Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Advice for building a PC for Still photography

Reply
Thread Tools

Advice for building a PC for Still photography

 
 
Mike Hyndman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006

Clyde
> A couple of questions though... Windows XP naturally only uses 2 GB of
> memory. There are some settings that you can use to get it to use 3 GB of
> memory. That is somewhat limited in functionality and I don't know if it
> works on XP Home or Media Center versions.


By default, Windows can address a total of 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual
address space.
By default, 2 GB of this is reserved for the kernel (operating system), and
2 GB is reserved for User mode programs
When you put a /3GB switch into the Boot.ini file of the operating system,
you reallocate the virtual address space distribution to give User mode
programs 3 GB of space and limit the kernel to 1 GB.
This switch only works in WXP Pro.
Any extra RAM above this amount is used in preference to the scratch disc. I
once asked a Adobe engineer how much RAM does PS need and his reply was,
"more!"

At the moment, XPMC is not a "supported" OS as far as Adobe is concerned,
but I know people who use both without problem.

Regards
Mike H


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:33:46 -0600, Clyde <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Why don't you use XP Pro x64 Edition? You are paying for the 64 bit dual
>core chip and a bunch of memory, buy the OS that uses those features.
>OK, it won't make Photoshop use 64 bit processing, but the OS will use
>it. It will also use up to 128 GB of RAM. I don't know why you wouldn't
>use any other OS.


Because many devices don't have 64 bit drivers available.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:13:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Bill Funk
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:33:46 -0600, Clyde <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Why don't you use XP Pro x64 Edition? You are paying for the 64 bit dual
>>core chip and a bunch of memory, buy the OS that uses those features.
>>OK, it won't make Photoshop use 64 bit processing, but the OS will use
>>it. It will also use up to 128 GB of RAM. I don't know why you wouldn't
>>use any other OS.

>
>Because many devices don't have 64 bit drivers available.


Except the OP asked about a PC specifically for still photography. So. What
drivers other than a printer and scanner driver are really needed? OK
monitor calibration SW/driver as well?
--
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:25:27 -0500, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN
SIG!)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:13:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Bill Funk
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:33:46 -0600, Clyde <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't you use XP Pro x64 Edition? You are paying for the 64 bit dual
>>>core chip and a bunch of memory, buy the OS that uses those features.
>>>OK, it won't make Photoshop use 64 bit processing, but the OS will use
>>>it. It will also use up to 128 GB of RAM. I don't know why you wouldn't
>>>use any other OS.

>>
>>Because many devices don't have 64 bit drivers available.

>
>Except the OP asked about a PC specifically for still photography. So. What
>drivers other than a printer and scanner driver are really needed? OK
>monitor calibration SW/driver as well?


Maybe because the system won't be *ONLY* for photography.
Just becasue someone says a computer will be used for a certain task
doesn't mean it will be *only* used for that task.
While certainly one could build a system that's fully 64 bit
compatable, it narrows the choices, for what is, in reality, a small
benefit.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2006
David J Taylor wrote:

> Stability, apparently. I've just bought a new PC and wanted similar
> specs to what was mentioned. The shop I was buying it from spent a
> week trying to get it stable with 4GB and gave up. Sold me the 3GB
> instead. OK under Win-64 and Linux, but not XP. Any profit they
> made was lost with a week trying to get the system working. They
> tried various combinations of memory, processors, video cards etc.


This is a clear and present indicator for you to put your tail between your
legs and run as fast as you can from that shop. It seems these buffoons are
terminally clueless and/or trying to sell mismatched generic memory not
designed for *your* motherboard. This is never an issue with a good
motherboard using manufacturer-approved memory

> I'm sure they would have preferred to sell me a 4GB system if they
> could!


They are just so happy to find a home to dump the cheap memory.







Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2006
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Stability, apparently. I've just bought a new PC and wanted similar
>> specs to what was mentioned. The shop I was buying it from spent a
>> week trying to get it stable with 4GB and gave up. Sold me the 3GB
>> instead. OK under Win-64 and Linux, but not XP. Any profit they
>> made was lost with a week trying to get the system working. They
>> tried various combinations of memory, processors, video cards etc.

>
> This is a clear and present indicator for you to put your tail
> between your legs and run as fast as you can from that shop. It
> seems these buffoons are terminally clueless and/or trying to sell
> mismatched generic memory not designed for *your* motherboard. This
> is never an issue with a good motherboard using manufacturer-approved
> memory
>> I'm sure they would have preferred to sell me a 4GB system if they
>> could!

>
> They are just so happy to find a home to dump the cheap memory.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita


Well, I don't get that impression. Researching with Google suggests this
is a known issue, although not one which is widely publicised. Have you
actually seen a dual-core PC running Windows 32 with 4GB of memory, and
actually having the 4GB of memory reported? I suspect not. See:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888137

As I said, with Win-64 or Linux the system was quite stable with 4GB, but
not with Win-32. As this is my main production PC, I was not willing to
take the risk, nor was I willing to live with the current problems of
Win-64. It also may explain why, on many self-configuration PC Web sites,
the 4GB option isn't available with Win-32.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
No Thanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2006

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:W7WKf.24602$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Stability, apparently. I've just bought a new PC and wanted similar
>>> specs to what was mentioned. The shop I was buying it from spent a
>>> week trying to get it stable with 4GB and gave up. Sold me the 3GB
>>> instead. OK under Win-64 and Linux, but not XP. Any profit they
>>> made was lost with a week trying to get the system working. They
>>> tried various combinations of memory, processors, video cards etc.

>>
>> This is a clear and present indicator for you to put your tail
>> between your legs and run as fast as you can from that shop. It
>> seems these buffoons are terminally clueless and/or trying to sell
>> mismatched generic memory not designed for *your* motherboard. This
>> is never an issue with a good motherboard using manufacturer-approved
>> memory
>>> I'm sure they would have preferred to sell me a 4GB system if they
>>> could!

>>
>> They are just so happy to find a home to dump the cheap memory.


Nonsense. It wouldn't matter what kind of memory or motherboard you had. It
is a well known deficiency with windows.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=5...n+as+3gb&meta=


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fine Tune Your Photography Skills with Photography Expert RobSheppard! xtrain4u@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 03-14-2008 02:11 PM
Panoramic photography on the cheap! - Photography Help Blog by Pixelpix PixelPix Digital Photography 19 06-10-2007 05:28 AM
building a PC for Still photography Joe Digital Photography 34 02-17-2006 11:22 PM
The Photography Cafe is the Place to Share your Photography! Patzt Digital Photography 0 08-14-2005 06:20 AM



Advertisments