If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
OK, geeks, listen up.
Here is my current computer system right now. Windows XP Pro 3.2MHz Pentium 4 2GB Memory Hard drives as follows: C: 120Gb SATA D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB) F: DVD G: DVD-R H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each) A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card L: 160 GB SCSI Most of my disks are almost full. OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB. I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk. I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive. What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of my drives onto the big drive. I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS? Or is there a better way of going about it? What would you do? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
On Dec 26, 6:56*pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
*I don't know why you want to put the OS on a 1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one for your garbage and apps. * That's normally what I try to do, but inevitably the C: drive gets filled up anyway. I hate it when some programs automatically download onto the C: drive without asking. I figured if I could clear out one of my smaller drives I could use it for a scratch disk or something. I suppose I could partition the big drive for that purpose, but I might lose some performance. Plus, I hate having so many drive letters and partitions. I'd rather have just one or two drives if possible. Might make things easier on the power supply as well if I could lose a few drives. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
wrote in : OK, geeks, listen up. Here is my current computer system right now. Windows XP Pro 3.2MHz Pentium 4 2GB Memory Hard drives as follows: C: 120Gb SATA D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB) F: DVD G: DVD-R H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each) A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card L: 160 GB SCSI Most of my disks are almost full. OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB. I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk. I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive. What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of my drives onto the big drive. I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS? Or is there a better way of going about it? What would you do? I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
"Annika1980" wrote: I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or 8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own 1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.) If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much physical memory as the OS would give it. Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch file. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS? This review (the first link google found) claims you can. http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/...x64/index.html Or is there a better way of going about it? What would you do? I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick with 32-bit XP. My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file, application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly. By the way, I wish you wouldn't crosspost to aus.photo. It would reduce the noise over here substantially. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980 wrote in : OK, geeks, listen up. Here is my current computer system right now. Windows XP Pro 3.2MHz Pentium 4 2GB Memory Hard drives as follows: C: 120Gb SATA D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB) F: DVD G: DVD-R H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each) A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card L: 160 GB SCSI Most of my disks are almost full. OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB. I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk. I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive. What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of my drives onto the big drive. I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS? Or is there a better way of going about it? What would you do? I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs. So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment? for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums at the moment, even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality CD's are starting to fail after only a few years. Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate locations if possible. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:39:20 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote in : "Annika1980" wrote: I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. It only does better with more than 4 GB. I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or 8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own 1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.) If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much physical memory as the OS would give it. The 2 GB limit is per process, not per thread. Anything over 4 GB is wasted with 32-bit XP. 64-bit XP currently supports up to 128 GB, and gives 32-bit apps up to 4 GB. Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch file. Correct. I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick with 32-bit XP. Why not Windows XP Professional x64 Edition??? Memory is cheap and getting cheaper. My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file, application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly. I suggest: (1) OS, (2) page + scratch, (3) data. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:40:21 +1100, El Barto
wrote in : John Navas wrote: I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs. So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment? for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums at the moment, 50 years or more. even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality CD's are starting to fail after only a few years. I've seen no credible evidence of high-grade optical discs failing when they've been stored properly. I've yet to have a problem reading any of my oldest CD-R discs. Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate locations if possible. HDD has much shorter life than any high-quality optical media, on the order of only 5 years. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:41:25 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote in : John Navas wrote: I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs. And you'd be making a hell of a lot of expensive coasters. Only an idiot would recommend that ****ty of an optical solution. You've either got an axe to grind or you've never actually used it. Which is it? -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
"Annika1980" wrote in message
... OK, geeks, listen up. Here is my current computer system right now. Windows XP Pro 3.2MHz Pentium 4 2GB Memory Hard drives as follows: C: 120Gb SATA D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB) F: DVD G: DVD-R H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each) A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card L: 160 GB SCSI Most of my disks are almost full. OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB. I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk. I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive. What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of my drives onto the big drive. I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS? Or is there a better way of going about it? What would you do? before going to x64 check out your hardware compatibility as XP 64 still have some major issues with peripheral hardware. Also look here for software compatibility ( http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofivers...p/t330290.html ) personally I would stick with Pro. The speed differences you might see by going the x64 rout will probably be downplayed by software and hardware incompatibility issues :-) With your setup I would be looking at making the SCSI drive the OS partition and then dumping all your other **** on the 1Tb drive in a couple of partitions, then turn the 400 into a scratch drive (as it is probably the fastest drive next to the SCSI and 1Tb drive, and being newer than the 120 SATA) and turning the old IDE drive into an external drive cases are as cheap as chips now days) might do to just ad an extra gig of ram as that's all XP will be able to utilise as it has a practical limit of 3.1 gig. -- "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Question for you computer geeks
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:
OK, geeks, listen up. Here is my current computer system right now. Windows XP Pro 3.2MHz Pentium 4 2GB Memory Hard drives as follows: C: 120Gb SATA D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB) F: DVD G: DVD-R H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each) A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card L: 160 GB SCSI Most of my disks are almost full. OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB. I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk. I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive. What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of my drives onto the big drive. The Pentium 4 is not a 64-bit CPU - it won't work. However, you can certainly copy files to the drive without it. BTW - MS 32 bit operating systems will not make full use of 4gb memory. They need to map address space etc. into the 4gb and you wind up with about 3gb that is actually usable. Linux, on the other hand, can be configured to access 64gb with a 32 bit OS. I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS? Or is there a better way of going about it? What would you do? If you want to run a 64 bit OS, you will have to get a 64 bit CPU - though as of today there is little advantage to it. BTW - if your system is not paging - kicking stuff out to swap space on disk - when you over utilize memory, then adding more will not make any difference. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question for you computer geeks | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 208 | January 6th 08 05:06 PM |
Electronic Flash Question for the Geeks | Cooter | Digital Photography | 2 | March 29th 05 06:05 PM |
Electronic Flash Question for the Geeks | Cooter | Digital Photography | 0 | March 29th 05 05:02 PM |
For the computer geeks.... | Poker | Digital Photography | 6 | January 17th 05 01:23 PM |
For the computer geeks.... | secheese | Digital Photography | 1 | January 12th 05 03:05 AM |