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

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.

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

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

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.

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.co
m...
> 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.
>

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

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 wrote:
> T a n y a wrote:
> 

Tim disagrees:
Tim wrote:
> 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.

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.

> Tim wrote: 

--
Tim