Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file from
my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17 seconds. This
on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and two
7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which has
PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Trout" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file and
> reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk light
> never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
> BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
> From: Rob Geraghty <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
> Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
> < snip >
> On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> film scans on my PC.
> Rob Geraghty email@example.com