Will a new computer help?

Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: writes:
:
: As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that.
:
: Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB.

3 GB.

There was a 64 bit XP which would use more. According to the wikipedia,
128 GB of RAM and 2TB virtual storage.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

On 2012-02-20 14:11:11 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: writes:
:
: As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that.
:
: Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB.

3 GB.

4 GB, with an option in boot.ini to make 3 GB available for
applications instead of 2 GB.

"Alan Justice" writes:

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.

Photo Mechanic is the ultimate software solution for fast evaluation and
rating of photos. About $150 last I looked. Fast enough that I mostly
get sub-second switches between full-screen views of RAW images. (It's
pre-rendering in the background, so if I push it I *can* reach the end
of its cache, but basically that happens only when I work to demonstrate
it).

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.

That's a little small memory these days. I sometimes stitch 2 GB
panoramas, and while I have done that on a 2GB laptop, I let that run
all night (and then got a bigger laptop). Do you mean "quad core", or
"Pentium 4"? The 2.8GHz suggests quad core; if not, then a single core
processor is also a problem these days.
--
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 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:13:35 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote:
: 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.

The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the
first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not
flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to
keep me from recommending that others do it.

Its probably not running in true 64 bit mode but as the original 32
bit running in a 'sand box' for 32 bit applications. You can tell how
it runs in a 64 bit machine by looking to see whether it is stored in
'Programs' or 'Programs(x86)'. The latter is for 32 bit applications.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:11:11 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: writes:
:
: As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that.
:
: Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB.

3 GB.

3.25 GB actually. My understanding is that XP can access the whole
4 GB region but it allows the user to see only 3.25 GB. The rest is
used by Windows.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:24:33 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:13:35 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote:
: : 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.
:
: The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the
: first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not
: flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to
: keep me from recommending that others do it.
:
: Its probably not running in true 64 bit mode but as the original 32
: bit running in a 'sand box' for 32 bit applications. You can tell how
: it runs in a 64 bit machine by looking to see whether it is stored in
: 'Programs' or 'Programs(x86)'. The latter is for 32 bit applications.

The latter. None of the Canon photo editing utilities have a 64-bit version.
Nor is there a 64-bit version of the Canon RAW codec, so 64-bit Windows is
unable to generate thumnails for .CR2 files.

Bob

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.

Generally, more memory is a better choice than the fastest processor.
And today's machines come with 1333 MHz (or faster) memory as well as 2
or 4 (or more) cores. For photo processing, 2GB is adequate but these
days 4 - 8 GB is more "common". Memory has become pretty cheap. All
that said, I'd go i7 (Quad) with at least 8 GB of 1333 or faster memory.

I almost never buy "the fastest and mostest", but the model just below
that. The difference in price rarely reflects the improvement in
processing. Get memory to reduce swapping.

* * *

I now take this opportunity to suggest you take a gander at a Mac and
break free from Windows. (You can always run your Windows license on
the Mac under Bootcamp, Fusion($), Parallels($) and others(free) to make
the transition). 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).

You can transfer your Windows photoshop license to Mac too.

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

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'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.

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

"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 work right, how do I correct it?
--
Alan Justice
http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/

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

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:

As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that.

Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB.

OK, I should have said XP will probably never use 2G for normal use with still
photos.

I've had lots of stuff running, editors and Windows windows and background music
and training videos and never used all my 2G...