U
Uwe Steinmueller
Guest
Sorry I forgot to mention that this is Win2K (I use NT since about 1992).
Uwe
Uwe
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
U
Uwe Steinmueller
Guest
I have 3 networked PCs.
1. main workstatation
2.One slower for printing
3. Notebook for CD-Burning
It is that D1x photos are large and NC2 + PS + Dreamweaver + Netscape + Thumsplus need there memeory.
But thank you all for getting me some new ideas.
Uwe
1. main workstatation
2.One slower for printing
3. Notebook for CD-Burning
It is that D1x photos are large and NC2 + PS + Dreamweaver + Netscape + Thumsplus need there memeory.
But thank you all for getting me some new ideas.
Uwe
U
Uwe Steinmueller
Guest
stanton
Senior Member
Have you considered a Mac, Uwe? Though I've found Capture2 is much faster on the PC, I find the even my older G4/400 slams though Photoshop documents. When it comes to Photoshop, a dual 800 G4 would be so fast and easy...and comes with a DVD burner and iDVD.
Just a thought,
Stanton
Just a thought,
Stanton
Jon ...
Forum Enthusiast
Uwe
Well, it is a matter of priorities
If you want to process files fast and such yet send them out, buy a firebreathing compooter
If you want to put up with the aggrevation for a bit and print them yourself, .....
Dell makes computers that are Intel Xeon 2ghz, dual proc, Scsi up to 15,000 rpm, with up to 4gig of memory
I do not know if the Xeon is better than the P IV.
Here is the Dell link ...
http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/products/model_precn_precn_530.htm
Later
Jon ...
Well, it is a matter of priorities
If you want to process files fast and such yet send them out, buy a firebreathing compooter
If you want to put up with the aggrevation for a bit and print them yourself, .....
Dell makes computers that are Intel Xeon 2ghz, dual proc, Scsi up to 15,000 rpm, with up to 4gig of memory
I do not know if the Xeon is better than the P IV.
Here is the Dell link ...
http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/products/model_precn_precn_530.htm
Later
Jon ...
U
Uwe Steinmueller
Guest
Stanton,
I don't even think of buying a Mac. Not because of quality. I use in my job and over 10 years Windows and have all the software and also know it. Investment!
Would I buy a Mac if I would start from scratch? May be.
Uwe
I don't even think of buying a Mac. Not because of quality. I use in my job and over 10 years Windows and have all the software and also know it. Investment!
Would I buy a Mac if I would start from scratch? May be.
Uwe
U
Uwe Steinmueller
Guest
U
Uwe Steinmueller
Guest
Paul F Caldwell
Leading Member
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes the Xeon is a server chip. I guess you could buy a server, with 2 processors and 4 gig of ram, etc. But most of the applications we are running were never meant to run on such machines. They are not written to handle mulit threading, address much more memory than 768mb and work in a raid 5 environment.
Plus last time I checked unless you are buying many of these machines the price point is around 5K for a xeon based machine. Many of the rack based 1U height boxes are using PIV or PIII chips, not xeon.
Xeon itself is a huge chip about the size of a CD-ROM external drive for most laptops. Xeon takes a totally diff. approach. You are dealing with more power, size, etc.
I would stay to the dual PIV machines, with maybe 2gb of total memory.
Paul
Plus last time I checked unless you are buying many of these machines the price point is around 5K for a xeon based machine. Many of the rack based 1U height boxes are using PIV or PIII chips, not xeon.
Xeon itself is a huge chip about the size of a CD-ROM external drive for most laptops. Xeon takes a totally diff. approach. You are dealing with more power, size, etc.
I would stay to the dual PIV machines, with maybe 2gb of total memory.
Paul
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
Really no need for 2 gig of memory in a dual P4 machine. The way memory is used, it would be overkill. Do not get me wrong, if the board can handle it, you might as well get it. It is cheap enough. The dual processor is the single most important improvement you can add to a work station. Mac has the G4 that is dual and its fast ONLY because of that and ONLY on Photoshop. Most programs cannot take advantage of the dual processor. The tests of motherboards suggests that dual processors, unless you use photoshop, are a total waste of time. One chip runs continously hot the other is NOT used. There are a number of motherboards available that support dual P4s and a raid controller as well. The processors do not have to be all that fast, the multithreading is an incrediblle advantager. The raid array (multiple drives) also add a jump to image processing by quadrupling swapfile writing and reading. just did a 230MB image last night on my P3-667 with 512MB Ram and though it was a little slow, it was not out of reach to do so. I only use my little tweaks as described earlier. Most of all, After I have done an image I reboot to get rid of that enormous Windows and Photoshop swapfile. Good luck,
Rinus
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
Uwe:
I'd second all the comments about swap drives. A dedicated partition on a fast SCSI drive produced noticeable differences in Photoshop on my PIII/733 with 512MB RAM. (And before I get all the "but the latest IDE drives are as fast" responses--that's what I thought on a PC, too, at least until I tried switching over to the latest SCSI boards with 160MB transfer rates.)
Also, the rule of thumb in Photoshop has been that you need a minimum of 3x the memory of the images you're working with, preferably 5x (however, I've noticed that that rule of thumb seems to be more accurate on my Mac than on a PC, which uses different memory management). I'm not sure about GF, though, it very well may have it's own memory issues, as it operates as a plug-in.
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com
I'd second all the comments about swap drives. A dedicated partition on a fast SCSI drive produced noticeable differences in Photoshop on my PIII/733 with 512MB RAM. (And before I get all the "but the latest IDE drives are as fast" responses--that's what I thought on a PC, too, at least until I tried switching over to the latest SCSI boards with 160MB transfer rates.)
Also, the rule of thumb in Photoshop has been that you need a minimum of 3x the memory of the images you're working with, preferably 5x (however, I've noticed that that rule of thumb seems to be more accurate on my Mac than on a PC, which uses different memory management). I'm not sure about GF, though, it very well may have it's own memory issues, as it operates as a plug-in.
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com
Uwe:
As a PC guy from the beginning I really hate to admit this, but all these recommendations to go over to a Mac are probably the best advice to follow if these apps are mission critical for you. The real problem here is that Photoshop has never been properly written/ported to work efficiently in any Windows environment. It simply will grab new resources everytime you try to do something, and it never, ever relinquishes any resource it grabs until you shut the program down, and sometimes not even then, depending on the Win version. I can't speak to XP, but I have run PS on every Win version, up to and including Win2k Pro, since the app was originally ported, always on state of the art machines with plenty of ram and multiple fast SCSI or IDE hard drives, and the story is always the same--the more you work, the more disk swapping you get, no matter how you tweak the swap file settings, no matter how much RAM. And when you start throwing fractal plug-ins on top of PS, you're really in for hard cheese.
I have had some luck, in Win2k only, running multiple instances of PS, as each will run in its own virtual machine and grab its own resources, but I only do that when I plan out completely seperate tasks with seperate sets of images. But my next step will be a move to a dedicated Mac for photographic/publishing work, freeing up my Win machines for what they do best, which is every damned thing else, amen.
As a PC guy from the beginning I really hate to admit this, but all these recommendations to go over to a Mac are probably the best advice to follow if these apps are mission critical for you. The real problem here is that Photoshop has never been properly written/ported to work efficiently in any Windows environment. It simply will grab new resources everytime you try to do something, and it never, ever relinquishes any resource it grabs until you shut the program down, and sometimes not even then, depending on the Win version. I can't speak to XP, but I have run PS on every Win version, up to and including Win2k Pro, since the app was originally ported, always on state of the art machines with plenty of ram and multiple fast SCSI or IDE hard drives, and the story is always the same--the more you work, the more disk swapping you get, no matter how you tweak the swap file settings, no matter how much RAM. And when you start throwing fractal plug-ins on top of PS, you're really in for hard cheese.
I have had some luck, in Win2k only, running multiple instances of PS, as each will run in its own virtual machine and grab its own resources, but I only do that when I plan out completely seperate tasks with seperate sets of images. But my next step will be a move to a dedicated Mac for photographic/publishing work, freeing up my Win machines for what they do best, which is every damned thing else, amen.
Z (is real)
Senior Member
Much of what has been written here strikes me as mindless babble. (E.g. "Get a Mac" is an advocacy position, not a practical suggestion.)
Since you are running on Win2k, I'd start by firing up the performance monitoring app "perfmon" and see what the system is doing while you are loading it down. You can configure the app to graph CPU usage, a wide variety of virtual memory statistics, as well as physical and logical disk performance measurements. (The only gotcha being to make sure you've run "diskperf -y" and rebooted before using the disk measurement stuff.)
This will tell you whether more RAM, a second disk drive, or a second CPU is most likely to improve performance. Of course, given hardware prices these days, it might be cheaper (accounting for the value of your time) to just buy another computer
-Z-
Since you are running on Win2k, I'd start by firing up the performance monitoring app "perfmon" and see what the system is doing while you are loading it down. You can configure the app to graph CPU usage, a wide variety of virtual memory statistics, as well as physical and logical disk performance measurements. (The only gotcha being to make sure you've run "diskperf -y" and rebooted before using the disk measurement stuff.)
This will tell you whether more RAM, a second disk drive, or a second CPU is most likely to improve performance. Of course, given hardware prices these days, it might be cheaper (accounting for the value of your time) to just buy another computer
-Z-
Gerry Gray
Forum Enthusiast
Right
Isn't. a Mac something that grows on a tree or maybe a truck ??
Gerry
Isn't. a Mac something that grows on a tree or maybe a truck ??
Gerry
Much of what has been written here strikes me as mindless babble.
(E.g. "Get a Mac" is an advocacy position, not a practical
suggestion.)
Since you are running on Win2k, I'd start by firing up the
performance monitoring app "perfmon" and see what the system is
doing while you are loading it down. You can configure the app to
graph CPU usage, a wide variety of virtual memory statistics, as
well as physical and logical disk performance measurements. (The
only gotcha being to make sure you've run "diskperf -y" and
rebooted before using the disk measurement stuff.)
This will tell you whether more RAM, a second disk drive, or a
second CPU is most likely to improve performance. Of course, given
hardware prices these days, it might be cheaper (accounting for the
value of your time) to just buy another computer
-Z-
Z (is real)
Senior Member
What I said was not meant to be a troll. I've done plenty of software development for MacOS (including on Photoshop itself). I currently work on both platforms on a daily basis.
My point is suggesting that a Windows user switch to the Mac to solve a performance problem is about as useful as telling a Nikon user to switch to Canon when they asked for advice on a which telephoto lens to buy.
-Z-
My point is suggesting that a Windows user switch to the Mac to solve a performance problem is about as useful as telling a Nikon user to switch to Canon when they asked for advice on a which telephoto lens to buy.
-Z-
Alfonso Bresciani
Senior Member
Gunter Pichler
Active member
Z
That is exactly what happened several years ago, many Nikon shooters switched to Canon for better AF performance, that trend was reversed with the intro of the F5.
Günter
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
I sure wished I had a Canon based system. Nikon is treating people in Canada like pests. The service is slow and I have never talked to a real living service rep. I have a Canon service depot in my city and can actually get answers. Canon aso knows how to make useful lenses like the 24 shift. (really a personal thing!)
As for the Mac, the platform used to be a much better format than the Win/Dos 640k limit but with Mac's problems they are basing their new operating system on a Linux format. Come to think of that, that is also the direction of the new Windows XP.
I was talking to a Mac expert and he said that the tweaking is just as important on a Mac as on Windows machine. Out of the box, neither is set to do Formula 1 racing. The moment you start thinking "specialty", you will be in the Pitstop changing tires and everything else. That is what provides a living for the "tweak service" industry. You will ask, who are they? We as users are the "tweakers" and we are here to share. This has been a helpful post for most of us.
Rinus
Z (is real)
Senior Member
MacOS X is based on a Mach kernel with BSD support and user space code. Life would actually be better if it were based on Linux because there is a larger following for Linux.
I can't see any support at all for the idea that Win XP is in any anyway "based" on Linux...
-Z-
R
Rinus Borgsteede
Guest
I do not know that much about software or operating systems but I read a lot and I defnately read what I just said. I do not know at what level the similarities coincide but I think it is "code" but for me that is not important anymore as long as I can have a Trinitron tube for editing, either will do.
Rinus
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum