A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old September 19th 15, 02:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Two questions

| 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.
|

I don't know about Macs, but on Windows it tends
to be a relative thing. Like a dog, software will eat it
if you hold it out. (Though I don't know the fine details
of how that allocation works.) And like your system, most
people have a lot of junk running that probably shouldn't
be. Over the years, more and more things will set themselves
to run at boot without asking.

You could probably clean things up a lot if you want
to. For example, stop all the Adobe stuff from running
in the background when you're not using it. (Adobe
Desktop Services at 1 GB sounds like a superfluous
mess.) But the bottom line is that you're fine so long
as you don't have to wait for swap file access when
you do things like applying filters. If things work fast
then you have enough RAM. If they don't then you
may not.

I'm currently running a usenet client and 2 browser
windows. I like to run lean. The system says I have
2.3 GB RAM. (Probably the rest is reserved for graphics.
I'm not sure.) Of the 2.3, 1.8 GB is currently free. Pale
Moon, at 135 MB, is the only notable hog. So in theory
I have 3+ GB RAM and some is allocated to graphics,
but I still have plenty to spare.


  #222  
Old September 19th 15, 02:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-19 00:58, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:02:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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 suspect that SCSA (The Secure Content Storage Association), trading
as Vidity will have a major impact on who does what with which in the
near future.


how would that affect apple transitioning to another cpu platform?


I believe it will require a secure chipset. We shall have to wait and
see.


Apple can implement such independently of CPU choice. If you look at
how they implemented functions such as Secure Enclave and Apple's
various encryption schemes found in Messages, etc., implementing Vidity
is pretty ho-hum ordinary for them.

  #223  
Old September 19th 15, 02:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-19 01:47, 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.


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.

  #224  
Old September 19th 15, 02:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-19 02:28, Tony Cooper wrote:

Just an added comment...people who talk about getting it right in
camera seem to saying that if you do that you don't need to be adept
in post. There are shots you can't get right enough in camera to not
need some post work. Those of us who do work extensively in post are
not failing to get it right in camera, and we only do work extensively
in post when it was not possible to get it entirely right in camera.


The "in camera" practice is quite valid and results (or should) in more
deliberate photo taking. But creatives don't see it that way. "in
camera" is just collecting source material for what will be built upon
in PS. And that doesn't mean they are less disciplined or caring when
they take the actual image.




  #225  
Old September 19th 15, 02:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-19 05:19, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , david-
lid says...

On 16/09/2015 21:23, PeterN wrote:
[]
Thanks, sounds like good information. Since I am doing pre-purchase
research, I will not be doing the experiments. I am thinking quad core
with about a 3.5 - 3.8 CPU. I know there are faster, but I am not yet
convinced that the additional price is worth the extra cost.


The price vs. performance goes up very steeply at the top end of the
performance range. I always try to come down one or two steps as you're
unlikely to notice the performance difference in typical use - unless
you are a games or doing a lot of very heavy video processing. Lower
clock speed may also result in lower temperatures, and hence better
system reliability.


It's often helpful to plot whatever performance figure-of-merit is of
interest against cost--one usually finds that there is a "knee" in the
curve where the rate of change increases drastically. That "knee" is
generally the best value.


For a home user it can be a moot point. I maxed this machine out in
order to 'future' proof it and increase its resale value when that time
comes. Certainly paid off with the prior machine.

Well, I can still 'max' it a bit more by changing out 8 GB for 16 GB for
a total of 32 while selling the 8 GB modules to offset the cost.
  #226  
Old September 19th 15, 02:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-19 05:29, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

I think either an Intel or AMD would do fine for you. Look into
getting
a system that has a self-contained liquid cooling system, it keeps
things cool and quiet and they are not expensive at all. I put one
in
my system when I upgraded recently and I really am happ that I
decided
to go with it rather than a CPU fan.

oh god no. liquid cooling is just asking for trouble


Sure it is - not.


Depends on the cooling. IBM mainframes are liquid cooled these days and
the MTBF is measured in decades IIRC.


Liquid cooling is an option in some z series computers. I suspect it's
simply a means of reducing the floor footprint of the machine.

The system is designed for hot fail module swapping where the system
will run at reduced capacity until the failed module is replaced. This
applies to pretty much every operating part in the frame (from PS to I/O
to processors to memory to disks). The system reports failures to IBM
support so the natty tech can run out and change the part.

So while its parts have lower MTBF's, the "whole" keeps operating. If
you allow that to mean the "system did not fail" then, yes the system
MTBF is very high.

  #227  
Old September 19th 15, 02:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Two questions

On 2015-09-19 06:20, Pablo wrote:
nospam wrote:

the mouse doesn't use cpu.


No, as you say, the graphics card must communicate directly with the mouse
to know what it's up to.


There is absolutely no direct connection between the mouse and the
graphics card.

The user interface (subset of the OS software) needs to know what the
mouse focus is and what buttons are pressed and how the wheel is turning
and so on. That drives pointer and action functions.

The UI continuously updates the position of the cursor in the virtual
representation of the UI map. It tells the graphics "card" where to map
the cursor.

Note that on many low to mid machines there is no "graphics" card
anymore, it is on the same chip as the CPU with support chips that
render the video signals.
  #228  
Old September 19th 15, 04:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Two questions

On 9/18/2015 4:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

snip


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. I currently keep all my images on external drives, and that has
been working fine. The new machine will have sufficient power and
expansion capacity to switch to an internal RAID configuration.
I have pretty much decided on a Lenovo P300, which I am configuring.

--
PeterN
  #229  
Old September 19th 15, 04:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Two questions

On 9/18/2015 12:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Back in the old days (before nospam was born!),

you have no idea when i was born.


Based on your online persona and total lack of social skills, I simply
assumed you were still living in your grandmother's basement, and
flipping burgers to earn just enough money to buy the latest video games.


you know what they say about assumptions

Your lack of outright denial is noted.

--
PeterN
  #230  
Old September 19th 15, 04:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Two questions

On 9/18/2015 12:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
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.
From mommy's basement you would get a wound care specialist.

--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions Linux Flash Drives Digital Photography 0 May 7th 07 06:38 PM
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography David J Taylor Digital Photography 10 March 24th 05 06:18 PM
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography Progressiveabsolution Digital Photography 4 March 24th 05 05:11 PM
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digitalphotography Matt Ion Digital Photography 3 March 24th 05 03:57 PM
First SLR questions Rick Digital Photography 26 August 8th 04 12:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.