Since when 4GB of RAM was too little to run Photoshop?

[MarVar]

Hi,

Is it just that I've a digital troglodyte or is there something flaky with my PC? I've been trying to Photshop an image, sized roughly 2400 x 2400, and the .psd-file is around 16mb.

I run out of memory using photshop, even though I've set it to use only 2048mb of my 4GB, so a half. I was trying to do a CMYK conversion of it, duplicated the image, and started to work on the gamut. After three actions my Windows 7 told me I'm low on memory, and the whole computer crashed.

So what's going on? Do I really need like 8GB to edit a 16mb Photoshop file? That's quite ridiculous.

May I add, that when started, Photshop and Adobe-related processes eat around 1,4GB of RAM in total. That's without doing anything with the app, just idling around.

For your entertainment, this is what my screens looked like after the crash:

Btw. I made this with Premiere without a hiccup.

[JJMack]

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/files/2012/07/CS6_hardware_recommendations.pdf

[MarVar]

So while I was in the 2000's the world moved on. Thanks for this, more RAM is on its way now. I really do wonder if all this memory usage is really necessary tho, or is it just sloppy coding or design. Six CEP HTML Engines? 600MB for Photoshop and its child processes just when starting up? And over 300MB for CC application only?

And, editing very basic couple-of dozen megabytes file is not possible with 4GB of RAM. I still do think it's quite ridiculous.

I mean, programs for Windows are huge resource hogs. This applies to pro audio too. You can see it in the program size, Cubase installation media is over 1,3GB or so, while Ardour for Linux is in tens of megabytes. Yes, different programs, different features, different platforms, but does not justify the resource cost really. Makes me wonder.

edit:

Sorry, I really have to resurrect this thread and unmark the answer as correct. The reason:

I have edited with the same machine videos using Premiere from many many independent clips and used Audition in the process to enchance sound of the files, all without memory problems. That was not too long ago, it's been like a year or so. Couldn't use my Adobe apps in between that much due to changing conditions in life, but I can not believe it that I can edit a video from dozens of clips using Audition in the process without running out of memory, but I'm unable to edit 22mb .psd-file due to lack of RAM.

So this must be a fault somewhere, and I don't know where. Feel free to prove me wrong or give your opinion.

[Test Screen Name]

Heck, it isn't enough to run a web browser in my experience.

[MarVar]

Test Screen Name wrote:

Heck, it isn't enough to run a web browser in my experience.

Test Screen Name Lol web browsers are so hungry about memory nowadays. Three-five tabs and you'll be hitting the 1GB mark. At least my Firefox that's bloated with addons does that.

D Fosse wrote:

Take a look at your scratch disk. That counts as memory too. It may be fragmented or just low on free space.

Aside from keeping data in RAM, Photoshop always writes to scratch disk, even for small files. You can think of scratch disk as Photoshop's main memory, and RAM as a fast-access cache for that memory. It's a dynamic process.

Normally Photoshop is very good at working with large files on limited hardware - as long as it has a working scratch disk. I agree that this should work, and on the face of it there's no reason you should get "out of memory"-messages (although, that said, I'd consider 16GB normal these days and 8GB absolute minimum).

D Fosse Scratch disk is hardly an issue, my scratch disk lies on my SSD, which really can't be fragmented, and there's 122GB free space there. So yes, a good observation. But not an issue this time. I have followed some SSD optimization guides and set Windows page file to absolutely minimum, and now I've increased the size of it to double of my RAM. In addition, I'll be getting more RAM today.

Still there's this weird memory issue, and improving hardware should not be the way to fix it. And, as I mentioned before, I've done some video editing with the machine before, with the same settings I have now. The software has gotten some updates meanwhile for sure, so it's not 1 to 1 comparison, tho.

[D Fosse]

Take a look at your scratch disk. That counts as memory too. It may be fragmented or just low on free space.

Aside from keeping data in RAM, Photoshop always writes to scratch disk, even for small files. You can think of scratch disk as Photoshop's main memory, and RAM as a fast-access cache for that memory. It's a dynamic process.

Normally Photoshop is very good at working with large files on limited hardware - as long as it has a working scratch disk. I agree that this should work, and on the face of it there's no reason you should get "out of memory"-messages (although, that said, I'd consider 16GB normal these days and 8GB absolute minimum).