Big Time Upgrade

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by slats1, Feb 15, 2009.

  1. slats1

    slats1 Guest

    Hello and Thanks for looking,,,

    I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. I can
    only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
    plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
    Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
    flow of video. I need to edit
    the church videos about an hour long.
    Any help most appreciated. Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
    slats1, Feb 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. slats1

    Paul Guest

    slats1 wrote:
    > Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
    >
    > I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    > I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. I can
    > only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
    > plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
    > Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
    > flow of video. I need to edit
    > the church videos about an hour long.
    > Any help most appreciated. Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
    >
    >


    Slow down a bit first.

    If the computer can take 2GB of RAM, the processor is probably
    more modern than a Pentium 2. It could be a Pentium 4 for
    example.

    Video editing is pretty demanding, especially when the final
    file is rendered. No matter what processor you have, it is
    going to take a while. It might have to run all night, and
    part way into the next day, for example.

    If you have Win2K as your OS, it should be upgraded
    to Service Pack 4 (SP4). That will aid in supporting
    the large hard drive. The hard drive could be formatted
    with NTFS (from Disk Management), as NTFS supports large
    files such as your video files. A video file could be
    larger than 4GB, for example, and FAT32 would be a poor
    choice in that case, because it doesn't support files
    larger than that.

    The requirements for Premiere 6.5 are listed here. They're
    claiming you could edit with a PIII 500MHz, and real time preview
    with PIII 800MHz. They don't seem to be specifying a lot of
    RAM, so you might even try the program using the RAM you
    have currently. I'd probably want 512MB as a comfortable
    minimum starting point - sure, the OSes can probably
    be run with less, but I wouldn't want to use a system
    that way.

    http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-2550041...8-5839310-1669767?ie=UTF8&n=229534&s=software

    To get some data about your computer, try this program.
    It'll tell you about the processor and the RAM. Download
    the program, then run cpuz.exe . There is nothing to install,
    and running cpuz.exe will show the results.

    http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

    In this screenshot, the processor name is "AMD Sempron 2600+"
    and the actual clock speed is 1608.5MHz (~ 1.6GHz). The 2600+
    part, would tell you the processor is roughly as fast
    as a 2.6GHz Celeron from Intel. So CPUZ can give you some idea
    what hardware is inside the computer.

    http://news.softpedia.com/images/reviews/large/CPU-Z_01large.png

    Good luck,
    Paul
    Paul, Feb 16, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. slats1

    sandy58 Guest

    On Feb 15, 11:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:
    > Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
    >
    >                      I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    > I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6.   I can
    > only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
    > plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
    >               Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
    > flow of video.  I need to edit
    > the church videos about an hour long.
    >        Any help most appreciated.   Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
    >


    alt.video.dvd.authoring & Ping "Ken Maltby".
    He's your man.
    Good luck, slats1
    sandy58, Feb 19, 2009
    #3
  4. slats1

    gnu / linux Guest

    On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:
    > Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
    >
    > I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    > I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. I can
    > only take the Ram up to 2 GB. The processor is a Pentium 2 I think. I
    > plan on getting an external hard drive around 750GB's.
    > Will I have enough memory, power etc. to handle a steady
    > flow of video. I need to edit
    > the church videos about an hour long.
    > Any help most appreciated. Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
    >


    wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice :)))
    gnu / linux, Feb 19, 2009
    #4
  5. slats1

    slats1 Guest

    On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:
    >
    > > Hello and Thanks for looking,,,



    >
    > >                      I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    > > I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice :)))




    Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. I dug a little
    deeper on the old computer. It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
    the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 478) which is
    a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
    But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. I don't think I'll
    be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. I
    was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
    bit. I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
    internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
    Thanks for all the help. I'll have to shop around or
    maybe build a unit. I've never done it before. The harddrive
    formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! I'd need a windows software too.
    I have the Premier & Photoshop software. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Steve

    slats1, Feb 19, 2009
    #5
  6. slats1

    Paul Guest

    slats1 wrote:
    > On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <> wrote:
    >> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,

    >
    >
    >>> I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    >>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice :)))

    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. I dug a little
    > deeper on the old computer. It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
    > the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 478) which is
    > a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
    > But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. I don't think I'll
    > be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. I
    > was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
    > bit. I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
    > internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
    > Thanks for all the help. I'll have to shop around or
    > maybe build a unit. I've never done it before. The harddrive
    > formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! I'd need a windows software too.
    > I have the Premier & Photoshop software. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    > Steve
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
    a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
    new machine will be.

    As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041

    The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
    core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
    each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
    there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
    as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.

    Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
    things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
    to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
    evident while you're rendering the video.

    Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
    to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
    Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
    one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
    in those cases.

    Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
    solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
    in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
    then splice the results together. If each core works on
    a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
    by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
    3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
    tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
    about.)

    It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
    older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
    to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
    only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
    Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
    cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
    the modern processors.

    But before spending any money, you should determine whether
    the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
    see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
    stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
    screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
    there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
    walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
    But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.

    So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
    on whether the render is still running the next day when
    you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
    you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.

    In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
    processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
    This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
    found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photoshop-CS-3,826.html

    In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning.
    You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Mainconcept-Reference-1.5.1,832.html

    I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
    looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
    like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
    issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
    a poor substitute for useful information.

    Paul
    Paul, Feb 19, 2009
    #6
  7. slats1

    slats1 Guest

    On Feb 19, 2:43 pm, Paul <> wrote:
    > slats1 wrote:
    > > On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <> wrote:
    > >> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,

    >
    > >>>                      I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    > >>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice :)))

    >
    > > Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback.  I dug a little
    > > deeper on the old computer.  It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
    > > the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 478) which is
    > > a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
    > >        But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit.  I don't think I'll
    > > be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys.  I
    > > was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
    > > bit.  I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
    > > internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
    > >             Thanks for all the help.  I'll have to shop around or
    > > maybe build a unit.  I've never done it before.  The harddrive
    > > formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!!  I'd need a windows software too.
    > > I have the Premier & Photoshop software.    Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    > > Steve

    >
    > >                                                

    >
    > Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
    > a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
    > new machine will be.
    >
    > As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041
    >
    > The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
    > core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
    > each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
    > there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
    > as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.
    >
    > Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
    > things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
    > to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
    > evident while you're rendering the video.
    >
    > Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
    > to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
    > Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
    > one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
    > in those cases.
    >
    > Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
    > solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
    > in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
    > then splice the results together. If each core works on
    > a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
    > by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
    > 3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
    > tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
    > about.)
    >
    > It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
    > older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
    > to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
    > only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
    > Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
    > cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
    > the modern processors.
    >
    > But before spending any money, you should determine whether
    > the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
    > see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
    > stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
    > screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
    > there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
    > walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
    > But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.
    >
    > So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
    > on whether the render is still running the next day when
    > you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
    > you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.
    >
    > In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
    > processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
    > This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
    > found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photosh...
    >
    > In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning.
    > You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.
    >
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Maincon...
    >
    > I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
    > looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
    > like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
    > issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
    > a poor substitute for useful information.
    >
    >     Paul- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Paul,,,,,Wow, Thanks again for a speedy reply. I'm not the type of
    guy to wait around much. If I can't get a 45 minute video, cut up,
    titled and reworked, maybe a few audio changes in 3-4 hours, it ain't
    gunna happen. I'm too antsie !! Ha ,,,
    I'm trying some video editing training at a local Public Media place
    and they have Globecaster equiptment. I hope to get some training on
    that. They work up short videos (30-60 minutes) in about 2 hours.
    I tried just viewing some video on the set up I have
    now. The audio kept lagging behind even after viewing for 1
    minute. If I had a copy of the Windows XP Movie Maker I'd try that
    down there before getting into that hugh Premiere software. The Movie
    MAker has alot of nice features, and that's probably all I need.
    However I have Windows 2000 on the older unit. How Can I install
    WindowsXP on the older unit that has Windows 2000 ?? MAybe that will
    be easier before I try all this rebuilding and configuring .
    LMK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
    slats1, Feb 19, 2009
    #7
  8. slats1

    Paul Guest

    slats1 wrote:
    > On Feb 19, 2:43 pm, Paul <> wrote:
    >> slats1 wrote:
    >>> On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <> wrote:
    >>>> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:
    >>>>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
    >>>>> I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    >>>>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice :)))
    >>> Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback. I dug a little
    >>> deeper on the old computer. It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
    >>> the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 478) which is
    >>> a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
    >>> But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit. I don't think I'll
    >>> be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys. I
    >>> was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
    >>> bit. I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
    >>> internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
    >>> Thanks for all the help. I'll have to shop around or
    >>> maybe build a unit. I've never done it before. The harddrive
    >>> formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!! I'd need a windows software too.
    >>> I have the Premier & Photoshop software. Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    >>> Steve
    >>>

    >> Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
    >> a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
    >> new machine will be.
    >>
    >> As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.
    >>
    >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041
    >>
    >> The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
    >> core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
    >> each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
    >> there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
    >> as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.
    >>
    >> Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
    >> things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
    >> to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
    >> evident while you're rendering the video.
    >>
    >> Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
    >> to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
    >> Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
    >> one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
    >> in those cases.
    >>
    >> Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
    >> solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
    >> in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
    >> then splice the results together. If each core works on
    >> a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
    >> by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
    >> 3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
    >> tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
    >> about.)
    >>
    >> It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
    >> older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
    >> to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
    >> only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
    >> Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
    >> cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
    >> the modern processors.
    >>
    >> But before spending any money, you should determine whether
    >> the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
    >> see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
    >> stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
    >> screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
    >> there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
    >> walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
    >> But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.
    >>
    >> So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
    >> on whether the render is still running the next day when
    >> you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
    >> you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.
    >>
    >> In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
    >> processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
    >> This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
    >> found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.
    >>
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photosh...
    >>
    >> In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning.
    >> You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.
    >>
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Maincon...
    >>
    >> I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
    >> looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
    >> like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
    >> issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
    >> a poor substitute for useful information.
    >>
    >> Paul- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Paul,,,,,Wow, Thanks again for a speedy reply. I'm not the type of
    > guy to wait around much. If I can't get a 45 minute video, cut up,
    > titled and reworked, maybe a few audio changes in 3-4 hours, it ain't
    > gunna happen. I'm too antsie !! Ha ,,,
    > I'm trying some video editing training at a local Public Media place
    > and they have Globecaster equiptment. I hope to get some training on
    > that. They work up short videos (30-60 minutes) in about 2 hours.
    > I tried just viewing some video on the set up I have
    > now. The audio kept lagging behind even after viewing for 1
    > minute. If I had a copy of the Windows XP Movie Maker I'd try that
    > down there before getting into that hugh Premiere software. The Movie
    > MAker has alot of nice features, and that's probably all I need.
    > However I have Windows 2000 on the older unit. How Can I install
    > WindowsXP on the older unit that has Windows 2000 ?? MAybe that will
    > be easier before I try all this rebuilding and configuring .
    > LMK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve


    Some people multiboot (have more than one OS on the same drive).
    There may be a menu that shows up early in the boot process, that
    allows selecting an OS. (I used to use Boot Magic, which is a
    third party boot manager, but have stopped using that approach.)

    I now use a simple scheme, and rely on the BIOS to select the boot
    drive. I have a function key, that when pressed early in the BIOS
    POST sequence, pops up a list of drives to boot from. I can
    select a drive there.

    When I install an OS, only the target drive is connected to the
    computer. All other drives, except the CD, are disconnected. This
    prevents certain "surprises" from happening. When I installed WinXP,
    I did that too.

    Currently, I have two drives installed. One drive has Win2K. The
    second has WinXP Pro SP3. The WinXP Pro comes with Windows Movie Maker.
    All I've managed to do with it, is assemble clips with zero special
    effects between clips. I haven't managed to figure out, how to
    change the duration of an effect, like increase the fade-in/fade-out
    time.

    When the movie is originally read in (so segments can be detected),
    that occurs with one core of my dual core processor. When WMM
    is rendering the final output, it runs both cores, at a load of
    about 90% or so. So it seems to make good use of my dual core.

    Would I use WMM for serious work. Um, no.

    If you want, some of the video editors offer a free trial period.
    For example, you may be able to try one of the versions of
    Sony Vegas for a limited period of time. (You'd download it, and
    by some means, they provide a license key which works for a limited
    time.) Which will give you some idea, what features it has and
    how well it works.

    Paul
    Paul, Feb 19, 2009
    #8
  9. slats1

    slats1 Guest

    On Feb 19, 4:48 pm, Paul <> wrote:
    > slats1 wrote:
    > > On Feb 19, 2:43 pm, Paul <> wrote:
    > >> slats1 wrote:
    > >>> On Feb 18, 10:43 pm, "gnu / linux" <> wrote:
    > >>>> On Feb 15, 5:18 pm, slats1 <> wrote:
    > >>>>> Hello and Thanks for looking,,,
    > >>>>>                      I have an older computer with Windows 2000 that
    > >>>>> I'd like to beef up to handle Video Editing with Premier 6. > wrong tool for the job, Paul has good advice :)))
    > >>> Thanks to Paul, Dennis, Sandy & Gnu for your feedback.  I dug a little
    > >>> deeper on the old computer.  It's a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz, can only take
    > >>> the Ram to 2GB, has a ASUS motherboard P4B266-C (socket 478) which is
    > >>> a pretty big board with 7 slots. It has a Firewire board.
    > >>>        But I think I'll need a bigger faster unit.  I don't think I'll
    > >>> be able to get this unit up to what I need according to you guys.  I
    > >>> was just trying to keep myself to 2 computers, and beef this one up a
    > >>> bit.  I have a Dell Dimension 2400 upstairs that I use just for
    > >>> internet, e-mails, etc. It's too small too.
    > >>>             Thanks for all the help.  I'll have to shop around or
    > >>> maybe build a unit.  I've never done it before.  The harddrive
    > >>> formatting is Greek to me....Ha !!!  I'd need a windows software too.
    > >>> I have the Premier & Photoshop software.    Later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    > >>> Steve
    > >>>                                                
    > >> Test using the equipment you already have. Then, when you shop for
    > >> a new machine, you'll be able to estimate how much faster the
    > >> new machine will be.

    >
    > >> As an example, let's take a Q9550 for $280.

    >
    > >>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041

    >
    > >> The processor has four cores running at 2.83GHz. Multiply each
    > >> core by somewhere between 1.5x and 1.8x, to equate to a P4. So
    > >> each core is worth about 4.24Ghz, then multiply by four since
    > >> there are four cores. That gives 16.98GHz. Or roughly ten times
    > >> as fast as your 1.7GHz processor.

    >
    > >> Now, will it always be ten times as fast. No. For many ordinary
    > >> things, it'll be twice as fast. The desktop might not even appear
    > >> to be updating faster. The power will be deceptive, and only
    > >> evident while you're rendering the video.

    >
    > >> Only certain programs use multiple cores at the same time,
    > >> to work on the same problem. For example, Microsoft Word or
    > >> Powerpoint or Excel, have no reason to be using more than
    > >> one core. It is hard to find work that can be parallelized
    > >> in those cases.

    >
    > >> Multimedia is different. Some multimedia problems can be
    > >> solved via "divide and conquer" algorithms. For example,
    > >> in Photoshop, I can split a picture, into four "sub-pictures",
    > >> then splice the results together. If each core works on
    > >> a "sub-picture", I might get close to a 4x speedup
    > >> by having four cores. (The Intel Quad Core, sees a
    > >> 3.5x speedup when using four cores, because the FSB
    > >> tends to choke a bit. This is not something to worry
    > >> about.)

    >
    > >> It is going to be hard to get detailed information on
    > >> older versions of Premier & Photoshop. Photoshop is known
    > >> to divide its filters into two groups. One half of the filters
    > >> only run on a single core. The other half run on more cores.
    > >> Some versions of Photoshop, might only use two of the four
    > >> cores. These are the unknowns, of getting the benefits of
    > >> the modern processors.

    >
    > >> But before spending any money, you should determine whether
    > >> the existing platform can do the job. Do a test run, and
    > >> see how dreadful the whole process is. If the rendering
    > >> stage can run overnight, and you don't have to look at the
    > >> screen, that isn't so bad. Even with a new quad core processor,
    > >> there is still going to be a wait during rendering. You'll be
    > >> walking away from the new computer too, when rendering runs.
    > >> But the number of hours will be reduced significantly.

    >
    > >> So whether the old computer is really not useful, depends
    > >> on whether the render is still running the next day when
    > >> you wake up. If it always completes the job overnight for
    > >> you, then I'd say you don't really need any more hardware.

    >
    > >> In this Photoshop chart, you'll notice that a dual core
    > >> processor is beating some more powerful quad core processors.
    > >> This is an example of a hidden gotcha - perhaps if Tomshardware
    > >> found a patch for CS3, the quad core processors would do better.

    >
    > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Photosh....

    >
    > >> In this benchmark, the nominally more powerful processors, are winning..
    > >> You can see the Q9550 is now doing pretty good, for the money.

    >
    > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Maincon....

    >
    > >> I'm not crazy about the Tomshardware charts - you'd be better off
    > >> looking for an article that gives details about the test results,
    > >> like whether all the cores were working on the problem, or any
    > >> issues the testers had with the software. A chart alone, is
    > >> a poor substitute for useful information.

    >
    > >>     Paul- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > > Paul,,,,,Wow,   Thanks again for a speedy reply.   I'm not the type of
    > > guy to wait around much. If I can't get a 45 minute video, cut up,
    > > titled and reworked, maybe a few audio changes in 3-4 hours, it ain't
    > > gunna happen.  I'm too antsie !! Ha ,,,
    > > I'm trying some video editing training at a local Public Media place
    > > and they have Globecaster equiptment.  I hope to get some training on
    > > that.  They work up short videos (30-60 minutes) in about 2 hours.
    > >               I tried just viewing some video on the set up I have
    > > now.  The audio kept lagging behind even after viewing for 1
    > > minute.    If I had a copy of the Windows XP Movie Maker I'd try that
    > > down there before getting into that hugh Premiere software.  The Movie
    > > MAker has alot of nice features, and that's probably all I need.
    > > However I have Windows 2000 on the older unit. How Can I install
    > > WindowsXP on the older unit that has Windows 2000 ??   MAybe that will
    > > be easier before I try all this rebuilding and configuring .
    > > LMK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve

    >
    > Some people multiboot (have more than one OS on the same drive).
    > There may be a menu that shows up early in the boot process, that
    > allows selecting an OS. (I used to use Boot Magic, which is a
    > third party boot manager, but have stopped using that approach.)
    >
    > I now use a simple scheme, and rely on the BIOS to select the boot
    > drive. I have a function key, that when pressed early in the BIOS
    > POST sequence, pops up a list of drives to boot from. I can
    > select a drive there.
    >
    > When I install an OS, only the target drive is connected to the
    > computer. All other drives, except the CD, are disconnected. This
    > prevents certain "surprises" from happening. When I installed WinXP,
    > I did that too.
    >
    > Currently, I have two drives installed. One drive has Win2K. The
    > second has WinXP Pro SP3. The WinXP Pro comes with Windows Movie Maker.
    > All I've managed to do with it, is assemble clips with zero special
    > effects between clips. I haven't managed to figure out, how to
    > change the duration of an effect, like increase the fade-in/fade-out
    > time.
    >
    > When the movie is originally read in (so segments can be detected),
    > that occurs with one core of my dual core processor. When WMM
    > is rendering the final output, it runs both cores, at a load of
    > about 90% or so. So it seems to make good use of my dual core.
    >
    > Would I use WMM for serious work. Um, no.
    >
    > If you want, some of the video editors offer a free trial period.
    > For example, you may be able to try one of the versions of
    > Sony Vegas for a limited period of time. (You'd download it, and
    > by some means, they provide a license key which works for a limited
    > time.) Which will give you some idea, what features it has and
    > how well it works.
    >
    >     Paul- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Paul,
    You speed demon you. Thanks again,,,,I've read through
    all your post and I'll figure out an angle of attack,,,HA !!!
    A friend of mine showed me alot of the features on the Movie Maker,,,I
    was impressed. Transitions, film speed, sound tracts, titles, stills,
    photos, overlays,,,,,,,Pretty cool.
    Thanks again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Steve
    slats1, Feb 19, 2009
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ART SANTELLA

    HOW DO I GET BIG BIG ENLARGEMENT OF PIX?

    ART SANTELLA, Aug 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    500
  2. JWBH

    better big optical zoom or big megapixels?

    JWBH, Feb 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    906
  3. Carlos
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    380
    Carlos
    Nov 11, 2009
  4. Jaime
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    379
    Jaime
    Nov 12, 2009
  5. Bill
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    369
Loading...

Share This Page