RAW conversion seems to take forever

[tempest68]

I have a Compaq Presario V2565US laptop, which has an AMD Turion 64 processor running Windows XP (32-bit). When I do a batch conversion of many RAW images to JPG, it seems to take forever! If I have 100 images to convert, it seems to take at least an hour to convert all the images. Using Task Manager, the process is maxing out the processor. There is plenty of memory to be used, so it looks like the processor is the bottleneck.

I'm torn over whether to jump to Vista for 64-bit support, or just save up for a new computer. The laptop seems to meet my needs for everything else. It's just painful waiting for RAW files to convert.

So what would YOU suggest. I'm hoping that running 64 bit Vista would better utilize my existing hardware, and speed up the process. But I dont know if I'll get the kind of improvement I'm looking for. That's were a new dual-core or quad-core machine might be in my future. BTW the images are mostly from my Rebel XT, so the file size is 8MB max per image.

[poloman]

IMO, you will be disappointed with Vista's performance on your current machine. It runs great on machines made to use it.
Save your money for a new machine. In the meantime, time your conversions for dinnertime......
If you machine seems slower than it used to be, it may be time to clean it out. CCleaner is a great program. Google it. You can trust it.
Of course, the ultimate is to wipe your drive and rebuild your system. XP seems to get clogged about every year or two.

[tim]

New machine, Vista will slow that one down. Don't buy less than quad core right now.

[overclicker]

How much memory does your laptop have? How fast (rpms) does your hard drive spin?

[Colorblinded]

What are you processing the RAWs with? I'm having trouble believing a Turion is taking that long to process RAWs unless it's running at a low energy higher efficiency frequency and isn't properly throttling up to full speed.

Also, I agree Vista would be a poor choice for that computer unless it's got 2GB RAM or more and even then I don't think your problem has anything to do with something Vista or a 64 bit operating system would fix. Vista has a higher cost of entry in terms of minimum hardware requirements but properly kitted a Vista desktop will outperform a comparable XP one in general multitasking or memory management based on my experience.

[tempest68]

What are you processing the RAWs with? I'm having trouble believing a Turion is taking that long to process RAWs unless it's running at a low energy higher efficiency frequency and isn't properly throttling up to full speed.

Also, I agree Vista would be a poor choice for that computer unless it's got 2GB RAM or more and even then I don't think your problem has anything to do with something Vista or a 64 bit operating system would fix. Vista has a higher cost of entry in terms of minimum hardware requirements but properly kitted a Vista desktop will outperform a comparable XP one in general multitasking or memory management based on my experience.
I'm just using the Zoombrowser EX RAW tool for the conversion. I have a 1GB and 256MB memory chip in it. I'm trying to think back to about a year ago when I upgraded the HD. It used to be a 4200 RPM, but I think the new one was a 5400 RPM.

The biggest reason I even began to contemplate Vista was for the 64 bit. Since my version of XP is only 32 bit, the processor in the machine is not being used to its fullest potential. I didn't think about the HD spin speed, though.

Gone are the days where I'll just walk into Circuit City or Best Buy and just make a quick purchase decision. I've learned me lesson to spend a little more for the best processor I can afford while also looking for the largest capacity HD with the fastest RPM available. For just web surfing, the cheapy machines are probably fine. But since getting interested in photography, I realize now I need better equipment if I want to get anything done in a reasonable time.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

[Bobster]

New machine, Vista will slow that one down. Don't buy less than quad core right now.
actually Vista 64bit will run faster than XP on a 64bit CPU :)

its a mobile dual 1.8GHz CPU, so in theory it should only take 10-15 seconds to convert to JPG..

what other processes do you have running in the background, what's your anti virus solution etc?

oh just spotted you have a 256MB RAM Chip in, have you thought about taking that out?

[Colorblinded]

64 vs 32 bit isn't going to be significantly different just because of the processor.

Still, your processing times (tempest) do not sound right at all to me. I have no idea how fast Zoombrowser is but something sounds wrong. How much RAM do you have free when you're doing this though? Maxing your processor out is one thing, and that's fine, but I really doubt it should be taking that long! My system maxes all 4 cores when processing an image in Capture One 4, but the image is processed and saved to my hard drive in less than four seconds (hard to figure out exactly how long it takes, but the processed file is ready to go in under 4 seconds and I don't have fast hard drives, in fact it's two 400GB drives in RAID 1).

I'd suggest reinstalling zoombrowser, while you're at it check and see if there isn't an update available.

[Bobster]

64 vs 32 bit isn't going to be significantly different just because of the processor.
actually, swapping from 32-64bit OS, it will feel alot more snappy :)

[Moppie]

It is a single core, 1.8ghz laptop processor with 333mhz ram.

That is NEVER going to process RAW files into JPEG's quickly. It doesn't matter what OS you put on it, or how much ram you give it, the bottle neck will always be the processor and the bus and ram speed.

My old AMD Athalon 2600XP (2ghz) with a 400mhz front side bus and 1GB of PC3200 RAM (400mhz) would take an hour or so to process 100 RAW files from my 30D.
You should be happy your getting similar levels of performance from a lap top.

The only way to get the job done faster is to upgrade, either a new dual core laptop, or a nice quad core desk top.

[tim]

actually Vista 64bit will run faster than XP on a 64bit CPU :)

its a mobile dual 1.8GHz CPU, so in theory it should only take 10-15 seconds to convert to JPG..

what other processes do you have running in the background, what's your anti virus solution etc?

oh just spotted you have a 256MB RAM Chip in, have you thought about taking that out?

Yeah but if Vista takes all the RAM it won't do much else in much of a hurry :p

[Bobster]

Yeah but if Vista takes all the RAM it won't do much else in much of a hurry :p
its designed to take RAM, it gives it back when needed ;)

[poloman]

Bobster....
Vista is notoriously slow on older machines that were not designed with it in mind. I have it on my quad core and love it.
If the OP buys a new machine, they will get Vista with it. So they get the faster hardware in addition to an upgrade in the operating system.

[BottomBracket]

Tempest, I think the best thing that you can do (short of getting a new machine) is to get more RAM as much as your laptop will allow, and to reinstall XP to get rid of the clutter of broken registries, etc. While you're at it, Don't load Norton or McAffee (or whatever AV that came with your laptop) and download AVG free instead. Get Spybot S&D and Adaware too to cover your bases.

Be sure to save all your important files first!

[Moppie]

Tempest, I think the best thing that you can do (short of getting a new machine) is to get more RAM as much as your laptop will allow, and to reinstall XP to get rid of the clutter of broken registries, etc. While you're at it, Don't load Norton or McAffee (or whatever AV that came with your laptop) and download AVG free instead. Get Spybot S&D and Adaware too to cover your bases.

Be sure to save all your important files first!


Converting files is processor intensive, adding more RAM won't help (it will help with other process like some of the filters).

Reinstalling XP might help, definitely running a lighter anti virus will help.
But, at the most, I wouldn't expect anything more than a 15% improvement in performance.
No amount of software changes, will make up for a slow processor.

[BottomBracket]

True. I think Tempest will be pleasantly surprised if he springs for a newer machine. :)

[Moppie]

True. I think Tempest will be pleasantly surprised if he springs for a newer machine. :)


I went from a similar spec desktop to a new 2.4ghz Quad core with 4GB of 800mhz RAM.
I could have processed 100 RAW files in the time it took to read your post, and then post this reply.

I thought something was wrong the first time I ran a batch conversion, it was over so quickly.

[tempest68]

Thanks everyone for your feedback.

It sounds like the most economical solution is to wait until I can afford a new machine.

According to the Performance tab on Task Manager, I almost always have 500MB of RAM free to use when doing the conversion. So throwing more memory at it won't help if the memory I have isn't being utilized.

I run the free version of AVG for antivirus.

I do not attempt to do anything else on the machine when the conversion is taking place as I figure any other activity would then compete with Zoombrowser for the HD, processor, and memory. I try to minimize how many processes run at startup too.

I also found that I had to change the Power Options in control panel. I use an "Always On" profile now when the laptop is plugged in. Otherwise it is not smart enough to know a long process is running unattended, and without me touching the mouse or keyboard every so often it used to go into Standby mode and actually interrupt the conversion process.

I reinstalled XP from the recovery disks about a year ago when I upgraded the HD, and then ran through all of the MS Updates to get it current. Currently running SP3 (no change in speed [good or bad] from SP2 to SP3).

[tempest68]

Now the question is... stick with MS or jump to Apple? I dont have a ton of MS-only software to keep me with MS, and the 24" iMac seems easy on the eyes. Either way, I'm thinking I can get more bang for the buck with a desktop this time around. A 20" laptop would be too expensive and heavy.

[poloman]

Yeah....
Windows or MAC, you will get more bang for the buck with a desktop.
I have chosen Windows as I have software, and this way I don't have to buy Apple everything to put in my card cage.

[tim]

Now the question is... stick with MS or jump to Apple? I dont have a ton of MS-only software to keep me with MS, and the 24" iMac seems easy on the eyes. Either way, I'm thinking I can get more bang for the buck with a desktop this time around. A 20" laptop would be too expensive and heavy.

There are plenty of mac vs pc threads, don't start another. Use what you know, and with a PC you usually get more bang for your buck. The iMac screens aren't particularly well regarded.

[René Damkot]

The iMac screens aren't particularly well regarded.

Depends on what iMac, and what you compare it to.
Personally, I'd not buy any computer with an integrated screen, unless it's a laptop :p

Then again, you can hook up a good screen to an iMac, and use the iMacs screen as a second monitor for palettes and stuff ;)

[Colorblinded]

Personally, I'd not buy any computer with an integrated screen, unless it's a laptop :p
Same here, not a fan.

[poloman]

+1 Scared me the first time I saw it and still does. When the screen dies, you have an overly large, awkwardly shaped case.