Photoshop CS4 is a disaster

[_ProArtist_]

I'm am just at a loss of words.

What a mess. It could not be any slower. What were you thinking Adobe?

You ripped apart the code just to add GPU support for what? To provide worse performance?

Make sure you DL the demo first... CS4 is a disaster.

The latest hardware cant even run it smoothly... Dont tell me its graphic drivers.

[PECourtejoie]

Expert Here: if "Adobe" releases an early patch that would uncovers other issues, users would complain.

It took time to replicate the issue, and as I said, there are many parameters involved. Engineers DID requests users with the slowness issues in the San Jose area to let them take a look at their systems.

Be proactive and patient, instead of waving the "I will sue" flag, that is downright counter-productive.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

i Expert Here: if "Adobe" releases an early patch that would uncovers other issues, users would complain.

Damn right and proper!

I certainly hope that the layoffs at Adobe did not include QA testers, and these folks have the power to hold up revisions if such "other issues" are discovered.

That's what bug reports are for.

[_mark_kalman_]

This is my first time on a forum I apologize in advance for doing anything wrong. I just bought CS4 and was looking for advice on what video card to get and stumbled on this disturbing forum.

My first question would be: am I screwed because I bought a dual core and not a quad core. I do have 4 gigs of ram. I can still return the computer if this simply wont work with CS4's issues.

Second Question: should I return CS4 and somehow get a version of CS3 (I am upgrading from CS2 to CS4)

Third Question: what exactly should I get to have CS4 to run like it should. (money is somewhat of an issue but since this is going to be my profession I realize u must spend to make

I guess I am lost and don't know what to do. Shame because I was so excited about my upgrades. - thanks, mark

[Flawless_Star15D5]

I am using a dual-core Vista PC with 4mb and an ATI 1950X Pro graphics card with 512mb and Photoshop CS4 works perfectly well, including the GPU features.

So don't worry, be happy...

Anthony.

[Wolf Eilers]

Mark K, please visit this site: Photoshop Support Center

[_mark_kalman_]

Heres what I got:

-intel pentium dual-core processor
e2200 Processor (2.2Ghz, 1MB cache, 800MHz FSB)
-4GB RAM
-250Gb Hard Drive
-Windows XP professional Service pack 2(will update to serv. pack 3)
- I will get one of the tested graphics cards

I went to that web site and found the tested graphic cards Thank you Mr Eilers. Thank you Anthony for the positive reply there was nothing but negative stuff about the lag issues which is disconcerting. I would still be intrested in some advice on if My setup is going to work. If people are having serious problems and staying with CS3 on better systems than mine what chance do I have. Is anybody besides Anthony having success with CS4 and NOT having lag issues?

[Guest]

>Is anybody besides Anthony having success with CS4 and NOT having lag issues?

lots of people are mark! this is mostly a support forum. most people come here because they have problems, so reading this forum will give the mistaken impression that EVERYone is having problems.

I ran the trial for 30 days, no problem and uninstalled it, no problem.

e6600 core2duo, intel mobo (975bx), 2 gig ram, xfx brand nvidia 7600gtx graphics card, xp pro sp3.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

Intel i7 on an Intel board. Fast and pretty instantaneous.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

There is also the specter that people are having similar problems but don't realize it is a problem or don't care.

[Guest]

That must be me! ;)

[_Q_Photo_]

Runs smoothly here on Vista Home Premium 64 & 8 gigs. Five gigs reserved by Photoshop. It's faster than CS1 on XP Pro with 2 gigs. And I mean considerably faster, with nearly no lag. All options work.

Did I mention that Photoshop is set to use 5 gigs? Sorry, but I can't get over saying "Oh, I have Photoshop set to use 5 gigs of ram". That is 5, as in five. As in 5 gigs. You know, used by Photoshop CS4.

OK, I'll shuffle off now...
Q

[Guest]

See you in Buffalo!

[_ProArtist_]

Mark, you already bought CS4 so you might as well try it.

If you're not sure still... try the Trial of PS CS4 first.

There are people who have no problems with CS4. However i suspect they're running at low enough resolutions that they really arent aware of the performance shortcommings.

[_Q_Photo_]

1280 by 1024 on two 19" CRT's. Files can reach over 500 megs with lots of layers and effects. Very little lag and usually none at all. Seems like reasonable performance to me.

And I'm willing to bet that John Joslin and I are not the only ones impressed with CS4. Other-wise there would be a LOT more complaints here.

And I'll point out again that my computer, while new, is not a real powerhouse. An off the shelf HP with a lot of crapware, most of which I haven't removed, only prevent from running at startup.

Q

[Guest]

I'm on 1600 × 1200. Don't need any more. :)

[_Q_Photo_]

Therefore, I don't see how the "low resolution" theory holds up.
Q

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

Resolution is no problem on the i7 system either. I was limited to 6G of ram by availability and PS took about 4G. I did have to use scratch on a 280M file for Smart sharpen. Took 14+ sec to sharpen, on either standard HD or SSD. I wouldn't spring for one of those.

But my home system, well the less said the better at this point.

Working the percentages has it's value, but the fact that Adobe was looking for a local system that is afflicted as well as supplying specialty builds means the problem is endemic and needs a solution. We don't know of major users buying multiple licenses experience.

The i7 was a lean machine. My home machine, while not bloated, is carrying a fair number of programs and app, plus the usual files for favorites, My docs etc.

Then, there is the difference between XP and Vista on how they start services. That makes a big difference to startups.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

Talking with other programmers who work with major 3D presentations, I get the message that Open GL is the disaster. They much prefer DirectX. It puts MS in the business of validating cards, not the program suppliers. I would not have thought MS could be more reliable, but Autocad appears to prefer DirectX and eschews Open GL at the moment.

[Guest]

> I would not have thought MS could be more reliable

a quip! rather, a joke! huzzah! :)

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

Well, that's what THEY say!

[_mark_kalman_]

Thanks everyone I am going for it. In 20 minutes I am going to microcenter to purchase an ATI Radeon 4850 512 MB card. This is on Adobes tested list. If any of you savvy guys have a better suggestion please advise before I depart. Thanks so much!

-mark (I have a LOT to learn)

[_ProArtist_]

Q Photo:

Are you running CS 4 maximized across both of your monitors or just on one monitor?

I'm running at 2560x1600, and CS4 performed a lot slower than CS3.

CS4 could handle huge PSDs with lots of layers. Thats not really the issue. Thats all CPU for the most part. Turning on/off layers had some delays where you could see each tile draw on screen. Adjustment layers, while fast and didnt effect performance, were very slow to update while adjusting them interactively, such as the color curve adjustment layer. It would actually perform a lot slower when adjusting than then adjusting the regular old color curve.

Healing and Stamping were lagged and often resulted in missing your inputs when defining the source area you want to clone.

I'm curious if you could create a new doc at 4000x5000 (240 dpi) and Adobe Pro Photo RGB color space. Zoom to 100% so it fills up your screen(s). Now on a new layer, take the paint brush and draw an endless circle very fast. Does the lag build up ?

Do you have figure drawing skills or are you mostly a photo manip guy? Figure artists will do a lot of quick guestures when drawing, and i found CS4 to have an anoying delay with short quick strokes. This delay turns into a bigger delay the longer your stroke is. Even with short quick strokes, it seemed that your stroke would display by the time you finished your stroke.

This slight delay builds up heavily the faster you move and the longer the stroke. Hence my request of you trying an endless circlular brush stroke.

Do you see performance differences if you do this endless circular stroke in 100% zoom vs 30% zoom?

Also try opening up one of your huge 500 meg PSDs. Assuming they are photos at large resolutions, try adding a color adjustment curve layer. Zoom to 100% and adjust the color curve. Do you get realtime feed back as you move your curve? Does the curve move fluidly or at 2fps?

I found it to move at 2fps and update only after i moved the curve point to a location. It did not update while moving teh curve (probably cause it was so slow)

CS3 has none of these issues.

Lawrence Hudetz:

A Mac version of CS4 would not be possible if adobe used Direct 3D.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

Well, Open GL is free, and free is a very good price!:D

[_ProArtist_]

Lawrence:

OpenGL is still quite good. Most of the 3D animation/modelling applications depend on it on many operating systems/hardware. A lot of the major post production composting software depends on it as well.

Its not in the grave yet. Direct 3D has certainly come into its own though, but a lot of production environments run a lot of different machines for different applications etc. OpenGL still has the upper hand in cross platform support.

Perhaps Adobe has a the architecture in place to add direct 3D support in the future, giving 3 display options for windows users. I dont know if thats in their interest though.

[Hudechrome-sd9sPI]

I know that suppliers like Autocad do not feature Open Gl any more.

Maybe they know something. It is in Adobe's interest, imo, to provide as seamless an install and operating experience they can to their users.