Will a new computer help?

"Alan Justice" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
--- snip

I thought that when you buy software it can be installed on all of your
computers because you can only use one at a time. It's a single user.

There are different license agreements used by different companies, in
terms of what's "legal". (And shrink-wrap licenses have been upheld at
least to some extent in court, which is appalling.)

Photoshop allows me to install on two computers, or perhaps more if I
"deactivate" one of the licenses. Since they use central validation,
they can somewhat enforce this (you have to crack the whole DRM
scheme).

Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD has a one-use-at-a-time license, no rules
about number of systems installed on.

Central validation? An internet connection? I expect to get the latest
PhotoShop at some point, but I protect my computer by not going online with
it. I use another one for that. Does that mean that I can't use PS on it?

I *think* they have special provisions to let you activate on the
phone. But yeah, you can't just do the automatic normal thing like the
rest of us.
--
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

"K W Hart" writes:

"Alan Justice" wrote in message
...


snip
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/


USB is not the fastest way to access a disk drive. There are two ways that
digital devices can communicate: serial and parallel. Serial comunication,
such as USB, sends one bit after another. Parallel communication sends
bytes, which are multiple bits (8, 16, 32 or in some cases, 64) at the same
time. If a device has a cable with a lot of wires, and a connector with a
lot of pins, it is likely parallel- for example, an IDE hard drive has
(IIRC) a 32 pin connector. It sends (IIRC) 16 bits at one time. A USB device
would send those same 16 bits one after another.

Serial vs. parallel isn't the speed issue, though. SATA stands for
"Serial ATA", as you probably know. That's the new, faster, interface
that replaced the old PATA, parallel ATA, also called IDE. Similarly,
SAS, Serial Attached SCSI, has replaced the old parallel SCSI interface
for fast drives. The serial versions are faster because it's hard to
synchronize the bits on each separate parallel wire; on a single wire
they can go much much faster, more than enough to make up for the
narrower channel. Which of serial and parallel will be faster varies
based on lots of tech issues, it's gone back and forth a few times.
--
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 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:03:37 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2012-02-22 04:18:04 -0800, Mxsmanic said:
:
: Alan Browne writes:
:
: Le Snip
:
: OS X is just a solid OS.
:
: So are all versions of Windows based on NT (which includes NT itself, XP,
: Windows 7, Vista, etc.).
:
: VISTA!! ??? A solid OS?
: What are you smoking?

Have any of you three guys ever actually used Vista? I have, and I thought it
was better than XP, though not as good as Windows 7. To be fair, I used it
during its latter days, after a lot of the original chaos had subsided.

All this discussion is way OT in the photography newsgroups anyway. What do
you care what operating system somebody else uses, unless you're the one
responsible to maintain it? (Been there, done that.) Canon vs. Nikon vs.
Pentax vs. Sony is relevant here, sort of. XP vs. Vista vs. Mac OS vs. [your
favorite dialect of Unix] isn't.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
snip


All this discussion is way OT in the photography newsgroups anyway. What
do
you care what operating system somebody else uses, unless you're the one
responsible to maintain it? (Been there, done that.) Canon vs. Nikon vs.
Pentax vs. Sony is relevant here, sort of. XP vs. Vista vs. Mac OS vs.
[your
favorite dialect of Unix] isn't.

Bob

Actually, those are exactly the questions my original post was asking. To
paraphrase: In order to better evaluate my digital photos (I switched from
slides a year ago), what kind of a system do I need? I could ask on a
computer group, but they prolly don't know about DPP or Cr2. I'm a photog,
not a geek, so this is the right group. It didn't used to be a part of
photography (those were the days!) but now it is. So I really appreciate
the responses. (Almost all of them!)


--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

On 2012-02-23 03:33:48 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2012-02-22 05:39:01 -0800, Pete A said:

On 2012-02-20 21:34:14 +0000, Alan Browne said:

[...]
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).

I wish I hadn't done that :-(

Some Macs have only two memory slots (both of which must be filled). It
would've been much cheaper to order my machine with more memory rather
than replace it later.

OWC will credit you for any memory you have to exchange. So if you buy
2x2GB, or 2x4GB DDR to upgrade the 2x1GB original memory installed. You
install the new memory and then send them the old for the refund.
There might be vendors in the UK who make similar deals.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/

I hadn't thought of asking. Having seen the way some people handle
computer parts (with total disregard for electrostatic protection) I
assumed my memory modules would be worthless.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:10:20 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:



I'm not that interested in file transfer rate from one device to another.
My question is: Will these "fast drives" mean that my raw files will load
faster in my Canon software (DPP)? Or is processor speed more important?

Processor speed won't help you in loading files, any processor made today can do
a hundred things while waiting for 1 byte from the drive!

Faster drives will speed up your file access, and there are other things you can
do, such as having only system files on 1 drive (C drive) and photo files on
another drive.

You can also try turning off all of the Windoze bells and whistles to save time.
All of those fancy tricks like showing sliding windows and all kinds of graphics
nonsense slows things down. Go into the settings pages and always pick
performance and simple views.

No Internet and no virus software can also speed you up. None of my graphic
machines are on any kind of net.

As for camera software, it really slows you down! Sometimes it will load its own
data files to go along with your pictures and that wastes time as well. Did you
know Roxio (for example) attaches its crap files to all of your pictures? I
erased Roxio from my graphics computer because of that. (among other reasons!)

For your question - faster drives will load faster! Faster processors will
process faster!

My new machine will be an i7, possibly a 2600 series... I don't want to pay for
the "extreme" edition, I don't need it. I will get a good video card to help in
processing, but nothing over $200... One thing I DO want is a 750 watt power
supply such as I have in my best machine now, it is definitely not stressed and
I can add anything I want without worry. Some "mass market" machines come with
300 watt supplies and I don't know how they get away with it! For a drive I
want 1T or less, don't trust huge drives. Eggs in one basket for 1 thing.

Speed takes power!

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:18:58 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:




"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
--- snip

I thought that when you buy software it can be installed on all of your
computers because you can only use one at a time. It's a single user.

There are different license agreements used by different companies, in
terms of what's "legal". (And shrink-wrap licenses have been upheld at
least to some extent in court, which is appalling.)

Photoshop allows me to install on two computers, or perhaps more if I
"deactivate" one of the licenses. Since they use central validation,
they can somewhat enforce this (you have to crack the whole DRM
scheme).

Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD has a one-use-at-a-time license, no rules
about number of systems installed on.
--
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

Central validation? An internet connection? I expect to get the latest
PhotoShop at some point, but I protect my computer by not going online with
it. I use another one for that. Does that mean that I can't use PS on it?

When you install it will tell you a key number and wait for your password.
Contact Adobe with the key number and they will give you a password. (My friend
told me this.)

I did the same for Pinnacle Studio because my graphic machine is no longer on
the net. They E=mailed me 6 - 12 digit passwords!

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:03:37 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-02-22 04:18:04 -0800, Mxsmanic said:

Alan Browne writes:

Le Snip

OS X is just a solid OS.

So are all versions of Windows based on NT (which includes NT itself, XP,
Windows 7, Vista, etc.).

VISTA!! ??? A solid OS?
What are you smoking?

The last machine I bought was a Vista package on sale - everything in the box
ready to go for $400 at Staples

I use it for playing around with movies and sorting files on my backup drives.
It has some better features for this than XP.

BUT

It's a freakin' bug trap!!

You can highlight a folder on the left of explorer but the window on the right
can be ANY OF THE LAST FOLDERS YOU USED!!

Drag and drop has a new 'random' function! Drop and guess!!

Curser keys don't move the highlight in the file folders!

But it is stable, doesn't usually crash...

It's in the basement somewhere...



Danm I hope Win 7 is better!!

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:19:57 -0500, Walter Banks wrote:
:
:
: Mxsmanic wrote:
:
: Walter Banks writes:
:
: Windows 8 seems to me based on that little I have seen from the beta,
: a move to add on more touch functionality on Windows 7.
:
: Which is worse than useless to me on the desktop.
:
: I agree that Windows 8 will likely have a short product life there were a lot
: of changes and not all of them are going to stand the test of time.
:
: The more desperate Microsoft becomes for revenue, the shorter the Windows
: product cycle becomes.
:
: I don't think that is particularly true. I do think they have become much better at
: technology changes. It is nice to see that they are supporting the touch screen
: slate that I have rather well. They also supported W2000 and XP for
: about 10 years significantly longer that most of the hardware support that
: I have seen.
:
: I am still doing a significant amount of development work on W2000
: computers.
:
: w..
:
:

On 2012-02-24 18:54:40 +0000, J. Clarke said:

In article , says...

On 20/02/2012 07:05, Alan Justice wrote:
"Eric wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

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

By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W.

I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that
it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7
processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old
machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in
less than a second. You need a new computer.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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?)


Processor performance is NOT measured in GHz, that's just marketing drivel.

Best performance for a Pentium 4 was 9,726 MIPS at 3.2 GHz. Best
performance for an i7 is currently AFAIK 177,730 MIPS at 3.33 GHz.

In other words: the i7 processor is roughly 20 times faster than a
Pentium 4 at roughly the same clock speed.

For certain values of "faster". A lot of that advantage is due to the
multiple cores, which only confer real benefit on CPU-intensive
applications when they are carefully optimized to take advantage of
multiple CPUs, and this is something that is far more difficult to pull
off than people who are not programmers realize.

:-)

There about 100 million programmers. From what you've written it
appears you are not one of them - you are a good programmer, which is a
group that has a small and dwindling membership, unfortunately.