there isn't software for it.

halo
05-24-2005, 06:56 PM
I can see why you're not experiencing any lags, you've got a pretty much high-end mac.
But an app should be develop with mainstream systems in mind.
This is even true for 3D apps.

Also working with a couple of apps open at the same time is not seldom.
So Adobe shouldn't think of Photoshop to be the only app to run in order to deliver faster.

Just my 2 cents.

PS is ram hungry...very...although its not designed just to work on high spec'd systems, thats what the professional user base is going to use...there will always be faster systems. Sometimes the only option to go faster is to upgrade. Using PS with other programs is daft, just like it is with any other heavyweight type of work. I wouldnt expect PS to fly on 1/2 my systems, but the one system I would do is the one I spec'd for PS work...if that gets slow theres room to upgrade (because its a couple of years old now)...but I would never put the expense of an upgrade in the way of doing paying work which will offset it in a blink of an eye.

Hordak
05-25-2005, 02:48 PM
got 512ram and it works fine

Lunacore
05-28-2005, 06:35 PM
I think it's not right to advice people to buy a new system 3.5GHz+, just because of some software issues (probably drivers/API issue), because that's what I think they are and not because the software has become more advanced. I mean, what's so advanced about redrawing interface elements in a fast way (and I'm talking now with some Delphi programming background). Try for example to resize the layers palette; even on some fast systems you might see the system redraw the palette in very slow manner, slower than what I've seen on PIII 450's.

michelengeltje
05-31-2005, 11:19 AM
I does seem that there is something a little wrong with CS2, the very slow redraw times of the menu seems to be something experienced by a number of people with a wide range of computer-systems, for barely minimum up to pretty high-end.
There was a nice thread on the Adobe forum discussing these strange problems, with over 200 replies and even some Adobe programmers on it trying to get to the heart of the problem, but this thread seems to have been removed from the Adobe forum (at least I can't find it anymore) - why? don't know. Edit: found it! http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@555.eNJ8epQdqqU.44@.3bba4416/279
It's rather strange that switching from 32 to 16 to 32 bit solves things or lowering your graphics-cards hardware acceleration 'solves' things... The Adobe guys on the thread thought that it might have something to do with the new look of the menu's.
They also talked about running a large amount of testing on system barely meeting the minimum specs with on-board graphics on which CS2 seemed to run quicker or at least just as quick as CS.

I do hope they come up with a solution for this problem so at least we can evaluate CS2 running the way it was support to instead of death slow.

Michelengeltje

Spin99
06-03-2005, 09:08 PM
All this sounds like PS is getting bloated..
I tried CS and found it slower so I won't even try CS2.
I don't get it, I think it might have to do with program updates
getting purposedly slower so they don't run too fast on newer processors??

*puzzle*

I personally am of the opinion that great programming in C and C++
should NEVER make for slow running programs.
Not in any system!

Not unless software is getting bloated and less competent.
Programming efficiency = execution speed.
Optimizations for multiple processors should work on multiple processors only.
Doesn't this make sense (?)

Of course some of it should run faster on dual cores (brag brag)
but when the core app runs slow on 1 GB RAM it means PS got SLUGGISH!
They changed the development team?

This is all highly disappointing for such a costly application.
Maybe Adobe Photoshop is now only meant for a handful of "elite" Designers (?)
It seems to me that the CS upgrades are just not worth it.

Also there's got a be a lot of competition from other packages.
If Adobe don't get their act together I'm going to start running the "Gimp" myself.
Tsk tsk.

Maybe they can't really improve on PS7?
And the worst is there isn't a download version of PS7 on their site :cry:

klingspor
06-03-2005, 09:49 PM
Also there's got a be a lot of competition from other packages.
If Adobe don't get their act together I'm going to start running the "Gimp" myself.
Tsk tsk.That's the point exactly: There is no competition. Until that changes, you can rely on Adobe churning out these lacklustre, yearly updates.

And no, the Gimp does not count as competition...

Grondhammar
06-03-2005, 10:04 PM
I've stuck with PS7 here, any and all CS versions have run like &$@*! on my system. Adobe have become a big corporation, they can now afford to put out lousy product with worthless updates. Reminds one of EA...

Just in case: Athlon XP 3200+, 2 gig RAM, Radeon X850

dwin
06-04-2005, 09:19 AM
i feel the same thing... photoshop cs2 runs slower than version 1. I'm running celeron 2.4 with 256mb rams. I know my computer not as fast as the other but i don't have any problem with CS version 1 with the same machine.

Reaver2k
06-04-2005, 04:48 PM
Simple solution people, Don't like it, Dont buy it. Stop crying about Adobe trying to improve features, Yes it will come to needed system improvements.

The amount you pay to buy Adobe CS2 would get you a hefty system update in the first place.

Akryls
06-04-2005, 06:35 PM
That's the point exactly: There is no competition.

I hope someday a photoshop alternative will come... like final cut who killed premiere on the mac :) .. Photoshop is too old.. when they must add new features like liquify on separate plugin windows, I think it's time for a total rewrite.
It would be so nice to have a totally new, modern 2D software, with native 8/16/HDR support, openGL accelerated interface (with fast zoom&pan etc.. like any modern compositor), native scripting support, etc...

greyface
06-04-2005, 07:09 PM
I hope someday a photoshop alternative will come... like final cut who killed premiere on the mac :) .. Photoshop is too old.. when they must add new features like liquify on separate plugin windows, I think it's time for a total rewrite.
It would be so nice to have a totally new, modern 2D software, with native 8/16/HDR support, openGL accelerated interface (with fast zoom&pan etc.. like any modern compositor), native scripting support, etc...

Hell yea :) - A node based structure would be very useful too. Photoshop is the best image tool, but it doesn't mean it's perfect. I'm wondering if Apple will compete with it, specially now that they have 2D acceleration (CoreImage) incorporated in the OS.

desty

malcolmvexxed
06-05-2005, 04:52 AM
Simple solution people, Don't like it, Dont buy it. Stop crying about Adobe trying to improve features, Yes it will come to needed system improvements.

The amount you pay to buy Adobe CS2 would get you a hefty system update in the first place.

Except that some of us work in industries where certain programs are considered required, especially those of us who are given photoshop .psd files in ftp transfers. We'd like for the updates we pay for to be worth something. And yes complaining when a company tries to rip people off with poorly optimized programs is valid. Otherwise your 'if you don't like it don't buy it' approach would apply to this thread. If you don't like the comments, don't respond to them right?

hesido
06-05-2005, 06:30 AM
Except that some of us work in industries where certain programs are considered required, especially those of us who are given photoshop .psd files in ftp transfers. We'd like for the updates we pay for to be worth something. And yes complaining when a company tries to rip people off with poorly optimized programs is valid. Otherwise your 'if you don't like it don't buy it' approach would apply to this thread. If you don't like the comments, don't respond to them right?

I agree. Also, it is not like the new features should need more powerful computers, especially given the current new features. You buy / upgrade for the new features, but imagine everytime you had to upgrade your machines for an upgrade. The cost for each upgrade would double the expenses of studios.

And also, reaver2k mentions the criticism here as "crying". I call it "feedback that Adobe needs to consider". Simply not buying could only bring a very latent response from Adobe, as in your world where nobody would criticise a product but simply doesn't buy it, the company would be left wondering what it has done wrong (and maybe blame piracy instead of their own wrong-doings, much like Hollywood does, I guess, if sales fall, the first thing a company would blame the piracy, so the actual problem would be diverted.) So, no, simply not buying a product does not make it better, some people need to "cry".

Akryls
06-05-2005, 06:42 PM
Generally, the main goal of a computer upgrade is to be able to handle larger works (larger resolutions/bit depth, more layers, etc...), or to work faster on everydays projects, not to run at the same speed slower applications...

Pixaloop
06-06-2005, 05:46 AM
I havent been all that impressed with CS2. PS CS and PS 7 seem have been a lot better performers. I'm still not sure if I'll stick with CS2....some of the "new" features are irritating me at the moment.

My 2 coppers.

Saven
06-06-2005, 09:19 PM
my first brush strokes in CS2 finished with total stop of XP... :cry: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#)
It is much slower - window refreshing, menu redrawing, painting...
My comp: 1,6 Ghz, 1 Gb (have no problems in CS1 at all)
I hope Adobe will improve speed and stability soon....

Bridge - :curious: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#):sad: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#):argh: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#):surprised (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#):banghead: (misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#)

SoLiTuDe
06-06-2005, 09:33 PM
i haven't noticed any Slow problems, though I agree with everyone about that bridge thing... as for other stuff, I don't know yet if i like the new linking... im so used to doing it the old way that I think there should be an option fordoing it the old way

opus13
06-08-2005, 09:07 PM
i haven't noticed any Slow problems, though I agree with everyone about that bridge thing... as for other stuff, I don't know yet if i like the new linking... im so used to doing it the old way that I think there should be an option fordoing it the old way

being able to ctrl/shift and select layers is a long overdue feature... but what infuriates me about the linking is that when you select a layer, you cant simply 'unlink layer' unless all of the linked layers are selected.

unlinking specific layers is just a pain in the ass.

that... and text is different. i honestly dont know what changed, but any tiem i need to manipulate multiple layers of text its just easier to open up CS1 and do it in there.

i dont think adobe is going to get my money this time. CS1 was questionable enough, but this is just stupid. oh yeah... that bridge tools is such a waste of space.

Haiku
06-09-2005, 08:44 PM
I have a huge problem with the importing of older brushes that work in CS ie (wacom brushes 1, and Nagal series brushes etc when I load them in CS2 and use my wacom it causes photoshop to freeze I use the same brushes in CS 1 and they dont drives me crazy. I have done everything deleted pref, reinstalled everything

malcolmvexxed
06-10-2005, 03:40 AM
i dont think adobe is going to get my money this time. CS1 was questionable enough i was annoyed by CS and CS2 was so bad i doubt i'll buy photoshop again any time soon. If adobe is going to take their working consumers for granted like this i won't keep supporting them.

LoTekK
06-10-2005, 04:10 AM
My only real gripe about CS2 is the apparent performance leak over time. I used to leave CS open when I would take a break and go watch some TV, and then come back to it and continue sketching, or start a new one after I was done with the boob tube. Now with CS2, I literally have to close it out if I'm going to take a break of more than half an hour, because for whatever reason, the brush performance slows to molasses when I come back to it. Mind you, nothing whatsoever is being run during the break.

Tlock
07-12-2005, 06:42 PM
Try Artizen ZE HDR....

itsallgoode9
07-13-2005, 01:20 AM
My only real gripe about CS2 is the apparent performance leak over time. I used to leave CS open when I would take a break and go watch some TV, and then come back to it and continue sketching, or start a new one after I was done with the boob tube. Now with CS2, I literally have to close it out if I'm going to take a break of more than half an hour, because for whatever reason, the brush performance slows to molasses when I come back to it. Mind you, nothing whatsoever is being run during the break.


I have noticed that too......I hope it is just somthing stupid we are doing because that is the most annoying thing in the world

BigSky
07-13-2005, 11:35 AM
Recently I've been playing with cs2 with 300+ meg files, and it's slow on a 3.2ghz P4 multithreaded.
A big "no, sorry, I won't use that custom brush to erase in a selection" crash lost me an hour of work :thumbsup: baby. 7 was quicker, I'd say (but then, it didn't have drop shadowed menus).

mazm
07-13-2005, 08:19 PM
i'm facing the same problem with my PC and i think i've a good configuration :

P4 3.6, 1 GIG ram , VGA 6800 256 PCI express and WD 120 SATA and it seems too slow for me.
i shocked when i use it and so i've to return to use 7 or CS to be more faster in my wrok.

saiko
07-14-2005, 07:20 AM
earlier, for croping i used to use rectangular marquee to select the area and Alt -> I -> P,
and it used to select crop from the image drop down list from top.
But it does not work!
for some vague reason when i press Alt then I the dropdown menu comes down but all the option (including crop) are inactive.
so i have to do it with my mouse...and then it perfectly works!

rebb
07-21-2005, 04:49 PM
While i cant prove it in any way, i think that it has to do with the new Way CS2 displays its UI ( notice the gimmicky curves on the tabs.. ).

I've already searched for options to disable this gimmicky look, but couldnt find anything.

L.Rawlins
07-22-2005, 07:00 PM
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html

Did anyone else notice that there is absolutely no mention of support for AMD equivalent processors...

seansea
05-30-2006, 05:38 AM
I got Photoshop CS2 as part of a toolkit package from Westwood Online. At first I've had smooth sailing with it, but now it's horrifically slow. It takes a long time for it to boot up and if I wan't to use a larger brush to smudge artwork it lags. I recall in older versions of PS if it slowed down you can just clear the histogram. It seems like CS doesn't allow you to do so.

I almost want to call Adobe and ask if I can trade for an older edition.

robodesign
05-30-2006, 10:15 AM
LoL
I'm impressed that *only now* you guys discovered the wonders of CS suite :). I've been a PS7 user, i've tried CS1 when they released the demo. It was stupendously sluggish... and the new features [not that hard to count them :) ].... are not extremly important for my daily usage: designing web site interfaces or heavily retouching 3D renders, creating textures.

Then, like in a fairy-tale... CS2 was released. I tried the demo too. Wow... that HDRI support must be coool, hehe! Loaded it up.. and puff! What do we see? An extremely limited support of HDRI format and the other features... don't worth mentioning :). Like the CS, this one went far away down the road: extremely stupendously sluggish. I designed an interface which takes to open in PS7 about 10 minutes. In CS1, of course you double the time... and puff, there it is :) - opened. But it in the all-mighty CS2, I haven't had the patience to let it finish opening it, as it was chewing my HDD for like... years?

You guys, clearly got the ideea.. i've never tried to actually work with them [CS1 or CS2] as they seem garbage. God forbbid of CS3 :).

My system: 1Gb RAM, Athlon 1,8Ghz [yes! it's slow].

Photoshop 7 will rule forever... if a contender like MS Graphic Designer won't show-up :)

And yes... if you have a 2x dual-core AMD PC with 2Gb RAM and Western Digital Raptor X HDD, then, yeah... CS2 worths, like Win 2K >> XP.

BlueFlare
05-30-2006, 05:36 PM
I designed an interface which takes to open in PS7 about 10 minutes.

10 minutes for an interface design to open?? :eek:

miloshz
05-30-2006, 09:07 PM
CS2 is veeery slooow! i've got it installed. but, mostly i still use CS.

6 is the best PS ever!

on windows version, interface sometimes goes crazy. crashes are very often.

i use PS actively since 4 was actual and CS2 is the worst version i've used.

so, we gotta wait till knoll and other guys release CS3. in the meanwhile use older versions. there are quite a few new useful features in CS2, but still not worth the hassle you'll have.

other products from CS2 are better. illustrator and indesign are kick-ass!

saiko
05-31-2006, 05:52 AM
10 minutes for an interface design to open?? :eek:

i was also wondering that! :D

robodesign
05-31-2006, 12:04 PM
For those really willing to make sure of this. I've reopened the PSD today.

Start time: 13:44.00
End time: 13:51.25

It took 7 minutes and 25 seconds. Applications running in the background: Winamp 5 + DFX, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, Opera... a firewall and an antivirus [Nod32].

That's the usual way I work.

Besides this, my interface contains loads of layers. It contains the design of each page. The site is www.robodesign.ro ; Check the Services, About, the splash images on the front page, the ones for the web-site release of v4 [to check them enter the news page and click on the "ROBO Design v4 web site released" item], it contains the design of gallery and the one of a clicked page ;). Further more.. it contains in the very same document... the bilingual stuff... like buttons, splash images and such.

Once I get started working in Photoshop, it gets used and I can do my thing ;). BUT in Photoshop CS1 or CS2 it never gets used to the document, it always renders the image on screen very hard, or as I said, it might not even open it.

P.S. The scratch disks were optimised! Windows on C:\ and Photoshop on another HDD, otherwise I think I would have *beaten* the 10 minutes thingy. When loading the document CPU usage was 0% [no renders in background, just some music, to not get bored]. Current memory usage 1.78Gb [in Task Manager] and the swap file of Photoshop is 1.6Gb. Document resolution: 2568x1536.

Yes, I work a bit nasty, unorganised, but.. hey, it works. LOL;

saiko
05-31-2006, 01:00 PM
the file size definitely justifies the opening time for sure...:)..

but...the 2568x1536 resolution is lil too much for webpage design....as far as my understanding goes...it should be common screen resolution....(in general 1024x768...some people still make it within 800x600 )

robodesign
05-31-2006, 01:40 PM
I have another PSD of A4 @ 300 dpi which is over 100Mb and Photoshop opens it alot more faster. My HDD is IDE 7200 RPMs and it's working well.

The resolution of the site is 1024x768. But, in Photoshop I made the background of the site too ;).

The PSD of the interface is just 75Mb.

BlueFlare
05-31-2006, 02:13 PM
The resolution of the site is 1024x768. But, in Photoshop I made the background of the site too.

So it's the background that's 2568x1536? So if I understand you well; only one layer (or a handful) is the background of 2568x1536 and the rest is 1024x768? You're asking for problems if you do it this way, because you're wasting a lot of space.

It might now look that way, but take a calculator to see that 2568x1536 is 5 times (!) more pixels than 1024x768 and if you have a lot of layers it really starts to add up, not only in memory use, but also in opening times. 7 min or 10 min to open a web site design is simply way too long and if I mean way, then I mean wayyyyy to long. I know PS CS2 is slow in some areas (filter gallery, bridge), but after the latest update 9.0.1 it's as speedy as CS was for me, so I wonder if there isn't anything wrong with your machine.

I got several computers over here and on a Pentium III 1 Ghz/1GB memory I just opened a 110 layer 1024x768 file in less than 10 sec. And that was with PS CS2, go figure.

CGTalk Moderation
05-31-2006, 02:13 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.