If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
| So of the 16 GB installed, and with heavy multi-task, multi-app usage I
| am currently using 13.8GB. If I need to free up some of that RAM there | are a few apps I can quit to give PS that 9.8GB I have assigned it. | | I could also go to 24GB or 32GB, but for now I am managing with 16GB. | I don't know about Macs, but on Windows it tends to be a relative thing. Like a dog, software will eat it if you hold it out. (Though I don't know the fine details of how that allocation works.) And like your system, most people have a lot of junk running that probably shouldn't be. Over the years, more and more things will set themselves to run at boot without asking. You could probably clean things up a lot if you want to. For example, stop all the Adobe stuff from running in the background when you're not using it. (Adobe Desktop Services at 1 GB sounds like a superfluous mess.) But the bottom line is that you're fine so long as you don't have to wait for swap file access when you do things like applying filters. If things work fast then you have enough RAM. If they don't then you may not. I'm currently running a usenet client and 2 browser windows. I like to run lean. The system says I have 2.3 GB RAM. (Probably the rest is reserved for graphics. I'm not sure.) Of the 2.3, 1.8 GB is currently free. Pale Moon, at 135 MB, is the only notable hog. So in theory I have 3+ GB RAM and some is allocated to graphics, but I still have plenty to spare. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 2015-09-19 00:58, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:02:28 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just below the UI) low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost. high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future. I suspect that SCSA (The Secure Content Storage Association), trading as Vidity will have a major impact on who does what with which in the near future. how would that affect apple transitioning to another cpu platform? I believe it will require a secure chipset. We shall have to wait and see. Apple can implement such independently of CPU choice. If you look at how they implemented functions such as Secure Enclave and Apple's various encryption schemes found in Messages, etc., implementing Vidity is pretty ho-hum ordinary for them. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 2015-09-19 01:47, David Taylor wrote:
On 19/09/2015 06:24, Savageduck wrote: [] On my Mac I have 16GB, of that I have 9.8GB allocated to PS, I currently have 4 layers of a 4288 x 2412 @360 tiff open. The memory usage is 4.53GB. There is still some headroom. In Lightroom I have left the RAW cache setting at 1GB, and LR is open and using a massive 450.3MB. I have also been experimenting with Affinity Photo, and that is open with a NEF and three layers, and it is using 806.9MB. The Creative Cloud is using 1.03GB (I don't know why) Adobe Desktop Services is using 977.9MB.(I don't know why) My web browser is using up 1.61GB. (I have lots of tabs open) My Mail app is using 241.2MB. This Usenet Client is using 167.4MB My Wacom driver is eating up 24.4MB The system refuses to give up the 2.24GB it is using. There is some other stuff running is using 1.8GB. So of the 16 GB installed, and with heavy multi-task, multi-app usage I am currently using 13.8GB. If I need to free up some of that RAM there are a few apps I can quit to give PS that 9.8GB I have assigned it. I could also go to 24GB or 32GB, but for now I am managing with 16GB. Wow! I hadn't realised just how profligate with memory (as well as with money) those Adobe programs are! The Apple software too. Fortunately, I am spared those problems as much simpler (and lower cost) programs completely satisfy my photographic organisation and processing needs. It seems wrong to me that a program needs memory pre-allocated. Don't be too smug. My SO operated OS X (Mavericks) on 2 GB and could load and run her e-mail client, PS CS5, browser and various utility apps all at once. The OS will ALWAYS use as much memory as is reasonably available - apps also use memory until they're forced to dispose of it or until the OS begins swapping. In sum, you can't compare the memory stats on a 8 GB computer with those of a 16 GB computer. Too many variables about how each OS and each app uses and disposes of memory. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 2015-09-19 02:28, Tony Cooper wrote:
Just an added comment...people who talk about getting it right in camera seem to saying that if you do that you don't need to be adept in post. There are shots you can't get right enough in camera to not need some post work. Those of us who do work extensively in post are not failing to get it right in camera, and we only do work extensively in post when it was not possible to get it entirely right in camera. The "in camera" practice is quite valid and results (or should) in more deliberate photo taking. But creatives don't see it that way. "in camera" is just collecting source material for what will be built upon in PS. And that doesn't mean they are less disciplined or caring when they take the actual image. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 2015-09-19 05:29, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , PAS wrote: I think either an Intel or AMD would do fine for you. Look into getting a system that has a self-contained liquid cooling system, it keeps things cool and quiet and they are not expensive at all. I put one in my system when I upgraded recently and I really am happ that I decided to go with it rather than a CPU fan. oh god no. liquid cooling is just asking for trouble Sure it is - not. Depends on the cooling. IBM mainframes are liquid cooled these days and the MTBF is measured in decades IIRC. Liquid cooling is an option in some z series computers. I suspect it's simply a means of reducing the floor footprint of the machine. The system is designed for hot fail module swapping where the system will run at reduced capacity until the failed module is replaced. This applies to pretty much every operating part in the frame (from PS to I/O to processors to memory to disks). The system reports failures to IBM support so the natty tech can run out and change the part. So while its parts have lower MTBF's, the "whole" keeps operating. If you allow that to mean the "system did not fail" then, yes the system MTBF is very high. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 2015-09-19 06:20, Pablo wrote:
nospam wrote: the mouse doesn't use cpu. No, as you say, the graphics card must communicate directly with the mouse to know what it's up to. There is absolutely no direct connection between the mouse and the graphics card. The user interface (subset of the OS software) needs to know what the mouse focus is and what buttons are pressed and how the wheel is turning and so on. That drives pointer and action functions. The UI continuously updates the position of the cursor in the virtual representation of the UI map. It tells the graphics "card" where to map the cursor. Note that on many low to mid machines there is no "graphics" card anymore, it is on the same chip as the CPU with support chips that render the video signals. |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 9/18/2015 4:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
snip Offhand you'd be fine with a higher clocked i5 (rather than an i7), plenty of memory (16 better than 8) and as much SSD as you think you need. But a lower clocked quad core i7 with HT will be much more responsive. As to SSD and photos, my opinion is less SSD is fine - you really want the OS and application in there - and store photos on cheaper spinning mass externally. So 256 - 512 GB of main disk SSD is probably ample unless you really want a lot of other stuff on the main disk SSD. Thanks, What you are saying makes eminent sense. At this point I am not getting an SSD. I currently keep all my images on external drives, and that has been working fine. The new machine will have sufficient power and expansion capacity to switch to an internal RAID configuration. I have pretty much decided on a Lenovo P300, which I am configuring. -- PeterN |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 9/18/2015 12:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote: Back in the old days (before nospam was born!), you have no idea when i was born. Based on your online persona and total lack of social skills, I simply assumed you were still living in your grandmother's basement, and flipping burgers to earn just enough money to buy the latest video games. you know what they say about assumptions Your lack of outright denial is noted. -- PeterN |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Two questions
On 9/18/2015 12:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote: did you try to identify the actual cause? Yes. When changing where it is plugged in eliminates the problem, that identifies the source of the problem. that *eliminates* the problem. it does not *identify* it. as i said, you could have replaced the computer which would have also eliminated the problem. in your world, that would have meant the computer was the problem. In the real world we solve problems in a practical low cost manner. When I cut myself, I apply the smallest feasible bandage. If I cut myself on a rusty nail, I get a shot and disinfect the area. From mommy's basement you would get a wound care specialist. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | Linux Flash Drives | Digital Photography | 0 | May 7th 07 06:38 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography | David J Taylor | Digital Photography | 10 | March 24th 05 06:18 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography | Progressiveabsolution | Digital Photography | 4 | March 24th 05 05:11 PM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digitalphotography | Matt Ion | Digital Photography | 3 | March 24th 05 03:57 PM |
First SLR questions | Rick | Digital Photography | 26 | August 8th 04 12:19 AM |