Why is CS6 so much slower than CS5 was

Setup: Sager laptop NP8760 - CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7 820QM, 2648 MHz (20 x 132)
8GB ram running win 7 64 bit
I've found that trying to use the CS6 (cloud) version of Adobe bridge is not really possible unless you don't mind having 4-8 second pauses for nearly any use. Right clicking for any reason is guaranteed to cause a good 5 second wait to see the right click menu. The first click on any menu bar item also gauranteed to cause a 5-8 second wait. Repeatedly (happens whenever focus leaves bridge, no matter how momentary)
Of course if you are intent on working with your images you can't really put up with that much delay.
I end up using CS5 bridge with CS6 photoshop or any of the other CS6 tools, but some things are then impossible to do from bridge, to me the worst one is not being able to send selections of images thru the photoshop image processor. I have to start CS6 bridge and put up with its incredible contrariness to do that job.
Something that was done to bridge between CS5 and CS6 seems to be the likely place to look for the solution to this problem, but while I can read the lsted changes I don't know enough to be able to tell which might be responsible or what I can do about it.
My hardware is nothing breath taking but should be well adequate to run Bridge... especially when I've carefully turned off any other application that I am using.
I've noticed lots of talk here of redoing cache and moving cache etc. My cache is on a different disk than the program and I've purged it a time or two to make sure that wasn't the problem.
I've made no customizations to bridge so it should be installed all vanilla.

I have the same issue. Customer chat has not been able to resolve.
: CS6 Unresponsive.
2 second lag after clicking on any menu item.
4-8 second lag after right clicking on any image.
3 second lag while selecting images with arrow keys.
2 second lag selecting multiple images
My system is high performance:
. 12 Core 3.3Ghz Xeon Processors
. 24GB RAM
. Primary drive is 8 SSDs in a RAID0 configuration
. Dual nVidia Quadro FX5400
. OS: Win7 x64
CS5 and CS5.5 were very “snappy” in responsiveness on this system. CS6 Bridge works fine on my laptop, perfectly responsive.
Once Camera RAW or Photoshop are open, no issue working in these tools, so, the issue is bridge.
Here’s my debugging steps which have not worked to fix the issue:
Installed the latest camera RAW plug in from Nikon. Nikon D800 RAW .NEF files work in windows explorer and in CS5.5.
Installed all windows updates
Installed the lastest nvidia FX5800 card drivers
Uninstalled all Adobe products (reader, media player, etc.)
Uninstalled all plugs ins (HDR, noise, etc.)
Checked there are no fonts on the system (no TTF files)
Uninstalled Office 2013 to make sure there were no system font issues.
Uninstalled all Nikon software except the RAW plug in.
Deleted C:\Program Files\Adobe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe
Searched for any Adobe reference in c:\Users\<my_username>\ (example AppData), and deleted it.
Cleaned the registry of any reference to Adobe or any dll related to Adobe or an Adobe plug in.
Rebooted multiple times.
Re-installed CS6 Master Collection. At this point it did not recognize my raw photos (.NEF from a Nikon D800).
Installed all Adobe Updates.
The updates fixed the camera raw issue
Ran FontTest.jsx – all fonts passed, none failed.
Tried Preferences:
Advanced -> Use Software Rendering : CPU utilization went up, but, no impact on the lag
Startup Scripts : Disabled all but Photoshop CS6
Increased Cache Size, Compacted Cache, Purged Cache, Different Cache organizations, etc.
bob

Similar Messages

ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.

It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

CS6 Much Slower than CS5.5

I installed Premiere Pro CS6 for Mac and moved an existing project from CS5.5. The clips are all After Effects compositions, some with elaborate effects. I imported them into AE6 from AE5.5 prior to bringing them into CS6 so they would interact between AE6 with PP6 via Dynamic Link.
CS6 is painfully slow on my machine. Even just dragging a clip from the Project window to the timeline results in a spinning beachball that stays on screen for over a minute before allowing me to position the clip. Playing the timeline also takes forever. Rendering the work area is slow too -- and that's when it works. Some clips render for a while and then crash out with an "unknown" compiling error.
I'm running a Mac Pro from 2011, 6 Core, 32 GB RAM, stock ATI Radeon card, Raid-0 across 3 2TB 7200 RPM drives and a solid state 200MB drive for software and some scratch files. Latest versions of both OSX and Premiere Pro.
The reason I upgraded to CS6 was to gain speed. So far CS5.5, set up in pretty much in identical fashion, was way faster and less problematic.
Can anyone offer advice? I've scoured this forum and the web and have come up empty.
Thanks!
Gene

I have a 25.GHz Core i7 MBP late 2011 with latest OSX and 16GB of RAM.
Just bought CS6 expecting more after a glorious year of using CS5.5.
I HATE IT. Have had all of the problems listed above and more. With the program monitor choppiness, I actually have to quit out of the program and re-open to get it to resume normal playback. I am mostly working with 7D and HVX video files which I have never had any problems with in 5.5.
Other weird things that happen are in the project window. When I try to create a new bin I get the beach ball for 30 seconds to a minute. When I try to move clips from one bin to another, more beach ball.
When I quit the software, it closes the window and then hangs, forcing me to force-quit to close out.
What's the deal? My MBP is a beast and has no problems running the ENTIRE 5.5 creative suite all at once with minimal lag. I do particle effects in AE5.5 and preview playback at 1/2 resolution at almost full speed...
So why is Premiere CS6 sucking so badly? Honestly other than the Warp Stabilizer plug-in (which is AMAZING), there's no reason for me to use it. I'm switching back to 5.5 until Adobe can work these things out and I am lamenting it's suckiness to everyone who asks.

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

Cs6 imports media slower than cs5

This post is inspired mostly by this user over on the creativecow forum - http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1035985#1036017
After he posted, I got to thinking, is it really that much slower? He and I have similar systems and setup practically identical, yet his media takes upwards of 30-45 seconds before the interface is usable again. My system takes about 4 seonds to import a 2mp jpg, a bit longer for other files, but nothing like this guy. So I opened up AE v10 on my Macbook Pro and watched that same file pop right into the project panel near instantly.
What's up with slower import times, and how do we fix that? Wait for Adobe Next? I hope that's not the answer, unless it's coming out tomorrow for this guy's sake. It doesn't make sense that his system, nearly identical to mine, takes 10-15 times as long to import a file.
For reference, I'm running all apps on 240gb Intel SSD, media and projects stored on 3tb 7200rpm internal hdd connected to 6gb/s sata port, with 32gb of HyperX RAM, and Win7.

Ok, after looking through the permissions check boxes and making sure the user account has full control, etc, still can't get files from the Explorer window to import as fast as using the import dialog box, which is really clunky, but oh well, it gets files in faster and it works. So new work flow habbit if you're experiencing slow imports on your files from dragging them from the Explorer window into the AE project panel - USE import dialog box.
Back to work...

I have IE & Firefox on both my laptop and desktop. Why is Firefox so much slower than IE7? Firefox seems to take forever to load pages!

I have a HP laptop & Dell desktop with IE7 and Firefox. I use Firefox more as I like it better than IE, yet the pages in Firefox load so slow. I thought the new version of Firefox was so much faster, but it seems to drag along and take forever to load pages. Why is this??
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== 6/17/2010

Please ask your question on a forum for the Flash Player

Why is PE12 so much slower than PE11?

I have been using PE11 on a quick machine with 8GB of RAM without any issues. Thought I'd 'Upgrade' to PE12 and everything is (literally) 10 times slower. I have to render everything before I can ply it in the timeline (never had to render in 11) and the rendering can be as slow as one frame a second. Obviously this is unworkable when I import 20mins of video and it's 40,000 frames to render. If I import the same info into PE11 it doesn't even need rendering. I can drag along the blue arrow and see it all move as fast as I like with the stuttered audio going along with it. In PE12 I need to move the arrow to a given point - stop it - and wait about 5 seconds to see the frame that is there and then it might play after about 5 seconds.
It's driving me mad and I just can't fathom it. Same machine - same file - same request of the software, but drastically different results.
I want to get my money back on PE12 as it was a waste of time - but don't know if that is possible.
Anyone else experiencing performance issues with 12?
Looking on the Internet in general it seems many many people have this issue (one chap had 32Gb RAM and experienced the same problems). Must be down to the software.
Cheers

Hi ATR - and thanks for the comprehensive comments. I am also running Windows 8.1 64 bit.
Appreciate the advice on getting a refund for the software - I may well use that if I can't find out why things are so slow.
I will try to answer your questions below...
I bought this laptop new a couple of weeks ago, so not much opportunity for things to get too clogged up yet - having said that, one of the programs that always goes on any of my PC's is Ccleaner so that was installed right away (and has been regularly run).
I actually tried the Adobe support chat 3 times last night - but each time I was onward connected to tech support and after pleasantries, they dissapeared each time. So I gave up on that.
Yes - I have 11 and 12 on this same machine. In fact I've been experimenting this afternoon with using each program in isolation and also together - loading snips of video and rendering / saving / exporting to DVD. I am burning a DVD now with 11 which is the only one I have the patience for at the moment. I'll try burning the same clip from 12 when this is done.
Then there are the typical questions...
a. What project preset?
b. What are the properties of what is going on that Timeline?
c. Even with your present computer environment, how much multitasking is going on?
d. Latest version of QuickTime installed?
e. Run As Admininstrator and User Account with Administrative Privileges?
f. Video card/graphics card driver version up to date according to the web site of the manufacturer of the video card/graphics card?
a. Not sure about the project preset (am new to Elements) but I guess they are default - I did notice when I went to 'adjust' and 'Smartfix' there was a green icon in it - so I clicked reset to get rid of that - thought that might have had a bearing on the slow speeds.
b. not sure of details here either - I have basically used a USB to phono convertor to transfer a load of Video8 footage off my camera with the default settting (MPEG). I've been capturing for about 30mins at a time and then putting 2 or 3 of the 30min sections into the timeline (but have also now played with far smaller (2 to 5 minute) sections of captured video to compare and contrast on speeds for various processes with more manageable chunks of video. Thus far I am leaving the video as is - I.e.apart from introducing a transition affect between sections, I have no narration or effects or soundtrack - just the raw MPEG video (and sound) on video1 and audio1
c. Multitasking apps / programs - I do have a few things running, but nothing serious - I will get rid of all else that's running when carrying out some more tests - good point, thanks.
d. Erm - not sure about QT - will have a look and update this evening if necessary
e. Yes - running as admin - although I possibly wasn't before... Do I have to right-click the icon to invoke this every time? I tested after running as admin and it made no difference
f. Like QT - I will check the video card software - being a new machine I did have it do quite a few updates when I got it home (including 8 to 8.1 upgrade).
I have now captured about 30 hours of Video8 from the late 80's onto the laptop and need to move on to my next video camera, the VHS-C beast which has early footage of the kids etc. It feels good to know I'm finally getting this stuff digitised, but I won't be able to cope with editing and burning it on DVD at the speed PrE12 is going...
Thanks again for the time in coming back to me. I shall address the QT and video card drivers issues tonight and see how I go.
Fundamentally, I just cannot see why I have such a pronounced difference in performance between the two versions - seems very odd.
Cheers,
Tom.

Why is Intel so much slower than AMD??

We have run into a problem with a few of our clients running Intel Pentium 4 (no hyperthreading) processors. Our web application under tomcat runs 20 - 30% slower on Intel (benchmarks scores are available). Our shop uses AMD Athlon processors and we have no performance problems at all.
We have had client come to our shop to verify that the application is indeed faster here and they always say that it is significantly faster.
We have developed benchmarks for certain parts of our system (formula calculation, and page rendering) and run themmon and AMD 2500+ and and Intel P4 2.4 Ghz . According to all industry standard (SiSoft Sandra, etc) benchmarks we have come across, these machine should perform roughly the same, with the AMD performing slightly (5-10%) above the Intel.
Has anyone come across this problem before?? Are there certain operations or combinations of operations in Java that are significantly slower on the Intel??
We are seeing this on both the Client and Server VMs. All machines are running JDK 1.4.2_04 on Windows XP SP 1.

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040608\ACQBIZ200406080001BIZWIRE_USPR_____BW6209.htm&symbol=amd&selected=amd&kind=&mode=basics&formtype=&mkttype=&pathname=&page=news

In CS6, JavaScript Running MUCH Slower than ActionScript

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?

I feel strongly that this forum performs much slower than the form forum in metalink where there are even more active and more issues created there.
I don't know why Oracle creates two form forum, which one is faster and another one is slower.
What is the difference b/w them besides here is jsp pages and over there is plsql pages?

Oracle certainly allows you to have users that do not have roles. Or users that don't have any system privileges. Or users that don't have any object privileges.
If you want the query to return a row for every row in DBA_USERS, you would need to outer join all the other tables to DBA_USERS.
Justin

Why is Mac OS X 10.7 so much slower than Snow Leopard? It isnt smooth, applications are slow and most dont respond, and dowloads take hours, minutes.

Why is Mac OS X 10.7 so much slower than Snow Leopard? It isnt smooth, applications are slow and most dont respond, and dowloads take hours, not minutes.

Something is seriously wrong with your installation or you are critically low on RAM, like below 2 GB.
How much RAM is in your machine?
Have you tried a Recovery?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Why is Lion so much slower?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?

Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.

I just restored my 24 inch imac and it seems to be running MUCH slower than before. Any Ideas why? thanks in advance for your help!

I have erased and restored my 24 inch Intel iMac. I have upgraded to the last version of X os. My system is running WAY slower than it was before. Even opening windows seems to lag and the spinning wheel come up for everything. Every task is slow, even typing this! lol
Here are my specs:
Model Name:          iMac
Model Identifier:          iMac8,1
Processor Name:          Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed:          2.8 GHz
Number Of Processors:          1
Total Number Of Cores:          2
L2 Cache:          6 MB
Memory:          4 GB
Bus Speed:          1.07 GHz
Boot ROM Version:          IM81.00C1.B00
SMC Version (system):          1.30f1
Any ideas would be helpful. Is this a hardware issue?
Thanks!

Matt:
Thanks for the update. It is good to know that the maintenance procedures helped. Regular maintenance and a good backup are key to computer security. Gulliver's article has a suggested schedule. Dr. Smoke's FAQ on Backup and Recovery has excellent information and advice. I part company with him on his insistence on Retrospect, which I have found to be difficult to use. SuperDuper has been shown the best backup software in these tests.
If you usually leave your computer on or asleep, it is good practice to shut down and start up in Safe Mode occausionally. I do it about once weekly.
Good luck.
cornelius
Message was edited by: cornelius

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

Why is Motion so much quicker than FCP doing Steady Cam?

Being a helicopter operator I keep doing projects that require steady cam.
I used to use Shake, then Motion, and now FCP with the additon of steadycam but I am wondering why Motion is so much quicker than FCP with the same clip.
Maybe a dumb question but one I need to ask.

running the same filter in both fcp and motion, motion always renders faster.
This is because motion renders and draws all frames directly on your graphics card. FCP now uses the GPU for many effects but has to read back from your card to main memory.
Unless Apple does a total rewrite of FCP this is unlikely to change, guess you either have to keep swapping apps or put up with longer renders in FCP.
Roger
CoreMelt

Why is CS6 so much slower than CS5 was

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for