Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Misc Forums > Computers and Operating Systems

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 8, 2010, 5:46 PM   #61
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Here's table showing you how the various editions compare. The main benefit of the Pro version that I'd care about would be XP Mode (which for the most part, is just a copy of XP running in a virtual machine) for running any software that doesn't want to "play nice" with Windows 7:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...e/default.aspx

But, if any software you plan on installing is compatible with Windows 7, then that's probably not a big deal (and as time passes, more newer software being released for Windows should be able to run OK on Windows 7).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2010, 6:19 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

I've seen that page already. My main concern now is if it's preferable to buy a new windows 7 home premium 64 from scratch or install the xp 64 pro and upgrade later. I guess the first option is better. Less duplicate archives, less messing around. What do you think?
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2010, 6:33 PM   #63
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Yes. It would probably be best to install Win 7 up front if that's the Operating System you want to use, because you can't upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without reinstalling all of your applications later (Microsoft doesn't have a way to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without using that approach). You can go from 64 Bit Vista to 64 Bit Windows 7 without reinstalling everything from scratch. But, the same thing does not apply if you want to go from XP to Windows 7.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2010, 6:43 PM   #64
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Here's their tutorial on how to upgrade from XP to Windows 7. Using that approach requires that your applications be reinstalled from scratch.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...p-to-windows-7
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2010, 7:04 PM   #65
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You could try it and see if your existing equipment works or not. But, one of the issues you'll probably have with 64 Bit XP is driver availability, since 64 bit XP was never really a mainstream operating system (as a result, some hardware manufacturers may not have drivers for it).

You may have driver availability issues with Win 7, too. But, I think you'll be more likely to find newer hardware that's supported by 64 bit Windows 7, than newer hardware that has drivers available for 64 Bit XP, especially since most drivers written for 64 Bit Vista are going to be usable with 64 Bit Windows 7, too.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2010, 7:27 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

No problem reinstalling my applications. And the list of hardware makers supporting 64 bits Windows 7 is growing. I guess that's a risk worth to run in the long term.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 10:23 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Some thoughts on this question.

I'm using a Mac Graphite Computer; does have dual processing, but is limited to a speed of 1400 Mhz. Slow, indeed very slow by todays standards. Even so, it's quite capable of editing large images, and processor intensive filters quite fast. Normal processing, such as contrast and color adjustments, or unsharp mask, are almost transparently fast. I have to wait about five seconds for it to use a filter like Noise Ninja.

Why not buy a Mac Mini? They are cheap, and would leave you the cash to buy that good monitor and other peripherals that you desire? You can run the Mac OS, or Windows and linux. They're tiny, easy to install, user friendly and reliable?

Certainly when my machine hits the dust, that's what I'll be using.

As a semi-professional, I don't find my present machine a serious limitation. The new Mac Mini's are far faster.

I believe there is too much emphasis are getting the most powerful machine, when in fact most of what you will be doing, simply doesn't require that kind of speed.

Just some thoughts on this question.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 11:34 AM   #68
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

He's already got the new machine (see previous posts in the thread about it being delivered). ;-)

I guess it's all a matter of perception and what you plan on doing to images.

If you look at some of the CS4 benchmarks at places like Tom's Hardware, the Core i7 920 is about twice as fast as a 3.0Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo (which is faster than the fastest CPU offered in the Mac Mini) at doing things like applying some filters to a tiff file. In the benchmarks used for Tom's test, the Core i7 920 completed them in 120 seconds, versus 241 seconds for a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo (a faster CPU than Apple offers in the Mac Mini):

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...CS-4,1387.html

If you look at some of the video editing benchmarks (which is something else the OP is interested in), then the Core i7 920 pulls away even more. For example, using CS4 Premiere to edit video, the Core i7 920 was roughly 4 times as fast as a 3Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo (which is again a faster CPU than Apple offers in that box), with the Core i7 920 completing the benchmark in 70 second, whereas the 3Ghz Core 2 Duo took 278 seconds.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...-CS4,1404.html

In order to get a machine with roughly the same processor specs and ram in the Apple lineup, you'd need to move up to the Mac Pro and use a single 2.66Ghz Xeon (they use a Nehalem type Processor in it, with the same basic specs as the Intel Core i7 920), bump up the RAM to 6GB of DDR3 (although the Apple is using slower memory) for around $2700 (which a much slower GT 120 video card compared to the one the OP ended up with). If you want to stay Nvidia, you'd have to use multiple cards in the Mac Pro (since they don't appear to offer better Nvidia cards from what I can see from their configurator).

IOW, you'd be looking at around twice as much money for an Apple solution compared to what the OP paid for the box he bought (assuming he could even buy the Apple Mac Pro at U.S. prices), and he'd still have a slower machine given using the same operating system on both (since the Apple is using slower memory, with a weaker video card in it's base config trying to come close to what the box the OP has in it).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 12:16 PM   #69
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
IOW, you'd be looking at around twice as much money for an Apple solution compared to what the OP paid for the box he bought (assuming he could even buy the Apple Mac Pro at U.S. prices)...
That doesn't appear to be the case from what I can tell (you wouldn't be able to buy one there for only twice as much money, compared to the Core i7 920 based system the OP got for $1495). It looks like a lower spec Mac Pro with a single 2.66GHz Nehalem and only 3GB of DDR3 with a slower GT 120 video card is going to run over $4000 (USD) in Argentina, from what I can tell from listings I find there at Mac dealers, given current currency conversions. Here's one example:

http://www.macstore.com.ar/producto....Subcategoria=5

I'm sure it's a nice box (with lots of expandability). But, I don't think I'd pay several times as much just to get a system with the same basic CPU design (2.66Ghz Nehalem with 8MB Cache), with lower specs as far as memory speed, video card, etc., unless I *really* wanted to use OS X (and didn't want to go the "Hackinstosh" route), since benchmarks I've seen show the CPU speed to be identical between the 2.66Ghz Xeon CPU the Mac Pro uses, as compared to the Core i7 920 (which makes sense, since they're both Nehalem processors).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2010, 3:16 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
He's already got the new machine (see previous posts in the thread about it being delivered). ;-)

I guess it's all a matter of perception and what you plan on doing to images.

If you look at some of the CS4 benchmarks at places like Tom's Hardware, the Core i7 920 is about twice as fast as a 3.0Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo (which is faster than the fastest CPU offered in the Mac Mini) at doing things like applying some filters to a tiff file. In the benchmarks used for Tom's test, the Core i7 920 completed them in 120 seconds, versus 241 seconds for a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo (a faster CPU than Apple offers in the Mac Mini):

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...CS-4,1387.html

If you look at some of the video editing benchmarks (which is something else the OP is interested in), then the Core i7 920 pulls away even more. For example, using CS4 Premiere to edit video, the Core i7 920 was roughly 4 times as fast as a 3Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo (which is again a faster CPU than Apple offers in that box), with the Core i7 920 completing the benchmark in 70 second, whereas the 3Ghz Core 2 Duo took 278 seconds.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...-CS4,1404.html

In order to get a machine with roughly the same processor specs and ram in the Apple lineup, you'd need to move up to the Mac Pro and use a single 2.66Ghz Xeon (they use a Nehalem type Processor in it, with the same basic specs as the Intel Core i7 920), bump up the RAM to 6GB of DDR3 (although the Apple is using slower memory) for around $2700 (which a much slower GT 120 video card compared to the one the OP ended up with). If you want to stay Nvidia, you'd have to use multiple cards in the Mac Pro (since they don't appear to offer better Nvidia cards from what I can see from their configurator).

IOW, you'd be looking at around twice as much money for an Apple solution compared to what the OP paid for the box he bought (assuming he could even buy the Apple Mac Pro at U.S. prices), and he'd still have a slower machine given using the same operating system on both (since the Apple is using slower memory, with a weaker video card in it's base config trying to come close to what the box the OP has in it).
A few days ago, someone who is very ignorant, asked my advice about a computer and speed. I asked them what they intended to use the machine for - The answer was word processing.

If I was a conscious computer, I would pass out in boredom waiting for the human to actually type something.

My point here is NOT that the machines you recomend are not faster that a Mac Mini, but "How much speed do you need for the task of image processing?"

Since I personally am on a budget, I would prefer to spend my money on additional hard drives, a Great Monitor, more photographic gear.

With my present computer, which is what? Six years old five? Most of what I do takes places in an instant. Do I need more power?

A Mac Mini is far faster than my present machine and costs about $800, which includes additional memory.

Certain applications would indeed benefit fromm additional speed, such as Modeling and Rendering programs, and video creations. Image processing?

So, applying unsharp mask takes one second instead of two.

Hmm?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:14 PM.