Two questions

On 9/17/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It's
amazing the number of devices which don't like being run through a
hub.

almost none.

For a start:
http://support.datacolor.com/index.p.../List/Index/34
Spyder: Ensure you are utilizing a rear USB port; on laptops unplug
all USB peripherals. Do not utilize front ports, powered hubs, monitor
or keyboard ports

they may say that but it's certainly not required. i haven't had any
problem using a spyder on a hub.

you can tell they're full of **** when they say not to use front ports.

where a port is located makes no difference. they probably both go to
the same header on the board. the next thing you know, they'll say only
use the usb ports on the right side of the laptop and not the left
side.



On my laptop, Lenovo T430, it makes a significant difference.


--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 10:02 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:43:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

When I replace my old Wacom Bamboo with a newer model, I had problems.
There are many posts on the Wacom forums suggesting that using a hub
can cause problems. Not will, but can.

wacom tablets work perfectly fine on a hub. i've done it many times.

Sure you have, and you've tried all Wacom tablets, and all the posters
to the Wacom forums are making **** up, and you really do take
photographs.


Do you mean with a camera?


--
PeterN

On 9/17/2015 10:04 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:34:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:35:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I installed an SSD in my laptop that is used as a scratch disk. Since
doing so I noticed a significant increase in operational speed.

no surprise there.

Telling nospam that everything need not be on an SSD, will provoke a
reaction that is almost as violent as if you made a disparaging comment
about Apple.

not only is that wrong, but it's exactly what i said.

Oh boy! I have to laugh. Another confusing statement from nospam.

A literal interpretation is that 'exactly what you said [whatever that
was] is wrong'.

I'm sure you didn't quite mean what you have just written. Would you
like to try again?

what peter said is wrong.

i previously said that not everything needs to be on an ssd and even
explained what to put where and how it can be done automatically,
exactly what he said would send me into a rage, except that i had
already said it.

So it's right when you say it but wrong when Peter says it? Surely
that's not what you meant to say.

nospam will go either way as long as he can say he's right. He never
misstates anything. When he does, it's only nitpicking to point it
out and therefore not an error at all.


Not completely true. It could also be an edge case.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

That is true for a lot of cameras. But my D800 basic image is 34 mp.

Which is nothing. Even if you toil into the wee hours with it with
dozens of layers and edits, that one image will take far less than 1 GB
in the computer's memory while editing.

I know that most layers do not require very much space. However,
wouldn't a duplicate layer take up as much space as the original?

if it's a duplicate of the entire image, then yes. it could even use
more space if it also includes a mask.

if it's only the retouched bits, then no. adjustment layers are just
instructions on what to apply to the image, which makes them very tiny.

On 2015-09-18 21:06:39 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/17/2015 10:04 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:34:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:35:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I installed an SSD in my laptop that is used as a scratch disk. Since
doing so I noticed a significant increase in operational speed.

no surprise there.

Telling nospam that everything need not be on an SSD, will provoke a
reaction that is almost as violent as if you made a disparaging comment
about Apple.

not only is that wrong, but it's exactly what i said.

Oh boy! I have to laugh. Another confusing statement from nospam.

A literal interpretation is that 'exactly what you said [whatever that
was] is wrong'.

I'm sure you didn't quite mean what you have just written. Would you
like to try again?

what peter said is wrong.

i previously said that not everything needs to be on an ssd and even
explained what to put where and how it can be done automatically,
exactly what he said would send me into a rage, except that i had
already said it.

So it's right when you say it but wrong when Peter says it? Surely
that's not what you meant to say.

nospam will go either way as long as he can say he's right. He never
misstates anything. When he does, it's only nitpicking to point it
out and therefore not an error at all.


Not completely true. It could also be an edge case.

....but I don't have any edges which need casing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-09-18 16:55, PeterN wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:32 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-17 15:05, PeterN wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:11 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-17 12:27, PAS wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

what's more important is getting an ssd and a lot of memory, 16
gig
should be sufficient unless you're *really* pushing it hard.

16 gigs is a good amount of ram. If my motherboard supported 32
gigs,
I'd use it since the cost of RAM is cheap.

32 gig is certainly nice but it's not going to make much of a
difference if you're not pushing the limits of 16 gig and most people
don't.

Getting an SSD is not so
important.

nonsense.

an ssd is one of the easiest and best ways to boost performance,
and by
a *lot*, even for older computers.

For example, Photoshop will launch faster when it's
installed on an SSD but the app itself won't run any faster.

everything will be significantly faster because the majority of what
people do is i/o bound, including photoshop.

There's a
benefit to using an SSD as a scratch disk for Photoshop if the image
doesn't fit into RAM. If the image does fit into RAM and you've got
lots of RAM, there will be no performance benefit to having an SSD.

nonsense.

you've never actually tried it, have you?

The only nonsense is coming from you. Direct from Adobe's website:

You're using marketing hyperbole to cover your misunderstanding of
memory use by PS.

"Installing Photoshop on a solid-state disk (SSD) allows Photoshop to
launch fast, probably in less than a second. But that speedier startup
is the only time savings you experience. That's the only time when
much
data is read from the SSD.
To gain the greatest benefit from an SSD, use it as the scratch disk.
Using it as a scratch disk gives you significant performance
improvements if you have images that don't fit entirely in RAM. For
example, swapping tiles between RAM and an SSD is much faster than
swapping between RAM and a hard disk."

Photoshop's aged scratchdisk implementation comes from a time when
there
wasn't much RAM and a typical machine had many resources competing for
memory.

Given today's memory space on typical computers, the scratch disk is
probably not used at all in most photo processing by most people. And
high volume workload photo editors typically have machines with
generous
amounts of RAM.

These days the cheapest boost to photoshop speed is RAM, RAM and more
RAM whether or not you have SSD. Given HD or SSD the later is better,
of course but in most machines it's not even touched.

I have 24 GB on this computer. So the scratch disk is an unused
afterthought.


That is true for a lot of cameras. But my D800 basic image is 34 mp.

Which is nothing. Even if you toil into the wee hours with it with
dozens of layers and edits, that one image will take far less than 1 GB
in the computer's memory while editing.

I know that most layers do not require very much space. However,
wouldn't a duplicate layer take up as much space as the original?

So what? 20, 30 MB? At most? You could do that a dozen times and it
would never write to scratch (given reasonable memory).

On 2015-09-18 16:37, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm betting Apple abandon Intel within the next 5 years (possibly 3) and
that they go all ARM (under the Apple Ax processor line) for OS X. Note
that iOS has high source code commonality with OS X (kernel to just
below the UI)

low end macs will probably move to arm fairly soon to gain significant
battery life improvements as well as reduce components cost.

high end macs will likely remain intel for the foreseeable future.

I'd bet that Apple would convert the entire line right up to the Mac Pro
once they got things going. Maybe not as quick as the Intel transition,
but PDQ.

On 2015-09-18 02:57, David Taylor wrote:
On 17/09/2015 20:15, PAS wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article 201509171104071059-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

.. and would not 32 GB RAM be even better?

Yes, if your work needs it. I make do with 16GB.

for some purposes, 4 gig is fine.

it depends on what someone is actually doing.

blindly getting 16 gig or 32 gig just because it's the maximum could
easily be a waste of money.

Yes. I make due perfectly fine with 16GB of RAM. I may see an
advantage to having 32GB but most likely not, it wouldn't be noticed at
all.

Monitoring what happens gives you one figure, then allow for what might
happen in the future - sensor resolutions are still increasing so more
memory might be needed.

At one stage it made sense to get the maximum memory the motherboard
could take. For example, on a four-slot system, if it can take 32 GB
but the system is offered with 16 GB, that could come as 4 x 4 GB
meaning that if you later want to use the full 32 GB you end up throwing
16 GB away. There was also the case when older memory was either much
more expensive or unobtainable when you wanted to upgrade.


When I bought this computer it came with 8 GB. Apple want a fortune for
RAM, so I ordered RAM from Crucial (or OWC or whatever). Added 16 GB
for a total of 24. In the unlikely event that I need 32 GB, then the
original 8 GB will be taken out.

I can run OS X, Win XP, Win 7, a couple Linux' all at the same time
(virtualized) and load PS (for Mac) in the OS X machine; PS for Win in
either (or both) Windows machines, do any silly bugger thing I want in
all of them and there is memory to spare for a RAM disk of a few GB.

So for Peter's needs, I'd guess 8 GB is ample and 16 GB isn't a too
expensive comfort zone.

On 9/18/2015 12:04 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Floyd.
Bottom line:
I plan to make my purchase within the next week.
Would I be making any great mistake by getting an i7
quad core processor, or its AMD equivalent, with at
least 16g memory, and a video card that would fully
utilize a 4k ass monitor.

What would I tangibly lose if I got an 15 with a similar speed.
As you know my prime use is for Photoshop2015, with plugins & Corel Painter.

By the time I got to this, PAS and Bill W, along with a
few others, have provided several really good
discussions.

Just ignore nospam, as 90% of what he has said in
answer to your question is downright wrong.

The one difference I'd have with most others, is about
RAM. It is cheap. Get 32 Gigs. 16 Gigs is minimum,
and you aren't a struggling student who is broke. OS's
use the extra RAM for disk caching, and it literally
speeds up almost everything. (Just don't turn your
computer off when not in use, as that flushes the cache
and it has to be built again.)



Thanks. I rarely turn the machine off. Just put it to sleep. As I posted
earlier, I have decided on the brand, and just need to check the
graphics card for compatibility.

--
PeterN

On 9/18/2015 12:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The one difference I'd have with most others, is about
RAM. It is cheap. Get 32 Gigs. 16 Gigs is minimum,
and you aren't a struggling student who is broke.

16 gig is more than enough for the majority of users. 32 is overkill
unless someone is regularly editing *huge* images

OS's
use the extra RAM for disk caching, and it literally
speeds up almost everything.

a bigger difference would be get an ssd rather than 32 gig (versus 16
gig) of memory.

(Just don't turn your
computer off when not in use, as that flushes the cache
and it has to be built again.)

unless it won't be used for an extended period of time, why would
anyone turn off a computer? put it to sleep when not in use.

not only that but the disk cache changes a lot. you must not read/write
much data.


I don't give a flying sit about "most users." If you had any degree of
awareness you would know that my prime shooting is with a D800, and I am
constantly editing large images. Anyway I have decided.

--
PeterN