PDA

View Full Version : Maximum used RAM in Painter X?...


Tim3308
02-15-2007, 05:18 PM
If memory serves, wasn't the max RAM that Painter 9 could use was 2GB? Anyone know if this changed for Painter X?

Thanks, T

Philippec
03-15-2007, 02:36 PM
If memory serves, wasn't the max RAM that Painter 9 could use was 2GB? Anyone know if this changed for Painter X?

That figure is driven by the operating system. Painter X is not 64-bit, so it cannot go beyond the 32-bit boundary.

So, no change from IX.

Tim3308
08-16-2007, 04:44 PM
Hi,
I'd still like to find out the maximum RAM Painter X can access (on a Mac to be more specific, i fthat matters). I'm talking the pure amount of RAM X can see and use, prior versions there's been a low ceiling on this (as it could not go beyond a certain amount). Anybody?

Thanks.

MasonDoran
08-27-2007, 02:24 PM
Its not Painter that determines this, it is the OS that defines the ram limit of the software.

So ALL software that is 32bit has a 2gb max limit. To get more requires 64 bit OS and software.

I suspect this is the same for Mac.

Tim3308
08-27-2007, 05:11 PM
Its not Painter that determines this, it is the OS that defines the ram limit of the software.

So ALL software that is 32bit has a 2gb max limit. To get more requires 64 bit OS and software.

I suspect this is the same for Mac.

Okay, thanks for the info. Photoshop CS3 can break the 2 GB ceiling in OSX (3.5 GB, I think?), though it's not 64 bit.

MasonDoran
08-27-2007, 06:34 PM
I believe Windows also allows that, with a simple boot.ini tweak.

Ghiangelo
08-27-2007, 08:05 PM
Okay, thanks for the info. Photoshop CS3 can break the 2 GB ceiling in OSX (3.5 GB, I think?), though it's not 64 bit.

Macs can support 16 GBs of installed ram (8GBs in the G5s) so i'd suspect more than 2GBs can be accessed by any program. though it must be noted the program in question is from Corel and expecting it to perform to the degrees available in current hardware is a push. Painter performance still comes down to the old standard of fast HDDs and fast processors. whether or not Painter can/will ever become a multi threaded application is anybodys guess.

Tim3308
08-28-2007, 12:57 AM
Macs can support 16 GBs of installed ram (8GBs in the G5s) so i'd suspect more than 2GBs can be accessed by any program. though it must be noted the program in question is from Corel and expecting it to perform to the degrees available in current hardware is a push. Painter performance still comes down to the old standard of fast HDDs and fast processors. whether or not Painter can/will ever become a multi threaded application is anybodys guess.

I have 6GB of matched memory on my 2.5 ghz G5, and still will experience drastic slow downs (relatively) in PX vs. the same file in PS CS3. Layers cripple Painter's performance in some of my medium to large images. Meanwhile PS will chew right threw the file like the layers are hardly there despite the increased file size that makes Painter "sweat" (though oddly PS brush performance is not as peppy though). Once back in Painter, I work pretty much to get to the "flat stage" asap, to stop the sluggishness of performance and slow saves, selections, you name it, on poster sized jobs especially.

I'm hip to your comment about Corel's efforts on increased performance beyond amateur needs, for lack of a better term...? I'd sure like them be pushing the envelope as best they can, especially as I will likely upgrade to Leopard and a MacPro this Fall.

Thanks.

Ghiangelo
08-28-2007, 03:43 AM
I have 6GB of matched memory on my 2.5 ghz G5, and still will experience drastic slow downs (relatively) in PX vs. the same file in PS CS3. Layers cripple Painter's performance in some of my medium to large images. Meanwhile PS will chew right threw the file like the layers are hardly there despite the increased file size that makes Painter "sweat" (though oddly PS brush performance is not as peppy though). Once back in Painter, I work pretty much to get to the "flat stage" asap, to stop the sluggishness of performance and slow saves, selections, you name it, on poster sized jobs especially.

I'm hip to your comment about Corel's efforts on increased performance beyond amateur needs, for lack of a better term...? I'd sure like them be pushing the envelope as best they can, especially as I will likely upgrade to Leopard and a MacPro this Fall.

Thanks.

i'm using P 9.5 on a 2x2ghz G5 with 2 GBs of ram. i can't work on files much greater than 11 x 17 @300ppi, which i have worked out produces good upsamples (11x17 has the same ratio as 24x36 and 300 dpi provides good detail at 200%). i get up to 14 layers at times but working in Painter is about working to the point of slow down then flattening and carrying on with new layers. results in lots of file versions in the progress of image creation. but that's how it goes and i'm used to it now.

i have never known what the ideal hardware set up for Painter actually is, like what types of systems do the developers at Corel program and test on? John Derry is a Mac guy so i'm sure he has the latest and greatest. as for program development, Adobe probably has a substantially greater development team for PS alone than Corel has for everything they sell. Adobe is a huge company with the money to make things work. Painter always seemed to me, from the early days, to be a labour of love. it also has a brush collection second to none. something PS has yet to include in it's tool set, who's absence might have to do with the performance hit that might ensue. i'd be curious if there is a different way Painter could be programmed that would make it perform faster, with greater stability than it does currently. i'd love to hear some of the ideas Corel programmers and software contractors might have for advanced solutions.

Tim3308
08-28-2007, 05:17 AM
i'm using P 9.5 on a 2x2ghz G5 with 2 GBs of ram. i can't work on files much greater than 11 x 17 @300ppi, which i have worked out produces good upsamples (11x17 has the same ratio as 24x36 and 300 dpi provides good detail at 200%). i get up to 14 layers at times but working in Painter is about working to the point of slow down then flattening and carrying on with new layers. results in lots of file versions in the progress of image creation. but that's how it goes and i'm used to it now.

i have never known what the ideal hardware set up for Painter actually is, like what types of systems do the developers at Corel program and test on? John Derry is a Mac guy so i'm sure he has the latest and greatest. as for program development, Adobe probably has a substantially greater development team for PS alone than Corel has for everything they sell. Adobe is a huge company with the money to make things work. Painter always seemed to me, from the early days, to be a labour of love. it also has a brush collection second to none. something PS has yet to include in it's tool set, who's absence might have to do with the performance hit that might ensue. i'd be curious if there is a different way Painter could be programmed that would make it perform faster, with greater stability than it does currently. i'd love to hear some of the ideas Corel programmers and software contractors might have for advanced solutions.

Yeah, I concur on the size. I'm working on an 11 X 17 300 dpi right now. W/ a canvas and two layers performance is good, not PS good, but good (and yes, Painter's brush engine is the Lord of all space time and dimension compared to PS -- how folks paint in PS like the samples I see boggles my mind.). I added a couple more layers at this size, I know I'd get serious slow downs w/ the file.

Yes, Mr. Derry is a mac boy like us, and I was so glad to hear Painter works from the mac platform first, or it's a high priority ( I recall being surprised that we had dual monitor features that Windows version did not -- how often does that happen in software? Mac usually is 2nd in line) But do you recall the first version of 9 or 8 (can't recall) the pref to set a separate scratch disk was just window dressing -- it was nonfunctional, but there! But they fixed it. You use a scratch disk? I do (for P and PS), just because I was told to. W/ my system I don't know how much it's actually helping?

Yes, I'd be very curious to here official word from Corel on really "turbo-ing" Painter for "power users" (and also what items would be a waste of $ in going for max speed). Steve?

The improvements to Painter I have seen from version to 7 (I went all digital, from traditional media, right when that and OSX's first real workable version hit. P7 brought me quite a few crashes, but luckily I knew when most were going to happen -- it was learning experience as I was teaching myself all of this digital stuff and and OS at the same time. Having a little OCD helps ;)) to 10.5 have been very nice indeed. I'd never thought I'd say P would be as stable as PS but it really just about is (despite PS massive resources). I was speaking of this very thing guest speaking to an art club group, how stable she now is. Those in the audience who knew painter nodded knowingly.

Speaking of resources, it's funny the chain of wannabe rumors out there or desires over the recent years: Adobe should buy Painter's brush engine, and Apple should buy Adobe (Adobe does appear to take pleasure in tweaking Apple -- they do have a serious love/hate going on for several reasons. The PowerMac & MacPros sales are certainly tied to both. Oh well, Corel looks smart in keeping Apple equal on the list w/ the WinDell gang -- as Apple sure is getting the serious recognition and cash it it has deserved for so long. The iPod has certainly done it's job over the years to get the sheep to take a look, and the iPhone will probably do even more in the end. W/ the buffoonery, treating it's base like criminals (ummm like Adobe), recently failed products, and low sales going on in Redmond, Apple has all the momentum and cache, and d*mn right. A gal was excitedly showing my wife all the cool things on her iPhone, like one reads of the post buying buzz "over the top" pleased iPhone consumers, my wife says, "Sandy, yep, that's how OS X works."

Ghiangelo
08-30-2007, 06:48 AM
The PowerMac & MacPros sales are certainly tied to both. Oh well, Corel looks smart in keeping Apple equal on the list w/ the WinDell gang -- as Apple sure is getting the serious recognition and cash it it has deserved for so long. The iPod has certainly done it's job over the years to get the sheep to take a look, and the iPhone will probably do even more in the end. W/ the buffoonery, treating it's base like criminals (ummm like Adobe), recently failed products, and low sales going on in Redmond, Apple has all the momentum and cache, and d*mn right. A gal was excitedly showing my wife all the cool things on her iPhone, like one reads of the post buying buzz "over the top" pleased iPhone consumers, my wife says, "Sandy, yep, that's how OS X works."

not sure if you've noticed this, but check out a comparable Dell configured like a stock MacPro and compare the price tag. better yet do the same with an Alienware system... so much for the days of "Macs are more expensive than PCs" routine. most people don't realize that when they go into a London Drugs and see a Mac Pro on display beside a Certified Data box the two aren't even close. Mac Pros are workstation class machines, not PC desktops. on the Dell and HP sites you have to navigate through their sites just to find the workstation sections. Workstation PCs are an exclusive machine (server level) and tend to be sold to power users and engineering/design firms and as such the PC makers really charge premium for them and in crappy plastic boxes. dual processors are standard in Macs but the prices don't show it.

i believe Apple has a good chance selling MacPros as Windows machines in near future once people see the cost advantage

tomt
08-30-2007, 07:36 AM
This may be a dumb question to ask for all you large file users, but what do you have your "undo" levels set at? Painter defaults at 32, and as I understand it, that means the last 32 actions or versions of an image are stored in memory. Me thinks that's using a lot of that good 'ol memory.

I've set my preferences down to 12, which seems a bit better and faster. I don't have a problem working with files in the 60+ Mbytes range, and sometimes over 100Mbytes. And I do a lot of iterative saving, and closing and reopening Painter to clear it.

This all keeps it running fairly fast. I have a Wintel machine, 2.13 GHz dual with 2 gig of ram. Vista Home Premium OS. Not a Mac but serviceable for sure, and about 1/2 the price of a comparable Mac.

I don't need to or want to get into a Mac versus PC war. But for the money issue only, the PC is probably the better deal. If I had an unlimited budget, I'd probably go with a Mac.

Ghiangelo
08-31-2007, 12:16 AM
This all keeps it running fairly fast. I have a Wintel machine, 2.13 GHz dual with 2 gig of ram. Vista Home Premium OS. Not a Mac but serviceable for sure, and about 1/2 the price of a comparable Mac.

I don't need to or want to get into a Mac versus PC war. But for the money issue only, the PC is probably the better deal. If I had an unlimited budget, I'd probably go with a Mac.

:) well with an unlimited budget u'd be able to get an amazing PC with 4 cpus and a RAID with super fast drives and a mind-blowing vidcard, something Apple doesn't provide yet. building super machines is still the domain of PC boxes.

what you're comparing is a Mac tower and a PC mid-tower. this is where the confusion lies when Mac and PC debates erupt. fortunately the playing field is even when it comes to hardware now that Apple's finally using Intel based systems and Mac users can get much more powerful machines. Apple has no mid tower (something much discussed on Mac related message boards) instead Apple jumps from All-In-Ones straight to Workstations and Servers. the Mac Mini, soon to be discontinued, is the closest thing. to illustrate, a Dell Dimension mid tower is almost half the price of a Mac Pro, but these aren't the same systems. the Dell equivalent is a Dell Precision 690, which runs about $700 more than a matching Mac Pro. an Alienware MJ-12 when configured to a intro Mac Pro is also more expensive, and with further customizations will seriously exceed the price of similar customizations on a Mac.

this is just new, since Apple switched to Intel and direct comparisons can now be made. when i first started doing the numbers i was stunned. i have no idea how Apple is able to compete as well as they do in the high end dual processor PC market, but i'd assume it has more to do with up-charging on the part of PC makers since most dual processor boxes running Xeons tend to go to larger businesses.

as for how well Os X performes on Intel as opposed to Windows will be interesting to see. i'd give the edge to Windows NT. ;)

CGTalk Moderation
08-31-2007, 12:16 AM
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.