Running CS2 on XP on a Bootcamp MacIntel

[Emre Yildirim]

@paulr:

Xen is probably the best type of virtualization framework available today. The performance hit is around 2%, unlike other solutions like VMware where performance is lost by 20-28%. At my job, we primarily do software development on Unix type OSs, and we usually have to test software on different platforms to make sure it compiles right. Right now I have four different Linux distros and two BSDs running on a single machine, all simultaneously.

Unfortunately Microsoft has developed their own proprietary virtualization engine that they, of course, don't want to share with anyone. The good news is that Intel's latest CPUs will have Xen virtualization support built into them. What does that mean? You'll be able run Windows within Linux with no performance hit. Since the virtualization happens in the hardware layer, the whole process is 100% transparent. Hopefully Apple will start including Xen support in their future releases. That would mean that we'll be able to run Windows XP and OS X (x86) simultaneously someday, without any noticable performance degradation.

@rob:

Windows and Intel chips are two different things - one is software, the other is hardware. It's natural for Mac users to be happy that their favorite OS will run on faster hardware. I don't think there is anything contradictory or wrong with that.

@Mike Boden:

With the $6000 you also get support and a warranty. You get a guarantee that the thing will run, and if it doesn't then Apple will make sure it does. You don't have to worry about fixing something when it goes down. You also get tools that will let you manage the RAID more easily than anything you could get in the Windows world. At my previous job, we once went over several choices for a RAID box, and it all came down to the xraid+xserve being only slightly more expensive than a custom built Intel box with support.

@everyone else:

I think most people here are forgetting that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company (well, now they're actually more like a music company, since their iPod+iTunes combination seems to generate the most revenue). I prefer Macs both because of their superior design & hardware, but also because of OS X. I'm a Unix guy, and specifically a BSD Unix guy, so using OS X comes naturally to me.

Also, regarding RAID and fast drives....The primary purpose of RAID is redundant storage, not fast I/O. RAID 0 wasn't even one of the original RAID levels, and I'm always amazed by people who run drives in this scheme (what's the point in running RAID if you don't care about redundancy and being able to swap out drives?). Faster spinning drives will only be an advantage when you have to rebuild a volume (in RAID 5 for example). I don't think I/O intensive stuff (like the actual OS) should be run on RAID, but some people will probably disagree with me there.

[Marko]

RAID 0 wasn't even one of the original RAID levels, and I'm always amazed by people who run drives in this scheme (what's the point in running RAID if you don't care about redundancy and being able to swap out drives?).

I'm not amazed when I see that, I cringe. People who do that will invariably say that they do it to gain speed. And they invariably fail to grasp that all they're doing is doubling their chances for failure and loss of data, to say the least.

I don't think I/O intensive stuff (like the actual OS) should be run on RAID, but some people will probably disagree with me there.

There are people who will buy a truck and then go to incredible lengths and spend insane amounts of money to turn it into some perverse version of pimped-up street-racing car. I guess it's Macho thing in both these cases, or at least a particularly illiterate version of it.

[Frank Petronio]

I helped my son build a couple of gamer-PCs with high end video cards, fancy hard drives, big towers with water cooling and extra fans. The poor kid spent all his money on expensive components that rarely were compatible with each other after a generation (18 months).

He did that for a few years. Now he has a Sony Play Station and a "slower" obsolete Apple iBook -- and more money in the bank.

Back on topic, if Bootcamp doesn't require anymore resources than a conventional Windows XP system, then the real question comes down to whether the 2 ghz MacIntel chips are competitive speed-wise with similarly priced ($2000) PC laptops? Getting a Photoshop crossgrade to the PC platform would be a fairly economical way to gain a big speed boost, especially for Mac laptop users.

[Edwin B.]

This thread is getting really misleading. When using photoshop with large files (anything approaching a large fraction of your physical RAM) a RAID 0 drive for swap space is a very basic and useful strategy for improving performance. It has nothing to do with machismo or illiteracy. You can also use it safely on a system drive if you just make a image disk of your system on a spare HD for backup.

I/O intensive stuff is the whole purpose of using RAID 0 for heavens sake and PS can be a hell of a lot more intensive than than the OS. RAID 0 increases speed AND the chance of disk failure. Countermeasures are available for failure not that you even need them if it's just a swap disk.

One other benefit of RAID 0 is that if you are using it for storage or sys/apps you probably are backing up your data elsewhere (you certainly should be). Too often people think they are covered if they have a redundant array. This is true if a drive crashes but not necessarilly if the controller fails and corrupts the entire volume in which case your ruined without a secondary backup anyway. You should have a secondary backup in place with any RAID configuration. If not then with RAID 0 you'll just be more likely to learn a painful lesson sooner than with other configurations.

[Mike Boden]

I'm with Edwin on this one. Using RAID 0 is the way to go...but only if you have a backup plan. I personally use RAID 0 for my scratch disks and my "working" volume. I use RAID 1 for my storage/backup volume. My OS drive is on a hard drive all by itself as is another disk strictly for virtual memory. You add that up and it's eight hard drives in the one computer. But keep in mind that this doesn't include any tape and/or DVD backups.

I learned the hard way long time ago. If you store all your files on one hard drive and it fails, the data is GONE! That's exactly what happened to me. Since then, I've learned a lot and this won't ever happen to me again.

[robc]

the real issue is whether adobes revenue stream from photoshop is greater from the mac software versions than the PC versions. My guess is that it is now greater from the PC versions and if I'm right then adobe will be putting more effort into developing its PC versions first and Mac will come second.

[Walt Calahan]

Rob

I forget where I read this, but I do remember that a recent upgrade version of Microsoft's Office Suite was released by their Macintosh team before the Windows team. Go figure? You'd think Microsoft's revenue stream would prove your point, but sometime internal corporate culture is the free radical to the equation.

Most commercial shooters I know are not using their laptops for heavy PhotoShop use. They use the laptop in the field or studio for collecting their digital images, do a quick edit and present to their client, and then transfering to a desktop machine for processor power to make the master files. This is true for Windows and Macintosh commercial shooters. Since Apple hasn't introduced an Intel version of their "big" box yet, we don't know the speeds by an Intel Quad Desktop Macintosh (twin duel core Intel chips with upgrade hardware verses the latest G5 Quad).

The bottomline is if you are willing to work and learn, yes you can build a powerful machine from scratch. Better than the out of the box versions. But does that make you a better photographer? Kind of like the guys I see on vacation with their expensive Canon 1Ds Mark II camera around their neck to take family snapshots. Yep it's a heck of a camera, but . . ..

[Marko]

Kind of like the guys I see on vacation with their expensive Canon 1Ds Mark II camera around their neck to take family snapshots.

Or maybe photographers slapping RAID 0 into their single-user Photoshop workstations...

I can already picture (pun intended) average, middle- to golden-aged LF photographer, dragged kickin' and screamin' into at least a modicum of digital only recently, now implementing custom-made RAID 0 and deploying risk countermeasures in the form of reduntant backup strategy!

Yeah, right.

Edwin,

we're talking single-user computers here, not real-time database servers with milion-record databases serving thousands of requests simultaneously! Shaving a second or two in a typical Photoshop operation is not enough of a gain to justify quadrupling the risk of complete data loss. Doing what you suggest is worse than using a sledgehammer to hang a picture on the wall. Worse, suggesting this as a prudent course of action in a such a non-tech forum as this is invitation to disaster. It's not like someone spending a few hundred or even thousand of dollars based on a bad advice, this could make somebody's entire business go up in smoke.

Please, it's fine to argue, nobody has ever died of a hurt ego, but let's think a little before we dispense such advice. If someone becomes so performance-hungry as to require exotic setups, the best advice they can be given is to hire an IT professional instead of kludging something themselves.

Mike,

Putting eight disks in one and, judging by your description, desktop computer at that, is no better than having only one disk. On the second thought, it might even be worse. All you're doing is overtaxing your powersupply, overheating your entire system and greatly increasing the risk of failure. Just think about it - if your power supply dies of exhaustion, which is much more likely with eight than one disk attached to it, it will likely take all eight disks along instead of only one. So you're in effect still keeping all your eggs in one basket, only more eggs this way.

And don't even get me started on tapes and DVDs! Any removable magnetic media is toss of the dice, and it turns out optical media is not much better either, at least the recordable variety.

To all:

If you think your data is safe even on a CD, which is a long time standardized format, think again. It is becoming increasingly clear that even the best recordable CDs out there have much shorter reliable life span than previously thought. On the order of ten (10) years, rather than hundred. The cause: data layer oxydation. And DVDs are not even standardized yet, aside from the fact that they can hold ten times more data. Or take it with them when they fail.

If there ever was an argument for the analog storage vs. digital, it is not the quality or resolution or any of the thousand reasons usually brandished on these boards, it is the long term storage and perservation.

Regards,

[Edwin B.]

Marko,

You might also want to lay off the hyperbole, its rather absurd. Would you care to explain what the problem is with using a RAID 0 volume for a PS scratch disk? Adobe might be interested since they recommend it.

Also this is not about a few seconds. Anybody out there ever work with a really large file and every time you do an operation the status bar goes fine part of the way and then stalls for several minutes? does it happen many times a day? If I told you that you could cut that hang time in half or better would you be interested or scared.

[Walt Calahan]

My old clunker Macintosh G4, with upgraded dual G4 processors and 1.5 gigs of RAM memory, has 4 hard drives installed. There's room for a fifth, but I use external firewire drives instead.

Instead of partitioning one hard drive into many, I simply tell PhotoShop to use the other three drives, that PhotoShop isn't on, as scratch discs. Adobe recommends this too. Not all my data is on one multi-partitioned drive and it get good speed even with very large files.

There are many ways to do the same thing. Just like there are many lenses and many cameras that do the same thing.

I like the fact that people can use Ebony, Sinar, Arca-Swiss, KB Canham, etc cameras to make photographs.

The argument that only Apple Macintosh, or only Microsoft Windows, or only Red Hat is the proper solution is like me telling eveyone who shoot LF that they aren't making photographs unless they use the lens I use. I mean how could anyone possibly use a Fujion 300mm when they should be using a Cooke XVa? Really now. They must be on crack!

Grin.

Now getting back to the original question . . ..