Travel without a camera

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:27:19 AM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
nospam wrote:

much of what photoshop does is i/o bound, which can't be parallelized.

But if it was I/O bound, then moving a computation from CPU to GPU
card & back wouldn't result in a performance gain.

many times it doesn't, and there is also the overhead of moving it back
and forth too.

If PS is as I/O bound as you claimed, then in all of those instances,
it would never pay to offload to a GPU because the delay in waiting
for the bandwidth to send/fetch would exceed the parallelism speed-up.


photoshop uses the gpu only when it will accelerate a given operation.
if that operation would be faster on the cpu, then that's where it will
run.

Which as per your "much of the time" bandwidth claim, will be rare-to-never
and as such, a moot point.


Overall, Adobe's not really a particularly sophisticated
user of GPU potential

nonsense.

Oh, and you were doing so well!

The cited Adobe webpage made it pretty clear that their
software is limited to only using one GPU card at a time.

most people have one gpu card. it's optimized for the common case.

plus, a second gpu isn't necessarily better.

again, not everything benefits from one gpu, let alone two. lots of
apps don't use multiple gpus. adobe isn't unique in that regard.

Irrelevant & a distraction attempt.

nope. it's reality.

You're trying to deflect from admitting that you were wrong in disagreeing
with my statement that Adobe is not a particularly sophisticated user of
GPU potential.

of course i disagree. that statement is flat out absurd.

(and you conveniently snipped that text)

As I had said:

"Contrasting that limitation on sophistication, I can personally
recall working on a project with image analysis that used
multiple discrete GPU cards (IIRC, ~8) ... way back in 2004.

*that* is irrelevant (and why it was snipped).

what you did with some random analysis app in 2004 has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with photoshop.

Incorrect, because both are processing images, and have a
design goal of leveraging PC hardware to do it quickly.

Indeed, both leveraged GPU cards for parallelism ... but Adobe only
went to the level of sophistication of a single card.

they are two totally different apps, with two totally different
code bases and two totally different goals.

Different apps? Sure.
Different code bases? Of course.

Different goals? You can't claim that, because you don't
actually know what specifically this other product did.
FYI, what it did can be replicated in PS, but was dog slow.


you're also oblivious to the fact that photoshop was using multiple
processors in the 1990s, ten years before you were working on that
project. there wasn't much gpu acceleration back then, but there were
dsp cards that dramatically accelerated photoshop.

Oh, I'm quite aware of PS on Dual-CPU Macs in that era ... but
let's also keep in mind that in this period, the CPUs were still
often also "single core". Even so, did Adobe ever progress to
the point of being able to be paralleled across 6 or 8 CPUs?

Now you may wish to claim that Adobe is "sophisticated",

absolutely.

but compared to how others have done distributed graphical
processing across multiple discrete GPU cards, Adobe's
current status is over a decade behind the start of the art."

nonsense. complete utter nonsense.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.



And now you're trying to rationalize why Adobe only supports but a
single GPU card with a "most people" statement: that's a reasonably
good case for business optimization - - but it simply does not support
a claim of a superior level of technological sophistication.

what matters is whether the end result is faster, not how many
gpus are used.

Copying what I've already said to try to claim it for yourself, we see.


using two gpus simply because two of them must be twice as good as one
is crazy. it's a bigger number so it must be better! doesn't work that
way.

But your claim was GPUs as a metric for _sophistication_.


the same applies to multi-core. some (ignorant) people bitch about how
photoshop doesn't always use all available cores. the answer is because
sometimes it's faster to do a particular task on 1 or 2 cores than it
is on 4 or 8 cores.

photoshop is *incredibly* optimized, even tuned to specific versions of
processors.

to claim that adobe is not sophisticated is absurd.

Adobe does a pretty good job at optimization ... but within the box
that they've chosen to define for themselves. That has included
the choice to only support a single GPU, presumably because they
know that this higher level of sophistication is more difficult to
successfully code, and would be further towards the diminishing
returns in the marketplace where there's fewer customers who
need that bit more to be willing to pay for how much it costs.

Which, once again, is a business decision - - based on avoiding
the cost of technological sophistication that may not have a
large enough customer base to be willing to pay how much it
would cost for them to develop, test, and deploy.



-hh

On 6/21/2017 4:01 PM, PAS wrote:
On 6/21/2017 2:14 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

Let's assume we have a Mac and a Windows PC with similar hardware
specs. How would the memory performance be different and why
would it
be different? I'm ignorant as to how a Mac OS utilizes hardware.
If we
take an SSD out of the equation for both comparable systems, is the
performance any different?
why take the ssd out of the equation? ssds on the latest macs are much
faster than the ssds usually found on windows systems, especially if
they're using a sata ssd, benchmarking in the range of 3 gigabytes
(not
bits) per second.
I'm taking the SSD out of the equation just for the sake of comparison.
Comparison #1 is with an SSD, comparison #2 is without SSD. For
argument's sake, using comparable hardware with an SSD, let's say that
Mac OS runs 10% faster than Windows. Now, using comparable hardware
with a "regular" hard drive, does the Mac still run 10% faster or does
that margin go down to 5%? There could no performance differences at
all, I don't know.
no idea, and it can vary depending on what specifically you're doing,
so it's not worth worrying about.

what matters is how productive you are at doing what it is you want to
do and the overall user experience (something that doesn't show up on a
benchmark).

another thing you may not realize (and part of the user experience) is
that when you first boot the imac, as part of the setup process, it
will ask if you want to migrate from an existing computer or set it up
as new. you can choose your windows computer as a source, and it will
copy all of your email (and isp settings), browser bookmarks, contacts,
photos, etc. it's not anywhere near as complete as a mac migration
(which includes everything), but it's the best it can do.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204087

The migration from Windows to the Mac may be as complete as a Mac
migration but t doesn't sound too shabby. How long have they had that
feature?

Should have read "The migration from Windows to the Mac *may not* be as
complete..."

On Jun 21, 2017, hh wrote
(in ):

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:27:19 AM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
nospam wrote:

much of what photoshop does is i/o bound, which can't be parallelized.

But if it was I/O bound, then moving a computation from CPU to GPU
card & back wouldn't result in a performance gain.

many times it doesn't, and there is also the overhead of moving it back
and forth too.

If PS is as I/O bound as you claimed, then in all of those instances,
it would never pay to offload to a GPU because the delay in waiting
for the bandwidth to send/fetch would exceed the parallelism speed-up.

photoshop uses the gpu only when it will accelerate a given operation.
if that operation would be faster on the cpu, then that's where it will
run.

Which as per your "much of the time" bandwidth claim, will be rare-to-never
and as such, a moot point.

Overall, Adobe's not really a particularly sophisticated
user of GPU potential

nonsense.

Oh, and you were doing so well!

The cited Adobe webpage made it pretty clear that their
software is limited to only using one GPU card at a time.

most people have one gpu card. it's optimized for the common case.

plus, a second gpu isn't necessarily better.

again, not everything benefits from one gpu, let alone two. lots of
apps don't use multiple gpus. adobe isn't unique in that regard.

Irrelevant & a distraction attempt.

nope. it's reality.

You're trying to deflect from admitting that you were wrong in disagreeing
with my statement that Adobe is not a particularly sophisticated user of
GPU potential.

of course i disagree. that statement is flat out absurd.

(and you conveniently snipped that text)

As I had said:

"Contrasting that limitation on sophistication, I can personally
recall working on a project with image analysis that used
multiple discrete GPU cards (IIRC, ~8) ... way back in 2004.

*that* is irrelevant (and why it was snipped).

what you did with some random analysis app in 2004 has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with photoshop.

Incorrect, because both are processing images, and have a
design goal of leveraging PC hardware to do it quickly.

Indeed, both leveraged GPU cards for parallelism ... but Adobe only
went to the level of sophistication of a single card.

they are two totally different apps, with two totally different
code bases and two totally different goals.

Different apps? Sure.
Different code bases? Of course.

Different goals? You can't claim that, because you don't
actually know what specifically this other product did.
FYI, what it did can be replicated in PS, but was dog slow.

you're also oblivious to the fact that photoshop was using multiple
processors in the 1990s, ten years before you were working on that
project. there wasn't much gpu acceleration back then, but there were
dsp cards that dramatically accelerated photoshop.

Oh, I'm quite aware of PS on Dual-CPU Macs in that era ... but
let's also keep in mind that in this period, the CPUs were still
often also "single core". Even so, did Adobe ever progress to
the point of being able to be paralleled across 6 or 8 CPUs?

Now you may wish to claim that Adobe is "sophisticated",

absolutely.

but compared to how others have done distributed graphical
processing across multiple discrete GPU cards, Adobe's
current status is over a decade behind the start of the art."

nonsense. complete utter nonsense.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

And now you're trying to rationalize why Adobe only supports but a
single GPU card with a "most people" statement: that's a reasonably
good case for business optimization - - but it simply does not support
a claim of a superior level of technological sophistication.

what matters is whether the end result is faster, not how many
gpus are used.

Copying what I've already said to try to claim it for yourself, we see.

using two gpus simply because two of them must be twice as good as one
is crazy. it's a bigger number so it must be better! doesn't work that
way.

But your claim was GPUs as a metric for _sophistication_.

the same applies to multi-core. some (ignorant) people bitch about how
photoshop doesn't always use all available cores. the answer is because
sometimes it's faster to do a particular task on 1 or 2 cores than it
is on 4 or 8 cores.

photoshop is *incredibly* optimized, even tuned to specific versions of
processors.

to claim that adobe is not sophisticated is absurd.

Adobe does a pretty good job at optimization ... but within the box
that they've chosen to define for themselves. That has included
the choice to only support a single GPU, presumably because they
know that this higher level of sophistication is more difficult to
successfully code, and would be further towards the diminishing
returns in the marketplace where there's fewer customers who
need that bit more to be willing to pay for how much it costs.

Which, once again, is a business decision - - based on avoiding
the cost of technological sophistication that may not have a
large enough customer base to be willing to pay how much it
would cost for them to develop, test, and deploy.

-hh

You might find this interesting reading:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-photoshop-cc.html
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...VIDIA-GeForce-
GPU-Performance-899/

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , PAS wrote:


another thing you may not realize (and part of the user experience) is
that when you first boot the imac, as part of the setup process, it
will ask if you want to migrate from an existing computer or set it up
as new. you can choose your windows computer as a source, and it will
copy all of your email (and isp settings), browser bookmarks, contacts,
photos, etc. it's not anywhere near as complete as a mac migration
(which includes everything), but it's the best it can do.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204087

The migration from Windows to the Mac may be as complete as a Mac
migration but t doesn't sound too shabby. How long have they had that
feature?

for mac os (then called os x), since panther (10.3) in 2003, and for
windows, since lion (10.7) in 2011.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:19:08 PM UTC-4, PAS wrote:
...

Here's the story about moving to TN: it was my wife's idea to go to
TN. We first checked out Murfreesboro, about 1/2 hour from Nashville.
She wasn't impressed - too flat for her. Strange since Long Island is
flat. Six months after that visit I suggested we go to the Johnson City
area, hardly flat there at all. She loved the area but the homes in the
areas that caught her fancy were very high-priced and far too large for
us. I found a home online in an area and asked her if she wanted to see
it. It's an ugly green color and that turned her off completely. She
was a bit frustrated with the whole process too so that added to it.
She was resigned to leaving without finding anything. The next morning
she contacted a real estate agent and while we were eating lunch, the
agent called and said there is a home she might be interested in and
gave her the info. It was the green home. I checked and found that we
were only eight miles from there and convinced her to at least go have a
look. Off we went and as soon as we drove into the subdivision, she was
in love with the place. We went to the house and found there were two
lots available next to it. We decided to buy one and have a house built
there. Next was the task of finding a home design we liked. She
couldn't find anything she liked. We're accustomed to going into model
homes and being able to choose. Not the case here. A year later and
she could not find anything she liked. We met with the builder this
past April and, after a discussion, he said he had a home design she
might like. He showed her the floor plan and she liked it a lot. What
floor plan is that? The same one as the ugly green house.

Because heaven forbid one ever repaint a house! g

But seriously, some people do find it difficult to visualize "what ifs",
and can be messed up by what someone else may find to be trivial (such
as house or wall colors).


Homes in this subdivision range from the $300,000s to over $4,000,000.
There's a short video of the subdivision he
http://oldislandcommunity.com/

FWIW, I've done some similar research in that same general region
of TN and found some interesting things to keep track of.

For example, what the monthly owner fees are for a lake or golf
community ... I recently browsed one that initially looked pretty
promising - only to find that it had a $1000 monthly fee because
of said private lake.

Another consideration is that stuff that looks to be a pretty
good deal by our local standards ... such as new construction
of a McMansion on a ~.33 lot for 'only' $300K ... is probably
out of line economically with the region: your resale market
is probably other Northern retirees to the region who want to
be in a now-old subdivision rather than the next new one that's
being built on YA plowed-under farm.

And if one strikes out on one's own (either an existing, or
to buy land & custom build):

- within city limits or not?
(pros/cons)

- What's the neighborhood? Who are the neighbors?
(four trucks in the front yard?)

- What utilities are/aren't available?
(do you really want to build/maintain a well, septic?)
(is there phone/internet/CATV even available?)

- How long of a drive to town for gas/groceries/anything?
(isolation vs convenience, particularly when getting older)

Depending on what one is shopping for ... and willing
to take on, there's some interesting stuff. For example,
here's a pretty extreme example of an inexpensive property:

Its a 3BR/2BA on a third of an acre; here's the listing:
https://www.realestate.com/586-monroe-st-madisonville-tn-37354--41899125
Notice anything missing from this listing? Like how they forgot
to provide any pics of this $11K house?


Well, here's the Google Street View:
/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqTUx-kCJ3JxTmPAgJASOQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

Sunken lot probably means periodic flooding and 1940 stick built
probably means termite damage. IMO, this is a knock-down followed
by fill to bring it up from below grade (so it won't flood) before
decided what to do (such as to drop in a doublewide or whatever),
and this consideration alone goes pretty far to understanding why
they're asking only $11K.

And on the 'Location, Location, Location' mantra, a few years ago,
the Mrs showed me a listing after I had casually tossed out some
preliminary requirements ... was something like "well, a 3BR/2BA
Ranch, 1970 or newer, with 2 car attached garage, plus I want
another 2 car (detached okay) for a couple of summer toy cars.
Oh, and since its TVA Lake Country, I'll have to take up powerboating,
so a boat shed/barn for that too. And sure, some land for a big
garden...". Well, it couldn't have been 15 minutes later when
I was given the 'How about this place?' on her iPad.

3BR/2BA? Check.
1970+ Ranch? Check.
With 2+2 garages? Check...and the boat shed too!

On ~9 acres .. for something like $250K.

The catch was that it was ~5 miles of narrow winding country road
to the 'main' road, and then it was another ~5 miles to town, so
it was really out in the boonies.

Oh, and much of its acreage had been cleared, so the weekly
chore list would include ~7 acres of lawn mowing. I've spent
enough time already in Eastern TN in the summer to know just how
miserably hot & humid that chore would end up being ... no thanks!


-hh

On 6/21/2017 10:42 AM, PAS wrote:
On 6/21/2017 10:02 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 21, 2017, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 6/20/2017 4:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 20, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , wrote:
Snip
Take out corporate sales and the numbers are still overwhelmingly in
favor of Windows PCs and you know that.
they aren't.

look around. there are ****loads of macs.
Why not just take a poll among the usual suspects in this room?

As best I can recall the Mac users here are Alan Browne, Davoud,
David B.,
Sandman, Whisky-Dave, you, and me. That is 7 confirmed, there might
be a few
more.

Confirmed Windows users are Eric, PeterN, Tony Cooper, PAS,
Mayayana, Bill
W,
Noons, David Taylor, and probably at least 5 more for around 13.

Then there is Floyd who has no time for Windows, or MacOS, along
with the
other Linux devotees.
We've got two desktops. One is an older HP in our guestroom that was
bought when Windows Vista was released. I have Windows 10 on it now and
it's still going strong. It gets used mostly by guests when they stay
over. My desktop is one I built about 1 1/2 years ago.

We have three laptops in the house. Mine is seldom used. My wife
refuses to give up her tired old laptop for the new one I bought her
over a year ago. But very soon she'll have no choice

I plan on getting an iMac within the next year to see how I like it.
Whichever Mac you choose I recommend at least 16 GB RAM.

The transition might annoy you a little bit at first as some things
will be
different due to a lifetime of habits.

That said, I believe you will find your new experience with a Mac
surprisingly pleasant. Just be patient through the adaption period,
keep an
open mind, and remember you can always run Windows 10 on your new Mac,
either
with a Bootcamp partition or VM. My recommendation would be to use VMware
Fusion.

I will definitely spec it with 16GB of RAM, no less. Yes, I've
developed quite a lot of habits using Windows for over 20 years. I'm
sure the transition won't be too frustrating. I'll have all the time I
need to get adapted - I'm retiring in 2 1/2 weeks.



After I retired, I started how I ever had time for work.




--
PeterN

On 6/21/2017 11:45 AM, PAS wrote:
On 6/21/2017 11:27 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

I plan on getting an iMac within the next year to see how I like it.
Whichever Mac you choose I recommend at least 16 GB RAM.

The transition might annoy you a little bit at first as some things
will be
different due to a lifetime of habits.

That said, I believe you will find your new experience with a Mac
surprisingly pleasant. Just be patient through the adaption period,
keep an
open mind, and remember you can always run Windows 10 on your new Mac,
either
with a Bootcamp partition or VM. My recommendation would be to use
VMware
Fusion.

I will definitely spec it with 16GB of RAM, no less. Yes, I've
developed quite a lot of habits using Windows for over 20 years. I'm
sure the transition won't be too frustrating. I'll have all the time I
need to get adapted - I'm retiring in 2 1/2 weeks.
what are you going to use the mac for?

don't assume that memory requirements of windows are the same as macos,
particularly when the mac has *extremely* fast ssd.

Most likely I'll use it for Photoshop and other imaging apps. Maybe I'll
like it enough to use it for everything else too

Let's assume we have a Mac and a Windows PC with similar hardware
specs. How would the memory performance be different and why would it
be different? I'm ignorant as to how a Mac OS utilizes hardware. If we
take an SSD out of the equation for both comparable systems, is the
performance any different?


Reason not to completely trust the nospam analysis. My younger daughter,
who is a well known and respected graphics professional Her office
machine is a Mac, for her home use she prefers a PC. Other corporate
executives in her company also prefer PCs.

--
PeterN

On 6/21/2017 11:49 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 21, 2017, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 6/21/2017 10:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 21, 2017, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 6/21/2017 10:02 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 21, 2017, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 6/20/2017 4:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 20, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , wrote:
Snip
Take out corporate sales and the numbers are still overwhelmingly in
favor of Windows PCs and you know that.
they aren't.

look around. there are ****loads of macs.
Why not just take a poll among the usual suspects in this room?

As best I can recall the Mac users here are Alan Browne, Davoud, David
B.,
Sandman, Whisky-Dave, you, and me. That is 7 confirmed, there might be a
few
more.

Confirmed Windows users are Eric, PeterN, Tony Cooper, PAS, Mayayana,
Bill
W,
Noons, David Taylor, and probably at least 5 more for around 13.

Then there is Floyd who has no time for Windows, or MacOS, along with
the
other Linux devotees.
We've got two desktops. One is an older HP in our guestroom that was
bought when Windows Vista was released. I have Windows 10 on it now and
it's still going strong. It gets used mostly by guests when they stay
over. My desktop is one I built about 1 1/2 years ago.

We have three laptops in the house. Mine is seldom used. My wife
refuses to give up her tired old laptop for the new one I bought her
over a year ago. But very soon she'll have no choice

I plan on getting an iMac within the next year to see how I like it.
Whichever Mac you choose I recommend at least 16 GB RAM.

The transition might annoy you a little bit at first as some things will
be
different due to a lifetime of habits.

That said, I believe you will find your new experience with a Mac
surprisingly pleasant. Just be patient through the adaption period, keep
an
open mind, and remember you can always run Windows 10 on your new Mac,
either
with a Bootcamp partition or VM. My recommendation would be to use VMware
Fusion.
I will definitely spec it with 16GB of RAM, no less. Yes, I've
developed quite a lot of habits using Windows for over 20 years. I'm
sure the transition won't be too frustrating. I'll have all the time I
need to get adapted - I'm retiring in 2 1/2 weeks.
Let me be the first to welcome you to the Great Army of the Gainfully
Unemployed.

Thank you! Lots of big changes on our lives. Retiring, selling or
home, packing up, leaving friends, heading to a new place for a new life.

IIRC your son is with NYPD. I guess he has his home somewhere in the NYC
area.
Where in NY is your home, and where are you planning to move?

I made the move from Upstate NY to California over 40 years ago and I am
quite content here on the California Central Coast in San Luis Obispo County.
My only issue this week has been the current heat wave. Since Thursday last
week we have had temperatures ranging from 103ºF-106ºF (39.4ºC-40.5ºC)
with no relief in the offing until the weekend when we should have a cold
snap in the mid 90’s.


Even if he switches to the dark side, PAS is still a good guy, who I
have the pleasure of personally knowing. (Even if he has never gone to
Mcnulty's.



--
PeterN

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:21:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 21, 2017, hh wrote
(in ):

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:27:19 AM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
nospam wrote:

much of what photoshop does is i/o bound, which can't be parallelized.

But if it was I/O bound, then moving a computation from CPU to GPU
card & back wouldn't result in a performance gain.

many times it doesn't, and there is also the overhead of moving it back
and forth too.

If PS is as I/O bound as you claimed, then in all of those instances,
it would never pay to offload to a GPU because the delay in waiting
for the bandwidth to send/fetch would exceed the parallelism speed-up.

photoshop uses the gpu only when it will accelerate a given operation.
if that operation would be faster on the cpu, then that's where it will
run.

Which as per your "much of the time" bandwidth claim, will be rare-to-never
and as such, a moot point.

Overall, Adobe's not really a particularly sophisticated
user of GPU potential

nonsense.

Oh, and you were doing so well!

The cited Adobe webpage made it pretty clear that their
software is limited to only using one GPU card at a time.

most people have one gpu card. it's optimized for the common case.

plus, a second gpu isn't necessarily better.

again, not everything benefits from one gpu, let alone two. lots of
apps don't use multiple gpus. adobe isn't unique in that regard.

Irrelevant & a distraction attempt.

nope. it's reality.

You're trying to deflect from admitting that you were wrong in disagreeing
with my statement that Adobe is not a particularly sophisticated user of
GPU potential.

of course i disagree. that statement is flat out absurd.

(and you conveniently snipped that text)

As I had said:

"Contrasting that limitation on sophistication, I can personally
recall working on a project with image analysis that used
multiple discrete GPU cards (IIRC, ~8) ... way back in 2004.

*that* is irrelevant (and why it was snipped).

what you did with some random analysis app in 2004 has absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with photoshop.

Incorrect, because both are processing images, and have a
design goal of leveraging PC hardware to do it quickly.

Indeed, both leveraged GPU cards for parallelism ... but Adobe only
went to the level of sophistication of a single card.

they are two totally different apps, with two totally different
code bases and two totally different goals.

Different apps? Sure.
Different code bases? Of course.

Different goals? You can't claim that, because you don't
actually know what specifically this other product did.
FYI, what it did can be replicated in PS, but was dog slow.

you're also oblivious to the fact that photoshop was using multiple
processors in the 1990s, ten years before you were working on that
project. there wasn't much gpu acceleration back then, but there were
dsp cards that dramatically accelerated photoshop.

Oh, I'm quite aware of PS on Dual-CPU Macs in that era ... but
let's also keep in mind that in this period, the CPUs were still
often also "single core". Even so, did Adobe ever progress to
the point of being able to be paralleled across 6 or 8 CPUs?

Now you may wish to claim that Adobe is "sophisticated",

absolutely.

but compared to how others have done distributed graphical
processing across multiple discrete GPU cards, Adobe's
current status is over a decade behind the start of the art."

nonsense. complete utter nonsense.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

And now you're trying to rationalize why Adobe only supports but a
single GPU card with a "most people" statement: that's a reasonably
good case for business optimization - - but it simply does not support
a claim of a superior level of technological sophistication.

what matters is whether the end result is faster, not how many
gpus are used.

Copying what I've already said to try to claim it for yourself, we see.

using two gpus simply because two of them must be twice as good as one
is crazy. it's a bigger number so it must be better! doesn't work that
way.

But your claim was GPUs as a metric for _sophistication_.

the same applies to multi-core. some (ignorant) people bitch about how
photoshop doesn't always use all available cores. the answer is because
sometimes it's faster to do a particular task on 1 or 2 cores than it
is on 4 or 8 cores.

photoshop is *incredibly* optimized, even tuned to specific versions of
processors.

to claim that adobe is not sophisticated is absurd.

Adobe does a pretty good job at optimization ... but within the box
that they've chosen to define for themselves. That has included
the choice to only support a single GPU, presumably because they
know that this higher level of sophistication is more difficult to
successfully code, and would be further towards the diminishing
returns in the marketplace where there's fewer customers who
need that bit more to be willing to pay for how much it costs.

Which, once again, is a business decision - - based on avoiding
the cost of technological sophistication that may not have a
large enough customer base to be willing to pay how much it
would cost for them to develop, test, and deploy.

-hh

You might find this interesting reading:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe-photoshop-cc.html
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CC-2017-NVIDIA-GeForce-GPU-Performance-899/

That last link is incorrect in saying "The one downside to these cards
is that they do not support 10-bit displays ...". 10 bit displays are
supported by the 1070 and up.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 04:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 05:04:13 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:



As I have previously explained, I have no ROI so that wasn't one of my
considerations. The plain fact of the matter was that I had an aging
computer and Adobe was rejecting my GPU.

when you brought the computer you didn't future proof it by buying a graphics card that adobe would support in the future, I thought that was your aim of future proofing.

It lasted me 6 years before I ran into that. Who is to complain?


True. But Adobe is making increasing use of the GPU and I would be
surprised if this trend does not coninue.

As with games one would hope, but soemtimes hardware is the real key which is why they keep coming out with faster & better graphics cards than adobe update their software.



And thus, more the reason to keep on considering CS5/CS6
characteristics such as via Digital Lloyd's "macperformance guide"
pages, because these are still the present situation for some:
they're not doing PS as a vocation, so they've stuck with the
older versions instead of paying into CC's 'rental' business model.

I'm the reverse. I could never bring myself to pay Adobe's horrendous
up front cost (plus upgrades) but I can tolerate the monthly rental.

I can understand that and that would be the way I'd go, but in the past I couldn't afford photoshop, but I found other methods of aquiring it.


It's costing me less than all the things I used to buy in the attempt
to paying for CS5 or CS6.

Yes I think the CC idea works well as a subscription idea and as they have it at a reasonable cost and includeds lightroom.

I doubt that I will go back.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens