<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Extra Memory for my Desktop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.keptlight.com/index.php/2008/08/extra-memory-for-my-desktop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.keptlight.com/index.php/2008/08/extra-memory-for-my-desktop/</link>
	<description>A. Cemal Ekin on Photography</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:50:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark_Q</title>
		<link>http://www.keptlight.com/index.php/2008/08/extra-memory-for-my-desktop/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark_Q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.keptlight.com/blog/?p=178#comment-20</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m very pleased I found this encouraging article while designing my new PC for photo editing. Now I can tell that this 3GB switch works also on XP Home which I opted after some consideration having had a forum discussion at DPReview.com about XP Home vs XP Professional.

You use XP Professional and Adobe&#039;s TechNote article &quot;Optimize performance of Photoshop CS3 on Windows XP and Vista&quot; states XP Pro having this 3GB option. So I took a risk by opting for XP Home as a result of my forum discussion.

In order to see how this switch would affect CS3&#039;s performance I downloaded and installed Retouch Artists&#039; Photoshop Speed Test package and made the requested changes in Performance preferencies. Here are my test results:

XP Home booted normally, CS3 using 1271MB RAM (=75% of available 1695MB): test action lasted 64 seconds. CS3 using all available RAM: 42 seconds.

XP Home booted w/ 3GB switch, CS3 using 1695MB RAM (=now 64% of available 2633MB): test action lasted 30 seconds, 12 seconds less. Increasing the RAM to 2000MB and max 2633MB didn&#039;t shorten the duration.

I did these test a couple of times and did exit and restart CS3 after the changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m very pleased I found this encouraging article while designing my new PC for photo editing. Now I can tell that this 3GB switch works also on XP Home which I opted after some consideration having had a forum discussion at DPReview.com about XP Home vs XP Professional.</p>
<p>You use XP Professional and Adobe&#8217;s TechNote article &#8220;Optimize performance of Photoshop CS3 on Windows XP and Vista&#8221; states XP Pro having this 3GB option. So I took a risk by opting for XP Home as a result of my forum discussion.</p>
<p>In order to see how this switch would affect CS3&#8217;s performance I downloaded and installed Retouch Artists&#8217; Photoshop Speed Test package and made the requested changes in Performance preferencies. Here are my test results:</p>
<p>XP Home booted normally, CS3 using 1271MB RAM (=75% of available 1695MB): test action lasted 64 seconds. CS3 using all available RAM: 42 seconds.</p>
<p>XP Home booted w/ 3GB switch, CS3 using 1695MB RAM (=now 64% of available 2633MB): test action lasted 30 seconds, 12 seconds less. Increasing the RAM to 2000MB and max 2633MB didn&#8217;t shorten the duration.</p>
<p>I did these test a couple of times and did exit and restart CS3 after the changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary</title>
		<link>http://www.keptlight.com/index.php/2008/08/extra-memory-for-my-desktop/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:59:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.keptlight.com/blog/?p=178#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Looks like this is the limitation of a 32-bit operating system, with .75GB apparently spent on other hardware.

My current desktop supposedly can handle 8GB, so I loaded 6GB but seeing only 3.25GB.  Then I learned that it needs to be loaded with Vista 64-bit to utilize the full 6GB of RAM.  It is running Vista 32-bit now.  I am not worroed as the speed is satisfactory enough.

Mary</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like this is the limitation of a 32-bit operating system, with .75GB apparently spent on other hardware.</p>
<p>My current desktop supposedly can handle 8GB, so I loaded 6GB but seeing only 3.25GB.  Then I learned that it needs to be loaded with Vista 64-bit to utilize the full 6GB of RAM.  It is running Vista 32-bit now.  I am not worroed as the speed is satisfactory enough.</p>
<p>Mary</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
