For better performance if you must use Windows I would "De-Vista" the computer and re-install XP.
The main problem is even with SP2 is that the new SATA/PATA disk drives found in newer laptops etc don't have standard disk drivers and if you attempt to install Windows XP on these laptops you'll get the typical message "No Hard Disks Found".
However using "slipstreaming" and Driverpacks (google for it) you can create Windows XP with all the drivers for these new disks (and the Intel accelerators, video devices, built in card readers etc).
You can also download SP3 from the microsoft site.
Whilst there might still be some security implications Windows XP with SP3 applied FLIES compared with VISTA.
Even if you are wary of SP3, SP2 performance still beats the SH-T out of Vista - especially on lower 'specced machines - above all on laptops.
I can boot a windows XP system on a small Philips X59 Laptop --1GB RAM, dual core T5500 in less than 25 secs and unlike Vista the Hard disk is rarely busy.
With VISTA even when not doing anything the Hard Disk light is often on for minutes at a time.
If you use "Virtualisation Software" such as Parallels or Vmware then using VISTA is even worse -- the hard disk light stays almost 100% on even when you've shut down any Virtual Machine (VM) you might have been running.
I'd totally forget VISTA at the present time. especially on 1 or 2 GB RAM laptops.
It *might* be OK on desktops with Quad processors or 4GB RAM but on typical laptops forget it.
While I don't really agree that XP is superior to Vista overall, Kyle is certainly right about one thing. The startup time on a Vista machine is a lot longer than on an XP machine.
I use XP SP2. Am quite content with it. Spent most of Tuesday evening trying to talk my daughter through her troubles with Vista. Vista is not for me.
Mike, my scratch disk is now 14gb with 12.7 gb free. Used to use a 6gb drive but the 14 was faster so it got the job. Don't believe the scratch disk has to be of an signifigant size. We're talking images of x mb's on a drive of x gb's. Suspect an old 2gb drive would work although the speed would not be up to today's standards. Still, it would be better than having the scratch on the main drive.
I agree with most of what Kyle has said. I would be very cautious about XP SP3 as it's only a "RC - Release Candidate" at the moment. SP2 is proven.
My youngest brother got burned. He bought a machine from Future Shop. They sold him a beast with a state of the art dual layer DVD burner with LightScribe. Turns out the OS, Vista Home version doesn't support CD or DVD writers. Ripped off!
Ask a local friend/geek to come with you on the buy/check out of any potential machine. Meet before, buy lunch or dinner. Define your needs as best you can. Listen to the geek. Will confuse you as hell!
Way back when I sold and serviced computers. People would walk in with a quote from a competitor. They'd ask if I could better it. I'd look at the quote and see a colour card paired with a monchrome monitor. Just would never work. But that's what the person asked for, colour and a high defination monitor. So the sales person 'Met' the customer's request. I'd clear it up and 80% plus make the sale.
You find yourself someone who knows and understands your requirements. Pay'm. $50-100 bucks which will be well spent. Then go shopping.
If you're close I'd spend a day and emails doing the job. Between Ottawa and North Bay. Customer pays expenses.
If computers are not your forte then get 'neutral' advice, not sales folks advice.
This is only my advise. But stay away from ACER!! They are cheap for a reason!
Being in the industry for over 13 years, and being a Certified Trainer, it amazes me that people are unafraid to drop $1,000's of dollars in software in a cheap pos computer and get mad when things don't work right.
You can also work with Vista and Vista Ultimate is the only way to go then but if I had a choice today, I'd still be running XP Pro. It's stable with few flaws and less resource usage.
Mike, I'd definitely recommend building your own. I'm also not much of a fan of AMD for power consumption reasons and power. You can get a Core 2 Quad pretty cheap these days and you'll definitely end up under 700 if you go easy on the mobo and graphics.
Mullet wrote:
Also I have a question for you. Why would you have Lightroom and CS3?
I have both, and try as hard as I can, I cannot find a good use for Lightroom. On the system you describe, CS3 will run rings around Lightroom.
I really struggle to understand why people who have not the first clue about a piece of software feel that their opinion is worth anything, letalone 2 cents.
The phrase "CS3 will run rings around Lightroom" is utterly ignorant of so many things it's not funny.
To the OP - get plenty of HDD space and plenty of RAM. You can never have enough of either.
miccullen wrote:
I really struggle to understand why people who have not the first clue about a piece of software feel that their opinion is worth anything, letalone 2 cents.
The phrase "CS3 will run rings around Lightroom" is utterly ignorant of so many things it's not funny.
I struggle to understand why people who know nothing about someone else, would choose to anonymously attack that person for having an objective opinion.
I wrote my first piece of software in 1968, having graduated from wiring logic/program boards for accounting machines. My software career continued past the end of the 20th Century. That career included testing, evaluation, design and quality assurance of all types of applications across many different platforms, so while I may be ignorant of many things, software is not one of them. Along the way I learned a little bit about computer hardware, as well.
Since you did not attack my first post, I assume that you acknowledge that I was able to demonstrate some technical prowess that might elevate me slightly above ignorant.
Here is 2 cents more for you: I’ve always considered ignorance to be most acutely shown by people who assail an individual’s character because they are unable to intelligently argue an tangible counterpoint.
Andrew W wrote:
I love Lightroom. Its not meant to replace Photoshop, but to complement it. Its much better for archiving photos and working on them in large groups. I probably use Lightroom 85% of the time for post processing my photos. The only time I use Photoshop is when I need to use layers or a plug-in. Also, Lightroom is non-destructive, unlike Photoshop.
LR is an extremely poor and distant cousin to PS once you pass some magical number of images - it could be 10k, or even 12k, but the number is there and even Adobe admits it. LR in NOT a professional level application; it simply crumbles, and the destruction it leaves in its wake when it happens is not pretty. Trust me.
Furthermore, PS is not destructive and who ever told you that is sadly mistaken. Any one above an absolute beginner knows about layers, and if you do most of your processing in ACR like you should, you have a non-destructive xmp file. Where do you think the idea for LR's behavior came from originally? Bridge/ACR/PS is a far better tool for professionals and serious photographers.
When Adobe develops LR into a real application instead of a toy, I'll consider it again. Until that time, I've banished from 4 PCs and it won't come back until it has proven it can manage 100k images.....
Mullet wrote:
I struggle to understand why people who know nothing about someone else, would choose to anonymously attack that person for having an objective opinion.
I wrote my first piece of software in 1968, having graduated from wiring logic/program boards for accounting machines. My software career continued past the end of the 20th Century. That career including testing, evaluation, design and quality assurance of all types of applications across many different platforms, so while I may be ignorant of many things, software is not one of them. Along the way I learned a little bit about computer hardware, as well.
Since you did not attack my first post, I assume that you acknowledge that I was able to demonstrate some technical prowess that might elevate me slightly above ignorant.
Here is 2 cents more for you: I’ve always considered ignorance to be most acutely shown by people who assail an individual’s character because they are unable to intelligently argue an tangible counterpoint.
I know what you mean. Those of us that have writing/managing commercial and enterprise level software are challenged by some guys with a "programmers r'us" degree and think they know what they're doing. Most of them know nothing about how decisions are made, deadlines are set, and what really drives development rationals. They wrote their first "hello world" application, or the equivalent, and now think they're smart. It happens here all the time.
Most of them don't understand what the needs of professional photography either, but they have an internet connection so away they go.
jamesf99 wrote:
I know what you mean. Those of us that have writing/managing commercial and enterprise level software are challenged by some guys with a "programmers r'us" degree and think they know what they're doing. Most of them know nothing about how decisions are made, deadlines are set, and what really drives development rationals. They wrote their first "hello world" application, or the equivalent, and now think they're smart. It happens here all the time.
Most of them don't understand what the needs of professional photography either, but they have an internet connection so away they go.
Mullet wrote:
Here is 2 cents more for you: I’ve always considered ignorance to be most acutely shown by people who assail an individual’s character because they are unable to intelligently argue an tangible counterpoint.
Mate, you can rabbit on all you like, but your statement about CS3 running rings around LR simply shows you don't have a clue what LR is for, or what it can do.
Here's a hint: they're different pieces of software, and they're designed to do different things, so directly comparing them is ridiculous, no matter how high and mighty you feel about yourself.
