CS4...What Operating System?

[neumanns]

I have a failing computer and am gonna upgrade. I have had my eye on CS4 for a while and guess I'll just start the new computer with new software.

Xp has long been considered more stable than Vista but with 64bit support on CS4 I'm wondering if the "instability" of Vista is worth the benifit of 64 bit? Or if I should just stick with the proven reliabality of XP?

I know there is proabably no difinative answer but I am looking for opinions from some of you that understand the pro's and con's far better than me.

[neumanns]

I should add...No video work but my file sizes are growing.

I'm getting into Pano's and loving them.

Last night I stitched a 30 shot pano...While I'm learning the process I'm shooting in small fine Jpeg.

But as I get the process down I will switch to Raw files and potentially bracketed shot's so file size could become rather large.

I haven't even calculated what size a 30 shot raw file would be...But it's getting right up there.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Vista is not unstable, I've been using it (64 bit version) over a year. SP1 has brought it up to speed with XP.

Yes it uses 900MB of ram at the desktop, but that's because it pre-loads your favorite programs into RAM so that they start faster when you do open them. If you don't open them that extra ram used is released, so all that rubbish about it being a memory hog are wrong. (you can turn the caching feature off)

It has much better support for multicore processors also. If your going quad core vista is the only way to go (or linux ;))

If you really want to stick to XP, then their is a 64bit version of XP Pro around, I used to run it before Vista.

The biggest problem with Vista64 is you have to have proper drivers for everything. So if you've any old hardware that you want to bring to the new machine, go look for Vista64 drivers for it now.

[Faolan]

Agreed with the above, with cameras moving beyond the 15mp barrier it's becoming more important to have a 64bit OS to give you access to memory greater than 2Gb per application. Vista 64 has now matured to be a viable OS for this. Hardware support is pretty good now for any relatively new hardware that's been released for the last year and if old hardware is important then use your old system as both a back up if your main system goes down and as a slave station for the hardware.

If you're getting a new system then 8Gb is certainly viable as costs have dropped, not so much for DDR 3 as that's still fairly expensive especially when you go for larger RAM modules. DDR 2 is a far better option in the short term. Long term as AMD moves to the new AM3 socket Q1 '09 then DDR 3 prices will start to equalise with DDR 2.

Probably more info that you wanted ;) For reference: With 30D files I stitched together 24 RAW files and I was hitting 2.7Gb for the pano... That's with flattening as I edited... Needless to say I was hitting the limits of my computer (4GB none 64Bit) and XP was flaking out.

Oh and the new creative suite is 64Bit and OpenGL accelerated now, that was confirmed at Adobe's keynote speech. It will be announced in the next couple of weeks officially.

[neumanns]

I guess I should expand this discussion to include hardware because this is the decision I am really making.

So far I am leaning towards 64bit but XP has served me well. Outside of processing photo's most any system would do.

So large file photo proccesing is really what I'm looking for. Large harddisk, Lot's of ram, and a capable CPU, I'm more than willing to listen to recomendations.

Thank you... This is the kind of feedback I need.

I'm not up on computers nor do I care to be...But I need to know enoufgh to make an informed decision.

( I'm of to search Quad core...Cost benifit, etc)

Don't want to waste money, But I don't want to get caught short either.

[Faolan]

If you want something cost effective then dual core is more than adequate for 90% of tasks, quad core is only really useful when you start doing video or a lot of multi-tasking.

Intel rule the performance crown at present, but AMD present a compelling package with it's processors and lets face it you're not going to notice the difference in most processors these days unless you're clock watching. AMD are generally cheaper and more energy efficient (dual cores, Phenoms have greater power requirements). Intel generally better for video editing and gaming and outright performance, it's energy efficiency varies (just like AMDs) per processor. However many of the Intel platforms are tied to DDR 3 and that usually carries a slight premium over the DDR 2 chips. As stated before AMD uses DDR 2 at present.

For reference I'm still using a Athlon X2 from last year, and it's powerful enough for me to work on large images, and video if I wish but I rarely do this. I rather spend my money on RAM and HD space which are more important than the fastest processor/gfx card.

[crossmax03]

Vista sucks up MAJOR system memory (RAM)
I've loaded it almost a half dozen times on my computer (3 gig ram, p4 2.8ghz, about 300gig hard drive capacity in total) and EVERY single time i've gone back to xp. programs start faster, it never halts.

i've even tried changing the "virtual memory" in both xp and vista .... this allows your computer to use physical hard drive space as RAM, so in essence it will give you mad amounts of ram ... but it's a lot better to use a separate physical disk aside from where your hard drive is ....so getting more sticks of RAM is a lot better idea and works better.

so long story short - get like 8 gig of ram if you're gonna use vista.

:)

[ssim]

I am running a dual core 32 bit XP system and was a beta tester for CS4. I have some mammoth files and never ran into any issues relating to my system not being able to handle what I needed out of it.

I know the intention of most is "bigger is better" but if all you are looking at the 64bit for is photoshop, I personally don't think that you need it unless you have image files that regularly run over 1GB. I have some scanned images from 4x5 film that run in the 900MB range and never had any problems. If you go with Photoshop CS4 you will find that it runs alot faster even on existing equipment.

[mantra]

by the way when can i find cs4? to test it?

[neumanns]

Yeah I think dual core will cut it...I'm not good at multi-tasking.

My Idea of multi-tasking is to pop in here to read while CS2 is running.....Sad but true!

I guess I hadn't mentioned it but this machine is a laptop...

[number six]

I am running a dual core 32 bit XP system and was a beta tester for CS4. I have some mammoth files and never ran into any issues relating to my system not being able to handle what I needed out of it.

Thanks for answering the question I haven't asked yet. :D

I'm running a dual core 32 bit XP machine also. I've been using Paint Shop Pro for years, but I'm about ready to spring for Photoshop. I figure I'll wait for CS4.

Question: on a 32 bit system, are there significant improvements in CS4, or would I be just as well off with CS3 (presumably cheaper)?

-js

[opus13]

CS4 is going to be all 64 bit apparently (on the pc only) but really there is not going to be much going for it over CS3 on a 32 bit system.

if you can (and work on very large print sizes) 64bit it totally worth it. RAM is dirt cheap these days, and 8gb is easily accessible in pricing.

[ssim]

really there is not going to be much going for it over CS3 on a 32 bit system.

I disagree. I will have no problem in plunking down the cash for the new photoshop for the differences that we will see. Even on my 32bit system the changes are justified in my opinion but that is for each user to assess.

In order for a new product to be better does it have to have a whole bunch of new functionality, operate better or my preference is a blend of those two.

[opus13]

I disagree. I will have no problem in plunking down the cash for the new photoshop for the differences that we will see. Even on my 32bit system the changes are justified in my opinion but that is for each user to assess.

In order for a new product to be better does it have to have a whole bunch of new functionality, operate better or my preference is a blend of those two.

I'm going off the info as given >here< (http://creativesuitepodcast.com/index.php?post_id=375336) by Adobe. I see a big... "so what?" for photographers and web designers. Here they show off their half-assed 3d implementations and ignore their core markets. The only good tech they show isn't even going to be part of CS4.

[ssim]

I guess we will see on the 23rd. I don't need a whole bunch of new functions as I said earlier. The increase in speed in handling some of the things that I thought were slow before is good enough for me. To each their own. I have had the advantage of playing with it for the past several months.

[neumanns]

So far; I am looking at Vista home preimium, 4Gb DDR2 Ram, Intel Duo core 2 T8100, 320Gb Drive, 15-17 inch monitor Led Backlight...If that don't run CS4 I'm going back to paintbrushes.

I have no doubt all of this will be a major upgrade over my Existing system, But with an eye to the future It look's like it should hold up for a few years. (Jeez...It Better)

Against my better judement I am going to toss out what I'm looking at... It is basically a fully Specked Dell "Studio", And I think for this kind of work the LED display is the better of the offering's. Does this Look to be a decent machine or am I completly on the wrong goat trail?

[Faolan]

Neumans add a second drive as a back up for your images and My Docs data. It will be worthwhile in case the primary drive is corrupted/damaged/fails. With a 40D I would recommend at least a 500Gb for long term if you shooting regularly.

[mantra]

but can i download the beta verision


i did not find it :(

[TTk]

Hope Adobe has sorted the bridge issues out that CS3 has had in the past, mostly use DxO and Lightroom for my workflow now..

[Dan-]

According to TUAW:
On the performance side, the GPU acceleration rumors for Photoshop CS4 that Mat mentioned back in May are a reality. What was really striking, to me, was that despite the all the hub-bub about the lack of 64-bit support for the Mac version of Photoshop CS4, the demonstrations for the webcast were all performed on a Mac (I'm assuming it was a Mac Pro, it was attached to an external monitor on stage and also displayed on stage/screen). Showing off some of advantages of GPU acceleration, the representative from Adobe worked on a 2 GB 400 megapixel file, showing how easy it was to zoom in and out, and roate the image without any lag or slowdown.

So, 32-bit or not, Mac design shops that have powrful systems should benefit tremendously from the speed improvements to Photoshop.

[prime80]

Adobe has already stated that there's not going to be much benefit to the 64-bit version. The only real benefit I can see is Photoshop should be able to address more RAM, which should help when batching a lot of files, or working on really large ones. Other than that, I believe they will be pretty identical.

Neumanns...while I agree that a dual-core is plenty adequate, there are some benefits to quad-core, and I can only imagine those benefits increasing in the future. Photoshop WILL use all 4 cores if you stress it enough, and there are more and more apps coming down the line that should take advantage of them as well. With the slight price difference between dual and quad core CPUs, I'd think about future-proofing a bit if I were you.

[mantra]

when can we download the trial?