6 ms·

Boo and/or hiss. If you hate splash screens, use simpler tools or get more RAM. When Photoshop finishes loading, it's ready to kick ass. The Finder, on the oth

Boo and/or hiss. If you hate splash screens, use simpler tools or get more RAM. When Photoshop finishes loading, it's ready to kick ass. The Finder, on the other hand, taunts with its almost-readiness. Faking readiness is far worse than setting and honoring expectations.

talmand 15y ago
I agree, faking readiness is far worse to me than actually being ready.
- chc 15y ago
  That isn't the choice here, though. The choice is between throwing up a big nonfunctional promotional screen or a nonfunctional version of the actual app.
  - talmand 15y ago
    I would say that showing a nonfunctional version of the app is "faking" readiness.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    A splash screen tells me "you can do something else, the window will show up when it's ready". A nonfunctional version forces me to poke it periodically until it works. If the author has the splash screen burned into his retina, (s)he's doing it wrong.
lusr 15y ago
Agreed. If you're seeing that Photoshop splash screen regularly you simply don't have enough RAM. I keep my PC running for weeks on end and seldom close anything. With 12GB of RAM (which costs nothing) I almost never run out of RAM and every application is cached in RAM, so if I DO happen to close an application then reopening it is extremely fast. I shutdown my PC for the first time in weeks last night, and that was only because I was wary of the massive thunderstorm getting through my lightning protector. I don't actually understand why people shut their PCs down at all to be honest.
- eru 15y ago
  Saves on electricity, and noise. Though suspend to RAM does that, too.
  - lusr 15y ago
    Assuming this hardware monitor is reasonably accurate, my hyperthreaded quad core i7 chows 145W when I'm really busy, which with my 80+ Corsair HX750W means I'm not eating more than 2 100W lightbulbs. I seldom play games any more so rarely use more than that. And that's when I'm doing serious number crunching. Since I'm only working at home about 4-5 hours/day during the week and maybe 2-3 that on weekend days, I really don't see electricity as much of an expense compared to time wasted rebooting and reopening all my work to where I last left it.
    - eru 15y ago
      Yes. I don't want to claim that rebooting still makes sense. But old habits die hard.
- ceol 15y ago
  >(which costs nothing) When I saw this, I was sure you were wrong. However, looking on Newegg[0], 12GB RAM is about $60. That's just crazy to me. [0]: http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=381&name=Laptop-Memory http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=381...
  - lusr 15y ago
    Tell me about it. I bought these guys and they're now 1/4 what I paid less than 1.5 years ago: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231358 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231...
icegreentea 15y ago
Agreed. Though it would be really cool is Photoshop could somehow do progressive loading, so you can get the main UI + core functions up and running, and then bring all the plugins on in the background. Let the user choose their load order (I don't think this is too much to ask for a serious piece of software), and voila. For example, the 3D engine in the newer Photoshops. I never use it (it just doesn't overlap with my work). Would be nice if I could mitigate its effect on load time. I wish I could just get more RAM, but some of us are still somewhat budget limited. Photoshop took enough of my money the first time around.
- batista 15y ago
  Agreed. Though it would be really cool is Photoshop could somehow do progressive loading, so you can get the main UI + core functions up and running, and then bring all the plugins on in the background. That's what it ALREADY does, actually. It takes that much time for just the basic UI code (plus plugin registration etc). It doesn't load the plugins or filters in memory before they are first use.
Too 15y ago
My old SonyEricsson phone behaves like this. After booting it looks like it's ready but as soon as you try to open _any_ menu you get a "loading"-screen which is even more annoying. Booting a bloated windows xp installation is almost the same experience, from desktop first showing to actually usable is twice the time. I'd rather have a reliable progress bar that says "go make coffee and come back in 5 minutes" instead of being misled to thinking i can use the program in 30 seconds. But lazy loading for rarely used functions is of course a good solution, as long as you don't use it for everything.

talmand 15y ago

I agree, faking readiness is far worse to me than actually being ready.

chc 15y ago
That isn't the choice here, though. The choice is between throwing up a big nonfunctional promotional screen or a nonfunctional version of the actual app.
- talmand 15y ago
  I would say that showing a nonfunctional version of the app is "faking" readiness.
- icebraining 15y ago
  A splash screen tells me "you can do something else, the window will show up when it's ready". A nonfunctional version forces me to poke it periodically until it works. If the author has the splash screen burned into his retina, (s)he's doing it wrong.

lusr 15y ago

Agreed. If you're seeing that Photoshop splash screen regularly you simply don't have enough RAM. I keep my PC running for weeks on end and seldom close anything. With 12GB of RAM (which costs nothing) I almost never run out of RAM and every application is cached in RAM, so if I DO happen to close an application then reopening it is extremely fast. I shutdown my PC for the first time in weeks last night, and that was only because I was wary of the massive thunderstorm getting through my lightning protector. I don't actually understand why people shut their PCs down at all to be honest.

eru 15y ago
Saves on electricity, and noise. Though suspend to RAM does that, too.
- lusr 15y ago
  Assuming this hardware monitor is reasonably accurate, my hyperthreaded quad core i7 chows 145W when I'm really busy, which with my 80+ Corsair HX750W means I'm not eating more than 2 100W lightbulbs. I seldom play games any more so rarely use more than that. And that's when I'm doing serious number crunching. Since I'm only working at home about 4-5 hours/day during the week and maybe 2-3 that on weekend days, I really don't see electricity as much of an expense compared to time wasted rebooting and reopening all my work to where I last left it.
  - eru 15y ago
    Yes. I don't want to claim that rebooting still makes sense. But old habits die hard.
ceol 15y ago
>(which costs nothing) When I saw this, I was sure you were wrong. However, looking on Newegg[0], 12GB RAM is about $60. That's just crazy to me. [0]: http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=381&name=Laptop-Memory http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=381...
- lusr 15y ago
  Tell me about it. I bought these guys and they're now 1/4 what I paid less than 1.5 years ago: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231358 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231...

icegreentea 15y ago

Agreed. Though it would be really cool is Photoshop could somehow do progressive loading, so you can get the main UI + core functions up and running, and then bring all the plugins on in the background. Let the user choose their load order (I don't think this is too much to ask for a serious piece of software), and voila. For example, the 3D engine in the newer Photoshops. I never use it (it just doesn't overlap with my work). Would be nice if I could mitigate its effect on load time. I wish I could just get more RAM, but some of us are still somewhat budget limited. Photoshop took enough of my money the first time around.

batista 15y ago
Agreed. Though it would be really cool is Photoshop could somehow do progressive loading, so you can get the main UI + core functions up and running, and then bring all the plugins on in the background. That's what it ALREADY does, actually. It takes that much time for just the basic UI code (plus plugin registration etc). It doesn't load the plugins or filters in memory before they are first use.

Too 15y ago

My old SonyEricsson phone behaves like this. After booting it looks like it's ready but as soon as you try to open _any_ menu you get a "loading"-screen which is even more annoying. Booting a bloated windows xp installation is almost the same experience, from desktop first showing to actually usable is twice the time. I'd rather have a reliable progress bar that says "go make coffee and come back in 5 minutes" instead of being misled to thinking i can use the program in 30 seconds. But lazy loading for rarely used functions is of course a good solution, as long as you don't use it for everything.