> > On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 02:01 pm, Richard Kenward wrote: > > > I would support what you are saying in the case of say NT/2K or XP but > > if the user has say 1G of ram installed, a setting of 80% allocated to > > PS should be fine on the assumption that it is not running other big > > apps at the same time!
> On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 15:24 pm, Rod Wynne-Powell wrote: >I tend to suggest 75% to 80% as sensible maxima on Mac OS X. Obviously the >user's computer's physical memory has a bearing on whether 90% is is too >much; it was the 100% I was worried about, as that seemed positively > dangerous! > > Rod > Rod Wynne-Powell For over a year I ran PS on Windows ME and XP with 100% memory allocation, and nothing horrendous happened. On a few occasions I got a warning from Windows that it was running low on "virtual memory" , and that it was increasing it's scratch disc allocation. Not at any time did I notice either any reduced performance in PS, or suffer crashes while PS was running, but nor did I try and run any other big applications along with PS. I have been told that Windows will simply not allow PS to get all the memory it asks for, and that that a "negotiated settlement" is always arrived at, in which Windows always has the last word! Recently I added another 0.5gb of memory, and I reset the memory allocation for PS from 100% to 80%. Since then no recurrence of the "virtual memory" warning has appeared. Based on my own experience if you have 1Gb or less give Photoshop 100% ram, but don't try and run any other memory hungry applications at the same time. Gordon C Harrison Landscapes For Every Mood Ltd http://www.gordon-c-harrison.co.uk T 01445 731557 > =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
