| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2010 09:11:51 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
2 hours into the defrag and it's 18% done. |
If you have less than 15% free space the defrag will take forever. Did you at least unload some of the files to the external before you started the defrag? ;o)
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 08:55:31 PM · #2 |
2 hours into the defrag and it's 18% done.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 07:08:35 PM · #3 |
Is anyone else surprised that nobody has yet piped in yet with "Get a -deleted in order to stay PC-"
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 07:03:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...It reads RAW fast, even through a usb2. Try it for a month and see if it works for you. |
It reads it fast because it doesn't read it at all... it reads the embedded JPEG. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 07:01:10 PM · #5 |
| So it sounds like the memory situation is about as good as it get for now. In place of bridge, I used to use Breeze browser before i got talked into getting Lightroom, and while it is $70, it is a great fast lightweight browser that I really it miss sometimes when Lightroom is taking forever to download from an external drive. It reads RAW fast, even through a usb2. Try it for a month and see if it works for you. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 06:47:33 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Given a low budget, I would do one free thing and two fairly cheap things.
Quit using Bridge. It is a total resource pig, any and all browsers are preferable even the freeware ones.
Buy a matched pair of 2 GB memory sticks for $30-$50 dollars each.
Buy an external hard drive to store your stuff on so you can free up space on your internal drive. You can get a 1TB drive at Costco for $80. Running with very little free space on your internal drive is like restricting the air intake on your car engine. |
I have been running my main drive way too full -- which is silly because I have a terabyte drive that has space on it. It's just faster to work off the main drive, so I left it bloated. Bad idea, and thanks for reminding me, everyone. That's an easy one to fix.
Someone pointed out, and I've since looked it up and unfortunately they're right, that I only have 4 slots that hold 1 gb max each. I'm already at 3 Gb, so if two of them are 1/2 gbs, then I can probably upgrade a little -- but not much.
The problem is that I shoot RAW. Are there other browsers that will preview the RAW files other than DPP and bridge? I actually really like Elements browser -- but it doesn't let you open the files directly into photoshop. When you right click, you only have the option to open in elements. Otherwise I would have stuck with organizer. I miss being able to just scroll through all of my pictures to look for something. In bridge, I have to go folder by folder searching for things. (I never play the photo domino game anymore, unless I already have the picture in my portfolio.) I know you can have bridge look in my pictures and show all subfolders, but it takes forever for that, so I never bother.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 03:55:58 PM · #7 |
Given a low budget, I would do one free thing and two fairly cheap things.
Quit using Bridge. It is a total resource pig, any and all browsers are preferable even the freeware ones.
Buy a matched pair of 2 GB memory sticks for $30-$50 dollars each.
Buy an external hard drive to store your stuff on so you can free up space on your internal drive. You can get a 1TB drive at Costco for $80. Running with very little free space on your internal drive is like restricting the air intake on your car engine. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 03:37:35 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by vawendy:
oh my!!! It's needs 15% free to defragment? ARGH! |
Well, there's your problem....
You need disk drives with a reasonable amount of free space (15+% free is reasonable), and the drives should be defragmented regularly. I've never used Bridge, but I remember there were several tweaks that were necessary to get the most out of PS, and I would guess that Bridge is the same. Some googling is probably in order.
Regardless, you'll need to free up some disk space and defragment, though. |
That's what I've been doing for a good chunk of the day -- moving about 80 Gb of files.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 03:20:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
oh my!!! It's needs 15% free to defragment? ARGH! |
Well, there's your problem....
You need disk drives with a reasonable amount of free space (15+% free is reasonable), and the drives should be defragmented regularly. I've never used Bridge, but I remember there were several tweaks that were necessary to get the most out of PS, and I would guess that Bridge is the same. Some googling is probably in order.
Regardless, you'll need to free up some disk space and defragment, though. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 03:03:48 PM · #10 |
Naw -- that would make my husband too happy if I went to linux. That wouldn't be good :P
I've used open office -- it wasn't terribly exciting.
And it's not that I can't get used the the new office -- I used to be a software guru. I just don't have the need to use the software much anymore. So when I do have the need, and I know exactly how to do it, it's frustrating when you can't find it. The obvious stuff is there. But the poweruser tools are not in intuitively obvious places. They could have left the menus for those people who prefer to work that way.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:50:55 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
she doesnt like MS office's ribbon bar and you expect her to get used to open office??? |
MS Office is working (quite) fine with wine : //appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=31
But it's a good idea to use LibreOffice instead of OpenOffice instead of MSOffice. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:49:12 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I hate their 2007 upgrade. What were they thinking -- getting rid of the menus?! I can't find anything in the stupid program, because I don't use it all that much anymore. If I used it everyday, then there wouldn't have been a problem. But when you know the power tools exist, and they're so buried now that you can't find them, it's incredibly frustrating. Their setup and organization of the tool bars is stupid and non-intuitive. I will never, ever be able to upgrade my 75 year old mother's software, because there is no way she can handle it. (
Yada, yada, yada...
Ok, rant over. I doubt microsoft will ever be back on my good list. |
Here is the easy (and free) answer:Open Office |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:30:03 PM · #13 |
| It appears that Dell released a BIOS update that allowed more than 4GB of RAM (operating system dependant). You would have to ensure that your BIOS was at least revision 10 to be able to use more than 4GB |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:27:09 PM · #14 |
| she doesnt like MS office's ribbon bar and you expect her to get used to open office??? |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:21:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm currently hating microsoft.
[...]
Ok, rant over. I doubt microsoft will ever be back on my good list. |
You really should try Ubuntu (or any other Linux distribution, eLiveCD is so nice...), you can run most of your windows program with wine.
It's free ... and easy to try. Just download it, burn a CD or put it on a USB stick, then reboot. That's all, and it's not dangerous for your computer.
You have nothing to loose ;)
Linux propaganda off.
Linux can manage 64GB of ram since so long that I can't remember :D |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:21:29 PM · #16 |
I forgot to add, if you go to the DELL website and enter your PC's tag number (that's effectively a Dell specific serial number) they should have a configurator which can show you all of the upgrades available for your system (it's a few years since I used it but I'm sure they still do it).
SHould be under the support section somewhere |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:17:22 PM · #17 |
two things, if you are a student or have a .edu email, you can usually get win7 professional for $30. I have two edu emails and that how i upgraded.
second, check out the dell outlet, its where they sell there returned merchandise, absolutely nothing wrong with it and carries the same warranty, plus you can usually get a 20% coupon for the dell outlet.
$699
this machine would be more than capable...
//outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnlineSales/Online/SecondaryInventorySearch.aspx?rn=6575&SC=lowToHigh&c=us&cs=22&l=en&s=dfh
Message edited by author 2010-10-22 14:17:35. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:17:13 PM · #18 |
The motherboard you have will only take 4GB, but as mentioned above, the operating system (XP) will only address just over 3GB. Even if you do a fresh install of 64-bit windows 7 (I would always recommend a fresh install rather than the upgrade path) you will not be able to put more than 4GB in that motherboard.
A processor upgrade is a possibility - you could put a quad core processor in, instead of your duo. This is not for the faint hearted and may require a BIOS update.
So essentially as it is, with your existing software, a RAM upgrade will have no effect (unless we start getting super techy and start talking about RAM clock timings). A fresh software install will always give a nice snappy feel initially due to an optimised registry, but over time that benefit will be lost. Changing your p[erating system to windows 64 bit will allow you to use 4GB in that machine which may improve matters.
Personally, I would stick with what you have and save up until you can obtain a more powerful processor/motherboard combination that can take more RAM than 4GB (most boards these days take at least 16GB) and go with windows 7. Newer hardware will have faster interconnects between CPU and RAM, and faster running RAM (your DDR2 RAM was superceded by DDR3 a few years ago).
It's a bit of a how long is a piece of string question really. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:14:40 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm currently hating microsoft. I was an expert Excel user -- knew it inside out, upside down and backwards. I hate their 2007 upgrade. What were they thinking |
Wendy I felt the same way for the first week or so I used it but I now prefer it to previous versions. It's actually pretty cool but I still find myself googling some functions to see where they are now :-) |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:06:28 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
And DEFINITELY get Windows 7 the 64 bit version. As kirbic said, Win7 is widely lauded; Vista got a bad rap that persisted when it wasn't really deserved.
|
A friend works at the Microsoft mothership and everyone there is requires to use the latest OS except by special petition for specific needs. Vista was so hated that just under half of the people there obtained permission to keep running XP until 7 came out. I had, and hated Vista, but win 7 is just fine, its stable and clean with very little bloatwear.
If you price out the various upgrades to hardware and software mentioned here, and compare it to getting a new box, you will probably find the new computer option will be the cheaper alternative. |
I'm currently hating microsoft. I was an expert Excel user -- knew it inside out, upside down and backwards. I hate their 2007 upgrade. What were they thinking -- getting rid of the menus?! I can't find anything in the stupid program, because I don't use it all that much anymore. If I used it everyday, then there wouldn't have been a problem. But when you know the power tools exist, and they're so buried now that you can't find them, it's incredibly frustrating. Their setup and organization of the tool bars is stupid and non-intuitive. I will never, ever be able to upgrade my 75 year old mother's software, because there is no way she can handle it. (After 20 years of using computers, she still has no idea what she's doing with them -- and only does it by rote. I went from teaching all levels of microsoft to absolutely hating microsoft. So many people struggled to learn what they did know, only to have it taken away from them. (It doesn't matter that you can go search for a program to get the menus back. For years I taught "absolutely terrified" computer classes, to see people finally start to get comfortable with computers, just to see microsoft screw them over.)
Ok, rant off. (ooh, that was fun!)
I guess I'm not seeing that much in the way of costs. I'd have to upgrade to windows 7 and spend the money for more memory, but if the system will take more memory (and I believe this system can, but I'll have to check it out), I don't see what other hardware upgrades I'd need. My apps should be fine, and not need an upgrade.
Ok, rant over. I doubt microsoft will ever be back on my good list.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 02:01:34 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
And DEFINITELY get Windows 7 the 64 bit version. As kirbic said, Win7 is widely lauded; Vista got a bad rap that persisted when it wasn't really deserved.
|
A friend works at the Microsoft mothership and everyone there is requires to use the latest OS except by special petition for specific needs. Vista was so hated that just under half of the people there obtained permission to keep running XP until 7 came out. I had, and hated Vista, but win 7 is just fine, its stable and clean with very little bloatwear.
If you price out the various upgrades to hardware and software mentioned here, and compare it to getting a new box, you will probably find the new computer option will be the cheaper alternative. |
i have an htpc ( home theater pc) that uses windows 7 media center as my movie server and dvr. I loved vista, it worked perfect. Win7 is way better in all aspects except stability.
My vista htpc stayed on 24/7 and maybe crashed 2 times in 6 months. Win7 crashes once a month at least for the past year, mainly while trying to sleep/hibernate.
my laptop had vista and worked great, with win7 it wont automatically connect to my wireless router, which is very annoying.
my destop which is win7 has the same stability issues as my htpc.
point is Vista got a bad rap with driver support in the early days, but its not nearly as bad as as people claim, and IMO its more stable than win7, but win 7 has too many features i cant live without. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 01:51:21 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
And DEFINITELY get Windows 7 the 64 bit version. As kirbic said, Win7 is widely lauded; Vista got a bad rap that persisted when it wasn't really deserved.
|
A friend works at the Microsoft mothership and everyone there is requires to use the latest OS except by special petition for specific needs. Vista was so hated that just under half of the people there obtained permission to keep running XP until 7 came out. I had, and hated Vista, but win 7 is just fine, its stable and clean with very little bloatwear.
If you price out the various upgrades to hardware and software mentioned here, and compare it to getting a new box, you will probably find the new computer option will be the cheaper alternative. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 01:42:24 PM · #23 |
oh my!!! It's needs 15% free to defragment? ARGH!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2010 11:13:05 AM · #24 |
on the topic of processors, you will see a difference in performance if you actually use those cpu cycles in your software, for instance stitching panoramas together in photoshop.
but for the most part unless you actually need that type of performance, you can skip it.
as far as the intel core 13, i5 and i7 go.
they are essentially the same processors, the i5 and i7 have "powerboost" or built in overclocking, i believe an i5 will give you a bump in processor speed up to 200 mhz and the i7 will go to 400 or so over the listed the clock speed of the i3.
not that any of that may benefit you.
i have a athlon quadcore with 4g of ram and it is more than capable of photoshop, now i also dont handle more than 2 or 3 images at a time.
right now the best bang for the buck is the core i3 with 6 or 8 gigs of ram. with that much ram you dont really need a SSD drive.
oh, btw, with vista and win7 you can plug in a thumb drive and windows will use it as ram, it will prompt you when you plug it in.
its a very cheap way to boost performance. you can also set up a thumbdive to work as a ram scratch disk. |
|
|
|
10/22/2010 10:33:20 AM · #25 |
I would guess you'll get the biggest speed increase from Bridge and PS if you upgrade to 4GB memory AND increase your disk speed.
Here's an idea...depending on how big your photo set is, get an SSD. I installed one this year for my XML data to increase processing speed, and I saw about a 5 to 10 fold increase. It's a bit harder with the photos, because I have so many, but I put my Lightroom database on it too and that did help. (You could also try to put your swap drive on it..that would speed processing in general, I'm sure.)
Prices are not cheap per GB, but they're dropping fast:
Here's a 128GB drive for $230, or a 64GB drive for $107
If you have more photos than would fit, then try just the recent year or two. And like me, you can cherry pick what goes on in terms of system files/utilities. If you learn how to use "junctions" in Windows, you can have a folder, that appears on your hard drive in normal use, actually come from the SSD. And you can do that with multiple folders. So you can have any important speed critical files moved to the SSD without the app that uses them even notice the changed location.
Message edited by author 2010-10-22 10:33:39.
|
|
