It works very well in Photoshop on my Mac. My Powerbook is newer and
about a 1/3 faster clock speed than my older PowerMac dual processor.
The desktop machine is much, much faster with Photoshop than the laptop.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I doubt that PWP can make use of that dual core processor and I'm not
> sure how effectively PS can use it either. Having a second
> processor is
> always good for running multiple applications simultaneously...
> assuming
> those apps are doing meaningful work for more than a second or two
> at a
> time. However, making use of a second processor within a single
> application requires that the programmers wrote the code to allow the
> work to be split... something that's not often done.
>
> Assume that PS has to sharpen an image. To make it go faster using
> both
> of those processor cores the programmer has to split the work between
> two or more processes or threads of execution. Some extra
> intelligence
> is involved such that the total work can be fairly divvied up between
> the mulitiple workers and processing units.
>
> I just doubt that there's any of this sort of thing in PWP given
> its age
> and lack of maintenance and suspect that it might even be rather
> limited
> in PS... but I could be wrong on both counts. Image processing is
> exactly the sort of thing that chews up lots of computing resources.
> But it also lends itself to being divvied up and distributed so you're
> more likely to find it in PS, for example, than many other kinds of
> applications.
>
> Even so, if I had the option for a faster processor rather than two
> slower ones I'd probably go with fast. The dual processors, in
> aggregate, might have more total horsepower but the efficiency of
> their
> use in a home computing environment I think is questionable.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
>> On 3/27/06, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> It's time for a new computer,
>>
>>
>> Walt,
>> Looks good to me. If PWP is sluggish, I doubt PS will be an
>> improvement, though it ought to be good with that setup. Adobe
>> usually recommends a second HD that can be devoted to PS. Basically,
>> it fights with Windows' virtual memory for disk space. You can
>> optimize that by assigning a set amount of disk space for Win virtual
>> memory and than defragging the disk so that space is all contiguous.
>> I wait more than I should on my old machine (older than yours) just
>> working with E-1 RAW files.
>>
>> On the other hand, everything I just told you about PS could be old
>> hat. I never really knew much, and what I did know I didn't really
>> understand, and I've forgotten most of it since then.
>>
>> Let us know how you like it, eventually.
>>
>> Joel W.
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|