Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio outskirts
    Posts
    754

    Default Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

    Hi guys wats the minimum system req for the above??ie speedy scanning time, photoshot sessions.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

    Originally posted by kongg
    Hi guys wats the minimum system req for the above??ie speedy scanning time, photoshot sessions.
    there isn't any? apart from say, 512Mb RAM to prevent disk thrashing? I have a p3-500 overclocked to 600 and its fine for my needs.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    167

    Default Re: Re: Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

    In addition, you need an NT based system (WinXP, WinNT, Win2000) to be able to utilise the 512MB ram. I've heard that Win98 will ignore any ram above 256MB

    Originally posted by erwinx


    there isn't any? apart from say, 512Mb RAM to prevent disk thrashing? I have a p3-500 overclocked to 600 and its fine for my needs.

  4. #4

    Default

    The more ram the better. If you are really serious into photoshop editing stuffs, 1G ram is preferred. Rams are cheap nowadays

  5. #5

    Default Re: Re: Re: Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

    Originally posted by Daniel
    In addition, you need an NT based system (WinXP, WinNT, Win2000) to be able to utilise the 512MB ram. I've heard that Win98 will ignore any ram above 256MB

    incorrect. win 98/se/me will utilise up to 512Mb. With a registry tweak, they can access above 512Mb as well. see www.pcmag.com... up to a max of 1Gb (according to microsoft)
    Last edited by erwinx; 26th October 2002 at 05:41 PM.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    167

    Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

    Originally posted by erwinx


    incorrect. win 98/se/me will utilise up to 512Mb. With a registry tweak, they can access above 512Mb as well. see www.pcmag.com... up to a max of 1Gb (according to microsoft)
    Ok thanks for the correction, now lemme go and kill the person who gave me this wrong info

  7. #7

    Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Minimum system requirement for photoediting and scanning?

    Originally posted by Daniel


    Ok thanks for the correction, now lemme go and kill the person who gave me this wrong info
    But on Win9X, having more than 512MB ram also got no use right?
    Because Win9x mem management is darn shitty.....

    Win NT kernel's the way to go!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    If you are serious about photo editing, why bother with PCs? Get a G4 Mac! All the design houses, etc don't choose the Mac for no reason. Also, Macs have colour management built-in, and typically displays your images much better. Don't believe me? Bring your images to a Mac shop and ask them to display them. It beats any PC display (even high end LCD ones) flat.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    If you are serious about photo editing, why bother with PCs? Get a G4 Mac! All the design houses, etc don't choose the Mac for no reason. Also, Macs have colour management built-in, and typically displays your images much better. Don't believe me? Bring your images to a Mac shop and ask them to display them. It beats any PC display (even high end LCD ones) flat.

    Regards
    CK
    Just to ask, must they be necessarily be those G4 tower versions?
    What about the iMac?
    I saw one in my school, and my god, it was babelicious.....

    Speaking of Macs, I heard that they are the ones who can output native 48bit colour right?
    PCs can't do that right?
    Correct me if I'm wrong...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by SNAG


    Just to ask, must they be necessarily be those G4 tower versions?
    What about the iMac?
    I saw one in my school, and my god, it was babelicious.....

    Speaking of Macs, I heard that they are the ones who can output native 48bit colour right?
    PCs can't do that right?
    Correct me if I'm wrong...
    I am not a Mac user (yet) though I can't say I am not tempted. heh. The G4 towers are more upgradable, like your PCs. I suppose a beefed up 17" iMac should do the job nicely as well. As you've seen, the display is wow....

    Regards
    CK

  11. #11

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    I am not a Mac user (yet) though I can't say I am not tempted. heh. The G4 towers are more upgradable, like your PCs. I suppose a beefed up 17" iMac should do the job nicely as well. As you've seen, the display is wow....

    Regards
    CK
    if you have the bucks, go for G4 towers + cinema display LCD. if you've seen it before, you will conclude that it's way better than any PC LCDs. i heard people commenting "it's like staring at a magazine; not a monitor".. and it's true

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by behyx


    if you have the bucks, go for G4 towers + cinema display LCD. if you've seen it before, you will conclude that it's way better than any PC LCDs. i heard people commenting "it's like staring at a magazine; not a monitor".. and it's true
    I can't agree more.
    Just to ask, there are those 3rd party adapters where they allow you to connect a cinema display to a PC...
    Wondering if those could do the trick well or not..

    But the Mac can display so well not because of its hardware, but also it's software as well right?

    Apple's a PC killer man....

  13. #13

    Default

    Originally posted by SNAG


    I can't agree more.
    Just to ask, there are those 3rd party adapters where they allow you to connect a cinema display to a PC...
    Wondering if those could do the trick well or not..

    But the Mac can display so well not because of its hardware, but also it's software as well right?

    Apple's a PC killer man....
    there is adapters to do so, and i think each cost $200+. i've known of some people who did this, but seriously, the appearance still far from perfection if it's not coupled with a mac side by side on the table.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Melbourne & Singapore
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I guess if it's just photoediting, just boost up your RAM. It's easier and cheaper to get 'raw' power on a PC than on a Mac, like upgrading to dual processor configurations and so forth.

    Though on a Mac, Apple's Colorsync ensures efficient colour work flow from input to output of your material, essential if you do graphic design and print publication.

    My 2 cents.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by behyx


    if you have the bucks, go for G4 towers + cinema display LCD. if you've seen it before, you will conclude that it's way better than any PC LCDs. i heard people commenting "it's like staring at a magazine; not a monitor".. and it's true
    I saw a 22" CinemaDisplay at Apple Centre. Blew me away. It's simply awesome, even the best PC LCD displays like the Eizos are not that good.

    Regards
    CK

  16. #16

    Default

    Err.. I think he want to know.. the sys as in the CPU speed blah blah blah..... not the display monitor......


    800MHz with 512MBram!!!!
    hehhehheheee

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Bluestrike
    Err.. I think he want to know.. the sys as in the CPU speed blah blah blah..... not the display monitor......


    800MHz with 512MBram!!!!
    hehhehheheee
    For any imaging system, the monitor is the most important. With less RAM and CPU, at most operations are slower. But without a good monitor, colours are not accurate. And colour accuracy is important!

    800MHz? I am using 900MHz Duron and 512MB RAM. I am sure there are people using 2.4GHz out here as well....

    Regards
    CK

  18. #18

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    For any imaging system, the monitor is the most important. With less RAM and CPU, at most operations are slower. But without a good monitor, colours are not accurate. And colour accuracy is important!

    800MHz? I am using 900MHz Duron and 512MB RAM. I am sure there are people using 2.4GHz out here as well....

    Regards
    CK
    Hey...
    I'm still using a Pentium II 400 > 450, 256MB ram on XP...
    Talking about slow PCs.. heheh.

    If you want colour accuracy, get a Colourcal Spyder loh...
    The whole of Clubsnap can share one... And we can all tweak our monitors + printers and pass them around.....

  19. #19

    Default

    Originally posted by SNAG


    Hey...
    I'm still using a Pentium II 400 > 450, 256MB ram on XP...
    Talking about slow PCs.. heheh.

    If you want colour accuracy, get a Colourcal Spyder loh...
    The whole of Clubsnap can share one... And we can all tweak our monitors + printers and pass them around.....


  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    AMK, Singapore
    Posts
    527

    Default

    I'm on a Duron 1.2ghz with 256mb RAM.. but in my setup, the item contributing most to the quality of how nicely my photos are displayed is my old trusty Matrox G400..

    Of course u should have a decent monitor also lah..

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •