Digital BW, The Print

I'm becoming convinced that my main computer is too lite for the task
(scanning, PS, and especially Qimage). 

Sony Vaio Pentium IV 512MB 2.8G . And 2 external 120G HDs. 

Maybe the Mac G5 enthusiasts have a point. 

The next generation of scanners (in a year or two, after Nikon V and
9000 and Minolta 5400) will demand a lot more horsepower. 

How much ram do you have on your XP machines?  

What's your setup, what are your plans?

Just upgrade your machine to 2G of ram. RAM are so cheap now.. My
2.6GHz P4 is running fine.

M

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:

> 
> I'm becoming convinced that my main computer is too lite for the task
> (scanning, PS, and especially Qimage). 
> 
> Sony Vaio Pentium IV 512MB 2.8G . And 2 external 120G HDs. 
> 
> Maybe the Mac G5 enthusiasts have a point. 
> 
> The next generation of scanners (in a year or two, after Nikon V and
> 9000 and Minolta 5400) will demand a lot more horsepower. 
> 
> How much ram do you have on your XP machines?  
> 
> What's your setup, what are your plans?

> From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...]
>
> I'm becoming convinced that my main computer is too lite for the task
> (scanning, PS, and especially Qimage).
>
> Sony Vaio Pentium IV 512MB 2.8G . And 2 external 120G HDs.
>
> Maybe the Mac G5 enthusiasts have a point.
>
> The next generation of scanners (in a year or two, after Nikon V and
> 9000 and Minolta 5400) will demand a lot more horsepower.
>
> How much ram do you have on your XP machines?
>
> What's your setup, what are your plans?

I've got a 3.2GHz P4 with 3GB RAM and two internal 120GB disks in a raid
config. Windows will give up to 2GB to one app, and use the rest for
whatever else is going on, including disk cache. It's useful for doing
panos, which involve large multi-layered files.

I just ordered a Dell Inspiron XPS laptop, which has a 3.4GHz P4 and 2GB
RAM. Hopefully, it's display will submit to calibration well enough to do
some photo editing on, too. I chose it primarily for its 1920x1200 display.

Your 2.8GHz machine isn't particularly sprightly, and RAID is better than
two separate drives, but I'd guess that the half gig of RAM is your big
speed limitation. I recommend getting another couple of gigs, rather than
upgrading the rest of the machine.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

I see no indication that a scanner takes much CPU and on a Mac g5 I have an audible cpu 
useage meter (fans) so it should be obvious.

and Paul is right about the RAM, the other stuff is secondary by far.  When you have 
enough RAM, then they matter.

Scott

> > From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@y...]
> >
> > I'm becoming convinced that my main computer is too lite for the task
> > (scanning, PS, and especially Qimage).
> >
> > Sony Vaio Pentium IV 512MB 2.8G . And 2 external 120G HDs.
> >
> > Maybe the Mac G5 enthusiasts have a point.
> >
> > The next generation of scanners (in a year or two, after Nikon V and
> > 9000 and Minolta 5400) will demand a lot more horsepower.
> >
> 
 
> Your 2.8GHz machine isn't particularly sprightly, and RAID is better than
> two separate drives, but I'd guess that the half gig of RAM is your big
> speed limitation. I recommend getting another couple of gigs, rather than
> upgrading the rest of the machine.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@i...

It's likely that more memory - up to 2G -  will be a very large help.
 
Tom Baker

Djon <westsidemaurice@...> wrote:


I'm becoming convinced that my main computer is too lite for the task
(scanning, PS, and especially Qimage). 

Sony Vaio Pentium IV 512MB 2.8G . And 2 external 120G HDs. 

Maybe the Mac G5 enthusiasts have a point. 

The next generation of scanners (in a year or two, after Nikon V and
9000 and Minolta 5400) will demand a lot more horsepower. 

How much ram do you have on your XP machines? 

What's your setup, what are your plans? 






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul: I am also needing to upgrade the PC.  I have a P4 1.7 with 1.3gb RAM.
If XP assigns two gb to the app, then I guess anything over 3gb would not be
effective?  I see Dell offers a choice of two HDs or two in a RAID
configuration.  Can you point me to some info on the benefits of the RAID
array?  I would like to have one drive dedicated as the scratch disc for
Photoshop, and external HDs to store the RAW "negatives" (that are also
burned to DVD along with finished prints), unless I can do the same thing
better with multiple (more than two?) RAID drives.  I want to keep all the
RAW negatives on HDs in addition to DVDs, so I have some odds of not losing
anything until the next big thing arrives. Hope this makes some sense and
thx for any help.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul D. DeRocco [mailto:pderocco@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 4:23 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] computer horsepower ?
> 
> 
> > From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...]
> >
> > I'm becoming convinced that my main computer is too lite 
> for the task 
> > (scanning, PS, and especially Qimage).
> >
> > Sony Vaio Pentium IV 512MB 2.8G . And 2 external 120G HDs.
> >
> > Maybe the Mac G5 enthusiasts have a point.
> >
> > The next generation of scanners (in a year or two, after 
> Nikon V and 
> > 9000 and Minolta 5400) will demand a lot more horsepower.
> >
> > How much ram do you have on your XP machines?
> >
> > What's your setup, what are your plans?
> 
> I've got a 3.2GHz P4 with 3GB RAM and two internal 120GB 
> disks in a raid config. Windows will give up to 2GB to one 
> app, and use the rest for whatever else is going on, 
> including disk cache. It's useful for doing panos, which 
> involve large multi-layered files.

Ken,

If you are using an Intel CPU with DDR memory, 4GB will be faster than 3GB, 
because you can't give each of the 2 memory channels similar chips unless 
you use 2 or 4GB. To get 3GB you have to use dissimilar memory cards in each 
channel, i.e. a 1GB and a 512MB. That will run more slowly than 2x1GB or 
2x512MB.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>



Paul: I am also needing to upgrade the PC.  I have a P4 1.7 with 1.3gb RAM.
If XP assigns two gb to the app, then I guess anything over 3gb would not be
effective?

> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
>
> If you are using an Intel CPU with DDR memory, 4GB will be faster
> than 3GB,
> because you can't give each of the 2 memory channels similar chips unless
> you use 2 or 4GB. To get 3GB you have to use dissimilar memory
> cards in each
> channel, i.e. a 1GB and a 512MB. That will run more slowly than 2x1GB or
> 2x512MB.

For laptops with two slots, you're right. But most desktop mobos have two
pairs of slots, and as long as each pair has a matched set, they run
full-speed.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul,

Not so according to Intel with their 875 chipset! 

ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273001.pdf

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>

For laptops with two slots, you're right. But most desktop mobos have two
pairs of slots, and as long as each pair has a matched set, they run
full-speed.

> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
>
> Not so according to Intel with their 875 chipset!
>
> ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273001.pdf

You're right, having four identical DIMMs allows it to use dynamic paging
mode, which provides some increment in performance. But from their
description, it sounds like a small benefit compared to the huge gain you
get when going from a 64-bit to a 128-bit data path. Just having matched
pairs is enough for that. I certainly didn't notice any slowdown when I
added the second pair, although I didn't run any memory benchmarks.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Thanks much for the information.  If it is correct that XP will assign up to
2gb of ram to Photoshop, then it appears that 4gb total is indicated.  2 gb
would preserve the speed, per your explanation, but result in less than 2 gb
being assigned to Photoshop.  (My question was probably OT, but I'm
constantly impressed with the amount of practical knowledge here.)

I found the answer to the other part of my question, about the benefits of
RAID, on today's update on the Luminous Landscape site.  At my firm, our
servers have RAID arrays.  I should know more about it, but I leave the
technology to other partners who like it, so I can do what I do.  Basically
I knew they cost a gazillion dollars but would save our butt in case of a HD
failure.  The Luminous Landscape site describes a one-terrabyte RAID-5
array, with four HD's (three plus one in case of failure, the "hot disc" I
believe it's called), for $1,600.  http://www.infrant.com/  After reading
the explanation, I can see a lot of benefit in this for photographers.  I'm
thinking a good upgrade solution would be the PC with two HD's, one for
programs and one for a PS scratch disc, and the RAID box for storage of
images (along with DVD backups as I'm doing now). 

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...] 
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:15 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] computer horsepower ?
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> If you are using an Intel CPU with DDR memory, 4GB will be 
> faster than 3GB, because you can't give each of the 2 memory 
> channels similar chips unless you use 2 or 4GB. To get 3GB 
> you have to use dissimilar memory cards in each channel, i.e. 
> a 1GB and a 512MB. That will run more slowly than 2x1GB or 2x512MB.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
> 
> 
> 
> Paul: I am also needing to upgrade the PC.  I have a P4 1.7 
> with 1.3gb RAM.
> If XP assigns two gb to the app, then I guess anything over 
> 3gb would not be
> effective?

> From: Ken Carney [mailto:kcarney1@...]
>
> I found the answer to the other part of my question, about the benefits of
> RAID, on today's update on the Luminous Landscape site.  At my firm, our
> servers have RAID arrays.  I should know more about it, but I leave the
> technology to other partners who like it, so I can do what I do.
> Basically
> I knew they cost a gazillion dollars but would save our butt in
> case of a HD
> failure.  The Luminous Landscape site describes a one-terrabyte RAID-5
> array, with four HD's (three plus one in case of failure, the "hot disc" I
> believe it's called), for $1,600.  http://www.infrant.com/  After reading
> the explanation, I can see a lot of benefit in this for
> photographers.  I'm
> thinking a good upgrade solution would be the PC with two HD's, one for
> programs and one for a PS scratch disc, and the RAID box for storage of
> images (along with DVD backups as I'm doing now).

Well, there are two basic kinds of RAID, the kind that uses multiple disks
for redundancy, and the kind that combines them for speed (or some
combination of the two). I don't bother with the former, because I prefer
doing conventional backups across the network to a different machine in a
different part of the house. But I have two 120GB drives striped to look
like a single 240GB drive. That doubles the data rate to and from the drive,
which makes Photoshop's swapping faster. Then, I have a 250GB drive in
another machine that I copy stuff to roughly on a weekly basis.

None of this is that expensive. Disk drives are about half a buck per gig
(still under a buck for the largest sizes), and a two-disk RAID controller
card can be bought for $15 on the internet. It's becoming a routine feature
for motherboards, too.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul,

I saw a magazine/website comparison of these different memory configs 
recently, and they tested them with Sandra. There were significant 
differences (to gamers!), but I can't find it at the moment. If I come 
across it again, I'll send you the url.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
>
> Not so according to Intel with their 875 chipset!
>
> ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273001.pdf

You're right, having four identical DIMMs allows it to use dynamic paging
mode, which provides some increment in performance. But from their
description, it sounds like a small benefit compared to the huge gain you
get when going from a 64-bit to a 128-bit data path. Just having matched
pairs is enough for that. I certainly didn't notice any slowdown when I
added the second pair, although I didn't run any memory benchmarks.

Ken,

I just upgraded from 2GB to 4GB, because I was fed up with PS only being 
able to use about 50% of the 2GB before plugins etc stopped working for lack 
of memory. Now I can use PS at 90%, but my 4GB of RAM (on a PC) is not all 
available to programs. Nearly 0.5GB is reserved for system use, so PS can 
only see 1.7GB (half of 3.5GB). But if I am opening files in CApture and 
then transferring to PS, I don't have to close Capture any more to keep PS 
up to speed.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 1:07 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] computer horsepower ?



Thanks much for the information.  If it is correct that XP will assign up to
2gb of ram to Photoshop, then it appears that 4gb total is indicated.  2 gb
would preserve the speed, per your explanation, but result in less than 2 gb
being assigned to Photoshop.  (My question was probably OT, but I'm
constantly impressed with the amount of practical knowledge here.)

> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
>
> I just upgraded from 2GB to 4GB, because I was fed up with PS only being
> able to use about 50% of the 2GB before plugins etc stopped
> working for lack
> of memory. Now I can use PS at 90%, but my 4GB of RAM (on a PC)
> is not all
> available to programs. Nearly 0.5GB is reserved for system use, so PS can
> only see 1.7GB (half of 3.5GB). But if I am opening files in CApture and
> then transferring to PS, I don't have to close Capture any more
> to keep PS up to speed.

Why does it only see half of 3.5GB if you've set the memory percentage usage
to 90%?

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

At 8:42 PM -0800 2/26/05, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>Why does it only see half of 3.5GB if you've set the memory percentage usage
>to 90%?

Because Photoshop CS can only address a maximum of 2GB of memory, and 
in fact it only looks at the first 2GB, some of which is used by the 
OS, leaving a maximum of 1.7 GB available for Photoshop.

See http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/322829.html for the 
official details on this and advice on the best Photoshop settings if 
you have lots of RAM.

   -Paul
kb5mu@...

Paul Williamson writes:

> Because Photoshop CS can only address a maximum of 2GB of memory, and
> in fact it only looks at the first 2GB, some of which is used by the 
> OS, leaving a maximum of 1.7 GB available for Photoshop.

The same limitation applies to Windows XP and its kin, which limit
application memory to 2 GB.  Some NT-based versions of Windows allow 3
GB of application space to be allocated, but I believe the
per-application limit of 2 GB still applies.

This is closely linked with the 32-bit addressing scheme of the
hardware, which allows direct access to a maximum of 4 GB.

Adobe can only see a max of 2gb less some overhead (hence the 1.7).  It is
highly recommended that people with around 4gb or more of RAM set their % to
no more than 70%.  The issue is discussed in an Adobe support paper.

> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:42:26 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] computer horsepower ?
> 
> 
>> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
>> 
>> I just upgraded from 2GB to 4GB, because I was fed up with PS only being
>> able to use about 50% of the 2GB before plugins etc stopped
>> working for lack
>> of memory. Now I can use PS at 90%, but my 4GB of RAM (on a PC)
>> is not all
>> available to programs. Nearly 0.5GB is reserved for system use, so PS can
>> only see 1.7GB (half of 3.5GB). But if I am opening files in CApture and
>> then transferring to PS, I don't have to close Capture any more
>> to keep PS up to speed.
> 
> Why does it only see half of 3.5GB if you've set the memory percentage usage
> to 90%?
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>

From my experience, you have to find the magic number for yourself. It 
depends on what RAM you have, what plugins you want to run (some use part of 
PS's memory allocation, and some want memory outside), and what other 
programs you might want to run at the same time as PS. With 4GB RAM, I find 
I can now allocate 90% to CS and still use the NeatImage plugin, whereas 
previously (with only 2GB RAM) I had to reduce it to below 60%. And I can 
allow Capture to sit in the background, whereas previously I had to shut it 
down to get CS working reasonably fast.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>



Adobe can only see a max of 2gb less some overhead (hence the 1.7).  It is
highly recommended that people with around 4gb or more of RAM set their % to
no more than 70%.  The issue is discussed in an Adobe support paper.

I, too, have seen the 2GB limit.  I think it was from Chris Cox on the PS
list.

But, I think you're right about everone's magic number.  A LOT depends on
tweaking of services and the registry which is not for the faint of heart.  

One thing people can do is check how the "startup priority" is set.  If it
is not set to the foreground program having priority it can dog a low RAM
system down.

Regardless of which machine I use I set PS to 70-79%.  Again (ad nauseum)
having a swap drive for PS separate from the startup can be a large factor,
depending on the machine.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...] 
==
==From my experience, you have to find the magic number for 
==yourself. It depends on what RAM you have, what plugins you 
==want to run (some use part of PS's memory allocation, and 
==some want memory outside), and what other programs you might 
==want to run at the same time as PS. With 4GB RAM, I find I 
==can now allocate 90% to CS and still use the NeatImage 
==plugin, whereas previously (with only 2GB RAM) I had to 
==reduce it to below 60%. And I can allow Capture to sit in the 
==background, whereas previously I had to shut it down to get 
==CS working reasonably fast.

The 2 gb limit is fact.  But there is a lot of pushing on the Adobe Feature
Request sub forum for an extension of the limit for 64 bit processor
machines.

But guys - this is now way off-topic.

> From: Seth <seth@...>
> Organization: Serh Rossman Photography
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:41:24 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] computer horsepower ?
> 
> 
> I, too, have seen the 2GB limit.  I think it was from Chris Cox on the PS
> list.
> 
> But, I think you're right about everone's magic number.  A LOT depends on
> tweaking of services and the registry which is not for the faint of heart.
> 
> One thing people can do is check how the "startup priority" is set.  If it
> is not set to the foreground program having priority it can dog a low RAM
> system down.
> 
> Regardless of which machine I use I set PS to 70-79%.  Again (ad nauseum)
> having a swap drive for PS separate from the startup can be a large factor,
> depending on the machine.
> 
> Seth
> 
> ==-----Original Message-----
> ==From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
> ==
> ==From my experience, you have to find the magic number for
> ==yourself. It depends on what RAM you have, what plugins you
> ==want to run (some use part of PS's memory allocation, and
> ==some want memory outside), and what other programs you might
> ==want to run at the same time as PS. With 4GB RAM, I find I
> ==can now allocate 90% to CS and still use the NeatImage
> ==plugin, whereas previously (with only 2GB RAM) I had to
> ==reduce it to below 60%. And I can allow Capture to sit in the
> ==background, whereas previously I had to shut it down to get
> ==CS working reasonably fast.
> 
> 
>