HOW MUCH RAM FORPHOTO EDITING?

On 3 May 2005 03:13:51 -0700, wrote:

I have 512 MB Ram of which the average 'free RAM is'247MB - my O/S is
Windows XP. Is this enough RAM for editing scanned photos in tiff form(
these can be 20MB plus individually) or should I upgrade to 1GB - or
even MORE?!

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK
What software are you using? In Photoshop CS you can adjust the
amount of RAM it uses by going to Edit-Preferences-Memory & Image
Cache and changing the percentage of your RAM available to Photoshop.

I have turned it up to 80% and it runs better - may be an alternative
to buying more RAM. Having said that, you can never have too much RAM
these days....

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
[snip]
There is NEVER too much RAM...until your system won't recognize more.
[snip]

Well, if the second level cache can't support all the ram you have you
can at some point slow down by adding too much ram. I remember this
from a few years ago, maybe mb manufacturers do a better job now.

Wes



--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie
Lycos address is a spam trap.

In message ,
wrote:

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
[snip]
There is NEVER too much RAM...until your system won't recognize more.
[snip]

Well, if the second level cache can't support all the ram you have you
can at some point slow down by adding too much ram. I remember this
from a few years ago, maybe mb manufacturers do a better job now.

This has always been wrong. The difference only shows up in memory
benchmarks, and has no such effect in real world usage, as uncached RAM
is always much faster than page file or scratch disk.

Back in the day when MBs didn't cache all of the RAM, cached RAM was
only about 80% faster than uncached, in a pure memory benchmark. In the
real world, so many other things are going on besides memory access that
the difference drops to about 10%. Of course, there is no loss at all
if the extra memory avoids disk access.
--


John P Sheehy

Ron Hunter wrote:



As cheap as machines are why risk (and have
to deal with) viruses etc on a good machine? Save the last one from an
"upgrade" and use it for an internet box running something safe.

Probably some of us aren't quite as paranoid as others....



Not paranoia, just tired of dealing with spyware, viruses etc on a machine
that really has one or two specific uses. Seems silly to me to bog down a
fast machine with AV software and fighting spyware (and risking having to
reinstall the OS and reconfigure the whole color management thing etc) when
an "internet computer" can be had for peanuts. I'm tired of this to the
point of only using Linux for internet access but that's another topic..

--

Stacey

wrote in message
...
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
[snip]
There is NEVER too much RAM...until your system won't recognize more.
[snip]

Well, if the second level cache can't support all the ram you have you
can at some point slow down by adding too much ram. I remember this
from a few years ago, maybe mb manufacturers do a better job now.

Wes

I'm not sure what you're remembering, but even non-cached RAM is far faster
than HD access/read times.

I can assure you you'll not slow down due to too much RAM.

Mark² wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
[snip]
There is NEVER too much RAM...until your system won't recognize more.
[snip]

Well, if the second level cache can't support all the ram you have you
can at some point slow down by adding too much ram. I remember this
from a few years ago, maybe mb manufacturers do a better job now.

Wes

I'm not sure what you're remembering, but even non-cached RAM is far
faster than HD access/read times.

He's talking about the old (TX?) pentium one chipsets that would slow to a
crawl if you added more that 64MB of EDO ram. I had one of those and yes
too much ram would force all ram to run uncached which would slow down on
the machine for everything. The only time it helped was if you did things
that would run into the swap file which was painfully slow back then
1-2MBs..



--

Stacey

Many thanks to everyone who replied with interesting information on
this topic.

I have decided to upgrade to 1GB RAM and will be very interested to see
the result.

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Many thanks to everyone who replied with interesting information on
this topic.

I have decided to upgrade to 1GB RAM and will be very interested to see
the result.

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK.

You'll be pleased.

Remember...that you're really MORE than doubling the RAM available to PS,
since tons of your 512MB of RAM gets gobbled up by the OS and other
goings-on before PS even starts working with it.

In other words...If windows and other functions gobble up a couple hundred
MB of RAM, you were really only offer PS 300MB or so. you just increased
that theoretical 300 to 800MB.