I am setting up a new Win XP Pro workstation with 3 hard drives and have a question about the best way to optimize the drives for Photoshop CS2 use. I will install one 36 gig Raptor 10K, one 250 gig 7.2K, and one 500 gig 7.2K.

I am thinking of using the 36 gig Raptor for the OS and software including photoshop. Using the 250 gig drive with two 50 gig partions, one for the Photoshop scratch disk and the other for the Windows page file, with the remainder for storage. The 3rd 500 gig drive is also for storage.

One question is this: is it best to use the faster 36 gig raptor as the photoshop scratch disk alone and put the OS and software on a 50 gig partition on the slower 250 gig drive?

(I also have an external SATA server set up in RAID 5 for back up.)

Ditto

Would like to know some of the same!

the speed of the scratch disk doesn't matter in my opinion. I use a firewire 400 external WD MyBook for the scratch disk on my mac pro, it's just as fast as using an internal SATA drive from my experience..... but that may be different on a windows machine lol.

good luck.

Thank you everyone for your help, I will use the Raptor for OS and programs.

good choice.

an even better choice would be to put it in a mac

+1

teehee.

Joking aside, and I'm a mac guy, but why is it that threads like the following are more common for mac users than they are for PC users?

http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index...showtopic=31463

maruf, did you read the entire thread? that specific one (and many others where people are having the same problem) is about the fact that CS2 is not supported by intel processors.... i'm not quite sure what else you're asking....?

Yes I did read it, and don't you think its ridiculous that CS2 doesn't run on an Intel Mac? How does the saying go?...Something like "It just works". Well, not really.

What happened to this? http://www.apple.com/rosetta/

"You’ll never see it, you’ll never configure it, you’ll never have to think about it. It’s built into Mac OS X to ensure that most of your existing applications live a long and fruitful life."

Sure, they hedge by saying "most" apps will work. Too bad all of apple's pro apps don't fit into that "most" category, as does CS2. How they can get away with that is beyond me.

Also, the original poster was asking about configuring CS2 on windows XP, to which you playfully suggested it would run better on a mac. Well, it wouldn't work at all on a mac without upgrading to CS3.

I'm just tired of always hearing this like "things are so much better on a mac", "you won't have those issues on a mac", "you should get a mac because things just work". They don't.

Now I'm one of the biggest mac heads out there and I would never dream of getting anything other than mac, but I expect to have just as many, if not more issues than I would on a PC.

Lets look at 2 scenarios...One person has a powermac G5 running CS2, and another person has an old Dell running XP and CS2. They both want to go out and get new laptops. The first person gets a macbook pro, and the second person just gets whatever is the cheapest on dell.com, probably running vista.

The mac guy is forced to upgrade to CS3 and the windows guy will be fine with their existing software stack. Who's better off? I'd still say the mac guy, but with a slight headache and an additional cost of being forced to move to CS3 when they had no compelling reason to do so.

So macs are still better in my opinion, but have just as many problems.