NEED ANOTHER COMPUTER!

[Steve Wynn]

I need help deciding on almost all components for a new, photographically dedicated computer. I run Photoshop CS, StudioMaster Pro, and some other lab programs enabling me to FTP files directly to the labs.

Thanks, Steve

[Swampy]

You can look at some of the suggestions I recently got, but this is the route I'm going:

Abit motherboard (IC7)
2 gigs of PC4000 CL2 memory (Corsair I think)
single Intel 3.2 Ghz HT 800mhz processor
2 Striped SATA 36gb 10k rpm drives (bought those already)

I'm going to use my old Yamaha 44x burner and Pioneer 16x dvd drive as well as my old case and power supply. I've got a nVidia Ti4600 video card with 128mb ram on it already. I'm going to stick with it since it seems to be doing fine right now.

Here's the thread where I was looking for help in deciding...
http://theswampbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3088

[Rockyw]

All the ideas from swampy would I'm sure be a great PC. I will offer a couple hard drive ideas. First, I don't like raid systems, you don't need the speed for a image PC and 7200 spin drives are fast enough. Also I don't like to put all your eggs in one basket. I lost a 100 gig drive a while back. I had everything backed up but it was all RAWS, I had to convert and crop all over again two weddings and a family set. I like 3 or 4 drives instead of one big drive. RAID systems are OK but in one mode ( not sure if it's striped or not ) if you lose one drive, data on both are gone. Also a corupt file on one drive corupts the other. A good CRT monitor is also money well spent, get one that has RGB guns that you can adjust. A calibrating program works best on a CRT with adjustable guns. Good luck and have fun building your new PC.

[blackjack]

Swampy, you may want to edit the link you posted. Most people dont have direct access to the hostname :)

[Swampy]

Sorry mr. Administrator. You know you could have done it too... :P

Yes. Raid systems in a stripped configuration are dangerous. But for working speeds, I like to have the 10k rpm drives, stripped. Ok. I'll confess that not everyone will have a server with a Raid 5 configuration with a hot spare to constantly back up to automatically like me, but, you should be aware that using a stripped configuration can be a dangerous thing when it comes to data. With ANY file system, you should be performing backups regularly. I do it on the fly with my server, plus burn CDs/DVDs, plus an external drive. I've been in the data loss boat before. Never again though.

You haven't felt power until you've installed an OS on 60 72gig 15k rpm raid 5 drives. ;)

[Steve Wynn]

Christmas day, and the kids aren't up yet, so I guess I can elaborate a bit more!

At the present time I have been thinking of going with two 120 or 160 gig hard drives and the LaCie CRT 19" Blue Monitor, I know I need Windows XP Professional.

I don't know how fast of a processor to go with although I'm leaning toward somthing about 2.4 gHz.

I THINK a gig of ram will suffice. I want Firewire and USB 2 inputs.

I don't know about the brand or type of CD burner though and some of the other .

I haven't got the time to do this on my own but I do know a VERY qualified computer tech who works in the computer department of Honda and takes care of their systems. He's about an 45 minutes away from me, but he's straightened out some problems for me that the computer shops couldn't permamently fix for me. He'll build it for me to my specs.

Thanks, Steve :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[Swampy]

Know about the kids. Mine are still down too. They'd sleep until 11am if they had thier way too.

I've always used Yamaha CD Burners without fail. Every one of my machines has a yamaha except 2, which were freebie's from a vendor. So I've got 8 yamaha's and 2 tdk's running in my house.

2.4 ghz processor? You might want to think about more. Depends on what you're used to now. I think that going with 800mhz front side bus is the way to go too right now. Photoshop is memory hungry, so I'm going with the 2 gigs at 800mhz, instead of 533mhz.

[Rockyw]

I will second the bigger proc. The bigger the better and 1 gig of ram is about minimum. As for XP Pro, I bought it and installed it but now went back to Win2000. I just never had good luck with XP with imaging, and for video? NO WAY. Win2000 is solid and works great. Your system might work with XP but I'm staying away from it for a while yet. Merry Christmas and have fun.

[Tom V]

Originally posted by Steve Wynn
....

At the present time I have been thinking of going with ..... the LaCie CRT 19" Blue Monitor,....

I found that the biggest speed increase I ever encountered was when I went from one monitor to two monitors. What good is having an incredible CPU and lots of RAM if you can't see what you're doing. God knows there are enough palettes, windows, dialog boxes, etc. that obscure what you are trying to do.

I have two systems, each with a LaCie CRT (22" and 19") for the color critical work, and LCD screens to hold all the palettes and various windows that I keep open all the time. Two 19" LaCie monitors on one system would be great (if you have the desk space). I was running a little short of physical desk space, so I opted for LCDs.

A 19" + 15" are a lot more usefull than a single 22", and a lot cheaper too.

I use the LaCie Blue Eye color calibrator and it does a superb job.

[Rockyw]

I also run a duel monitor on my video computer. I wouldnt imagin not having two monitors for video, PS is great on two as well. It would be a good investment if you can to spread out the tool bars and have room for image work.

[JeffRho]

The amount of RAM will certainly depend on how many photos you are editing at a time. The more physical memory you have, the more photos you can fit in memory. As I'm sure you are aware, when you start to run out of memory the Operating System will start to swap memory to disk. I would agree that 1GB is the minimum if you are solely building a machine for digital editing.

I would also agree with the comment on using multiple hard disks vs. a single large disk. Multiple disks give you the option of moving your virtual memory swap file to a drive other than that which your Operating System is installed. This will help with performance, though when you have a large amount of physical RAM it doesn't seem to me that you should need all that much virtual memory. Fast disks, as Swampy suggests, should help when the swap file and/or scratch disk (is that what Photoshop calls it?) needs to be read/written to. However, if you have oodles of physical memory it doesn't seem like it would help much once the OS is booted and your images are loaded into RAM.

If you don't have some kind of automated backup solution, I would buy two large drives and mirror them (RAID 1). With RAID 1 you have an exact copy on both disks, so if one fails, you replace the failed drive and you're back up and running. I haven't seen a IDE RAID controller that supports RAID 5, but I have seen some (maybe all?) that support RAID 10 (1+0 or 0+1) which generally means Striped AND Mirrored. RAID 10 requires a minimum of 4 disks, but you get the speed benefits of RAID 0 and the reduncancy benefits of RAID 1. But with RAID 10 you're going to need a rather large case and a large power supply.

The more GHz the better, for all things digital. If you're going the Intel route, look at a proc that has Hyper Threading (HT). HT will appear to the OS as 2 x Physical procs, so your one physical processor will look like 2. Though you don't get true 2x performance. I've heard both good and bad things from HT. Photoshop is multi-proc aware, so you should see some speed improvements using an HT P4 vs. non-HT.

One last comment.. don't skimp on memory. If you use slow memory, you'll negate the higher bandwidth front side buss. And if you have a dual channel board, be sure to use 2 DIMMS.

One question I have for Rocky: What problems did you see with Windows XP vs. Windows 2000? Did you try contacting product support to resolve the issues in XP? If not, I'd really encourage you to do so. We need to hear about the issues so we can fix them! :)

jeff.

[Swampy]

Coming from Seattle, Jeff sounds like he works for MS. :)

My big gripe with XP was that what I edited in PS wasn't what I saw in IE after posting. As well as not the same as what I get from printing. I know. Calibrate. I don't want to. So there!

With Win2k, I don't have to calibrate and everything looks the same no matter what I view with.

Promise makes a 6 channel IDE Raid card that does Raid 5. I've got a couple. Anyone want them? HAhaa. They also have a box that converts IDE to SCSI so you can use IDE drives hooked up to a SCSI Raid controller. The IDE Raid card, I didn't have any problems with it really, except the warning beeper beeping like a heart beat monitor all the time like there was a problem with the Raid. I tried 4 cards, and one was a new model over the other 3. All of them did it even though there was in fact, nothing wrong with the raid. Report the error and get it fixed? No way. I'm done with that on my own machines. I tried to talk to Promise about the beep and whatever they had me do, locked up my server and I had to reinstall the OS.

I do work with MS all day long and have a team assigned to the company I work for, but I still never tell them anything unless it's a problem corporate wide and I don't have to use my machines as test subjects. :)

[JeffRho]

You found me out Swampy... I do work for MS, though I have nearly nothing to do with Windows, or IE for that matter.

From the sound of your post it sounds like you reverted to Windows 2000 as well. The issue with what you see in PS is not what you get in IE, were you using the same version of IE in both Windows 2000 and Windows XP? Do you recall using the Image Viewer in XP to view the images, if so did they produce the same effect as IE?

[Swampy]

Both were running IE6. Never used image viewer in XP, except if I accidentally tried to open a photo before intalling ACDSee. :)

So, PS, ACDSee and IE6 all showed a different picture (brightness/color tones) in XP. They all look fine in Win2k with no adjustments. I'd like to go back to XP, but for the photo's, which has become 80% of my workload, no thanks.

[stevebri]

As it's now 2004 I have just emptied and reformatted a 40g drive, I might put win 2003 OS on it and see how it goes.

This could be a whole weekend of 'games' is there anything I should know about win 2003 before I get a hard time from my wife for devoting the weekend to non wife friendly activities...?

Steve

[Swampy]

With 2003, Microsoft took a rude step with all the security issues they've had in the past. So, if something doesn't work, especially regarding network operations, it's probably because it's locked down. Quite a bit of things in 2003 are locked down from the initial install.. This is a broad general statement mind you, but just a warning if you're trying to do a lot of networking things.

What I liked most about 2003, believe it or not, MS has incorporated MANY command line opportunities. Meaning, if you can do something in the GUI, you can now do it from the dos prompt. Most of my experience is with a corporate network and AD (active directory) stuff though so I don't know if you'll have a chance to mess with that kinda stuff.

[stevebri]

I like the speed and stability of win 2k and I like the XP interface, what I hate about XP pro is all the cr ap hanging around and running in the background. XP is just slow at opening anything compared to 2k.

I have skinned down my background stuff to about 22 intems, including zone alarm, Norton AV etc, so I think the only windows tasks running are essential ones maybe 16 or 17 of them.

I'm kind of hoping win 2003 will give me that optimum I want, I run one machine at the moment sometimes with one other connected (same room).

Laptop plus wifi are on the near horizon but max three machines and networking is NOT essential at all.

I can unlock the networking I think, or just install 2003 server... I think.

It's just the speed thing and the MSN messenger cr ap and automated 'think we know whats best for you' that XP tries to do i want rid of.

Steve

[Swampy]

ONe of the first things I do with XP is install SP1, then remove MSN Messenger. I use Outlook for Mail, so I also go in there and disable messaging in email as well so it doesn't look for MSN Messenger (even after it's uninstalled!). Outlook is extremely slow until you disable that.

I'll also go right click my computer, properties, performance and turn off everything except show contents while dragging. Speeds up the system quite a bit. I don't care if menus fade in and out and stuff like that.

[stevebri]

Have SP! and disabled MSN, but I'll try the other tips... have customised for performance and basically turned everything off apart from the last one (XPstyle).

Will go into outlook and fiddle as well, I use 2002 because it's stable it works and well... email calendar and agenda and thats it...

Cheers Swampy.

Steve

[Swampy]

Don't just disable MSN, uninstall it. Go to Add/Remove Programs, windows components and it's the last one at the bottom. :)

[myoung]

Interestingly, no one has mentioned an Apple. IMHO, the Mac, especially the new 64-bit G5 dual-processor machines, are excellent platforms for all manner of digital photography work. Photoshop has always been optimized for the Mac. The proof is in the graphics industry where Mac have always ruled.

Couple the G5 with one of the gorgeous flat panels, even one specifically designed for graphics pros, and you won't be disappointed.

Check them out at http://www.apple.com.

[Swampy]

I'm still disappointed. No right click. :)

People are either MAC or PC in general (I know there's some that are both), but really, I'd never think of looking at a MAC. It only gets me frustrated when I sit down in front of one. It's a user training thing. I've been trained on the PC for 25 years and you're not going to teach this old dog new tricks. Besides, my PC is faster than any of the MAC's out there.

Steve is in the same boat as me I'm sure. He's used to and comfortable with the PC, so he's staying there. There's mentions about MAC's from other people here though. I won't knock them, they're decent machines as are PC's and they both have thier own problems and quirks.

[Marcel F]

Sorry Swampy , MAC have a right Click ... :o

Steve ,
check this web site . that is where I was looking for info when building my PC(s) .... since 2 years , I moved to MAC .. with no regrets !!!

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/index.html

Regards

Marcel

[stevebri]

I went down the PC route for similar reasons to Swampy plus there are more bits 'out there' for pc's in all price ranges. At the time it was very easy to open up a pc and change whatever you wanted quite cheaply, in those days all MAC stuff had to come through MAC at ridiculous prices (because of volume I suppose).

Pre Windows 2k MAC's were more stable, and they ran much cooler. But now, no way the latest G5's run hot, are noisy and are about the same cost as a Xeon system, which just blows them away.

Also, with respect myoung, your comments are a little bit outdated. If you go here :

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp

You will see just how slow the latest MAC's are compared to a PC, also, I hate to say it but both Photoshop 7 and CS are optimised for PC's not MAC's. Photoshop 7 had lots of early issues with MAC OSX and even now Adobe know where their income comes from, they have move with the market.

But as I said aerlier, MAC's look nice....:stupid:

Steve

[stevebri]

Tom's hardware gave me loads of good info on dual bords a couple of years back... great link...

Steve

[JeffRho]

About Windows Server 2003...

I should first state that the opinions expressed are those of my own and do not, in any way, reflect the views of my company.

Starting with Windows Server 2003, we have embarked on an Off by Default intiative, part of the Trustworthy Computing initiative announced last year by BillG. This means that after installing Windows Server 2003 many features that you may have expected to be enabled are now more than likely disabled. The hopes of this initiave is that servers will be more secure initially than they had in the past. Had we done this with Windows 2000, Nimda and Code Red would likely not have happened.

If you are using the OS as a Digital Editing platform, I wouldn't recommend using a Server operating system, such as Windows Server 2003. Our client OSes are designed to give the best end user experience, compared to a Server OS. One problem you may run into is if you have or buy new applications that are designed for Windows XP they may, or may not, be installable on Windows Server 2003. Some apps will do a version check prior to installation. If the version isn't what they expect they won't allow installation.

Driver compatibility can be an issue as well, though now that Windows Server 2003 has been out for a while now, it's likely that hardware vendors have reved their drivers to work with the new server OS. In some cases you can use drivers written for Windows XP and/or 2000, but your mileage may very. I manage a lab of a little over 100 machines ranging from antiques (~4 years old) to 6mos. For our older machines its getting very difficult to run the newer OS's on them, mainly due to driver related issues. If you're planning to install Windows 2003 on a new set of hardware, they you will probably be ok, but drivers are going to be one of the biggest hurdles you're likely to run into on the quest for the ultimate system stability.

Another issue is that our Server OS's are configured to favor background tasks (Server applications). However, to change this behavior, pull up the System Properties applet, click the Advanced Tab, Performance settings, Advanced Tab on Performance Options, and set Processor Secheduling to Programs. You should also change Memory Usage to favor Programs.

However, you can tweak the OS in a few ways to make it look/feel like a client OS. Windows XP theme support is baked in, but it's disabled. If you like the Windows XP look/feel you first need to enable the Theme service. If you want sound out of your server, you need to enable the Windows Audioservice.

DirectX is disabled, so if you need DirectX for gaming, or anything else that requires DirectX and/or hardware acceleration for video you must do two things:
1. Enable hardware acceleration (Display Properties->Settings, click Advanced. Click the Troubleshoot tab in the next dialog and drag the Hardware acceleration all the way to the right).
2. Enable DirectDraw, Direct3D and AGP Texture Acceleration (if supported).. Start->Run, dxdiag. Click the Display tab and click enable by each of the options you want/need to enable.

So, if you want to go with Windows Server 2003, it might be a good choice, and I know quite a few people that use it as a daily desktop OS, though I work for a Server Application division which is probably why this is the case. :)

If you have any questions, problems, grips, complaints, feel free to shoot 'em my way and I'll try my best to do what I can.

Jeff.

[stevebri]

A sincere thanks Jeff, thats a lot of information straight from the top, I'm very impressed.

Thanks again for explaining so much.

Steve