Will a new computer help?

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:23:58 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

-snip-


I can't tell in the Task Manager what should not be running.

I only wanted you to check how much ram you were using... run your normal
operation and see what you use.


As for tasks, you can kill most of the ones under your own name, except Explorer
and of course the programs you are using. Unplug the net if you want better
speed!

(Google search the task names to find what they are.)

You think upgrading to Win 7 Pro will give me more speed than XP?


That's a tough question! With the hardware you have now, it might not even run!
I don't have 7 as of yet but I do have a Vista machine, and some hardware that
won't run under it... IDE add-on boards and stuff... And Vista won't run on
the machine I'm typing this on!

XP won't be supported much longer so you may as well get Win 7 with a new
machine. 7 Pro is required to run your old XP software.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
wrote:
XP won't be supported much longer so you may as well get Win 7 with a new
machine. 7 Pro is required to run your old XP software.


Given that Windows 8 is imminent, would it not be worth waiting a few
months and upgrading direct to that version?

Oh no! Windows 8!
I hope it's nothing like Ward 8. ;-)

Alan Browne writes:

On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote:
I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older
667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core?
Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor?

Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz
mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and
multi-core/multi-thread CPU's.

Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing
thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is
quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz
memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR.

I basically don't open Bridge because it's so hopelessly slow. 95% of
the time what I need is to look at the *new* photos, so being fast on
some hypothetical later situation doesn't much matter to me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-02-21 09:43:35 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Alan Browne writes:

On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote:
I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older
667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core?
Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor?

Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz
mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and
multi-core/multi-thread CPU's.

Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing
thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is
quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz
memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR.

I basically don't open Bridge because it's so hopelessly slow. 95% of
the time what I need is to look at the *new* photos, so being fast on
some hypothetical later situation doesn't much matter to me.

You must have an odd view of things regarding Adobe & Apple. The CS5
edition of Bridge is a very different animal from its ancestors. It is
fast, on my Macs anyway, and works so well I use it instead of LR2 now.
I have the ability to rate, add keywords, and annotations. I can sort
and search on many criteria including lens used, date & time, and many
others.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:11:27 -0800, "Alan Justice"

wrote:
: "Mxsmanic" wrote in message
: ...
: Robert Coe writes:
:
: Extracting useful information from the process list in the Task
Manager
: is a
: pretty specialized skill. I've used every version of Windows since
2.2,
: and
: I'm still not particularly good at it. To expect a professional
: photographer
: to save more time than he wastes in such an effort is a bit silly,
IMO.
:
: You don't have to be an expert, you only need to get used to the
machine.
: Look
: at the task list from time to time, and get used to what you see. If
you
: normally have 30 processes running, and one day you see a new one that
: you've
: never seen before, something has changed. You can then go out on the
Web
: and
: look for the new process, and figure out what it does and whether or
not
: you
: really need it.
:
: snip+++++
:
: I currently have 37 processes running with no applications open. Seems
odd.
: The largest is 38 MB and seems to be related to the backup program I use
for
: the external HD (Retrospect). But it only backs up when I press the
button,
: so should it be in memory? If I End Process, will it muck things up?
This
: is my fear of any process. If things then [don't] work right, how do I
: correct it?

If you really feel the need to screw around with the processes, start by
rebooting your computer. If it doesn't come up normally or something you
need
doesn't work right, then it's a good thing you checked first. Fix the
problem
and try again.

Assuming the computer survives the reboot normally, it's generally safe to
stop processes, as long as you don't change how they behave on startup or
the
authority under which they run. That's because if stopping a process
breaks
something, rebooting will set it right.

Bob
--

That's what I was hoping, thanks.
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

On 2012-02-20 18:28 , Mxsmanic wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

I now take this opportunity to suggest you take a gander at a Mac and
break free from Windows.

Throwing away an entire application environment to change operating systems is
rarely justifiable. Unless you are using the computer for only one thing, it's
not practical to change from Windows to a Mac, or vice versa.

Practical is not the point. Sanity was the point.

I did it rather than buy a new computer with Vista. I'd been reading
all the horror stories of people having issues with this and that
driver. Wasn't worth the hassle right at the time I was looking at
buying a new computer.

Adobe transferred my CS3 license Gratis.

MS Office ran a bit badly at first on the Mac. 2008 much better (I
essentially got it for free).

MS Fusion allowed me to continue some apps under WinXP during the
transition. (And a Win box was kept for a couple years too, but used
less and less).

I hardly use WinXP anymore except for some programs I wrote in the past
that I haven't edited and compiled for the Mac. Not worth it yet (lot
of display stuff that won't port well).


You can always run your Windows license on the Mac under Bootcamp, Fusion($),
Parallels($) and others(free) to make the transition.

Or you can run Windows even faster on its own, on a PC instead of a Mac.

WinXP under Fusion runs more than fast enough for most uses - esp. when
you're in transition away from it; and esp. when the new Mac is probably
a good step quicker than the old PC.

The point here is transition. Not long term.

I use Fusion, but recent tests show that Parallels is
a faster system - I'd get that if I needed a new virtualizer. OTOH,
Fusion hosts any x86 OS (Linux, Sun OS, etc.) - Parallels hosts only
Windows (IIRC).

Windows runs fine by itself, and faster than any other virtualizing
environment.

Not the point - it is there for the transition - and as I say above, the
new machine is much quicker than the prior so the loss in speed from
virtualization (very minor) is not noticeable on the new machine. And
if you partition the WinXP under Fusion it is pretty much as if on its
own machine.

You can transfer your Windows photoshop license to Mac too.

If you stay with Windows, you don't have to.

Doesn't matter - you can't present it (above) as a "an application
environment" issue not to leave when it is a 0 cost effort. Using it on
either system is virtually the same.


Also, iMac's come with very high quality displays that are very sharp
and have excellent colour calibration right out of the box.

You can get high-quality displays from many vendors for PCs.

For a lot of dollars more ($400 - $800 typically). The displays that
come in a combo are usually low end. Or if they are high end the the
combo is expensive.

If you get a Mac, order it with minimal memory and update that yourself
with mail order modules (various good sources). Much cheaper (no effect
on warranty).

Or stay with a PC.

Or don't. Did you really need to add that since your position is
already clear?


I'm not suggesting that image processing on the Mac is quicker for a
given CPU/Mem configuration, it's pretty much a wash in most cases.

So why bother switching to a Mac?

For some people, computers are tools ... not religions.

Me too. OS X is just a solid OS. Further, I don't think much about
whether the A/V software is up to date on my principal machine.
Integration with other devices is seamless compared to he jumbled
confusion of Windows. The system is generally consistent all the way
through.

Vista was a disaster and drove me away from Windows. Just passing on
the joy.

If you go through life doing the same things, you get the same results.
Change is good.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On 2012-02-21 12:43 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Alan writes:

On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote:
I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.)
I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software
that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to
load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it
impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate
images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a
single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I
only want to look at each full frame once.

Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will
help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM?

I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't
know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway.

I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP.

A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older
667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core?
Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor?

Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz
mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and
multi-core/multi-thread CPU's.

Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing
thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is
quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz
memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR.

I basically don't open Bridge because it's so hopelessly slow. 95% of
the time what I need is to look at the *new* photos, so being fast on
some hypothetical later situation doesn't much matter to me.

I use Bridge all the time and it is very quick to look at new photos,
esp. since it is under Bridge that I import them into the computer and
convert to DNG. So I'm seeing them as they are hauled in and converted.

Very quick on this computer.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which
makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to
go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you
stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for
the
images you are processing.

How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed
up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either
get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a
couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow
file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0.
--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:30:36 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:




"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which
makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to
go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you
stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for
the
images you are processing.

How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died (backed
up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to either
get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a
couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow
file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0.

I doubt if you have USB 2. At the best you will have USB 1.1.

What you are trying to do will improve the performance of your
computer in the same way you can improve the performance of your car
by fitting it with fat tires mounted on mag wheels.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:30:36 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:




"Noons" wrote in message
...
Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional
RAM (8
GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the
difference?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing
a
lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which
makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have
to
go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you
stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit
for
the
images you are processing.

How can I tell what my disk access speed is? My original one died
(backed
up!), so I got a "WD 320 Gb SATA". How fast is fast? My plan is to
either
get a new computer with a 2 TB HD (and a 2TB backup), or to just add on a
couple of 2TB to my current computer. Could either solve by slow
file-loading problem? Add-ons would be through USB 2.0.

I doubt if you have USB 2. At the best you will have USB 1.1.

What you are trying to do will improve the performance of your
computer in the same way you can improve the performance of your car
by fitting it with fat tires mounted on mag wheels.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Oh yeah, sorry. My invoice does not say which USB. Pchased Aug. 2004. But
the question is will that type of port allow for a fast enough file access
(using Canon DPP) with a drive with a fast access speed?
--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/