On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, pixel fairy wrote:
>> It was set to 8, or 10, or 15, I've tried them all,
>> 8 seemed to be faster
>> as that stopped Gimp having to swap to VM or push
>> other apps out to disc.
>
> 8,10,15? where do you get these numbers? your tile
> cache should be alot more than that.
I was used to adjusting photoshop to prevent it swapping, and tried to do
that with GIMP, the above figures were based on my idea that X wanted 30
megs and gimp seemed to want about 10 or so, leaving about 20 left for the
image. All wrong, terribly wrong. I set the cache to 30 megs last night
and it sped up tremendously, although it's still damned slow. It now
takes about 20-30 seconds or so to do a levels change, still about 1/4 of
the speed of photoshop but bearable, so no need for me to move OS yet
again ;-)
I breathed a sigh of relief at that I can tell you!
> go with the mac.
The problem is that it'll cost me money. The company is about to shell
out for a laptop for me, it'll be a PIII500 with 192 megs of RAM and a
fast disc, I'll be running linux on it natch, so will be able to take it
home and DHCP it into my network to load images and edit them much faster.
This way I get a new home machine but don't have to pay for it ;-)
Other than that I'd like the mac, they appeal to me in some ways, but it
would only be used for photo editing as I don't rate them for anything
else (or Windows for that matter). It seems a bit extravagant to spend
some 200UKP or so on a machine when I'm surrounded by them..
> 64megs is a small amount of ram for images that heavy.
> im surprised your getting decent performance from
> photoshop.
It is a small amount, now I've gotten over the levels problem I've tried a
few more things in gimp, and ended up halving the resolution of my image
to try gimp out, I won't be able to do any serious work until I get a
machine with more RAM at least. I've got a Seagate Cheetah on a fast/wide
SCSI adapter but even that's not fast enough to stop the swapping getting
on my nerves!
