Where to find CS

[rob_knight]

Hey guys, I've never posted on this forum before, so if I selected the wrong

category please don't kill me. The problem I have run into is that I cannot

find the right software any where.

 

I can only run photoshop CS (NOT CS2), on my computer, due to the amount of

ram. No big deal right? Well, that's what I thought, untill I actually tried

to purchase the software. I can't seem to find it any where. I know this

isn't a buy/sell forum, but if anyone out there has a copy they are willing to

sell, for a resonable price, I'm down to buy it. If not, can someone please

tell me where to go to get the original CS.

 

Thanks so much,

Rob.

[cfimages]

Try eBay.

 

RAM is fairly cheap, how much does your PC have? CS2 runs well on 1GB.

[rob_knight]

I only have 256 MB of ram on that computer. And I have tried ebay, and have come up with nothing thus far. I can try again.

 

thanks

Rob.

[William Kahn]

I'm not sure how well CS will run with only 256MB RAM. I think you'll need at least 512MB.....

[rob_knight]

I looked up the specs on CS, and I have all the neccicary stuff. I think I might have found a deal on ebay!

[jautey]

Running even CS on 256mb of RAM is sort of like making a 4 banger run a Hummer. It'll work, just not anything near well. Stay with 256mb and you'll just get frustrated with your computer and curse at it a lot.

Get more RAM, at least a Gig, more if you can afford it.

256mb of RAM was a good amount for Photoshop prior to version 5.0.

Of course if you choose to ignore everyone here telling you to get more RAM than your problem.

[ellis_vener_photography]

More like a r 2 stroke Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine in that Humvee. While Adobe

says PsCS needs a minimum of 256 Mb RAM that is just for Photoshop and doesn't take into

account the amount of RAM your computer's operating (OS) needs to run as well. You'll

probably make it work but it will feel like walking up a hill in knee deep mud.

[bobmichaels]

If you still are not convinced, add another voice to the "you need more RAM" chorus.

 

If you insist on trying to run an image editor in 256Mb of RAM, at least consider Photoshop Elements. It'll be slow but that's a hope for a chance.

[kelly_flanigan1]

At three older Photoshop stations I have just an emachine that are maxed out to 256megs of 66mhz ram. All three have win2000. Two are dual boot units. The 533Mhz box has Photoshop 3.0, 5.5, 7, CS and CS2. Typically this older box serves an older poster printer, with a typical file size of 25 to 40 megs. <BR><BR>If one is not doing anything too exotic, CS2 works ok, except Bridge is slow as paint drying. Typically I prefer adding text to images with ps 5.5 with this older box, and using CS for browsing instead of CS2's lame Bridge, which is buggy. <BR><BR>All my dozens of computer are maxed out in ram. I have a 75Mhz Pentium with 72 megs of ram, a 200Mhz PPRO with 1 gig of ram, a mess of PPro Pii, Piii with 512 to 1 gig of ram, P4's with 1 to 3 gigs of ram. <BR><BR>CS2 requires more ram because it has more crud. Its really not any quicker. You should add more ram if possible. <BR><BR>Worrying about a CS versus CS2 ram issue is like worrying if one slice of bread weights more than another. <BR><BR>The slowest box I have run CS2 was a underclocked PPRO with 512megs of ram I ran at 120Mhz. It just spools up snail slow, but still works. With an ancient 10 year old machine, you may vae to update Bridge so it can load with an error message. <BR><BR>With one NT4 box, we spent over a grand for the 512megs of ram for a 200Mhz dual CPU machine, when it was the fastest CPU in town. <BR><BR>The executable exe file is larger with each newer version of Pro Photoshop. With a box with little ram, the bloaded newer versions make the box less usable for a large file. Photoshop 3.0 exe is 2.68Mb and spools up in abotu 1/2 second on my Pentium III 667Mhz Coppermine box with 1 gig of ram, CS2 spools up in 20 seconds!

[kelly_flanigan1]

256 megs was once an huge amount of ram, and most computers couldn't even hold or use that amount of ram. <BR><BR>Folks are showing their newness to Photoshop, if you think 256megs is'nt enough for Photoshop.<BR><BR> When I was using Photoshop 2.5 on a PC, most windows boxes came with 2megs of ram, a power professonal graphics user might get 8 or 16megs.<BR><BR> My Photoshop 3.0 cost me what my 16megs of ram cost, 600 bucks on a 3000 dollar Pentium 90Mhz box. I paid extra for a fast 3800 rpm drive, hot disc controller. I spent another 500 bucks for another 16 megs of ram for the same box, and later had it at 64megs. Many of these older boards could be filled to 128megs, but they ran slower due to the way windows loads. Even with a 90mhz 16meg dream machine, one could upsize to 100megs, it just took hours and the HDA was a mixmaster of swapping. <BR><BR>At one place I worked we had a beta 486 computer that was 10 grand and had 2 megs of ram. This unit was for magnetic circuit design of recording heads. When pros were using Photoshop 2.5 and 3.0 at the time, a pro VGA digital cost as much as a Hassleblad. <BR><BR>12 years ago the mantra was more ram, use 3 to 5x the ram as the image one is working on. <BR><BR>An power user friend of mine once spent 2000 bucks for 32megs of ram for his "Photoshop dream machine". Folks were using pro , full bore photoshop; spending more on ram than what photoshop cost, more than what a Hasselbald cost. 256megs, if a computer could actually hold it, would cost 8x this, ie 16,000 bucks, more than a car.<BR><BR>The reason 256megs is lame today is the operating systems are bloaded, newer Photoshop is bloaded. Today it is common that folks have alot of stuff loaded that robs the ram, plus the Photoshop is more of a hog.

[bobatkins]

If you're RAM restricted and using a slower machine you might look at Paint Shop Pro v9. Hell of a lot cheaper than CS too. Does 90% of what CS does and does it faster with less memory hogging.

 

I have both and find myself using PSP most of the time.

 

You could also buy a new PC with 1GB of RAM that's probably a lot faster than your current machine for less than the cost of CS2.

 

If you're stuck with a slow machine and 256MB RAM you might be better off all round by upgrading your harware.

[a._t.2]

Gee Kelly-- thanks for the trip down memory lane. Why you're holding on to "dozens" of old machines is... nevermind.

 

You spent an awful lot of time typing something pretty irrelevant.

 

You haven't convinced me to trade down my overclocked 3700+ with 2GB RAM.

 

I couldn't even imagine editing a shoot on a pII, lol. WTF for???

 

The correct, responsible, modern answer is MORE RAM. Period. 256 is a joke (remember, it's 2006 now).

 

And text in 5.5? Don't like crisp vector text, huh?

[rob_knight]

why so emotional? Thanks for all the advice and help though.

 

Rob.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <i>Gee Kelly-- thanks for the trip down memory lane. Why you're holding on to "dozens" of old machines is... nevermind.<BR><BR>

 

You spent an awful lot of time typing something pretty irrelevant.<BR><BR>

 

You haven't convinced me to trade down my overclocked 3700+ with 2GB RAM.</i><BR><BR>I couldn't even imagine editing a shoot on a pII, lol. WTF for??? </I><BR><BR><BR><BR>You must be an amateur, or somebody who has no sense of money. The older dream machines still work, and just are used on dedicated scan stations. Scanning really requires little if any CPU speed at all, not like the BS preached by newbies here. Heck when one has a dozen LAN connected scanners, having a dozen paid for older boxes that totally loaf along costs really nothing. Having 2 gig of ram isnt really much today for a power user, heck our old server box has a 200mhz CPU with 1 gig of ram, and is about a decade old. <BR><BR>In running a print shop time is money, having 2 to 3 dozen boxes helps cut thru the BS of scanning, running batches, running a mail server, FTP site, old BBS, fax, backup. I have over 100 gigs of ram in all our boxes combined and as spares. Scanning requires little if any CPU speed at all, an older dream machine can be scanning, and doing another task at the same time. Ripping videos is done on quick new CPUs, here memory requirements are little. With editing and retouching a box with alot of ram and a moderate CPU are often overkill.<BR><BR>Even our decade old 200Mhz PPRO's with 512 megs of ram on scan stations can rotate a 90meg file 90 degrees in 9 seconds with one CPU, and 7 seconds with dual CPU's. The comical thing is some folks today still are whussy and cheapskate about buying ram , and have boxes that are a mess, that cannot handle a 1gig file without locking up. <BR><BR>Folks who hold goverment and tenured jobs require no accountability with money. In a commercial business, if a stapler, computer, water fountain still does its job well, with no bog, it might not be replaced. Amateurs with no sense of money or return on investment buy into the mantra of spending capital in wastefull ways.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Having more ram was the key always, even in the 386 days. Its liek having more workspace in a kitchen. Here I usally have had about 2 to 10 times the ram of the average chap for a give new CPU, and just move the older "dream machines" down the food chain for mundaine slow tasks like scanning. Its retarded to do scanning and editing on the same box, when an older box can be scanning, and freeing up the latest hot shot editing box. Amateurs tend to doe this, since they have no real deadlines or cost basis for jobs. In professional applications, time is money. Linking two computers together by a Lan line is not new, we did this with the original IBM PC's in DOS. By using an older box to scan, you can be editing image A while scanning B, C, D etc on other boxes. The lecture here is not to go out an buiy older boxes, just move them down them down the food chain later., and use them to SAVE YOU TIME.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Rob the non emotion fact is that you have 256megs of ram. <BR><BR>Its not been mentioned if you can actually add more ram on your computer.<BR><BR>What does your motherboard hold in ram?<BR><BR>Is it common dirty cheap ram, or some oddball expensive ram?<BR><BR>Some of the old Piii's here had 256megs, and were filled to 768megs at nominal cost, two 256meg IBM chips from ebay for 25 bucks with freight. <BR><BR> You might have some oddball Rambus ram, and should NOT waste money on a poor return on investment.<BR><BR>Ram prices vary radically, do some non emotional research. <BR><BR>