Photoshop keeps getting fatter and fatter.

[Zucarita9000]

So I'm testing PS CS2 for a few days, to see if it's worth the upgrade. Adobe has greatly improved Photoshop, the new filters kick ass and smart objects alone are simply the best part.

Overall, it's a great product, but it seems Photoshop keeps getting bigger and slower on very iteration. The install now takes twice the hard drive space and the UI is a bit sluggish, with lagging menues and palletes. It's just not as snappier as CS or v7.

Has anyone noticed that also?

 

[Farmer]

There's a CS2? Bitch damn!

 

[notfred]

What did you expect to happen when they add more features, did you think it would get smaller and faster?

 

[mb]

CS2 is great - I really like the new features.

 

[itachi]

well, for me.. the installation did take longer, but the load up time is a lot faster relative to cs.

 

[Zucarita9000]

Originally posted by: itachi
well, for me.. the installation did take longer, but the load up time is a lot faster relative to cs.

Yes, the load up times are equal or even better. It's the UI that lags a bit. So far, the new features are worth the lag. The new RAW processing and lens distortion correction is very very good.

 

[Malak]

Sounds interesting, I'll have to keep my eye on it.

 

[SKORPI0]

Installation size is only 214 mb for the retail version.

 

[krackato]

I'm still using version 7. Then again, I'm not a Photoshop poweruser by any means.

 

[magomago]

I have version 7...not going to waste my money to go up. But I got a chance to try out CS and even on adual 2Ghz Mac it felt sluggish compared to 7

 

[Malak]

Well I had PS6 when I upgraded to CS, big improvements. Well worth it.

 

[ProviaFan]

Consider it *CONFIRMED* that the UI is painfully sluggish. Yes, I have a Radeon SDR PCI, but that shouldn't matter, because PS CS was plenty fast enough on that hardware. I'm going to try updating my drivers tomorrow, but from reading other Radeon-using folks' experiences on the Adobe support forums, I don't think it's going to help.

 

[Pastore]

Newer applications generally require newer hardware. Isn't this common sense?

EDIT: And in my experience I haven't really seen a speed difference between v8 and v9 on the same PC.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: krackato
I'm still using version 7. Then again, I'm not a Photoshop poweruser by any means.

Ditto.

 

[junkerman123]

I liked 7 more than CS, but I think CS2 is a step up. If you have a powerful comp the UI lag isn't a biggie.

 

[imported_DarkPenguin]

2G is a must for CS2. Depending, of course, on the size of the files you are working with. I end up with 48mb tiffs from my 20D. You can easily hit 600+mb editing just one of those files.

God help you if you try the HDR merge feature without enough memory.

 

[Sushifiend3000]

I have the same complaint with PS CS/2 as I do with Windows: Don't show me the UI until it's finished loading.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Pastore
Newer applications generally require newer hardware. Isn't this common sense?

EDIT: And in my experience I haven't really seen a speed difference between v8 and v9 on the same PC.

It isn't common sense when the PS CS2 UI won't perform adequately on an ATI Radeon X850. :roll:

However, I'm not sure if ATI has since fixed the problem in their drivers or not; I've been happily using PSCS2 on Windows XP x64 with an Nvidia 6600-based PCI-E video card and have had minimal UI performance issues.