improving the performance of my PC

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by LouisB, Oct 15, 2006.

  1. LouisB

    LouisB Guest

    Just wondered if anyone had any advice on how to improve the processing
    power of my PC.

    I've got a fairly high-spec PC built around a Shuttle frame. It includes a
    P4 3.0Ghz processor and 1GB of fairly fast RAM. I recently added a top end
    graphics card (Geoforce 7900GT with 256MB ram). I don't know how fast my
    hard disk is but it is a fairly decent Maxtor 160GB unit.

    Anyway, I've never been too impressed with the processing speed when using
    Photoshop CS2 and now with the new Lightroom Beta 4 it is pretty poor.
    Question is: can I improve what I've got, either by tweaking the system
    configuration or changing some of the components. I'd have expected a 3GHz
    unit with 1GB ram plus the graphics card I've got to be pretty decent.

    Any views would be helpful (other than get a Mac 'cos I can't right now!).

    LouisB
    ------
    "I'm a half-wit. I sold the other half on e-Bay"
    LouisB, Oct 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. LouisB wrote:
    > Just wondered if anyone had any advice on how to improve the
    > processing power of my PC.


    Before you can improve it, you need to find out where the bottlenecks are,
    and then tackle those. Are you running out of memory? Check the Windows
    Task Manager, Performance tab, Physical Memory, Available. Or listen to
    your hard disk! Is the CPU stuck at or near 100%? What happens with less
    resource-intensive software such as Paint Shop Pro (say V9)?

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. LouisB

    Bill Crocker Guest

    "LouisB" <> wrote in message
    news:5arYg.139247$...
    > Just wondered if anyone had any advice on how to improve the processing
    > power of my PC.

    [clipped]
    > LouisB



    When editing photos, close any other applications that may be open such as
    your web browser, email, chat, etc.

    Delete your Temporary Internet files in your web browser, as well as any
    other temp files, and other files you created that you no longer use, or
    need.

    Uninstall any software/programs you don't need/use.

    Check your StartUp folder, and delete any programs in there you don't need,
    or recognize. Normally it should be empty, but many programs like to add
    useless junk that you don't need.

    Defragment your hard drive (weekly).

    If you're using Norton Anti-Virus, consider replacing it with something
    else. Norton is a resource hog and will slow down any computer. I tested
    several and my choice is Trend Micro's PC-cillin Internet Security Suite.

    Photoshop prefers, and almost requires a scratch-disk. A scratch-disk is
    preferably a separate unused physical hard drive. If your computer only has
    one hard drive, then you should buy a second one. It doesn't have to be
    real big. In the Preference settings of Photoshop, it will allow you to
    change the drive letter for the scratch-disk. When processing large photos
    this will help a lot.

    Robert Redwood's web site has an excellent explanation of a scratch-disk.
    Here is the link:

    http://www.easyelements.com/scratch-disk.html

    Hope that helps!

    Bill Crocker
    Bill Crocker, Oct 15, 2006
    #3
  4. LouisB

    Gary C Guest

    "Bill Crocker" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > Photoshop prefers, and almost requires a scratch-disk. A scratch-disk is
    > preferably a separate unused physical hard drive. If your computer only
    > has one hard drive, then you should buy a second one. It doesn't have to
    > be real big. In the Preference settings of Photoshop, it will allow you
    > to change the drive letter for the scratch-disk. When processing large
    > photos this will help a lot.



    Why not a separate partition on the 160gb hard drive?
    Gary C, Oct 15, 2006
    #4
  5. LouisB

    Matt Clara Guest

    "Gary C" <Clem_Kadiddlehopper@Crazy_Googinheimer.com> wrote in message
    news:s%rYg.14974$...
    >
    > "Bill Crocker" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> Photoshop prefers, and almost requires a scratch-disk. A scratch-disk is
    >> preferably a separate unused physical hard drive. If your computer only
    >> has one hard drive, then you should buy a second one. It doesn't have to
    >> be real big. In the Preference settings of Photoshop, it will allow you
    >> to change the drive letter for the scratch-disk. When processing large
    >> photos this will help a lot.

    >
    >
    > Why not a separate partition on the 160gb hard drive?
    >
    >


    Because that's still one drive, and you can only seek out info or write to
    it one item at a time. By adding a separate drive you double that ability,
    to a certain extent. I would further add that Photoshop should be installed
    on a drive separate from your operating system.
    Matt Clara, Oct 15, 2006
    #5
  6. LouisB

    bmoag Guest

    For scratch drives: a separate hard drive is best but a separate partition
    on one hard drive will also improve performance. Hardrives have mulitple
    platters and read/write heads.
    No program that most of us will use is as sensitive to added RAM as
    Photoshop. If you go from one gb to two gbs of ram you may be able to time
    the difference with your wristwatch. The differences are particularly marked
    if you work on files 30mbs and up or have two (or more) images and programs
    open at the same time. Even Bridge counts as a second imaging program (it
    eats quite a bit of memory and resources in itself). If you like to use an
    external converter, and Lightroom counts as that (among other things), at
    the same time the differences in time to transfer images between programs is
    more dependent on memory than CPU speed.
    Until CS3 goes multi-threaded there is no real advantage to a dual-core cpu
    in itself, other than that the newer core dual Intel designs, are much more
    efficient than prior Intel single or multi-core cpus at a given clock speed.
    Actually, the Intel CPUs kind of stunk but now actually outperform AMD
    chips.
    As for Macs: Powerpc Macs are slower than Wintels at nearly every (not
    every) PS operation. There is not a native version of of CS2 for the Mactel
    so the PPC version has to run via kludge emulator or you have to install
    Winxp and dual boot to windows to run a native version of CS2. Or you can
    run a software WIndows emulator and get the same kludge level of performance
    as the Mac PPC emulator. At that point you have a moderate performing PC
    purchased at stratospheric Mac prices with the dubious Mac warranty plus
    purchased and installed Windows. What a freaking bargain. They ought to
    throw in an SUV.
    bmoag, Oct 15, 2006
    #6
  7. LouisB

    LouisB Guest

    Would a dedicated USB 2 external hard disk be suitable? I'm just thinking of
    the bottleneck created by the USB port, even though it is the higher
    performance 2.0? I could add an external USB2 disk but I'm not sure if the
    shuttle will take a second internal hard drive.

    LouisB


    "Matt Clara" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Gary C" <Clem_Kadiddlehopper@Crazy_Googinheimer.com> wrote in message
    > news:s%rYg.14974$...
    >>
    >> "Bill Crocker" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Photoshop prefers, and almost requires a scratch-disk. A scratch-disk
    >>> is preferably a separate unused physical hard drive. If your computer
    >>> only has one hard drive, then you should buy a second one. It doesn't
    >>> have to be real big. In the Preference settings of Photoshop, it will
    >>> allow you to change the drive letter for the scratch-disk. When
    >>> processing large photos this will help a lot.

    >>
    >>
    >> Why not a separate partition on the 160gb hard drive?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Because that's still one drive, and you can only seek out info or write to
    > it one item at a time. By adding a separate drive you double that
    > ability, to a certain extent. I would further add that Photoshop should
    > be installed on a drive separate from your operating system.
    >
    LouisB, Oct 15, 2006
    #7
  8. LouisB

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "LouisB" <> wrote in message
    news:BruYg.151025$...
    > Would a dedicated USB 2 external hard disk be suitable? I'm just thinking
    > of the bottleneck created by the USB port, even though it is the higher
    > performance 2.0? I could add an external USB2 disk but I'm not sure if the
    > shuttle will take a second internal hard drive.
    >
    > LouisB
    >


    That is what I am using and it seems to be pretty good. Its my old 40 gig
    IDE drive that I recently replace with a 160 gig. Bought a case/power
    supply, VOILA.

    I am SURE 40 gig is enough for a scratch drive.

    The small 2.5 inch USB HDs are not nearly as fast.

    Shows up as WDC WD40 0BB-75CAA0 USB Device. Its optimized for performance
    rather than plug and play (don't turn it off or disconnect it).

    I also have a 120 gig drive for media (images, video). When rendering video,
    it REALLY makes a difference.
    Rudy Benner, Oct 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Rudy Benner wrote:

    >> Would a dedicated USB 2 external hard disk be suitable? I'm just
    >> thinking of the bottleneck created by the USB port, even though it
    >> is the higher performance 2.0? I could add an external USB2 disk but
    >> I'm not sure if the shuttle will take a second internal hard drive.

    >
    > That is what I am using and it seems to be pretty good. Its my old 40
    > gig IDE drive that I recently replace with a 160 gig. Bought a
    > case/power supply, VOILA.


    You would benefit 10-fold by putting that on your IDE controller instead of
    using USB2 or Firewire for this purpose. You are realizing very dramatic
    losses in performance by using USB2. She would be better off using no
    "scratch" disk if she has to go the USB2 route.







    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 15, 2006
    #9
  10. LouisB

    Alan Meyer Guest

    I think some of the advice given here is a little too drastic.

    Deleting temporary internet files and uninstalling unused software
    should have no effect at all unless you're low on disk space.

    Defragmenting is worth trying, but with NTFS it rarely makes
    much of a difference, and doing it weekly is unlikely to have
    any significant effect.

    Buying a scratch disk seems to me expensive (more in time
    than money) and may or may not help. However it's nice
    to have a second disk for other reasons. You can backup
    your photos and other important files from the first to the
    second disk so if the first crashes you haven't lost everything.

    I would go with David Taylor's advice and find out what the
    real problem is before you try to solve problems that you may
    not even have.

    Windows task manager is not a great performance analysis
    tool, but it's better than nothing. Bring up the TaskManager
    while you are running Photoshop and finding it slow.
    Look at processes and find the Photoshop process. It will
    have whatever name the Photoshop executable uses. Click
    View / Select columns and pick some columns to examine.
    You might want to see I/O reads and writes, memory usage,
    CPU time, Page Faults (number of times it tries to find data
    in memory and couldn't - having to go out to disk for it.)

    You may discover that you are memory limited. Clearing
    out all of the files from your hard disk and buying a scratch
    disk won't help you one bit. You need more memory.

    You may discover that you are CPU limited - in which case
    you've hit the wall. You wont' get any better performance
    until you buy a new CPU or switch to a faster program.

    You may find you are doing large numbers of I/Os, but are
    not memory limited (page faults and memory usage are low).
    In that case, you may benefit from a second disk (but not
    a huge amount I think). If you do get a second disk because
    that really is a problem, get the fastest one you can find.
    But don't expect miracles. This may speed things up but,
    unless your current disk is a dog, it won't turn a turtle into
    a rabbit (I need one more animal to really mix that
    metaphor :^)

    Finally, check the Photoshop configuration setup. I don't
    use Photoshop, but in the GIMP, you can specify how much
    memory to use and how many copies of past edits to keep
    in memory. PS may have similar controls. See if you are
    taking advantage of all the memory you have. You may be
    able to dramatically improve performance without any new
    hardware at all.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Oct 15, 2006
    #10
  11. On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:00:33 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "LouisB"
    <> wrote:

    >Just wondered if anyone had any advice on how to improve the processing
    >power of my PC.
    >
    >I've got a fairly high-spec PC built around a Shuttle frame. It includes a
    >P4 3.0Ghz processor and 1GB of fairly fast RAM. I recently added a top end
    >graphics card (Geoforce 7900GT with 256MB ram). I don't know how fast my
    >hard disk is but it is a fairly decent Maxtor 160GB unit.
    >
    >Anyway, I've never been too impressed with the processing speed when using
    >Photoshop CS2 and now with the new Lightroom Beta 4 it is pretty poor.
    >Question is: can I improve what I've got, either by tweaking the system
    >configuration or changing some of the components. I'd have expected a 3GHz
    >unit with 1GB ram plus the graphics card I've got to be pretty decent.
    >
    >Any views would be helpful (other than get a Mac 'cos I can't right now!).


    First, how is the swap file set up and how much crap do you have loaded
    into the systray and quick launch portions of the ask bar. Meaning once the
    system boots and before you open any application, how much free memory do
    you have? When was the last time you goy rid of your broswer(s)' caches
    files, windows temp files etc and did a good defrag of your hard disk?
    "fairly decent" Maxtor is meaningless. What rpm and spec is it? IDE, SATA
    etc.? I run two 10,000rpm SATA drives in a RAID) array on both machines as
    my primary system drive. Going to this by far was the largest noticeable
    speed increase in everyday use compared to anything else.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Oct 15, 2006
    #11
  12. LouisB

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rudy Benner wrote:
    >
    >>> Would a dedicated USB 2 external hard disk be suitable? I'm just
    >>> thinking of the bottleneck created by the USB port, even though it
    >>> is the higher performance 2.0? I could add an external USB2 disk but
    >>> I'm not sure if the shuttle will take a second internal hard drive.

    >>
    >> That is what I am using and it seems to be pretty good. Its my old 40
    >> gig IDE drive that I recently replace with a 160 gig. Bought a
    >> case/power supply, VOILA.

    >
    > You would benefit 10-fold by putting that on your IDE controller instead
    > of
    > using USB2 or Firewire for this purpose. You are realizing very dramatic
    > losses in performance by using USB2. She would be better off using no
    > "scratch" disk if she has to go the USB2 route.
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >


    Both controllers are already fully populated, otherwise I would do so. Two
    optical drives, two hard drives and now one external IDE/ATA hard drive. Add
    to that the Ion USB drive and the MediaGear USB drive. I am looking at a new
    motherboard and CPU within the next year. This one is over 4 years old.
    Rudy Benner, Oct 15, 2006
    #12
  13. LouisB

    Bill Crocker Guest

    "Alan Meyer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I think some of the advice given here is a little too drastic.
    >
    > Deleting temporary internet files and uninstalling unused software
    > should have no effect at all unless you're low on disk space.
    >
    > Defragmenting is worth trying, but with NTFS it rarely makes
    > much of a difference, and doing it weekly is unlikely to have
    > any significant effect.
    >
    > Buying a scratch disk seems to me expensive (more in time
    > than money) and may or may not help. However it's nice
    > to have a second disk for other reasons. You can backup
    > your photos and other important files from the first to the
    > second disk so if the first crashes you haven't lost everything.
    >
    > I would go with David Taylor's advice and find out what the
    > real problem is before you try to solve problems that you may
    > not even have.
    >
    > Windows task manager is not a great performance analysis
    > tool, but it's better than nothing. Bring up the TaskManager
    > while you are running Photoshop and finding it slow.
    > Look at processes and find the Photoshop process. It will
    > have whatever name the Photoshop executable uses. Click
    > View / Select columns and pick some columns to examine.
    > You might want to see I/O reads and writes, memory usage,
    > CPU time, Page Faults (number of times it tries to find data
    > in memory and couldn't - having to go out to disk for it.)
    >
    > You may discover that you are memory limited. Clearing
    > out all of the files from your hard disk and buying a scratch
    > disk won't help you one bit. You need more memory.
    >
    > You may discover that you are CPU limited - in which case
    > you've hit the wall. You wont' get any better performance
    > until you buy a new CPU or switch to a faster program.
    >
    > You may find you are doing large numbers of I/Os, but are
    > not memory limited (page faults and memory usage are low).
    > In that case, you may benefit from a second disk (but not
    > a huge amount I think). If you do get a second disk because
    > that really is a problem, get the fastest one you can find.
    > But don't expect miracles. This may speed things up but,
    > unless your current disk is a dog, it won't turn a turtle into
    > a rabbit (I need one more animal to really mix that
    > metaphor :^)
    >
    > Finally, check the Photoshop configuration setup. I don't
    > use Photoshop, but in the GIMP, you can specify how much
    > memory to use and how many copies of past edits to keep
    > in memory. PS may have similar controls. See if you are
    > taking advantage of all the memory you have. You may be
    > able to dramatically improve performance without any new
    > hardware at all.
    >
    > Alan
    >


    Any time you reduce the number of files on a hard drive that Windows must
    keep track of it's an improvement. If nothing else, the heads don't have to
    move as far, or as often for read/write operations. I have seen people with
    excess of 4,000 files in their Internet Explorer Temporary Internet Files
    folder. It cost nothing to do this.

    NTFS not requiring defragmentation is a Microsoft Myth that was part of
    their marketing hype when Windows NT 4.0 was introduced with NTFS. Granted
    it is better than FAT, or FAT32, but with the introduction of Windows 2000,
    a defragment utility was standard once again with the operating system.
    This carried over with Windows XP. Anytime you do any drive intensive work,
    such as database, spreadsheets, etc, disk fragmentation occurs. Photoshop,
    which you admit you do not use, is one such application. Even with a
    scratch-disk, it still fragments my primary drive more than any other
    application. You can definitely see it when you run the defrag utility. It
    cost nothing to do this.

    A "scratch-disk" is an Adobe thing! Even though Windows itself has a page
    file, for such things, Photoshop programmers have set up the ability to use
    a separate scratch-disk for temporary work files that Photoshop creates
    while processing photos. It can make a drastic differences in performance!
    Hard drives are very inexpensive these days. For the purpose of a
    scratch-disk, you could possibly find a free one from someone who upgraded
    to a larger drive.

    She has 1GB of RAM, which is adequate to run Photoshop.

    She already has a P4-3GHz, plenty fast enough for Photoshop, and there is
    not anything much faster out there, short of going to dual-processors.

    Bill Crocker
    Bill Crocker, Oct 15, 2006
    #13
  14. LouisB

    LouisB Guest

    OK, thanks for all the advice. Here is the current state of play which may
    help other users who experience the same problem.

    1. Did a msconfig and, shucks, finally got rid of all the crap being loaded
    at startup except for a few essential items, pretty much NAV and nothing
    else

    2. Did exactly what was suggested by one respondent and went into PS and
    changed the location of the scratch disk to my second volume (my 160GB was
    divided into two volumes) which has about 30GB free on it.

    Both changes seem to have had a dramatic impact on my system. PS and
    Lightroom load very quickly and the amount of disk access seems considerably
    reduced.

    BTW, I had cleaned up my disk and performed a full chkdsk and defrag a
    couple of weeks ago so I knew that was not part of the problem. I suspect
    the key changed was the scratchpad location which was completely unknown to
    me and should perhaps be highlighted in PS setup.

    So, thanks for all the advice, it really helped point me in the right
    direction. The only upgrade I may think of doing is changing my RAM to
    higher speed and 2GB, as and when finances allow.

    LouisB

    PS A number of people obviously think I am Louise but if you look closely,
    it is Louis!
    LouisB, Oct 15, 2006
    #14
  15. LouisB wrote:
    > OK, thanks for all the advice. Here is the current state of play
    > which may help other users who experience the same problem.

    []
    > Both changes seem to have had a dramatic impact on my system. PS and
    > Lightroom load very quickly and the amount of disk access seems
    > considerably reduced.

    []
    > So, thanks for all the advice, it really helped point me in the right
    > direction. The only upgrade I may think of doing is changing my RAM to
    > higher speed and 2GB, as and when finances allow.
    >
    > LouisB


    It sounds as if this software is not well-written for the more typical
    single disk system - I'm glad you managed to make an improvement.

    Putting the scratch space on a separate physical disk may produce even
    more improvement. Assuming that you are not already memory limited, going
    for more and faster RAM may only produce a small improvement.

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 16, 2006
    #15
  16. In article <RTxYg.151386$>, LouisB
    <> wrote:

    > So, thanks for all the advice, it really helped point me in the right
    > direction. The only upgrade I may think of doing is changing my RAM to
    > higher speed and 2GB, as and when finances allow.


    Couple of minor points: More RAM is a big plus for Photoshop, but I
    wouldn't worry too much about "faster" memory. The difference would be
    trivial at best. As for he scratch drive, a different partition is
    good, as you found; a different drive is better, and a drive on a
    different controller channel better still.
    Scott Schuckert, Oct 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Gary C wrote:
    > "Bill Crocker" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Photoshop prefers, and almost requires a scratch-disk. A scratch-disk is
    >> preferably a separate unused physical hard drive. If your computer only
    >> has one hard drive, then you should buy a second one. It doesn't have to
    >> be real big. In the Preference settings of Photoshop, it will allow you
    >> to change the drive letter for the scratch-disk. When processing large
    >> photos this will help a lot.

    >
    >
    > Why not a separate partition on the 160gb hard drive?
    >
    >


    If you have a SATA drive connection on your motherboard use that - it's
    much MUCH faster than normal IDE - you can pump 3Gb of data per second
    through the latest SATA spec. You'd probably need a new hard drive though.

    Run defrag every few months.

    Use spyware/virus cleaners.

    Close off all of the crap that windows decides its going to run when you
    start up - things like MSN, Quicktime, mail, etc.

    If you feel comfortable doing so you can shut down some unnecessary
    services. Right click on My Computer and select manage. Open up
    'Services and Applications' then Services. Shut down unnecessary tasks
    (but don't change anything you're not sure of!). One thing I would
    recommend turning off is Indexing Service - It basically makes a big,
    bloated log of all your file IO which, as far as I know, is supposed to
    increase the speed of searching from explorer - kinda pointless solong
    as you keep your files tidy anyway.

    --
    | Brendan Gillatt |
    | brendan {at} brendan \removethis// gillatt {dot} co {dot} uk |
    | http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk |
    | PGP Key: pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6E265E61|
    Brendan Gillatt, Oct 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Brendan Gillatt wrote:
    []
    > If you have a SATA drive connection on your motherboard use that -
    > it's much MUCH faster than normal IDE - you can pump 3Gb of data per
    > second through the latest SATA spec. You'd probably need a new hard
    > drive though.


    What hard drive do you think will keep up with a speed of 3GB/s, other
    than to fill its buffer? Can you point to the tests showing that "SATA is
    MUCH faster than normal IDE"? A little faster, perhaps, but not "MUCH"
    faster for large transfers....

    David
    David J Taylor, Oct 16, 2006
    #18
  19. LouisB

    LouisB Guest

    > Couple of minor points: More RAM is a big plus for Photoshop, but I
    > wouldn't worry too much about "faster" memory. The difference would be
    > trivial at best. As for he scratch drive, a different partition is
    > good, as you found; a different drive is better, and a drive on a
    > different controller channel better still.


    Unfortunately the Shuttle has a single SATA controller but the good news is
    I can squeeze in a second physical drive. For the ridiculously low price
    that hard drives now sell for (GBP 40 for a 160GB SATA300 7200RPM 8.5ms) I
    think I might just spring for one and see if it makes even more difference.

    RAM is still a bit steep. 2GB of decent compatible RAM is in the order of
    GBP 150+. I don't know if it is an urban myth but I recall reading somewhere
    that RAM above 1GB makes very little difference to the performance of
    Windows XP.

    Thanks again for all the advice

    LouisB
    LouisB, Oct 16, 2006
    #19
  20. LouisB

    veritas Guest

    "LouisB" <> wrote in message
    news:uoQYg.155385$...
    >> Couple of minor points: More RAM is a big plus for Photoshop, but I
    >> wouldn't worry too much about "faster" memory. The difference would be
    >> trivial at best. As for he scratch drive, a different partition is
    >> good, as you found; a different drive is better, and a drive on a
    >> different controller channel better still.

    >
    > Unfortunately the Shuttle has a single SATA controller but the good news
    > is I can squeeze in a second physical drive. For the ridiculously low
    > price that hard drives now sell for (GBP 40 for a 160GB SATA300 7200RPM
    > 8.5ms) I think I might just spring for one and see if it makes even more
    > difference.
    >
    > RAM is still a bit steep. 2GB of decent compatible RAM is in the order of
    > GBP 150+. I don't know if it is an urban myth but I recall reading
    > somewhere that RAM above 1GB makes very little difference to the
    > performance of Windows XP.
    >
    > Thanks again for all the advice
    >
    > LouisB


    I can relate to what you're going through .

    You know , I have a laptop ( I think 3 GHz P4 ) 514MB RAM , 60 GB Hardrive
    ( 50 GB freespace )made by Northgate ( an American company that went out of
    business April 2005 ) .
    I bought the laptop March 2003 (I bought the computer ~$1680 USD when I was
    living in Los Angeles ). Anyway , I can't even link a printer by USB cable
    before the available RAM just seems to disappear . When I press the button
    to print the computer freezes and I can't even shut it down without a reboot
    ..

    Having this in mind and considering your experiences ( or anyone else here )
    , do you think I can install , run PS and print photos ? It doesn't look
    like it does it ? :(

    What do I have to do ? Buy a new laptop ( I've seen one 2 GB RAM , 160 GB
    Hardrive , Chip 2-3 GHz ) I can get from Los Angeles shipped to me here for
    around $1400 .

    Do I have to buy a new external drive perhaps and link it by USB ?

    Any ideas , anyone ?
    veritas, Oct 17, 2006
    #20
    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. =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=

    Improving signal strength?

    =?Utf-8?B?TGFycnk=?=, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    7,210
    mikeFNB
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Keith

    Improving signal / range

    Keith, Apr 8, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    933
    Craig buckingham
    Apr 24, 2005
  3. Frank Toner

    Improving VPN performance

    Frank Toner, Apr 25, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,244
  4. clement
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    571
  5. The Eagle

    Are things improving?

    The Eagle, Jan 21, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    410
    Consultant
    Jan 24, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page