XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Bob AZ, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. Bob  AZ

    Bob AZ Guest

    My Plan

    To build a new and better computer for my Digital Photography.

    So far I have made a tentative decision to use an Intel S5000XVNSATA
    motherboard with a Xenon 5130 Processor. I will start out with 8GB of
    memory. Also I will install/use the Windows XP Pro 64 Bit Operating
    System. My Epson printer has a 64 bit driver available.

    Is all the above feasable?

    Thanks for any assistance
    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Aug 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob  AZ

    Guest

    In <>, Bob AZ <> writes:
    >My Plan
    >
    >To build a new and better computer for my Digital Photography.
    >
    >So far I have made a tentative decision to use an Intel S5000XVNSATA
    >motherboard with a Xenon 5130 Processor. I will start out with 8GB of
    >memory. Also I will install/use the Windows XP Pro 64 Bit Operating
    >System. My Epson printer has a 64 bit driver available.
    >
    >Is all the above feasable?



    I steered away from Intel because the mobo I was reading about did not have
    serial and parallel ports for legacy peripherals.
    , Aug 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frankly, for digital photography, I'd choose Vista 64-bit, but you should be
    OK either way.

    I'm not sure why you'd choose a 5130 over one of the newer 5000 series
    processors. After all, I've got a server with two of the 5130s, but it was
    spec'd over 2 years ago. There are better, but still well priced, procs out
    there now. Unless you're just repurposing one, in which case fine.

    You really haven't said what you're doing for video, or what you're doing
    about I/O - both of those will have a dramatic effect on your digital media
    experience.

    Overall, that's a pretty old workstation motherboard. I can think of several
    others I'd likely choose first, for the kind of money that's going for. If
    you can stretch, and want to stay with Intel, I'd look at the BOXD5400XS.
    Still has the potential for dual Xeons, but now you can do 54xx CPUs. Only 4
    memory slots, so limited to 16 GB at this point. But much better graphics
    potential. And there's other, non-Intel choices...

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Bob AZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My Plan
    >
    > To build a new and better computer for my Digital Photography.
    >
    > So far I have made a tentative decision to use an Intel S5000XVNSATA
    > motherboard with a Xenon 5130 Processor. I will start out with 8GB of
    > memory. Also I will install/use the Windows XP Pro 64 Bit Operating
    > System. My Epson printer has a 64 bit driver available.
    >
    > Is all the above feasable?
    >
    > Thanks for any assistance
    > Bob AZ
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 12, 2008
    #3
  4. Bob  AZ

    Bob AZ Guest


    >
    > > Is all the above feasable?

    >
    > > Thanks for any assistance
    > > Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Charlie

    Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
    like to do.

    I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
    are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
    4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
    Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
    has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.

    I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
    media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
    Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
    is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
    lots of memory and more processing capability.

    No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
    address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
    me.

    I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
    from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
    real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
    input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
    processors according to Intel.

    The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
    memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
    name with me and I know little about others.

    Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Aug 12, 2008
    #4
  5. Hi,
    if everything works fine, tell what does not !

    The rendering to your printer might be affected by the memory the printer
    has installed. This might be upgradeble.
    Also by the interface you use. You should use the USB option over parallel
    port (if possible).

    You also should tell, which software you use to work on your photographs.
    If it is a 32 bit SW , 8 GB wont help that much.

    jk
    Juergen Kluth, Aug 12, 2008
    #5
  6. Bob  AZ

    JM Schroff Guest

    Bob,

    I am a Canon DSLR user, dual booting XP32 & XP64. There are issues with
    Canon's software under XP64, particularly EOS Utility not launching when
    the USB connection is made. As they (Canon) states, their installer is
    not supported under XP64, requiring you to be creative to get the
    requisite applications installed at all. Outside the connection issue,
    they function well under XP64, but I do not see any performance gains on
    my system with any of Canon's software, unlike Lightroom & Photoshop.

    They (Canon) do support Vista 64, but I do not know if it installs them
    as X86 or native 64-bit applications.

    Bob AZ wrote:
    >>> Is all the above feasable?
    >>> Thanks for any assistance
    >>> Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -

    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Charlie
    >
    > Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
    > like to do.
    >
    > I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
    > are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
    > 4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
    > Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
    > has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.
    >
    > I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
    > media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
    > Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
    > is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
    > lots of memory and more processing capability.
    >
    > No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
    > address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
    > me.
    >
    > I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
    > from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
    > real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
    > input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
    > processors according to Intel.
    >
    > The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
    > memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
    > name with me and I know little about others.
    >
    > Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
    > Bob AZ
    JM Schroff, Aug 12, 2008
    #6
  7. Well, on a couple of points:

    1.) That Intel mobo is hardly up to speed. It appears it may have issues
    with the latest Intel CPUs, so you may not have as many choices beyond the
    5130 as I thought.

    2.) There's a nice Asus mobo that takes 2 Xeons (including 52xx and 54xx)
    and 6 FBDIMMs - that will get you to 12 GB with 2 GB FBDIMMs, and by the
    time you need more, you'll find 4 GB are down in price. It has PCIe Mod2

    3.) there are others that are out there, that was just one off the top of my
    head. There are LOTS of mobos that handle 8 (or more) slots and dual procs.
    Both Intel and AMD procs. The key is video support. You don't want one that
    doesn't have decent video card bandwidth.

    4.) Vista - for what you're doing, you'd be better off, IMO. There are
    actually fewer problems than with XP x64, since drivers are catching up and
    passing by a good margin.

    5.) For printer speed, try moving to a network print server. Offloads the
    whole thing and you can get on about your business.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Bob AZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > > Is all the above feasable?

    >
    > > Thanks for any assistance
    > > Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Charlie

    Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
    like to do.

    I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
    are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
    4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
    Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
    has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.

    I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
    media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
    Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
    is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
    lots of memory and more processing capability.

    No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
    address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
    me.

    I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
    from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
    real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
    input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
    processors according to Intel.

    The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
    memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
    name with me and I know little about others.

    Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
    Bob AZ
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 12, 2008
    #7
  8. Bob  AZ

    Bob AZ Guest


    > You also should tell, which software you use to work on your photographs.
    > If it is a 32 bit SW , 8 GB wont help that much.
    >
    > jk


    JK

    I am using Firewire. I have also tried USB. I don't have parallel as
    an option. Epson 4800 printer.

    I am using Photoshop Elements. Older but the later versions simply
    don't do much if any more. Since my busy time starts later this month
    there is no way to upgrade software editing until next summer.

    I believe the printer memory is fixed at 75 megat bytes. Will check
    into that. Sometimes my files run way over that. I do have the
    spooling enabled in my RIP but that is not really working well.

    Thanks for the input.
    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Aug 12, 2008
    #8
  9. Hi,
    as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
    SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.

    The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc itself.
    that would avoid filling up the network with data.

    if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph with
    32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    number.
    The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).

    jk
    Juergen Kluth, Aug 12, 2008
    #9
  10. Bob  AZ

    Bob AZ Guest

    On Aug 12, 6:25�am, JM Schroff <> wrote:
    > Bob,
    >
    > I am a Canon DSLR user, dual booting XP32 & XP64. There are issues with
    > Canon's software under XP64, particularly EOS Utility not launching when
    > the USB connection is made. As they (Canon) states, their installer is
    > not supported under XP64, requiring you to be creative to get the
    > requisite applications installed at all. Outside the connection issue,
    > they function well under XP64, but I do not see any performance gains on
    > my system with any of Canon's software, unlike Lightroom & Photoshop.
    >
    > They (Canon) do support Vista 64, but I do not know if it installs them
    > as X86 or native 64-bit applications.
    >


    >
    > > Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
    > > Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    JM

    I have not used any of the Canon utilities since for the most part
    everything has gone well. I am not sure how to handle dual booting
    either. I will be putting WIN XP 64 bit on the new computer.

    Another brought up the subject of video cards and I will be checking
    that tomorrow. What they say does make sense. Also two friends that I
    spoke with today mentioned video cards. I have been pleased with the
    display video so did not think of it. I can get a good video card
    locally so should I need a new one it is no problem. I don't want to
    change editiors but will if I have to.

    Thanks for the reply
    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Aug 13, 2008
    #10
  11. Bob  AZ

    Bob AZ Guest

    On Aug 12, 12:43�pm, "Juergen Kluth" <>
    wrote:
    > Hi,
    > as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
    > SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    > the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
    >
    > The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc itself.
    > that would avoid filling up the network with data.
    >
    > if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph with
    > 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    > You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    > number.
    > The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    > amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
    >
    > jk


    JK

    The printer is directly connected to the computer. There is no
    connection from my present photography computer to the internet. or to
    a network.

    My Canon SLR is 12 MPixel. And the files are more than 12MB so I will
    be checking the Video Card memory. Most of my pictures are under
    impossible lighting conditions so I have to edit more than I like.
    Should I have a picture come up that needs nothing I think there s
    something wrong and double check things. It happens but rarely.

    Thanks for the reply. More later.
    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Aug 13, 2008
    #11
  12. Putting the printer on your network with a print server would offload some
    of the problems, I suspect.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Bob AZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Aug 12, 12:43�pm, "Juergen Kluth" <>
    wrote:
    > Hi,
    > as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
    > SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    > the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
    >
    > The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
    > itself.
    > that would avoid filling up the network with data.
    >
    > if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
    > with
    > 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    > You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    > number.
    > The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    > amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
    >
    > jk


    JK

    The printer is directly connected to the computer. There is no
    connection from my present photography computer to the internet. or to
    a network.

    My Canon SLR is 12 MPixel. And the files are more than 12MB so I will
    be checking the Video Card memory. Most of my pictures are under
    impossible lighting conditions so I have to edit more than I like.
    Should I have a picture come up that needs nothing I think there s
    something wrong and double check things. It happens but rarely.

    Thanks for the reply. More later.
    Bob AZ
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 13, 2008
    #12
  13. IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
    recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will actually
    see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the way the WOW64
    layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4 GB virtual memory
    address space. So applications that can use the additional memory will
    actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the /3GB startup switch, but
    it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do anything, nor does it have any
    downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "Juergen Kluth" <> wrote in message
    news:OKXMePL$...
    > Hi,
    > as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
    > SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    > the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
    >
    > The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
    > itself.
    > that would avoid filling up the network with data.
    >
    > if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
    > with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    > You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    > number.
    > The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    > amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
    >
    > jk
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 13, 2008
    #13
  14. Bob  AZ

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Charlie - and Bob.

    Photoshop Elements 6.0 installed itself in Program Files (x86) on my Vista
    Ultimate x64 and there is not even a subfolder for Adobe or for PSE in
    (64-bit) Program Files. I assume that means that it is a 32-bit only
    application.

    During the Vista beta, I struggled with installing PSE 4.0 in each build,
    with results that gradually got better with later Vista builds. By Vista
    RTM, PSE 4.0 was loading and behaving acceptably. So then I got PSE 6.0.
    It installed easily on the RTM version of Ultimate x64 and has been running
    fine for over a year. I seldom run Vista x86 or any version of WinXP
    anymore, although I have installed them and dual-boot into them now and
    then, but I don't think I've installed PSE on any of them in a long time.

    My new (in 12/06) mobo got 2 GB of PC6400 to start; I added another 2 GB but
    had to remove one stick because it apparently failed, so I've been running
    with 3 GB for a month or so. I've become a shutterbug since getting a
    digital camera a few years ago, but I'm far from a photo pro so few of my
    10,000 pix are over 3 MB each, 8 MB max. As I understand it, this uses a
    lot of disk space but not much RAM.

    So far as I know, there is not yet a 64-bit version of PSE.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:OspICeV$...
    > IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
    > recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will actually
    > see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the way the
    > WOW64 layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4 GB virtual
    > memory address space. So applications that can use the additional memory
    > will actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the /3GB startup switch,
    > but it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do anything, nor does it have
    > any downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "Juergen Kluth" <> wrote in message
    > news:OKXMePL$...
    >> Hi,
    >> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32
    >> bit SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    >> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
    >>
    >> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
    >> itself.
    >> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
    >>
    >> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
    >> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    >> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    >> number.
    >> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    >> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
    >>
    >> jk
    R. C. White, Aug 14, 2008
    #14
  15. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a 64-bit version. We're _strictly_
    talking about 32-bit versions.

    There is a choice that a developer makes when they compile a 32-bit
    application. That choice is whether to be aware of memory address spaces
    beyond 2gb, or not. (notice I did NOT say RAM.) If the program is compiled
    to be aware of them, then they will automatically see a flat memory address
    space of 4 GB when running on 64-bit windows. 64-bit Windows has a subsystem
    called "WOW64" (Windows on Windows 64) that runs 32-bit applications. Each
    32-bit application is assigned 4 GB of memory address space. If it knows how
    to use it, it will. If not, it will run with a 2 GB memory address space.

    As for where any program would install itself - yes, certainly it's in
    Program Files (x86) - it's a 32-bit app. That's fine.

    I've written several whitepapers on this stuff around the time XP x64 and
    Server 2k3 x64 released. They're still up on the MS site. Take a look for a
    longer and more detailed discussion.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


    "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    news:OjObanh$...
    > Hi, Charlie - and Bob.
    >
    > Photoshop Elements 6.0 installed itself in Program Files (x86) on my Vista
    > Ultimate x64 and there is not even a subfolder for Adobe or for PSE in
    > (64-bit) Program Files. I assume that means that it is a 32-bit only
    > application.
    >
    > During the Vista beta, I struggled with installing PSE 4.0 in each build,
    > with results that gradually got better with later Vista builds. By Vista
    > RTM, PSE 4.0 was loading and behaving acceptably. So then I got PSE 6.0.
    > It installed easily on the RTM version of Ultimate x64 and has been
    > running fine for over a year. I seldom run Vista x86 or any version of
    > WinXP anymore, although I have installed them and dual-boot into them now
    > and then, but I don't think I've installed PSE on any of them in a long
    > time.
    >
    > My new (in 12/06) mobo got 2 GB of PC6400 to start; I added another 2 GB
    > but had to remove one stick because it apparently failed, so I've been
    > running with 3 GB for a month or so. I've become a shutterbug since
    > getting a digital camera a few years ago, but I'm far from a photo pro so
    > few of my 10,000 pix are over 3 MB each, 8 MB max. As I understand it,
    > this uses a lot of disk space but not much RAM.
    >
    > So far as I know, there is not yet a 64-bit version of PSE.
    >
    > RC
    > --
    > R. C. White, CPA
    > San Marcos, TX
    >
    > Microsoft Windows MVP
    > (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:OspICeV$...
    >> IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
    >> recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will
    >> actually see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the
    >> way the WOW64 layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4
    >> GB virtual memory address space. So applications that can use the
    >> additional memory will actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the
    >> /3GB startup switch, but it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do
    >> anything, nor does it have any downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >>
    >>
    >> "Juergen Kluth" <> wrote in message
    >> news:OKXMePL$...
    >>> Hi,
    >>> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32
    >>> bit SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    >>> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
    >>>
    >>> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
    >>> itself.
    >>> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
    >>>
    >>> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
    >>> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    >>> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    >>> number.
    >>> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    >>> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
    >>>
    >>> jk

    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Aug 14, 2008
    #15
  16. Bob  AZ

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Charlie.

    Thanks for clarifying that for me.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:#aL4Wui$...
    > This has nothing whatsoever to do with a 64-bit version. We're _strictly_
    > talking about 32-bit versions.
    >
    > There is a choice that a developer makes when they compile a 32-bit
    > application. That choice is whether to be aware of memory address spaces
    > beyond 2gb, or not. (notice I did NOT say RAM.) If the program is compiled
    > to be aware of them, then they will automatically see a flat memory
    > address space of 4 GB when running on 64-bit windows. 64-bit Windows has a
    > subsystem called "WOW64" (Windows on Windows 64) that runs 32-bit
    > applications. Each 32-bit application is assigned 4 GB of memory address
    > space. If it knows how to use it, it will. If not, it will run with a 2 GB
    > memory address space.
    >
    > As for where any program would install itself - yes, certainly it's in
    > Program Files (x86) - it's a 32-bit app. That's fine.
    >
    > I've written several whitepapers on this stuff around the time XP x64 and
    > Server 2k3 x64 released. They're still up on the MS site. Take a look for
    > a longer and more detailed discussion.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    >
    >
    > "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    > news:OjObanh$...
    >> Hi, Charlie - and Bob.
    >>
    >> Photoshop Elements 6.0 installed itself in Program Files (x86) on my
    >> Vista Ultimate x64 and there is not even a subfolder for Adobe or for PSE
    >> in (64-bit) Program Files. I assume that means that it is a 32-bit only
    >> application.
    >>
    >> During the Vista beta, I struggled with installing PSE 4.0 in each build,
    >> with results that gradually got better with later Vista builds. By Vista
    >> RTM, PSE 4.0 was loading and behaving acceptably. So then I got PSE 6.0.
    >> It installed easily on the RTM version of Ultimate x64 and has been
    >> running fine for over a year. I seldom run Vista x86 or any version of
    >> WinXP anymore, although I have installed them and dual-boot into them now
    >> and then, but I don't think I've installed PSE on any of them in a long
    >> time.
    >>
    >> My new (in 12/06) mobo got 2 GB of PC6400 to start; I added another 2 GB
    >> but had to remove one stick because it apparently failed, so I've been
    >> running with 3 GB for a month or so. I've become a shutterbug since
    >> getting a digital camera a few years ago, but I'm far from a photo pro so
    >> few of my 10,000 pix are over 3 MB each, 8 MB max. As I understand it,
    >> this uses a lot of disk space but not much RAM.
    >>
    >> So far as I know, there is not yet a 64-bit version of PSE.
    >>
    >> RC
    >>
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:OspICeV$...
    >>> IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
    >>> recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will
    >>> actually see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the
    >>> way the WOW64 layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4
    >>> GB virtual memory address space. So applications that can use the
    >>> additional memory will actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the
    >>> /3GB startup switch, but it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do
    >>> anything, nor does it have any downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Juergen Kluth" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:OKXMePL$...
    >>>> Hi,
    >>>> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32
    >>>> bit SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
    >>>> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
    >>>>
    >>>> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
    >>>> itself.
    >>>> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
    >>>>
    >>>> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
    >>>> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
    >>>> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
    >>>> number.
    >>>> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
    >>>> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
    >>>>
    >>>> jk
    R. C. White, Aug 15, 2008
    #16
  17. Bob  AZ

    PJB Guest

    I do photography with XPx64 and Vista Ult 64bit PC's.
    But before I updated my hardware 2 years ago I chose a board that was the
    latest at the time. I purchased 2 x Tyan 2895 server boards and put 4 x Dual
    core Opteron processors with 2 lots of 16Gb of memory. I installed nVidia
    8900 video cards in each and 2 x 1000w P/Supplies and checked the
    manufactures websites for XP 64bit drivers before I purchased. I have never
    had any problems since except 1 blown power supply a month ago.

    I use the Epson 4800 and 7800 printers but only via USB. Networks are too
    slow for printing large images (250megs+) over a network. Firewire is
    useless with these printers and well documented.

    Rips, well I won't even go into those waste of time programs. The 800 series
    printers are so good you can use Qimage and are better off. Download a free
    trial copy and buy it for $89 (studio edition). Photoshop Elements uses too
    old a print engine to be of use anymore. It's fine for colour work but
    Lightroom has now taken away alot of what we do in Photoshop. No 64 bit with
    Photoshop until CS4 later this year.

    Canon DSLR software not good with 64bit , ????? works OK for me but I use
    Capture One and writeout .tif files only, or just plug my camera memory card
    into my PC and copy to my HDD in 2 separate places for backup. Qimage works
    straight in Raw as does Lightroom.
    Next you'll need colour profiling equipt to creat monitor and printer icc
    profiles. If not your flying blind with colour. The manufactures profiles
    are OK but they are down on your equipt and equipt ages.

    Now have a look around and check drivers first, get the lastest boards,
    processor/s first with 64 bit drivers confirmed. Memory can be bought
    anytime and is cheap. You'll need at least 3 HDD of 500Gb + DVD and card
    reader. Then you'll need 2 x excellent monitors so you can spread out your
    desktop. All my machines have 2 monitors. Could'nt work without them.

    If done properly you will not be disappointed. Photographers are very
    critical and will only accept the best and so should you.

    One last thing. Put up silver window blinds and change all your lights to
    5000 kelvin and don't do any colour work until your equipt and lights has
    been turned on for 1 hour and everything profiled. Then WYSIWYG. I
    guarantee. Well you should.

    Peter Banks
    New Zealand


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:%23QBEm1I$...
    > Well, on a couple of points:
    >
    > 1.) That Intel mobo is hardly up to speed. It appears it may have issues
    > with the latest Intel CPUs, so you may not have as many choices beyond the
    > 5130 as I thought.
    >
    > 2.) There's a nice Asus mobo that takes 2 Xeons (including 52xx and 54xx)
    > and 6 FBDIMMs - that will get you to 12 GB with 2 GB FBDIMMs, and by the
    > time you need more, you'll find 4 GB are down in price. It has PCIe Mod2
    >
    > 3.) there are others that are out there, that was just one off the top of
    > my head. There are LOTS of mobos that handle 8 (or more) slots and dual
    > procs. Both Intel and AMD procs. The key is video support. You don't want
    > one that doesn't have decent video card bandwidth.
    >
    > 4.) Vista - for what you're doing, you'd be better off, IMO. There are
    > actually fewer problems than with XP x64, since drivers are catching up
    > and passing by a good margin.
    >
    > 5.) For printer speed, try moving to a network print server. Offloads the
    > whole thing and you can get on about your business.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "Bob AZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> > Is all the above feasable?

    >>
    >> > Thanks for any assistance
    >> > Bob ?AZ- Hide quoted text -

    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Charlie
    >
    > Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
    > like to do.
    >
    > I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
    > are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
    > 4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
    > Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
    > has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.
    >
    > I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
    > media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
    > Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
    > is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
    > lots of memory and more processing capability.
    >
    > No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
    > address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
    > me.
    >
    > I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
    > from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
    > real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
    > input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
    > processors according to Intel.
    >
    > The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
    > memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
    > name with me and I know little about others.
    >
    > Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
    > Bob AZ
    PJB, Aug 17, 2008
    #17
  18. Bob  AZ

    Bob AZ Guest

    On Aug 17, 2:35�am, "PJB" <> wrote:
    > I do photography with XPx64 and Vista Ult 64bit PC's.

    Peter

    Your reply suggests that you use two PCs. One with XP and another with
    Vista. I can barely manage one at a time so will stay with one. I did
    like/want to use Intel for the quality and name. Support for both the
    board and processor on the same site is an advantage in my opinion.
    There online support and documentation is very good. Almost too much
    for the average user like me.

    I did not think about the PSE engine thing for my 4800 printer. I did
    try PSE 5 but it was blah. Pales against PSE 2. I have started
    printing seriously again for the next few months so will not be able
    to change editors for a while. Probably at least 8 or more months. Too
    many irons in the fire during the school year. A school that I do work
    for suggested changng to Lightroom or CS3. I will look at these as
    time permits. I have never felt the need for PhotoShop. Too much
    program for my photography activities.

    Wish I had room for something larger than the Epson 4800.

    I have the ColorBurst RIP 7.6 Layout series. Expensive but it does
    have lots of capabilities that I have not found in any other places.
    Multiple different images, sizes and orientations. Nice long prints
    like 16 X 40. The documentation and user instructions are not what
    others are but I have learned enough to do it OK. The brightness of
    the prints was different at first but I found out how to match things.
    And after I get a big job all set up to go I can walk away fronm the
    printer and the RIP prints it all out with ease. Maybe 50 prints at a
    time. Roll or sheet. Somethimes I deliver a job with maybe 20 8X10s
    all on one large piece of paper. Lots of folks like this.

    I too noticed that FireWire was slow. Sometimes it simply did not work
    at all. I dropped that the first week I had the 4800. USB ever
    since.

    One thing that I did not consider was the motherboard video
    capabiities. Also the memory size of the Video Board. I will look at
    both of these before I settle on a Motherboard. It seems that my
    present Video Board is adequate at 256 MB but I can go to a 1GB with
    no problem.

    Thanks for you input. It is appreciated.

    Bob AZ SA
    Bob AZ, Aug 18, 2008
    #18
    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. roberthob

    an Intel PRO/DSL 2100 or Intel PRO/DSL 2200 Modem

    roberthob, Sep 25, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,570
    roberthob
    Sep 25, 2005
  2. gz
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    826
    Oldus Fartus
    Nov 5, 2005
  3. Robert11
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,441
    Meat Plow
    Apr 27, 2006
  4. Kevin Panzke
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    641
    Kevin Panzke
    May 25, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?SVQgU2Ft?=
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,910
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Mar 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page