[zazou]

OK, I spent a month trying out XP thinking the 'cheaper' hardware would win me over as i dig computer parts and stuff. You know, that whole upgradeable CPU, AGP card etc. etc. The XP 'experience' is a whole other set of rants I won't get into.

Anyhow, I recently had made available to me a 'future copy' of PS running on X natively. The 'carbon' version that comes after 6.0. I have been using PS 6 on XP and thought things were slower so i did some testing. If you are interested in the results, here they are:

The systems:

The Mac-
OSX 10.1.3
PowerMac G4 'Sawtooth' 533 Dual Proc.
768MB PC133, 40GB DiamondMax 7200rpm
nVidia GF2 MX w/32mb

The PC
Win XP
Athlon XP 1800+
512MB 266DDR, 40GB DiamondMax 7200rpm
GF3 Ti200 w/64MB DDR
(the GF3 is overclocked and runs @ Ti500 speeds)

Photoshop tests

MacAddict actions and 15mb Steve Jobs.tiff from the 03/98 Mag cd

results:

Beige G3/266: 2min 48sec (reference from Mag)

PS 6.0 -- Win XP: 36.5 seconds
PS 6.0 -- Classic 9.2.2 24.5 seconds
PS 7.0b -- OSX 10.1.3 12.5 seconds

I am gonna be running more items in other programs, but i could not believe the result and the difference.

My point? The X GUI may be sluggish for some, but the time we spend mucking around looking for files vs the time we are actually using programs would be, what, 1 to 5?

This isn't scientific test, of course. FWIW

[ChaChi Boy]

What Beta version did you use? What types of actions did you apply to get those results?

[zazou]

Originally posted by ChaChi Boy:
<STRONG>What Beta version did you use? What types of actions did you apply to get those results?</STRONG>

duh, that might be good huh? sorry. b51

here's the actual set if you want them:

Macaddictions

and here they are in action.



[ 02-23-2002: Message edited by: zazou ]

[benh57]

Post your results on one of the Athlon PC boards at arstechnica.

[mrtew]

I agree with the subject line. I've been 'testing' b47 for weeks and it's totally complete as far as I can tell, seems much faster than OS9, and has never crashed, frozen up, unexpectedly quit, made the smallest little mistake or even given me the beachball. It's the best version by far of my all time favorite program. Will definitely buy it the day it's released!

[KidRed]

751 has a nasty bug when saving for the web into a folder in which you want to replace a file. It crashes everytime for me. Also, as fast as it may be, opening files is slower then 9, especially when i transfer the file into ImageReady.

Also, it wants to update my text layers evertime the file is opened and saved in ImageReady but i suppose that's more of a beta thing. There are a few gripes I have that hopefully will be worked out.

BTW- Why do most carbon apps not support scroll wheels? Is that up to the developers or Apple?

[benh57]

Originally posted by KidRed:
<STRONG>
BTW- Why do most carbon apps not support scroll wheels? Is that up to the developers or Apple?</STRONG>

Up to the developers, but very easy to add support for.

-B

[ChaChi Boy]

In Beta 42 the GUI was SLOW and it had a couple visual bugs. It also crashed on me a few times. I hope the GUI is faster now...

[SYN]

when you say Classic, is it the environment, or the OS? ie native OS9 or emulated OS9?

[michaelb]

Pirated betas aside, you guys know the real thing's just been announced?

Available to buy early April.

And yes, it's killer!


Edit: no MacNN link yet, sorry. Here's the MacCentral one: with screenshots and comments from Adobe.
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/....photoshop.php

   
   
  

[ 02-24-2002: Message edited by: michaelb ]

[KellyHogan]

Beta 43 was twice as slow as an equivalent Mhz x86 and twice as slow as version 6.0 on any machine.

[Cipher13]

I use Photoshop everyday, in OSX and OS9.

There is no way the OSX version is faster... it's simply not true.

PS7 in OS9 is slower than PS6 in OS9, and PS7 in OSX is slower than both of them.

Yeah its a beta... but the results above are wrong.

I'm not saying it should be faster, cause it shouldn't right now; but thats not the point here is it?

[dark3lf]

Haha, I love how people are "testing" applications now

[kulverse]

I use PS everyday for work. I decided to use PS 7b51 or a small project. While very impressed with b51's speed over b43, it was no where near the speed of PS 6 in 9. It is, however, very useable, and the speed decrease wouldn't really affect me too much. But I'll wait for the final product before I use it on a job again.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by kulverse:
<STRONG>I use PS everyday for work. I decided to use PS 7b51 or a small project. While very impressed with b51's speed over b43, it was no where near the speed of PS 6 in 9. It is, however, very useable, and the speed decrease wouldn't really affect me too much. But I'll wait for the final product before I use it on a job again.</STRONG>

Thefore there is something dodgy about the benchmarks at the top. I've been benching Photoshop for years and so many systems and there is no chance Photoshop can render filters faster on a Dual 533 than an Athlon 1800. Not a chance. My current DP 1Ghz is just about level with a Athlon 1.4Ghz in Photoshop 5.5 and in 7b43 is so much slower that I doubt Adobe could have done that much.

I also have to point out that a degree of manual timing should be used. Benching Photoshop, one should be aware of stopwatch bugs. On the Windows version, the stopwatch starts when a dialogue box opens. That means before the filter is applied. On a Mac the filter starts after pressing OK. Using prerecorded actions gives even more inaccurate results.

[zazou]

dodgy? I beg your pardon! Look, this is my experience with it and I point out the results are not scientific and purely for 'entertainment' I never claimed it was a lab test.

Still, thinking I just may be a dolt I ran them again this morning. No appreciable difference. The G4 did it in 12-13 seconds under X. I ran the XP/Athlon combo, same results: 35-36 seconds. So there you have it, I don't know what else to say...

I posted the actions, try them... on any large file. I would be curious what your results are. Also, why are recoded actions not accurate...it's the same set on both machines? And incidentally, i always manually clock them with a stop watch, both 'real time' and 'result + time'. I would never use the system clock. Times always begin when I press the play actions button.


BTW, The first set was 6.0 running in Classic. Today, I also ran it again booting from 9.2.2 and the result saved about 4 seconds.

Say what you may...

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
Using prerecorded actions gives even more inaccurate results.</STRONG>

And why is that?

PS: bXX doesn't mean Beta XX but Built XX, guys. Just shows who's pirating and who's on the seed list

[SYN]

Why don't you try benching 7b OS9 vs 7b OSX?

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by zazou:
<STRONG>dodgy? I beg your pardon! Look, this is my experience with it and I point out the results are not scientific and purely for 'entertainment' I never claimed it was a lab test.

Still, thinking I just may be a dolt I ran them again this morning. No appreciable difference. The G4 did it in 12-13 seconds under X. I ran the XP/Athlon combo, same results: 35-36 seconds. So there you have it, I don't know what else to say...

I posted the actions, try them... on any large file. I would be curious what your results are. Also, why are recoded actions not accurate...it's the same set on both machines? And incidentally, i always manually clock them with a stop watch, both 'real time' and 'result + time'. I would never use the system clock. Times always begin when I press the play actions button.


BTW, The first set was 6.0 running in Classic. Today, I also ran it again booting from 9.2.2 and the result saved about 4 seconds.

Say what you may...</STRONG>

Prerecorded actions are not accurate because each system has different pause times between actions. What's more, on a Mac the timing doesn't start until the action is in effect while on Windows the timer continues to run when a dialogue box pops up. Anyone with a Windows version of Photoshop can try a simple test:

-Open a file
-Click on a filter and wait 20 seconds before pressing OK to apply the filter.
-Check the time the filter took to render. Notice that includes the 20 seconds that you waited before applying the filter.

Now, this is the way it has always been up until version 5.5. I don't know about 6 but I don't recall anyone mentioning this bug/feature was fixed.

[JLL]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Prerecorded actions are not accurate because each system has different pause times between actions.</STRONG>

So what? I do a lot of batch processing in PS, and if a Mac is faster than an Athlon, the Mac is my choice of platform for Photoshopping.

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>What's more, on a Mac the timing doesn't start until the action is in effect while on Windows the timer continues to run when a dialogue box pops up.</STRONG>

What dialog box? What timing? Use a stop watch for crying out loud.

[ 02-24-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]

[slo-mo]

Originally posted by kulverse:
<STRONG>I use PS everyday for work. I decided to use PS 7b51 or a small project. While very impressed with b51's speed over b43, it was no where near the speed of PS 6 in 9. It is, however, very useable, and the speed decrease wouldn't really affect me too much. But I'll wait for the final product before I use it on a job again.</STRONG>

I have used PS7 b62 a couple of days now and it si definitely just as fast in 10.1.3 as it is in 9.2. (On a G4 7333)

Adobe has done an exceptional job carbonizing Photoshop, compared to Illustrator! Thank you! I have heard they got some help from apple on this, is that true? Now I just need a speed boost update for Illustrator and I finally can be productive in os X

[JLL]

Originally posted by slo-mo:
<STRONG>(On a G4 7333)</STRONG>

[yukon]

dual processors? yeah, I suppose OS X will be faster using photoshop

[ 02-24-2002: Message edited by: yukon ]

[BJPirt]

Damn,
I thought you'd misspelled
"Photoshop is a daemon on OS X"

Now that would be interesting....

:-)

[sadie]

BJPirt suggested:
<STRONG>Damn,
I thought you'd misspelled
"Photoshop is a daemon on OS X"

Now that would be interesting....

:-)</STRONG>

You've heard of Quartz?