4x5: which design of desktop the most suitable ?

[Donald Miller]

I dealt with the same issue about a year and half ago. I ended building my own machine based upon Vista 64 bit OS. I am running dual quad core processors (2.33 Ghz Intel) on a server motherboard and 12 GB of the good ram. A good video card is also important...or at least it was for me. Performance is adequate.

For storage I have 1 TB on board in two drives and 1.5 TB external in two additional drives.

Cost was slightly above what you quoted for a good scanner.

[m332720]

There is a version of XP Pro that is 64 bit. I use it and am very happy with it.

[Paul Kierstead]

There is a version of XP Pro that is 64 bit. I use it and am very happy with it.

It will not use regular XP drivers, which is the OP's problem.

[40moses]

Thank you much for the hints (with drivers)
Now I have found on other places same strong warning.

So it is necessary to buy hopefully Windows 7 -64bit (or Vista -64bit when Vista is good for colours and calibration ?)

[Joanna Carter]

Of course, you could always get a Mac, then you won't have driver problems, as the OS is 64bit but supports legacy drivers.

[Flea77]

Thank you much Mr. Kierstad
very important

Solution is now:
For scanning I have no problem: with an old machine XP Pro it works since weeks very good. So I scan with old some 100 pict, than I make copy definitely to external hard disc (more than 1 TeraB)
.
After this I must buy some new PC with Vista (64bit). Also 8 GB RAM or 24 GB.
With the new Vista (or 7) I have no problem than to view with great rapidity (for loading next picture of some 1000) a serie and also to enlarge instantly on the monitors ?
Correct ?

I am assuming that by "view with great rapidity" you mean load images on the screen extremely quickly. There are four things that factor in to that:

1) Processor. You need enough to handle all your background tasks from Windows, anti-virus, etc and the program in question. For this I would suggest a Q9550.

2) Memory. Not just quantity, but speed. Right now for budget to midrange systems I have had great luck with Kingston HyperX, as much as you can stuff in the motherboard, it will not go to waste.

3) Hard drive. The images have to be loaded from your hard drive into memory, the faster the better. I use Velociraptors.

4) Video card. At least a 9600GT or better, especially if using dual monitors. Throwing up all those thumbnails at once can be a job.

These are in the order you should probably approach them. Hope this helps!

Allan

[40moses]

The aim is not to enter in the region of one second (or fractions) but the problem is that with common PC for consumers you wait minutes for 1 GB.
So this is two orders longer (100-1000 fold !) and in analogy you must have methusalem's privlege: to live 10 000 years to save consistency or give up monitoring your 5 x 7 or 8x 10.

Hence:
Multimonitors are without any interest: they are breaking the picture with borders in inner parts very disturbing.
Velociraptors I guess without practical advantage. (They are also too small for storage, some TeraB is better).

In contrast 1 and 2 are important to solve the case.
Also I think it is the question if Vista is no good solution (Colour calibrations problems ?) So Windows 7
I would thank you.

[D. Bryant]

Gates realized the importance of this feature.

Gates isn't involved any longer. Point the finger at Balmer for the Vista train crash.

Don Bryant

[Flea77]

The aim is not to enter in the region of one second (or fractions) but the problem is that with common PC for consumers you wait minutes for 1 GB.
So this is two orders longer (100-1000 fold !) and in analogy you must have methusalem's privlege: to live 10 000 years to save consistency or give up monitoring your 5 x 7 or 8x 10.

Hence:
Multimonitors are without any interest: they are breaking the picture with borders in inner parts very disturbing.
Velociraptors I guess without practical advantage. (They are also too small for storage, some TeraB is better).

In contrast 1 and 2 are important to solve the case.
Also I think it is the question if Vista is no good solution (Colour calibrations problems ?) So Windows 7
I would thank you.

Just a couple points... First, entering the realm of seconds can be important if you are talking about say 1/2 second faster to load previews in Lightroom, per image. 1000 images, 1/2 second faster each, 500 seconds faster!

Next, I understand what you mean about multimonitors, but have you seen Lightroom on multiple monitors? I use it that way and LR stays on my left screen with thumbnails and info while any image I click on appears full screen on my right monitor. I find it extremely useful for both screens to be there without switching back and forth.

Lastly, just for the record, I am using Vista.

Allan

[40moses]

Velocity of thumbnails Loading.

This is an aspect of the whole problem which I could not have seen just;
it must be incorporated necessarly also.
I thank you very much for the hint.

But I think in practice by other causes, a folder with more than 1000 pic is rarely used (you take subfolders in general).
Hence 1000 pic is a good number to consider as a certain limit.

Hence I understand now your hint as follows:
without velociraptors an image with number 999 can only be opened after (say) 10 minutes (1000 x 1/2 sec) loading time ?
In any case you can not see completly the thumbnails before 500 secs ?

I have heard that velociraptors take only 300 GigaB. (So only 300 pic with 1 GigaB). I must than just use several one for one trip documentation. This would be very disturbing. An order of 3-5TeraB would be desirable.