Two questions

On 9/18/2015 2:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-18 18:08:15 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/17/2015 8:15 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-17 19:52:40 +0000, "PAS" said:

"PeterN" wrote in message
...

I think you should buy a Rolls to make nospam happy.

I had my heart set on a Bentley but he'd claim it's substandard
because it's not a Rolls.

Well a Bentley is a VW after all, while a Rolls is a BMW.

You could always go for a Bugatti Veyron. Oh! wait, that is also a VW.

So it might be best to settle for a Koenigsegg.
http://koenigsegg.com

Wish I still had my Cord.

I wish I had your Cord.
https://db.tt/JhO7oK7O


You an have that one. Unless mine was repainted.

--
PeterN

On 9/18/2015 4:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

unfortunately there's no easy way to tell which hubs are garbage.

Sure there is. Just try them. They are not at all expensive.

some are, some aren't, and most people don't want to buy dozens of hubs
and test them, assuming they even know what to test *for*.


Yet another example of your snipping to show me saying something I
didn't. It would have been just as easy to leave in the attribution of
the statement to which I was replying. Again, you deliberately do that
to confuse.
More twisting. Clear implication to anyone who is discussing in good
faith. Buy one. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't work, return it.


--
PeterN

On 9/18/2015 11:58 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:35:24 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 9:25 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:43:50 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:35:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

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

almost none.

I think Eric is thinking the same as me - there are devices that have
instructions that tell you not to run them through a hub. Spyder is
one of them, and I'm too lazy to try to remember the others. That
doesn't mean they won't work through a hub, and I've never bothered to
try with any of them. It's likely that some, or even most of them
would work in spite of the warnings. So anyway, with lots of ports,
there's no need to give it any thought.

i've used spyder thru a hub without issue.

the only thing i can think of that might not work with a hub are
devices that sink more than the usual amount of current and are plugged
into a bus-powered hub. the solution there is to use a self-powered
hub.

note that there are ****-quality hubs out there which could cause some
devices to not work, not because the device is plugged into a hub, but
because they're **** quality.

And that last part is likely the reason for the warnings. Some tech
support centers probably got enough calls that ended in the discovery
that the (****ty) hub was at fault, that they decided to try to
lighten the load on their support team by telling buyers not to use
hubs at all. Easy way out, and why not?

My hub is a D-Link unit with a power supply. My Wacom tablet did not
function well plugged into it.


And yet, my Wacom functions fine, while plugged into a hub. I forgot
what model I have, but it is not the Bamboo.

S'OK. My Wacom Intuos problems are not communicable. Your Wacom will
not catch anything from my post.

What blows my mind is that nospam usually takes the position of "let
the computer do the work" (he means software) and to avoid extra work.

Yet, when I solve a problem by simply changing where the unit is
plugged in, he wants me to do extra work and check out a bunch of
things. You would think he's just here to argue.

All other devices used on my D-Link hub work fine.


Sigh of relief.

--
PeterN

On 9/18/2015 4:52 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/18/2015 04:32 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/17/2015 9:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:59:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Re the USB, you need a *lot* of ports straight off the bus.

no you don't.

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

Nikon D750: Copied from the manual
"Connect the camera diectly to the computer; do not connect the
cable via a USB hub or keyboard."

Dikon D300: Copied from the manual
"Connect the camera directly to the computer; do not connect the
cable via a USB hub or keyboard.

I have encountered this kind of thing with other devices also.


I always thought that in theory, using a hub should not make a
difference. I wonder why.


Any additional active device in the electronics chain is going to
introduce a delay, possible noise, possible signal distortion. Whether
that will be important is another matter- it may not be. It's also
possible that the hub may reshape or amplify the signal and improve it.
Or not.

I vaguely recall a couple USB devices that recommend using an externally
powered hub, as the computer might not supply sufficient power. The only
one that comes to mind immediately is a Voice Over IP unit that has to
ring the telephone.


That could be why. In any event I use an externally powered hob.
Possibly that is why I have not had hub issues.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Offhand you'd be fine with a higher clocked i5 (rather than an i7),
plenty of memory (16 better than 8) and as much SSD as you think you
need. But a lower clocked quad core i7 with HT will be much more
responsive.

As to SSD and photos, my opinion is less SSD is fine - you really want
the OS and application in there - and store photos on cheaper spinning
mass externally. So 256 - 512 GB of main disk SSD is probably ample
unless you really want a lot of other stuff on the main disk SSD.


Thanks,
What you are saying makes eminent sense. At this point I am not getting
an SSD.

that's a mistake. at least get an ssd for the os/apps.

I currently keep all my images on external drives, and that has
been working fine.

you can still do that, and in fact, should do that.

The new machine will have sufficient power and
expansion capacity to switch to an internal RAID configuration.

what for

I have pretty much decided on a Lenovo P300, which I am configuring.

ok

In article , PeterN
wrote:

did you try to identify the actual cause?

Yes. When changing where it is plugged in eliminates the problem, that
identifies the source of the problem.

that *eliminates* the problem. it does not *identify* it.

as i said, you could have replaced the computer which would have also
eliminated the problem. in your world, that would have meant the
computer was the problem.

In the real world we solve problems in a practical low cost manner. When
I cut myself, I apply the smallest feasible bandage. If I cut myself on
a rusty nail, I get a shot and disinfect the area.

*completely* missing the point. not even close.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

unfortunately there's no easy way to tell which hubs are garbage.

Sure there is. Just try them. They are not at all expensive.

some are, some aren't, and most people don't want to buy dozens of hubs
and test them, assuming they even know what to test *for*.

Yet another example of your snipping to show me saying something I
didn't. It would have been just as easy to leave in the attribution of
the statement to which I was replying. Again, you deliberately do that
to confuse.

wrong on all counts.

More twisting. Clear implication to anyone who is discussing in good
faith. Buy one. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't work, return it.

that's not what you said.

looks like it's you who is twisting.

On 9/18/2015 5:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.


You would also remove the casing before creating the edges here.
http://www.justapinch.com/recipes/appetizer/meat-appetizer/bologna-cake.html

--
PeterN

On 19/09/2015 14:31, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
Don't be too smug. My SO operated OS X (Mavericks) on 2 GB and could
load and run her e-mail client, PS CS5, browser and various utility apps
all at once.

The OS will ALWAYS use as much memory as is reasonably available - apps
also use memory until they're forced to dispose of it or until the OS
begins swapping.

In sum, you can't compare the memory stats on a 8 GB computer with those
of a 16 GB computer. Too many variables about how each OS and each app
uses and disposes of memory.

Yes, we have good experience here with a 3 GB Win-10/32 computer.

It was "I have 9.8GB allocated to PS", and a few of the other memory
figures, which rather shocked me (at least compared to similar Windows
programs). On this PC, it's showing 4.9 GB memory used out of 8 GB, but
I know that much of the "free" memory is actually being used as cache.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 9/19/2015 1:47 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 19/09/2015 06:24, Savageduck wrote:
[]
On my Mac I have 16GB, of that I have 9.8GB allocated to PS, I currently
have 4 layers of a 4288 x 2412 @360 tiff open. The memory usage is
4.53GB. There is still some headroom.
In Lightroom I have left the RAW cache setting at 1GB, and LR is open
and using a massive 450.3MB.
I have also been experimenting with Affinity Photo, and that is open
with a NEF and three layers, and it is using 806.9MB.
The Creative Cloud is using 1.03GB (I don't know why)
Adobe Desktop Services is using 977.9MB.(I don't know why)
My web browser is using up 1.61GB. (I have lots of tabs open)
My Mail app is using 241.2MB.
This Usenet Client is using 167.4MB
My Wacom driver is eating up 24.4MB

The system refuses to give up the 2.24GB it is using.
There is some other stuff running is using 1.8GB.

So of the 16 GB installed, and with heavy multi-task, multi-app usage I
am currently using 13.8GB. If I need to free up some of that RAM there
are a few apps I can quit to give PS that 9.8GB I have assigned it.

I could also go to 24GB or 32GB, but for now I am managing with 16GB.

Wow! I hadn't realised just how profligate with memory (as well as with
money) those Adobe programs are! The Apple software too. Fortunately,
I am spared those problems as much simpler (and lower cost) programs
completely satisfy my photographic organisation and processing needs. It
seems wrong to me that a program needs memory pre-allocated.

On this 8 GB Windows PC, one of my own programs uses 526 MB (it does
have a 124 MPix image and four 30 MPix images - all monochrome
fortunately), Firefox uses 186 MB, Mail 90 MB and Thunderbird (news) 84
MB etc. etc. Oh, and there is a 700 MB (max) RAMdisk for the satellite
reception buffering, but that sizes dynamically and isn't using a lot
right now.

Another difference is that I very rarely use RAW - perhaps reducing the
memory requirements somewhat. I'm less seriously into post-processing
than many in the group, preferring to get things right in the camera,
and I rarely print, the display is my main output medium.


If it's working for you, great. I think your last paragraph tells a good
reason. RAW files are much larger than JPEG.

--
PeterN