Paint Shop Pro support - PSP9 Vs. PSP8.1 performance

Author

PSP9 Vs. PSP8.1 performance

Cliff

2004-09-26, 11:15 pm

I am running PSP8.1 and it does everything I want it to but it does it
slooowly. I do mostly JPG image printing with some brightness,
contrast and color correction. Given the same system, would PSP 9
provide a speed/performance increase? Decrease? No change?

Thanks

fugitive

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:26:07 GMT, Cliff <cje20@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I am running PSP8.1 and it does everything I want it to but it does it
>slooowly. I do mostly JPG image printing with some brightness,
>contrast and color correction. Given the same system, would PSP 9
>provide a speed/performance increase? Decrease? No change?
>
>Thanks

7 was better than both together.

Fred Hiltz

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

Cliff wrote:
> I am running PSP8.1 and it does everything I want it to but it
> does it slooowly. I do mostly JPG image printing with some
> brightness, contrast and color correction. Given the same system,
> would PSP 9 provide a speed/performance increase? Decrease? No
> change?

PSP 9, 8, and 7 run at the same speeds for the same functions. PSP
7, being much smaller, loads faster though. If simple corrections
like brightness, contrast, and color take more than one second on a
1,024 x 768 image, then something is amiss with your setup.

The most common cause of slowness is insufficient RAM. Do you have
enough to keep your image in RAM? Write back with your OS, amount of
RAM, type of CPU, size of a typical image in pixels, and the number
of layers. Tell us how long a histogram adjustment or some other
common operation takes. You will get some good suggestions.

The second common slowdown cause is other programs stealing CPU
cycles. Watch the Processes tab of the Task Manager. If any process
other than PSP is using more than 1% or 2% CPU, tell us what they
are.
--
Fred Hiltz, fhiltz at yahoo dot com

Uni

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

fugitive wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:26:07 GMT, Cliff <cje20@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7 was better than both together.

Very true. It had better programmers and management.

Uni

Cliff

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:21:51 -0400, "Fred Hiltz" <not@home.ca> wrote:

>Cliff wrote:
>
>PSP 9, 8, and 7 run at the same speeds for the same functions. PSP
>7, being much smaller, loads faster though. If simple corrections
>like brightness, contrast, and color take more than one second on a
>1,024 x 768 image, then something is amiss with your setup.
>
>The most common cause of slowness is insufficient RAM. Do you have
>enough to keep your image in RAM? Write back with your OS, amount of
>RAM, type of CPU, size of a typical image in pixels, and the number
>of layers. Tell us how long a histogram adjustment or some other
>common operation takes. You will get some good suggestions.
>
>The second common slowdown cause is other programs stealing CPU
>cycles. Watch the Processes tab of the Task Manager. If any process
>other than PSP is using more than 1% or 2% CPU, tell us what they
>are.

Thank you for the response. I believe you answered my question where
you say PSP 7, 8, and 9 run at the same speeds for the same functions.

I realize my system is old and underpowered (200 MHZ pentium w/128MB
RAM) so I expect PSP to run slower than I would like. I have no
problem with that, I was just looking to see if PSP 9 provided a
relative speed increase.

Thanks again.

T a n y a

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

Compared to 8... I would definetly say so... (9 is better)
Just considering the speed to load up alone,
I think it was the lousiest release - my personal
experience with it (with 400 mhz & 128 mb ram).

--
Cheers,
- T a n y a

"Cliff" <cje20@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:066fl09kkq2rr8nrddn7kjln1k1eh20np9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:21:51 -0400, "Fred Hiltz" <not@home.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for the response. I believe you answered my question where
> you say PSP 7, 8, and 9 run at the same speeds for the same functions.
>
> I realize my system is old and underpowered (200 MHZ pentium w/128MB
> RAM) so I expect PSP to run slower than I would like. I have no
> problem with that, I was just looking to see if PSP 9 provided a
> relative speed increase.
>
> Thanks again.
>

Uni

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

T a n y a wrote:
> Compared to 8... I would definetly say so... (9 is better)

But you haven't downloaded it, so how could you know?

Uni

Tim

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

Cliff wrote:

>
> Thank you for the response. I believe you answered my question where
> you say PSP 7, 8, and 9 run at the same speeds for the same functions.
>
> I realize my system is old and underpowered (200 MHZ pentium w/128MB
> RAM) so I expect PSP to run slower than I would like. I have no
> problem with that, I was just looking to see if PSP 9 provided a
> relative speed increase.
>

According to the system requirements, your system is borderline for PSP8
and below the requirements for PSP9 (300MHz processor and 256M RAM). As
a rule of thumb later versions of software are built to cater for the
capabilities of the hardware at the time of their release so later
versions of software will always be slower on old equipment. The roughly
18 months between the release of PSP8 and PSP9 might not seem to be a
lot in human terms, but in the computer world it corresponds to the
period that it takes to double the number of transistors in a processor,
so very significant changes take place in hardware and the software that
follows it in that time frame.
Your computer is typical of the hardware that was around when PSP5 was
released six and a half years ago (although with more RAM than then) so
it is bound to struggle with PSP8 and will be worse with 9.

--
Tim

Uni

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

Uni wrote:
> T a n y a wrote:
>

Tim disagrees:
Tim wrote:[color=darkred]
> Your computer is typical of the hardware that was around when PSP5 was
> released six and a half years ago (although with more RAM than then) so
> it is bound to struggle with PSP8 and will be worse with 9.

Tim

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

Uni wrote:
> Uni wrote:
>
> Tim disagrees:

Up to a point... there are bound to be slight differences between
different computers. On mine PSP7 and PSP9 take the same time to load.
PSP8 is a couple of seconds /faster/ than both.
[color=darkred]
> Tim wrote:

--
Tim

Uni

2004-09-27, 4:26 am

Tim wrote:
> Uni wrote:
>
>
>
> Up to a point...

Too late now, Tim. What you said is history and is recored in my journal.

:-)

Thank you.

:-)

Uni

Tim

2004-09-27, 7:18 am

Uni wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
> Too late now, Tim. What you said is history and is recored in my
> journal.
> :-)
>
> Thank you.
>
> :-)
>
> Uni

Thank you. I hope you'll quote me in context.

--
Tim

All Things Mopar

2004-09-27, 7:18 am

Fred Hiltz commented courteously ...

> PSP 9, 8, and 7 run at the same speeds for the same
> functions. PSP 7, being much smaller, loads faster though.

Fred, isn't it true that beginning in 8, Jasc started using
scripts internally for some advanced functions? I can't
really put my finger on functions that might fall in this
category, other than One Step Photo Fix, which was a script
in 8 and is now in-line in 9, where it *does* run faster.

I have this opinion based primarily on my remembrences of
discussion during the PSP 8 beta, which may be entirely
faulty, that Jasc took advantage of PSP 8's advanced
scripting capability to alter the architecture of the tool,
function, filter, etc. coding in the app. The presumed
benefit to Jasc is much faster coding than using traditional
tools such as Visual C++, thus leading to more PSP capability
in a shorter time with few human resources.

To the extent that I am right (if at all!), I would expect
functions between 7 and 8 that are roughly equivalent, to run
faster in 7 than 8, given the same PC (same processor speed,
same memory, same version of Windows, and other pertinent
system set-up).

Not arguing with you or anybody, this OPs question just
prompted a query of my own to either confirm or deny my
supposition of the use of Python, which I believe is an
interpreted rather than compiled source code language, for
key PSP functions.

-- Jerry

T a n y a

2004-09-27, 7:15 pm

I'm pretty surprised to hear that your 8 is faster.
But in my experience, it's not just the load up of the
program - it's the tools too (text, brush, etc) -
PSP 9 so far has done me good and I've noticed
everything load up much quicker, though I'm sure
my 7 would beat it, but that's understandable
considering 9 is much more graphic intensive and
all that good stuff... small price to pay for a bit
of beauty added to a proggy :)

But like you said... it's bound not to have the same
effects on each computer.

--
Cheers,
- T a n y a

"Tim" <timmorr64@XremoveXhotmail.com> wrote in message news:ZjO5d.2177473$6p.368278@news.easynews.com...
> Uni wrote:
>
> Up to a point... there are bound to be slight differences between different computers. On mine PSP7 and PSP9 take the
> same time to load. PSP8 is a couple of seconds /faster/ than both.
>
>
> --
> Tim
>

T a n y a

2004-09-27, 7:15 pm

I believe you are confusing me with yourself

--
Cheers,
- T a n y a

"Uni" <no.email@no.email.invalid> wrote in message news:4157A3AD.80907@no.email.invalid...
>T a n y a wrote:
>
> But you haven't downloaded it, so how could you know?
>
> Uni
>

Cliff

2004-09-27, 7:15 pm

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:40:10 GMT, "Tim"
<timmorr64@XremoveXhotmail.com> wrote:

>Cliff wrote:
>
>
>
>According to the system requirements, your system is borderline for PSP8
>and below the requirements for PSP9 (300MHz processor and 256M RAM). As
>a rule of thumb later versions of software are built to cater for the
>capabilities of the hardware at the time of their release so later
>versions of software will always be slower on old equipment. The roughly

Thank you for the response. What you say is usually true (rule of
thumb). I was just wondering if anyone had specific information or if
a consensus could be arrived at.

Cliff

2004-09-27, 7:15 pm

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:07:53 -0400, "T a n y a"
<tanyaiscrazy@tigerstormfleet.com> wrote:

>Compared to 8... I would definetly say so... (9 is better)
>Just considering the speed to load up alone,
>I think it was the lousiest release - my personal
>experience with it (with 400 mhz & 128 mb ram).

Thank you for the response. I have not made up my mind yet about
upgrading to PSP9 and your response was helpful.

Fred Hiltz

2004-09-27, 7:15 pm

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Fred Hiltz commented courteously ...
>
>
> Fred, isn't it true that beginning in 8, Jasc started using
> scripts internally for some advanced functions? I can't
> really put my finger on functions that might fall in this
> category, other than One Step Photo Fix, which was a script
> in 8 and is now in-line in 9, where it *does* run faster.

Not to my knowledge. You are right, it was discussed on the beta NG.
Jasc did write many scripts and supplied them with the product, but
they are all right out in the open, not used for "internal"
functions. They could be keeping it a secret, but I doubt it. Try
equivalent functions in PSP 7 and 8 or 9 for yourself.

One Step Photo Fix was indeed converted from a script to internal
for PSP 9. One of the Jascians--I don't remember who--commented that
it was needed for inclusion in PSP Studio, which does not have
scripting.
--
Fred Hiltz, fhiltz at yahoo dot com

fugitive

2004-09-27, 11:14 pm

>
>One Step Photo Fix was indeed converted from a script to internal
>for PSP 9. One of the Jascians--I don't remember who--commented that
>it was needed for inclusion in PSP Studio, which does not have
>scripting.

So that would make it perminate, right? Ok, as it's better than 8.