CS4

[various things]

Hello,

 

I'ves seen CS4 today at photokina. The presentation was focused on features with a wow! effect. Like masking a few persons shot at a beach, then just drag the right border of the picture, this stretches the landscape, but the persons don't alter their width, and the picture looks as if it was sohot like this, no seams visible... Stunning. The smooth zooming looks very, very good. The new 'Bridge' allows very fast sorting/tagging. All in all, a gerat many new features and improvements, that's the impression I got. Not sure if it is a 'must buy' for me. I had the impression that CS4 needs a hell of processing power to run smooth. There were apparently high price Fujitsu Siemens multi Xeon machines used for the presentations. So, CS4 would therefore require to replace my 'old' but till now sufficently fast Core2Duo computer and invest a lot of money for a state-of-the art machine with lots of cores and gigabytes, plus 64bit OS, plusplus...

 

Regards

 

Stephan

[patricklavoie]

Gerald, im saying that if you buy one, buy the most expensive one if you want to leave it on. but many time, pro will remove it anyway (in control environement, in studio or similar place) to make sure nothing stand between the lens and the subject.

[kuryan_thomas]

By the way, CS4 will see a speed-up on the Mac even without 64-bit support: CS4 uses OpenGL and thus can use the

GPU to accelerate rendering. John Nack claims the speed-up from OpenGL will be much more for regular-sized images

than that from 64 bits.

<p>

<a href="http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/09/23/adobe-says-mac-users-wont-miss-64-bit-support-much-in-

cs4">Link to Ars Technica blog entry.</a>

<p>

Also, for recent MacBook Pro users, CS4 includes multi-touch gestures.

[kuryan_thomas]

I'm sorry, it was Bruce Bowman, not John Nack, who spoke of the performance boost from OpenGL. My mistake.

[garrison_k.]

"So, CS4 would therefore require to replace my 'old' but till now sufficently fast Core2Duo computer and

invest a lot of money for a state-of-the art machine with lots of cores and gigabytes, plus 64bit OS,

plusplus..."

 

Stephan, CS4 will run fine, and similar to CS3, on your computer as there is a 32 and 64 bit option. I presume it will

be the same as when I installed Lightroom 2 and the software detects which OS is installed and a window will allow

you to choose. However, upgrading to a new 64 bit box is very

inexpensive. Providing you have an AXT case, power supply, and dvd burner, a winning combo is Asus and Intel.

 

Asus P5Q-Pro $140

 

Intel Q6600 $190

 

WD 640 $80

 

RAM: 8 gig of Patriot, 2 X 4GB PC2-8500 DDR2-1066. (PVS24G8500ELKR2) $250.00

 

Video Card: EVGA 512-P3-N944-LR GeForce 9400 GT 512MB. $60.00

 

Vista 64 Home OEM $90

 

That's $810 from newegg and all Vista 64 certified. The WD 640 is the fastest 7200 rpm drive on the market at the

moment. And for $80. Two

WD 640 hdd's in RAID O out perform the new WD Velociraptor in both seek times and

sustained writing times. For $160 and raiding two of these, you achieve incredible speeds and 1.2 T's of space. An

additional two

of these (over the top?) in RAID O for your scratch and swap files is heaven. These two RAID O set ups and 8 gigs of

ram is a dream. I went into great detail recently building a new box with parts and links here,

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00QukA

 

Any Vista 64 users that have upgraded from Lightroom 1.4 (32 bit) to Lightroom 2.0 (64-bit) will confirm the speed

difference is incredible. Everything is instant for me Lightroom 2.0. No matter where and how quick I click through

folders or collections, it is instant. I anticipate the same giggles with CS4 in 64-bit.

 

I haven't had a chance to confirm this but have read that Windows Vista 64 Home is limited to 8GB RAM, Windows

Vista 64 Home Premium is limited to 16GB RAM and Windows Vista 64 Business (and above) is limited to 128GB

RAM.

 

I wouldn't invest too much into a CPU as Nehalem is coming and all the CPU's as we know it will be dropping in price

and upgrading from a Q6600 to a faster 3.2 CPU will cheap and only require a bois flash.

 

In June, Microshite reported selling, for the first time ever, 50% of their OS's in 64 bit. The SP1 for Vista is a different

kernel than the original Vista and is actually a different, and decent, OS.

 

Dell is now teasing a laptop with a quad core, 16 gigs of ram, and Vista 64. I suspect this will be the norm soon.

Almost all the motherboards sold over the last couple years max out at 16 gig and presume the newer boards will be

maxing out at 32 gig.

 

Other forums, Luminous Landscape, DPReview, Adobe User 2 User etc etc, all have Mac owners chatting about

either having to run bootcamp, and doing a platform change with Adobe, in order to use thier Mac's to their fullest

potential or to simply switch and start over with a Windows 64 box. It's interesting as the rumoured size of the new

DSLR's, such as the Canon MK IV coming up in the spring with 39 meg raw files and 21 meg 5D will certainly have

owners looking for, and

needing, CS4 running with the most horsepower and torque.

 

William John Smith "Interesting, I bought a 2x3 GHz MacPro this year

for less then $3500 and after maxing out the RAM to 16 gigs the total

cost was around $3800. I would do your Macintosh shopping somewhere

else is I were you, try the Apple Store."

 

Mr. Smith, it is interesting how Mac can provide 2 top end quad core CPU's for such a reasonable price. But no

contest,

spec for spec, PC's are cheaper for the same

speed: partly the essence of my original post. The 8K figure I came up

included 3x 10,000 rpm drives, 1 x 1T 7200 rpm drive, a 512 vid card,

raid card, 16 gig ram, 24" monitor, apple care. The box I almost

ordered in the spring. The $3800 Mac you have can be matched in speed and built for $2K in PC la-la-land. Did you

really spend that much

and can only install 16 gig of ram?

 

"LOL. You might want to let Microsoft know this seeing that they use

Macs to do all their graphic work, their Graphic Division is 90% Mac.

Interesting comment consisting that professional photographers/graphic

artists and publishing companies are almost 100% Macintosh. You might

want to check out Microsoft's latest $300 million ad campaign, all

done on a Mac. Oh, and if you are loyal reader of PC Magazine you are

supporting the Macintosh platform - PC Mag. is done on a Mac."

 

Did you read this

on a blog or two? Must be true...

 

My post is about the upcoming CS4 and the

first time it is offered in 64-bit and is in regards to the future

possibilities coming up on the choice of platforms to work under. My

post is not about what was done where

and how and by whom in the past.

 

Do not infer I fly the flag of any OS or manufacture. Except Ubuntu. I

could care less what is connected between my monitor and keyboard as

long as it is the fastest. Even if it initially costs more, it simply

has to be the fastest as it will eventually pay for itself. Starting with a Commodore 64, I grew up on

Mac's, used PS v3 to v5 on PPC's and jumped ship to PC

land with v7 as frankly, I got sick of "Mac version not available

yet". To this day, it's still the same.

 

For a handy fellow such as myself that can connect a few power plugs

together and use a screw driver, building up a PC with all the helpful people in 'The

University of Google' at my finger tips, it makes a great deal of sense

as the end result is a faster box at half the price with more hardware

and software options. It's a no-brainer to me.

 

With Vista 64 being stock on half the new

computers and almost all boards that it is loaded onto will take an

affordable 16 gigs of ram, CS4 64-bit running in Windows 64-bit will

be something to be considered amongst those that have a need for

speed. Time is money. Those already on PC....well, they'll probably

stay.

 

Carl Stone. "PS CS 3 has had the ability to use more than 3.2 GB of ram on Macs

for some time. barefeats.com has tests using 16 GB of ram and maxing

out all 8 processors on a MacPro, for editing a PS image with 32

layers."

 

This is the OS using the available ram above 3.2 gig before relying on

a scratch disk and is not the limiting 32 bit CS3 app using more than

3.2 gig. MS's Vista 64 bit OS utilizes ram above 3.2 just the same.

Moot point, except that it is easier to install 32 gig of ram, if you

can afford it, on a few top end Mac's.

 

The Insanely Mac Forums are a great enjoyable resource if interested

in all things Mac.

 

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?s=f2fd0668ad7ecce77d07c9e8039ef468&act=idx

 

If you own Leopard on an older and slower Mac and wish for a faster Mac, there's some great DIY Hackintosh builds

in there that

will save you a great deal of money building up an Octacore with 16 gigs of ram, or more, and loading your OS. I

might try one with CS5.

[garrison_k.]

for Kelly,

 

http://www.pronetworks.org/forum/about101245-0-asc-0.html

 

It took several months of organizing and convincing, but some of us did a group buy with Server 2008

and had my techie tweak it for us. It's really sweet. "Vista 64 without the bloat". If the rumor that this is the basis of

Win7, there might be hope for MS. Since 3.11, Server 2K8 is the best

Windows OS I've ever used. I have four year old 32-bit apps and five year old mono laser printers and three year old

scanner's and inkjets running of it just like it was XP. Consider it for your next dual boot?

 

Has everyone tried Google Chrome Beta as a web browser? Wow, fastest and safest yet.

[patricklavoie]

its not out yet. october 14.

[chrissyone]

Yes.