PSCS & minimum requirements?

[RinkRat]

I'm --> <--- this close to getting PSCS for my PC. Currently, I use PS6.

I've read the requirements for PSCS, but I tend to take those with a grain of salt.

I have a PIII 1.0GHz, 384MB Ram, 180GB HD, 32MB ATI Radeon Video Card.

Should I not bother with PSCS until I upgrade my PC? (Next year)

Anyone running it on a similar machine?

Thanks.

[PacAce]

I'm --> <--- this close to getting PSCS for my PC. Currently, I use PS6.

I've read the requirements for PSCS, but I tend to take those with a grain of salt.

I have a PIII 1.0GHz, 384MB Ram, 180GB HD, 32MB ATI Radeon Video Card.

Should I not bother with PSCS until I upgrade my PC? (Next year)

Anyone running it on a similar machine?

Thanks.

There is a reason why Adobe specifies a minimum requirement so as long as you meet it, you should be fine. PSCS may not run it's fastest on the minimum required configuration but it should run fine within the limits of your memory.

It looks like you could meet the minimum hardware configuration but I can't say for sure because you didn't specify your monitor size. The minimum for that is 1024x768 in 16-bit color or more. And you have to be running Windows 2000 with SP 3 or Windows XP.

[Scottes]

It depends on what you do. If you edit a RAW file to 16-bit and run a couple/few layers and filters, then you'll be hurting. It will run, but it will take some time, and you might hate it.

On the other hand, if all you do is simple levels/curves/sharpening then it's not going to be much slower than PS6 (other than startup time). And you can do things like moving unused filters and plugins to save load time. Just removing the Digimarc plugin saves a few seconds for every image.

Alas, if you have PS6, why move to CS unless you going to use all those neat new slow filters and RAW conversion? I'd wait. (Though adding 512 of RAM to your current machine should be cheap, easy, and a huge benefit for PS - any version.)

[RinkRat]

It looks like you could meet the minimum hardware configuration but I can't say for sure because you didn't specify your monitor size. The minimum for that is 1024x768 in 16-bit color or more. And you have to be running Windows 2000 with SP 3 or Windows XP.

Video Res: 1280x1024
O/S: W2K SP4

I guess I was just wondering if there was anyone out there running PSCS on specs similar to mine.

Thanks.

[RinkRat]

It depends on what you do. If you edit a RAW file to 16-bit and run a couple/few layers and filters, then you'll be hurting. It will run, but it will take some time, and you might hate it.

On the other hand, if all you do is simple levels/curves/sharpening then it's not going to be much slower than PS6 (other than startup time). And you can do things like moving unused filters and plugins to save load time. Just removing the Digimarc plugin saves a few seconds for every image.

Alas, if you have PS6, why move to CS unless you going to use all those neat new slow filters and RAW conversion? I'd wait. (Though adding 512 of RAM to your current machine should be cheap, easy, and a huge benefit for PS - any version.)

RAW conversion is my main problem. I'm not a big fan of FVU. I am on a trial version of C1 LE, which expires in 4 days. I like it so far.

I do use plenty of Layers & Filters, but otherwise, I'm pretty content with what PS6 has to offer.

I'm trying to weigh spending $99 on C1 LE, or the $299 on PSCS.

Somehow, I think I just answered my own question. :)