Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Question for you computer geeks

Reply
Thread Tools

Question for you computer geeks

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2007
OK, geeks, listen up.
Here is my current computer system right now.
Windows XP Pro
3.2MHz Pentium 4
2GB Memory
Hard drives as follows:
C: 120Gb SATA
D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
F: DVD
G: DVD-R
H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
L: 160 GB SCSI
Most of my disks are almost full.

OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.

What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
my drives onto the big drive.
I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
new OS?
Or is there a better way of going about it?
What would you do?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2007
Annika1980 wrote:

> What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
> install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
> my drives onto the big drive.
> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
> memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
> new OS?
> Or is there a better way of going about it?
> What would you do?


In your case is would be best to dump all the trash you accumulated over the
years and put your best images on a 3.5" floppy. There's no ****en reason
to warehouse all that garbage. I don't know why you want to put the OS on a
1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one for
your garbage and apps. All your cracked programs should work fine on
64-bit. I'm not sure if your kegens will work.





Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
On Dec 26, 6:56*pm, Rita Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> *I don't know why you want to put the OS on a
> 1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one for
> your garbage and apps. *


That's normally what I try to do, but inevitably the C: drive gets
filled up anyway. I hate it when some programs automatically download
onto the C: drive without asking. I figured if I could clear out one
of my smaller drives I could use it for a scratch disk or something. I
suppose I could partition the big drive for that purpose, but I might
lose some performance. Plus, I hate having so many drive letters and
partitions. I'd rather have just one or two drives if possible.
Might make things easier on the power supply as well if I could lose a
few drives.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>OK, geeks, listen up.
>Here is my current computer system right now.
>Windows XP Pro
>3.2MHz Pentium 4
>2GB Memory
>Hard drives as follows:
>C: 120Gb SATA
>D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
>F: DVD
>G: DVD-R
>H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
>A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
>L: 160 GB SCSI
>Most of my disks are almost full.
>
>OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
>I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
>I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.
>
>What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
>install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
>my drives onto the big drive.
>I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
>memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
>new OS?
>Or is there a better way of going about it?
>What would you do?



I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007

"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
> memory.


I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or
8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and
it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly
addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own
1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.)
If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much
physical memory as the OS would give it.

Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the
OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and
presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch
file.

> My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS?


This review (the first link google found) claims you can.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/...x64/index.html

> Or is there a better way of going about it?
> What would you do?


I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick
with 32-bit XP.

My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS
page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current
data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file,
application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly.

By the way, I wish you wouldn't crosspost to aus.photo. It would reduce the
noise over here substantially.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
El Barto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>> OK, geeks, listen up.
>> Here is my current computer system right now.
>> Windows XP Pro
>> 3.2MHz Pentium 4
>> 2GB Memory
>> Hard drives as follows:
>> C: 120Gb SATA
>> D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
>> F: DVD
>> G: DVD-R
>> H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
>> A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
>> L: 160 GB SCSI
>> Most of my disks are almost full.
>>
>> OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
>> I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
>> I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.
>>
>> What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
>> install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
>> my drives onto the big drive.
>> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
>> memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
>> new OS?
>> Or is there a better way of going about it?
>> What would you do?

>
>
> I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
> dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.
>

So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment?
for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums
at the moment, even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality
CD's are starting to fail after only a few years.
Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that
if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your
backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate
locations if possible.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
John Navas wrote:

> I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
> dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.


And you'd be making a hell of a lot of expensive coasters. Only an idiot
would recommend that shitty of an optical solution.






Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
Annika1980 wrote:

>> I don't know why you want to put the OS on a
>> 1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one
>> for your garbage and apps.

>
> That's normally what I try to do, but inevitably the C: drive gets
> filled up anyway. I hate it when some programs automatically download
> onto the C: drive without asking. I figured if I could clear out one
> of my smaller drives I could use it for a scratch disk or something. I
> suppose I could partition the big drive for that purpose, but I might
> lose some performance. Plus, I hate having so many drive letters and
> partitions. I'd rather have just one or two drives if possible.
> Might make things easier on the power supply as well if I could lose a
> few drives.


There's always going to be programs that will dump system files onto the C:
drive, but that doesn't mean that a lot of programs don't give you the
choice. A shitty 120GB SATA for C: is more than plenty. The other thing you
might want to consider is putting a server in the old basement closet. My
house is full gigabit and everything attached is as well except for my laser
printer. I can stream MP3s as well as movies effortlessly. This way you
can keep a small high-performance desktop PC on your desk without all the
clutter and cluster**** you probably have now.





Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:39:20 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
>> memory.


It only does better with more than 4 GB.

>I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or
>8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and
>it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly
>addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own
>1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.)
>If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much
>physical memory as the OS would give it.


The 2 GB limit is per process, not per thread.
Anything over 4 GB is wasted with 32-bit XP.
64-bit XP currently supports up to 128 GB,
and gives 32-bit apps up to 4 GB.

>Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the
>OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and
>presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch
>file.


Correct.

>I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick
>with 32-bit XP.


Why not Windows XP Professional x64 Edition??? Memory is cheap and
getting cheaper.

>My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS
>page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current
>data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file,
>application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly.


I suggest: (1) OS, (2) page + scratch, (3) data.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2007
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:40:21 +1100, El Barto <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <fkus9m$ohk$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>John Navas wrote:


>> I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
>> dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.
>>

>So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment?
>for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums
>at the moment,


50 years or more.

>even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality
>CD's are starting to fail after only a few years.


I've seen no credible evidence of high-grade optical discs failing when
they've been stored properly. I've yet to have a problem reading any of
my oldest CD-R discs.

>Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that
>if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your
>backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate
>locations if possible.


HDD has much shorter life than any high-quality optical media, on the
order of only 5 years.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
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
'A hard question for' computer geeks '' who know a lot about saving files from the temporary file filename.joe@gmail.com Computer Support 1 08-19-2007 12:22 AM
Are You At The Mercy Of Computer Geeks? OurCompGuy Computer Information 1 01-22-2007 01:02 PM
Books about computer geeks? rick C Programming 20 10-17-2006 07:45 PM
For the computer geeks.... Poker Digital Photography 8 01-17-2005 01:23 PM
Re: Car Recalls And Computer Geeks colinco NZ Computing 69 08-16-2003 06:58 AM



Advertisments