Imac instead of PC?

Moppie wrote in post #7739962
With out knowing anything about Jam71868's current system it is a little premature to suggest re-installing everything, and claiming that it will some how magically solve things.
If there is a lot of bloatware running then this can work, but lets find out before telling someone to do a complete back up and re-install of everything.
If he is going to goto that much trouble then he might as well upgrade some hardware at the same time.

And there is NOTHING wrong with Vista.
Reverting back to XP will not improve anything. On a multi-core computer is may even have a negative effect on performance as Vista makes far better use of multiple cores than XP does.

I hate to argue, but after doing IT for 15 years now and many of those years at the desktop level, I need to disagree. In practice, Delete/Re-install is one of the most effective things you can do at this point, not to mention one of the most common and prefered steps in a professional scenario. Bring the system back to a fresh baseline with fresh new file tables, swap space and registry. A reformat is the most thorough defrag you can do. A daul core system with 4gb of ram should be able to handle the 5d MKII raw files with glee.

You should also have your your photoshop swap space setup on a seperate drive array then your system drive(s). That could also make a huge difference in photoshop.

Unless your upgrading the motherboard, it's not absolutely necessary to upgrade hardware at the same time as a rebuild. It's not that much trouble if you keep good backups and have your applications ready to go. I'm not saying this is the only choice, but yes, starting from scratch can do magical things.

Like I mentioned before, I'm doing fine working with multiple 100mb+ images at a time on 1/3rd the system the OP probably has.

Vista making use of multi-core better than XP is just a load of sales pitch to get people on board and upgrade. The only place that is even remotely true is in 64bit, which XP has available as well.

I *heart* my iMac! kiss kiss

samueli wrote in post #7741592
Vista making use of multi-core better than XP is just a load of sales pitch to get people on board and upgrade. The only place that is even remotely true is in 64bit, which XP has available as well.

Are you saying that XP has everything vista has? or just for multi-core usage. Because overall I find Vista to have many more reasons to upgrade. (32 bit compatibility in on the 64bit version and DX10 to name a few)

samueli wrote in post #7741592
I hate to argue, but after doing IT for 15 years now and many of those years at the desktop level, I need to disagree. In practice, Delete/Re-install is one of the most effective things you can do at this point, not to mention one of the most common and prefered steps in a professional scenario. Bring the system back to a fresh baseline with fresh new file tables, swap space and registry. A reformat is the most thorough defrag you can do. A daul core system with 4gb of ram should be able to handle the 5d MKII raw files with glee.

You should also have your your photoshop swap space setup on a seperate drive array then your system drive(s). That could also make a huge difference in photoshop.

Unless your upgrading the motherboard, it's not absolutely necessary to upgrade hardware at the same time as a rebuild. It's not that much trouble if you keep good backups and have your applications ready to go. I'm not saying this is the only choice, but yes, starting from scratch can do magical things.

Like I mentioned before, I'm doing fine working with multiple 100mb+ images at a time on 1/3rd the system the OP probably has.

Vista making use of multi-core better than XP is just a load of sales pitch to get people on board and upgrade. The only place that is even remotely true is in 64bit, which XP has available as well.

Being an old salt to computers/networks I tend to agree "if" the OP OS install falls into one of these three categories:

1. The install is older than a year.
2. The original OS was patched with SP1 then SP2 + was installed longer than 6 months ago.
3. The OP installs and uninstalls many programs + does not do thorough cleanup & maintenance.

I disagree however that a separate PS scratch will improve performance greatly. I have rarely seen more than a 5% increase in performance when this is done. The only time I've see great improvements is when the main HDD is nearly full or extremely fragments - which in either case would be solved by doing some maintenance.

Something that may be the problem is bad memory, motherboard or HDD. Any of these three things can be intermitent enough that complete failure does not occure, but enough where performance is really hampered. I would recommend the following steps before a complete reinstall.

1. Uninstall all unneeded software.
2. Run CCleaner (Cache cleanup, Registry and delete unneeded startup items).
3. Defrag
4. Update drivers and update Windows.
5. Run CCleaner (all tools)
6. Do a complete backup of important documents!
7. Download and run Eraser (3 pass) - this will make drives that are about to fail fail.
8. If drive passes then Run Prime95 - this will show CPU/Memory failures.
9. If all tests come out OK then run Geekbench + Retouch Artist and compare scores to see where you're at. If scores are not reasonable for this computer type then do a complete reinstall of OS, update, reinstall all 'needed' software then do the benchmarks again.

Just my 2 cents, but this method will pretty much tell you everything you need to know about your computer and if you really need to upgrade or just reinstall.

MaxxuM wrote in post #7745063
Being an old salt to computers/networks I tend to agree "if" the OP OS install falls into one of these three categories:

1. The install is older than a year.
2. The original OS was patched with SP1 then SP2 + was installed longer than 6 months ago.
3. The OP installs and uninstalls many programs + does not do thorough cleanup & maintenance.

I disagree however that a separate PS scratch will improve performance greatly. I have rarely seen more than a 5% increase in performance when this is done. The only time I've see great improvements is when the main HDD is nearly full or extremely fragments - which in either case would be solved by doing some maintenance.

Something that may be the problem is bad memory, motherboard or HDD. Any of these three things can be intermitent enough that complete failure does not occure, but enough where performance is really hampered. I would recommend the following steps before a complete reinstall.

1. Uninstall all unneeded software.
2. Run CCleaner (Cache cleanup, Registry and delete unneeded startup items).
3. Defrag
4. Update drivers and update Windows.
5. Run CCleaner (all tools)
6. Do a complete backup of important documents!
7. Download and run Eraser (3 pass) - this will make drives that are about to fail fail.
8. If drive passes then Run Prime95 - this will show CPU/Memory failures.
9. If all tests come out OK then run Geekbench + Retouch Artist and compare scores to see where you're at. If scores are not reasonable for this computer type then do a complete reinstall of OS, update, reinstall all 'needed' software then do the benchmarks again.

Just my 2 cents, but this method will pretty much tell you everything you need to know about your computer and if you really need to upgrade or just reinstall.

Is this the free version of CCleaner? (Is there any other?). It's a tool I use but the registry part has made me nervous.

unrlmth wrote in post #7744829
Are you saying that XP has everything vista has? or just for multi-core usage. Because overall I find Vista to have many more reasons to upgrade. (32 bit compatibility in on the 64bit version and DX10 to name a few)

No, not at all. I just find that in certain situations, less is actually more when it comes to your OS choice; especially so when targeting specific tasks. Each upgrade to windows is more resource hungry than the last, and a previous version will always run better then the most recent until the hardware completely exceeds any limiting needs that windows may impose or a previous version of windows becomes obsolete due to a common benchmark between both hardware and software.

If your hardware is feeling borderline and you don't need DX10 or the UI experience that vista offers, a downgrade could be the option that makes you smile for the moment. I'm not waring against Vista, I'm just looking at another possible road.

samueli wrote in post #7745840
No, not at all. I just find that in certain situations, less is actually more when it comes to your OS choice; especially so when targeting specific tasks. Each upgrade to windows is more resource hungry than the last, and a previous version will always run better then the most recent until the hardware completely exceeds any limiting needs that windows may impose or a previous version of windows becomes obsolete due to a common benchmark between both hardware and software.

If your hardware is feeling borderline and you don't need DX10 or the UI experience that vista offers, a downgrade could be the option that makes you smile for the moment. I'm not waring against Vista, I'm just looking at another possible road.

Just making sure.

And I have seen some very slimmed down versions of Vista, to the point of being way faster than XP in its stock form. (But then the same thing can be done to XP) But all of the times I've seen it slimmed down it has been to try and get higher benchmarks rather than everyday use.

Personally I haven't noticed a speed difference between XP and Vista, but I have an above average computer.

If you want a really fast UI you can try linux, but you are giving away a lot in terms of software. (like PS and LR)

Titus213 wrote in post #7745804
Is this the free version of CCleaner? (Is there any other?). It's a tool I use but the registry part has made me nervous.

As far as I know there is only a free version of CCleaner located here:

http://www.ccleaner.co​m/

I've used it on at least two hundred computers (XP, Vista, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2003 Server) and have never had an issue. The locations CCleaner looks at are none volatile - meaning, it will not destroy information that is useful and on reboot (by a rare chance) these links will be recreated because the main areas within the Registry are not touched. Think of it as emptying the copy of the copy in the garbage. For this reason there are far stronger Registry cleaners, but they are also more dangerous. CCleaner just tiddes thing up. If you feel nervous just save a backup reg file. If something gets broaken then just double click it and the fille will put everything back.

samueli wrote in post #7741592
I hate to argue, but after doing IT for 15 years now and many of those years at the desktop level, I need to disagree.

Thats the difference. Doing a complete system install if not a big deal for you, you've been doing them for at least 15 years.
It like changing an engine if your mechanic, or replacing the sensor in a 5D if your a Canon Tech. You've done it so many times you can do it quickly with out having to really think about it.

If your not terriably tech savy, then it can be a daunting process.


That said, I don't think it will help a lot, as the problem is the hardware simply being to low a spec.

I've been unlucky enough to process and lay out photos from my 30D for a catalouge on someone elses Core2Duo 2.6ghz with 2GB of ram.

With CS3, Bridge and publisher open, I was able to work on a single file at a time ok, with out stressing the system.
That changed when I started batch processing files, and working on multiple files at once.
The system was stressed, and there was a noticable slow down, and even delays in processing requests.

I was able to process the same files on my quadcore, and the difference was incrediable. Slower clock speed (only 2.4Ghz) but twice as many cores and twice as much RAM (4GB). Even batching 10 times as many files there is no noticable slow down in performance and I have no trouble running multiple process in multiple programs at the sametime.

Now if files from a 30D can stress a Core2Duo, then files from a 5D MKII will do so easily. They have to be at least twice the size, possibly more since they are 14bit vs the 30D's 12bit.

When it comes to processing more than one photo at a time then the more cores you have the better, especially if the photo is from one of the new generation of high mega pixel, 14bit cameras.

Remember dual core computers pre-date the current generation cameras by several years.

It would be nice if the original poster would respond back now that several people have expressed their opinions.
That said no you should not have any problem with the setup you described and a 5dmark II even with converting it to a 16 bit tiff with 120 something mb file size that computer should handle the file with no problem.

As several others have stated you may have other junk in the background running. Windows programs are notorious memory hogs for keeping memory open or memory leaks from some programs. Try rebooting and looking at your configsys file to see what is loading up at boot. turn off all unnecessary programs you arent using or dont need while running lightroom or photoshop.

Im guessing its not your computer its your crapware running in the background.
You could see some performance boost by upgrading your graphics card to a new up to date model. Especially if you are using a cheap on board video card you should see an improved performance as most on board graphics card share some memory off the motherboard and arent really all that great to begin with.

I use both the imac and vista systems each one is nice in its own way but as far as speed its hard to tell the difference personally.

pixelphotographer wrote in post #7775365
I use both the imac and vista systems each one is nice in its own way but as far as speed its hard to tell the difference personally.

Yeah, I don't buy this. For the cost of a 24" iMac, one could pick up a quad core PC that would perform substantially better. But there's a cost involved other than how fast it can process images, particularly form factor elegance, other features that are standard with Macs (e.g., bluetooth, optical audio, etc.) and virtually silent operation. If the OP values these other features on Macs, then that's the way to go. If OP simply wants a computer that processes images as fast as possible for the money invested, there are plenty of Windows options out there that would be better.

Tony-S wrote in post #7775430
Yeah, I don't buy this. For the cost of a 24" iMac, one could pick up a quad core PC that would perform substantially better. But there's a cost involved other than how fast it can process images, particularly form factor elegance, other features that are standard with Macs (e.g., bluetooth, optical audio, etc.) and virtually silent operation. If the OP values these other features on Macs, then that's the way to go. If OP simply wants a computer that processes images as fast as possible for the money invested, there are plenty of Windows options out there that would be better.

Function over form! haha, well I agree with you here.

BTW, you missed my presentation....again. I'm done with them for a while though.

OdiN1701 wrote in post #7775765
Function over form! haha, well I agree with you here.

I think Apple's at a real turning point. If they want to keep the iMac and Mini form factors they are faced with an unpleasant decision. Keep those Core 2 Duo mobile processors that make iMacs and Minis silent (and slower), or switch to quad core processors and come up with a way of dissipating heat. The quad core mobile processors are still some months away and it's unclear how they'll deal with the heat from them as well. I think their only possible out is if OpenCL in Snow Leopard really can leverage the nVidia 9400 gpu cores (all 16 of them) in all the current Macs (sans Mac Pro) for routine computing. If they can pull that off, then perhaps they will be able to keep the form factors of the iMacs and Minis with mobile Core 2 Duo processors. Right now, I don't think any of Apple's desktops are worth buying (for me, anyway). Their laptops still rule, though.

Yeah, sorry about that. I screwed my schedule up. Somehow I had the meeting down for next Tuesday. I've also been late for two meetings at work this week, too. I gotta get things together, that's for sure...

Tony-S wrote in post #7776048
Yeah, sorry about that. I screwed my schedule up. Somehow I had the meeting down for next Tuesday. I've also been late for two meetings at work this week, too. I gotta get things together, that's for sure...

Hey Tony, get an iPhone. I am sure there is an App for that!

In2Photos wrote in post #7776073
Hey Tony, get an iPhone. I am sure there is an App for that!

That's the worst part - I have an iPhone.