4 ms·
Is that any faster than modern versions of Photoshop today? I think you all may be missing the invisible sarcasm tag here. I am reading this more as a jab at P
by perardi 4y ago
Is that any faster than modern versions of Photoshop today?
I think you all may be missing the invisible sarcasm tag here. I am reading this more as a jab at Photoshop for not “feeling” faster on a contemporary multicore GPU-enhanced machine.
Which, honestly, in my distant memory, Photoshop doesn’t feel faster today. Oh, I know it objectively is much faster — you can rip through 40+ megapixel images with GPU-powered filters like it’s nothing. But whatever hideous custom interface kit Adobe uses make it feel perceptually pokey.
Like, I just opened the Libraries panel for the first time on this new computer, and there was a noticeable wait as it rendered the “rich toolip” thing they have. The default New Document interface has lurching slowness as well. The interface just always feels a teeeeny bit behind your actions.
- theandrewbailey 4y agoThank you for your response. Yes, I'm taking a jab at Photoshop's complexity, in the vein of 'what Intel gives, Microsoft takes away'. I carefully considered adding \s, but I'm genuinely curious to know if Photoshop feels faster or slower today (today's computers running today's Photoshop) versus 1999's computers running 1999's Photoshop. It seems about the same?