New computer for photography

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
> fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
> my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
> where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
> will fit my bill.

> I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>
> P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
> 1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
> 160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
> 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
> 16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
> drive
> v.92/56K pci datafax modem
> Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
> PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
> Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>
> So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
> not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
> get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
> what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
> lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam

I built a similar system for a mate who wanted it for digital photography a
couple of months ago.

It has:
ASUS A7N8X-X motherboard
AMD XP2800 cpu retail with HSF
ASUS Radeon 9600se 128Mb Graphics card
1GB PC3200 memory (two 512MB sticks)
2x Maxtor 160GB ata133 72000rpm drives (8MB cache on each)
Plextor 708 DVD Burner
Sony CDRW combo
MS Intellimouse optical mouse
Internal 7 in 1 card reader
All in a standard case with 400w PSU

He went AMD route as the equillivant P4 chip was £100 more.

Graphics card is an SE edition but is more than enough for 2D work, (he
never plays games)

Went IDE route over SATA as there was no real increase in speed for the,
admittedly little, extra cost.

The two hard drives are partitioned as below:
Drive 1
C = 20GB for Windows and Photoshop plus all programs
D = 140GB data storage
Drive 2
E = 20GB Scratch drive for Photoshop and temp files
F = 140GB Back up D in case of drive failure

DVD burner is _only_ for burning DVDs all disk reading is done on the Sony
Combo drive, its how he wanted it done, but with two drives he can do disk
copying 'on the fly'.

So far it is running well with no problems. He is very pleased with the
performance at a cost of under £400 (UK)

Adam S

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Adam wrote:

> Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
> try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>
> Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
> fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
> my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
> where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
> will fit my bill.
>
> As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
> what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
> mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
> I have to stay with Dell.
>
> I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>
> P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
> 1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
> 160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
> 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
> 16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
> drive
> v.92/56K pci datafax modem
> Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
> PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
> Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>
> So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
> not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
> get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
> what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
> lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
You dont need a big fancy multimedia computer just to view photos. Any
average business computer is good enough for photographic work. A 2.0Gig
P4 is plenty fast enough. An average quality video card is good enough. I
like the ATI 9600 as a video card it is a good video card that can handle
most video games even though it is an averge video card. Well maybe slight
above average at around $100.00 You probably want around a 80-120 Gig Hard
Drive to store the photos on. You do not need 1 gig of ram unless you plan
on using a high end photo software. I play games on 512megs just fine.

You can get one combo CD/CDRW/DVDRW drive and that will be enough. You dont
have to have a DVD writable drive, but more photos will fit on a DVD.

You can get an internal or external Flash card reader. A 7-in-1 flash
reader will probably do great. Mitsumi is making a floppy drive CF flash
card reader combo for $35.00. If you buy a dell you might get a free
Digital camera or scanner or something with it for free. They run specials
from time to time.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <2li5k2Fd2hrrU1@uni-berlin.de>, adam001forgetit@optonline.net
says...
> Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
> try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>
> Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
> fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
> my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
> where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
> will fit my bill.
>
> As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
> what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
> mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
> I have to stay with Dell.
>
> I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>
> P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
> 1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
> 160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
> 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
> 16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
> drive
> v.92/56K pci datafax modem
> Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
> PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
> Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>
> So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
> not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
> get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
> what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
> lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
>
Although Dell will work well, be aware that they are not what they used
to be. All their tech support for individuals (vs corporations) is now
outsourced and you are forced to plod through endless scripts to get any
help at all, should you need it.

Dell cuts many corners, often including video and sound cards with the
same names, but made especially for Dell and usually not quite as good.

And my last serious issue with recent Dells: they are noisy. I have
set up three Dells for friends in the last 1 1/2 years, the last one
just two weeks ago, all the hard drives emit a high pitched whine. Some
have noisy case/cpu fans and some don't.

I would take a serious look at the Dell newsgroup before deciding on one
of their machines.

BTW, one real advantage to a SATA drive is that the cable is much
thinner, thereby allowing for more air flow through the machine.

Louise

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9526245BC1FAMacCool@24.25.9.42...
> Louise <none@nospam.com> said:
>
> > And my last serious issue with recent Dells: they are noisy.
>
> Interesting, the very reason I bought a Dell was because they are so quiet
> compared to the AMD based systems I have built. I can barely hear mine
> run. It is 2 years old.
> --
> Mac Cool

My wife's XP 2500+ system is nearly silent. I sit maybe two feet from it in
a quiet room, and I can't hear it, unless the optical drives spin up.
There's no magic involved in making a quiet computer system. You just have
to understand that one noisy fan can create more noise (all by itself) than
half a dozen QUIET fans all running at the same time. (The worst offenders
are CPU fans and video card fans because they run at really high RPM). If
you keep that in mind, you can have a super cool system running super quiet.
This has nothing to do with AMD or Intel at all, other than periodically,
one will take the lead as far as hottest processor (one that requires most
cooling) goes. At the moment, I understand that's the Prescott core P4. So
if it's quiet you seek, maybe Athlon64 would be a better starting point, at
the moment. But you should be able to build either AMD or Intel, and build
it quietly. Just pay attention to ALL the fan specs, and don't forget the
motherboard and it's little pesky chipset fan(s). -Dave

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>
> Yep, the video card fan (Gainward GF3) on my previous system was louder
> than all the fans on my Dell put together. Plus I had an uber heat sink &
> fan to keep that Thunderbird cool. I eventually installed an evaporative
> water cooling system to get rid of the noise. (Water cooling is the bomb)
>
> How important is the case when building a quiet PC? I've used middling
> priced cases in the past, not cheap but nothing special.
>
> Mac Cool

The case isn't very important at all, unless you care about such things as
hard drive vibration. I've never understood why someone who isn't bothered
by the constant drone of cooling fans really hates to hear the relatively
benign clicking of a hard drive. But other than dampening vibration from
disk drives, the only way to sound proof a case (such as to lessen cooling
fan drone) is to INSULATE it, which makes it harder to cool, which means you
need more airflow, which means you end up with more noise, if you aren't
careful. So it's a wash. If you want to throw more money at a system to
make it cooler, throw the money at a high-quality "silent" design power
supply, a CPU heatsink that will accept a quiet CASE fan and a passively
cooled mid-range video card (they do exist). IMHO -Dave

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Adam S wrote:

>>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>>will fit my bill.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>>
>>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>>drive
>>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>>
>>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Adam
>>
>>
>
>I built a similar system for a mate who wanted it for digital photography a
>couple of months ago.
>
>It has:
>ASUS A7N8X-X motherboard
>AMD XP2800 cpu retail with HSF
>ASUS Radeon 9600se 128Mb Graphics card
>1GB PC3200 memory (two 512MB sticks)
>2x Maxtor 160GB ata133 72000rpm drives (8MB cache on each)
>Plextor 708 DVD Burner
>Sony CDRW combo
>MS Intellimouse optical mouse
>Internal 7 in 1 card reader
>All in a standard case with 400w PSU
>
>He went AMD route as the equillivant P4 chip was £100 more.
>
>Graphics card is an SE edition but is more than enough for 2D work, (he
>never plays games)
>
>Went IDE route over SATA as there was no real increase in speed for the,
>admittedly little, extra cost.
>
>The two hard drives are partitioned as below:
>Drive 1
>C = 20GB for Windows and Photoshop plus all programs
>D = 140GB data storage
>Drive 2
>E = 20GB Scratch drive for Photoshop and temp files
>F = 140GB Back up D in case of drive failure
>
>DVD burner is _only_ for burning DVDs all disk reading is done on the Sony
>Combo drive, its how he wanted it done, but with two drives he can do disk
>copying 'on the fly'.
>
>So far it is running well with no problems. He is very pleased with the
>performance at a cost of under £400 (UK)
>
>Adam S
>
>
>
>
From what you wrote about your components, I guess I'm on the right
track. Your unit seems to have been pretty inexpensive. But I guess if
I add on having to pay someone and having to pay for an XP OS, the cost
will be similar to that from Dell.

Thanks for your help,

Adam

--
To email, erase "forgetit"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Last Boy Scout wrote:

>Adam wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
>>try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>>
>>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>>will fit my bill.
>>
>>As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
>>what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
>>mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
>>I have to stay with Dell.
>>
>>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>>
>>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>>drive
>>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>>
>>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>
>You dont need a big fancy multimedia computer just to view photos. Any
>average business computer is good enough for photographic work. A 2.0Gig
>P4 is plenty fast enough. An average quality video card is good enough. I
>like the ATI 9600 as a video card it is a good video card that can handle
>most video games even though it is an averge video card. Well maybe slight
>above average at around $100.00 You probably want around a 80-120 Gig Hard
>Drive to store the photos on. You do not need 1 gig of ram unless you plan
>on using a high end photo software. I play games on 512megs just fine.
>
>You can get one combo CD/CDRW/DVDRW drive and that will be enough. You dont
>have to have a DVD writable drive, but more photos will fit on a DVD.
>
>You can get an internal or external Flash card reader. A 7-in-1 flash
>reader will probably do great. Mitsumi is making a floppy drive CF flash
>card reader combo for $35.00. If you buy a dell you might get a free
>Digital camera or scanner or something with it for free. They run specials
>from time to time.
>
>
Thanks for trying to save me money by pointing out what I really don't
need. I figure that the DVD write will be helpful for big storage and I
do plan to get a card reader. The higher RAM can't hurt as I will (try)
to use PhotShop and Elements 2. As for teh video card, who knows, I may
get into games?

Thanks for your help.

Adam

--
To email, erase "forgetit"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <2lq1lnFfu13fU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Adam <adam001forgetit@optonline.net> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>>In article <10f8s7pn12cge38@corp.supernews.com>,
>>Last Boy Scout <eggbtr@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
>>>>try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>>>>
>>>>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>>>>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>>>>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>>>>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>>>>will fit my bill.
>>>>
>>>>As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
>>>>what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
>>>>mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
>>>>I have to stay with Dell.
>>>>
>>>>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>>>>
>>>>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>>>>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>>>>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>>>>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>>>>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>>>>drive
>>>>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>>>>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>>>>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>>>>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>>>>
>>>>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>>>>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>>>>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>>>>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>>>>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You dont need a big fancy multimedia computer just to view photos. Any
>>>average business computer is good enough for photographic work. A 2.0Gig
>>>P4 is plenty fast enough. An average quality video card is good enough. I
>>>like the ATI 9600 as a video card it is a good video card that can handle
>>>most video games even though it is an averge video card. Well maybe slight
>>>above average at around $100.00 You probably want around a 80-120 Gig Hard
>>>Drive to store the photos on. You do not need 1 gig of ram unless you plan
>>>on using a high end photo software. I play games on 512megs just fine.
>>>
>>>You can get one combo CD/CDRW/DVDRW drive and that will be enough. You dont
>>>have to have a DVD writable drive, but more photos will fit on a DVD.
>>>
>>>You can get an internal or external Flash card reader. A 7-in-1 flash
>>>reader will probably do great. Mitsumi is making a floppy drive CF flash
>>>card reader combo for $35.00. If you buy a dell you might get a free
>>>Digital camera or scanner or something with it for free. They run specials
>>>
>>>
>>>from time to time.
>>
>>If you are starting out with photography a package like Adobe
>>Photoshop Elements or Ulead will do everything you need and get you
>>will into the intermediate level. It will run fine in 512MB but can
>>benefit from a second hard disk and /or 10krpm disks.
>>
>>Photography doesn't need a 3D card. a 2D Matrox card is fine. Matrox
>>cards are highly regarded for color quality.
>>
>>LCD screens that are good enough for color work are still very
>>expensive, so don't rush out to replace your CRT.
>>
>>Picking a good color printer is a whole new topic. I've seen great
>>results from an Epson R200 printer which costs $99. It uses 6
>>cartridges, and a replacement set costs almost as much as a new
>>printer, but they don't all run out at once.
>>
>>Budget enough money for toner and paper while you are learning.
>>OTOH, pictures on a good CRT do look spectacular and you might
>>just work for the CRT and web, instead of printing.
>>
>>I don't know what DIM is (as in "160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive" )
>>
>>
>>
>I'm only replacing my tower, but will have added XP. You've hit on a
>little debate within my mind. That is, although I'm presently opting
>for a 160 G hard drive, I'm now beginning to consider two hard drives.
>Would two 80's do the trick?

Stay with the 160GB disk. size never hurts. When you've started
to use your photo software you'll decide if you need more speed,
space, or backup.

You could add a 35GB 10k rpm EIDE disk for about $120. Make it your
system disk. In your Photoshop software make it the workfile disk.
This will be a really big boost in performance. Later you can add a
second 160GB SATA drive for backup of your first big drive
for your catalog of photography. Backup to CDRs is possible
but lots of people just buy a second disk. People should do both.



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Scott Kinard wrote:

>"Adam" <adam001forgetit@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:2li5k2Fd2hrrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>>Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
>>try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>>
>>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>>will fit my bill.
>>
>>As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
>>what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
>>mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
>>I have to stay with Dell.
>>
>>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>>
>>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>>drive
>>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>>
>>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Adam
>>
>>--
>>To email, erase "forgetit"
>>
>>
>>
>
>Here is what to keep in mind:
>Consider this: Rather than spending a whole pile of $$ for WindowsXP, good
>image software like Photoshop, and then having to deal with all the
>associated headaches and whatnot that come with that route, think about
>installing Linux as your OS and using software like The Gimp (as good as or
>better than Photoshop). Apps to download images from your camera to the
>computer, like digicam, gphoto, etc. are also available --- and it will cost
>you $0.
>
>Now you can use the $$ you would have spent on XP and Windows software and
>apply it towards better hardware:
>
> (1) Horsepower - by definition manipulating image info requires a lot of
>CPU time to accomplish. If you are gonna do video a dual-processor system
>would be ideal, otherwise a CPU in the 2Ghz range would be sufficient.
>(2) Memory - the more you can get the better off you will be. 512MB at a
>minimum, 1GB or more ideal
>(3) Speed - the faster your CPU and memory can move image data thru the
>system the better... motherboard should be 266Mhz FSB or more and UDMA 100
>(4) Storage - you will need lots of it: Consider using two hard drives, one
>say 80GB for OS and software, another say 120MB or larger for storing your
>images.
> You can also then put the system swap file/partition on the 2nd HD and
>speed up things a little as well
>(5) Video - While you may not need 3D graphics hardware to remove the "red
>eye" from a pic, don't use that as an excuse not to have it. Go for broke
>and get a nice 256MB 8X AGP card, (nVidia)..... and then get another 64MB or
>larger PCI video card as well. Hook them up to two 19" or better monitors
>and you can take advantage of the benefits of a dual monitor display
>
>
>
>
I understand your sound advise. Actually, I think that the system I'm
planning on getting will fulfill most of what you suggest. See my
original post. If i stick with photography as an enthusiasts hobby, I
can always tweak upwards.

--
To email, erase "forgetit"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

gothika wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:16:38 -0400, Adam
><adam001forgetit@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
>>try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>>
>>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>>will fit my bill.
>>
>>As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
>>what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
>>mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
>>I have to stay with Dell.
>>
>>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>>
>>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>>drive
>>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>>
>>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Adam
>>
>>
>
>You didn't say exactly what type of photography work you'll be doing
>on this system.(photo-retouching etc...)
>Or what volume of work vs. time requirements.
>If you're just going to do straight scanning/image capture and the
>basics then just about any system like a PII 550 to a Athalon 1gig
>will do the job just fine.(I do much of my photo work on just such
>machines and I'm a professional.)
>P4's are a bit overkill for still work unless you're on a tight time
>table and doing large volumes of work.
>As for XP that definetely not the ideal OS.
>I use 98se on most of my still photography machines as it'll allow the
>most backwards compatibilty with earlier scanning/capture hardware.
>(My best scanners are scsi interface drum units that simply won't work
>with the latest OS's)
>Something 2000/XP don't allow.
>I have two basic image editing programs that I use, JASC's PaintShop
>Pro and Photoshop as well as 3 other minor little programs that are
>task specific.
>ScanPrep Pro for most of my scanners.(though most scanners do have
>decent programs.)
>As for video cards, there you can save as you don't really need high
>speed rendering or 3d.
>Any good 2d with 64mb will do.
>512mb Ram is plenty.
>Other than an optical mouse and a decent digital tablet there's not
>much else you need in the way of specialized peripherals.
>Make sure your monitor will support 32bit color for critical
>work.(most do these days.)
>If you're going to do video work you'll need a bit more.
>High speed 7400 RPM HD's.
>Firewire/usb2.0 for dv capture.
>At least 1.2gig cpu's(2.4 better and P4 best.)
>At least a gig of ram.
>128mb video card.
>
>On my video machines I use the Promise 133 ATA cards and dual 80gig
>7400 HD's and they work fine for all my video needs.
>They have 1gig of ram each as well.
>I have one that's a 1.2gig T-bird another thats a 2.4 gig.
>While they aren't the fastest for sure they do produce at a profitable
>rate.
>
>
>
Thanks for your input. Right now, I'm just delving (or is it diving)
into photography. Got an A1 and hope to learn how to use its bells and
whistles and how to take decent shots. And, of course, at the same time
I'm learning how to use Elements 2 (also have a copy of PS 5) along with
some peripheral programs in order to become proficient with PP. All
this is a pretty steep learning curve and I hope I can maintain my
enthusiasm so that I can develop some skills in these areas. I figure
if I can stay with it, maybe in a few years I see some enthusiastic
hobbist type results. Being retired and very physically active, I know
that there will come a time when I will have to cut back, and it is my
thought that photography can take up the slack.

My present 4 year old computer (see my original post) is slow and has a
small storage capacity, so I figure that it is time to spend a few bucks
and get a new rig. I know that I may be going for a bit of overkill in
some areas, but I might as well not hold back too much as who knows when
I may be interested in something that will require the extra bits and
pieces (like I may get into gaming, for example). Anyway, for about
$1000 (from Dell), I can have all that I want (and maybe more than I need).

As I've been checking around for estimates of what the unit will cost,
I'm starting to think that I just may be able to build it myself. I'd
probably only save a $200-300, but that's more money in my pocket to get
more toys. But, then again, if a reliable builder came along, I might
go with them.

--
To email, erase "forgetit"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:45:58 -0400, Adam
<adam001forgetit@optonline.net> wrote:

>gothika wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:16:38 -0400, Adam
>><adam001forgetit@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
>>>try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>>>
>>>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>>>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>>>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>>>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>>>will fit my bill.
>>>
>>>As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
>>>what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
>>>mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
>>>I have to stay with Dell.
>>>
>>>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>>>
>>>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>>>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>>>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>>>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>>>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>>>drive
>>>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>>>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>>>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>>>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>>>
>>>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>>>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>>>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>>>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>>>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Adam
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You didn't say exactly what type of photography work you'll be doing
>>on this system.(photo-retouching etc...)
>>Or what volume of work vs. time requirements.
>>If you're just going to do straight scanning/image capture and the
>>basics then just about any system like a PII 550 to a Athalon 1gig
>>will do the job just fine.(I do much of my photo work on just such
>>machines and I'm a professional.)
>>P4's are a bit overkill for still work unless you're on a tight time
>>table and doing large volumes of work.
>>As for XP that definetely not the ideal OS.
>>I use 98se on most of my still photography machines as it'll allow the
>>most backwards compatibilty with earlier scanning/capture hardware.
>>(My best scanners are scsi interface drum units that simply won't work
>>with the latest OS's)
>>Something 2000/XP don't allow.
>>I have two basic image editing programs that I use, JASC's PaintShop
>>Pro and Photoshop as well as 3 other minor little programs that are
>>task specific.
>>ScanPrep Pro for most of my scanners.(though most scanners do have
>>decent programs.)
>>As for video cards, there you can save as you don't really need high
>>speed rendering or 3d.
>>Any good 2d with 64mb will do.
>>512mb Ram is plenty.
>>Other than an optical mouse and a decent digital tablet there's not
>>much else you need in the way of specialized peripherals.
>>Make sure your monitor will support 32bit color for critical
>>work.(most do these days.)
>>If you're going to do video work you'll need a bit more.
>>High speed 7400 RPM HD's.
>>Firewire/usb2.0 for dv capture.
>>At least 1.2gig cpu's(2.4 better and P4 best.)
>>At least a gig of ram.
>>128mb video card.
>>
>>On my video machines I use the Promise 133 ATA cards and dual 80gig
>>7400 HD's and they work fine for all my video needs.
>>They have 1gig of ram each as well.
>>I have one that's a 1.2gig T-bird another thats a 2.4 gig.
>>While they aren't the fastest for sure they do produce at a profitable
>>rate.
>>
>>
>>
>Thanks for your input. Right now, I'm just delving (or is it diving)
>into photography. Got an A1 and hope to learn how to use its bells and
>whistles and how to take decent shots. And, of course, at the same time
>I'm learning how to use Elements 2 (also have a copy of PS 5) along with
>some peripheral programs in order to become proficient with PP. All
>this is a pretty steep learning curve and I hope I can maintain my
>enthusiasm so that I can develop some skills in these areas. I figure
>if I can stay with it, maybe in a few years I see some enthusiastic
>hobbist type results. Being retired and very physically active, I know
>that there will come a time when I will have to cut back, and it is my
>thought that photography can take up the slack.
>
>My present 4 year old computer (see my original post) is slow and has a
>small storage capacity, so I figure that it is time to spend a few bucks
>and get a new rig. I know that I may be going for a bit of overkill in
>some areas, but I might as well not hold back too much as who knows when
>I may be interested in something that will require the extra bits and
>pieces (like I may get into gaming, for example). Anyway, for about
>$1000 (from Dell), I can have all that I want (and maybe more than I need).
>
>As I've been checking around for estimates of what the unit will cost,
>I'm starting to think that I just may be able to build it myself. I'd
>probably only save a $200-300, but that's more money in my pocket to get
>more toys. But, then again, if a reliable builder came along, I might
>go with them.

Actually you can save much more.
I've seen AMD 2.4gig towers going for as little as 250-300 bucks brand
new in some of the catalogs ready to go out of the box.
You could build or buy a moderate system now and wait for the all out
for a year or so.
What with the advent of 64bit on the horizon you're going to see all
of todays high end systems prices fall radically in the next few
months.
That's when I plan to shop around for a P-4 for my video/film
workstation, when I can get it for next to nothing.
That's how I got the two AMD's I have now. My 1.2 I got on a closeout
for just over 250 bucks and my 2.4 I picked up just a few months ago
for 270.
All I did was add a promise ATA 133 controller card and a couple of
large HD's for another 200 bucks and my video station was ready to go.
You don't have to pay anywhere near a grand for what you want.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b651838622a055e9896dd@news-server.nyc.rr.com>,
Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <2lq0upFenjmsU1@uni-berlin.de>, adam001forgetit@optonline.net
>says...
>> Louise wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2li5k2Fd2hrrU1@uni-berlin.de>, adam001forgetit@optonline.net
>> >says...
>> >
>> >
>> >>Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
>> >>try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>> >>
>> >>Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
>> >>fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
>> >>my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
>> >>where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
>> >>will fit my bill.
>> >>
>> >>As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
>> >>what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
>> >>mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
>> >>I have to stay with Dell.
>> >>
>> >>I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>> >>
>> >>P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
>> >>1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
>> >>160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
>> >>128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
>> >>16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
>> >>drive
>> >>v.92/56K pci datafax modem
>> >>Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
>> >>PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
>> >>Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>> >>
>> >>So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
>> >>not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
>> >>get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
>> >>what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
>> >>lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>> >>
>> >>Thanks,
>> >>Adam
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Although Dell will work well, be aware that they are not what they used
>> >to be. All their tech support for individuals (vs corporations) is now
>> >outsourced and you are forced to plod through endless scripts to get any
>> >help at all, should you need it.
>> >
>I don't believe you are "trapped". There are companies out there that
>build computers and will include OEM versions of XP and/or Office. Some
>also offer a wide range of choices.
>
>Dell will probably be less expensive in the short run - but only in the
>short run :-)
>
>For example, because I have a particular issue with noise, I just had a
>system built by endpcnoise.com - they offer choices, they offer OEM
>versions of XP and Office etc. - take a look.
>


If noise is important to you consider buying from a local no-name
computer builder. He can show you a machnine based on the same fans
and you can listen for yourself. Then he can build you a machine to
your specs. He can sell you the OS at the OEM price. He'll be happy to
see you for upgrades, later, and may be able to do them on a same-day
basis if you make an appointement. (FWIW the bigest brand of desktop
PCs is "noname". They outsell Dell, and everyone else.)

Having a relationship with a local system builder can be great. FInd
one that's been been around for a while. Get in the habit of stopping
in once in a while to see what's new. Give him a chance to quote a
price on any computer stuff before you mail order.


If you don't absolutly need MS Office, consider downloading OpenOffice
(www.openofice.org). It does everything the MS Office does, and the
price is right. If can read and save in MS .DOC format (and all the
other formats) and can save as PDF for documents you have to send to
someone.

If you get documents in .DOC format and just have to view/print them,
Nicrosoft has a downloads of three file "viewers", one each nfor
Office, Excel, and Powerpoint that are free. I have these set up with
the filetype associations so when I get an attachment I click on it
and see it in a viewer. It starts much faster than Office, and it
can't catch a Word Macro virus. I don't have the URL handy. Post a
querry and I'll answer.

If you just need MS Word, buy MS Works. It includes real Office,
and costs as little as $30. Bill doesn't need all your money.

Every system seller can sell you OEM versions of Microsoft
products. make sure you get a Microsoft CD for each product
you buy.


>Alienware also has a good reputation but they are "big on cooling" and
>therefore, there may be some fan noise - it's the reason I didn't go
>with them, although the salesman I spoke to was more knowledgeable than
>any Dell tech support person I ever spoke to.
>
>There's also Tasty Computers - they will build to order. But check how
>they warranty the different components, because I am under an impression
>this could be something of an issue.
>
>I'm sure there are others - but I don't think you're limited to Dell
>because of the need for OEM operating system and software.
>
>BTW, I don't love them, but I believe that CDW also sells machines
>providing OEM OS etc.
>
>Louise


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Do it right and get an Athlon 64 based machine. If you get a machine with
a 32 bit processor, you might regret it later when 64 bit Windows XP is out,
and especially when 64 bit photo editing software is aavailable.

Adam wrote:

> Not sure if I am in the right place for this post, but I'll give it a
> try anyway...you can always redirect me to a more appropriate ng.
>
> Just getting into photography as a hobby and want to get a new comp to
> fit my needs (along with net surfing and email). I will not be building
> my own comp, but hope that I can get some advise as to components and
> where I could go to have a comp built and/or where I can get one that
> will fit my bill.
>
> As I have had a couple of Dell Dimensions, I first went to Dell to see
> what kind of tower they could offer me (don't need monitor, keyboard,
> mouse, speakers). Although I have been a Dell user, that doesn't mean
> I have to stay with Dell.
>
> I looked at Dell's 4600 with the following components:
>
> P4, 2.8GHZ, HT, 800MHz FSB
> 1GB DDR SDRAM at 400HZ
> 160GB SATA, 7200 rpm, DIM drive
> 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
> 16x dvd-rom, 4600, DIM decoding software, dvd cyberlinx dvd+r/cdwr combo
> drive
> v.92/56K pci datafax modem
> Integrated intel pro 100M PCI
> PLUS the regular software installed: Norton AV, Soundblaster 5.1,
> Wordperfect prod pask, v12
>
> So, if you think these kinds of components will do the job for me (if
> not please suggest changes), can you suggest either where I can go to
> get it built or which other manufacturers I could go to? Of course,
> what I"m looking for is to either have this set up made or bought for a
> lesser price than Dell (around $1000) and to have good reliability.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
> --
> To email, erase "forgetit"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mac Cool wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> said:
>
> > The cpu doesn't make the noise
>
> never said it did

You implied it. You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied that is was
somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault for not
choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply. One can build
a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.

>
>
> --
> Mac Cool

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Why are you obsessed with ancient history? That is not relevant to
someone building a pc now. The focus is on Athlon 64. Discussing
Athlon Thunderbird chips now doesn't make much sense.

Mac Cool wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> said:
>
> >> > The cpu doesn't make the noise
> >>
> >> never said it did
> >
> > You implied it.
>
> You inferred it.
>
> > You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
> > heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied
>
> you inferred
>
> > that is was somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault
> > for not choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply.
>
> The quiet fans and power supplies you have available now, exist
> primarily because people got tired of the noisy equipment that was
> produced in copius amounts then. The aftermarket fan and heat sink
> market grew so quickly because of the popularity of overclocking. The
> AMD Thunderbird was the most popular CPU among overclockers. The
> Thunderbird was a blast furnace, especially compared to the intel
> offerings, and almost all aftermarket heatsink/fans were larger,
> heavier, had more aggressive fans than stock units and sounded like
> turbine engines. Some of the copper sinks weighed nearly a pound and
> required extreme care when installing. Sure, there were quieter
> solutions available, like the Zalman, but their cooling ability was
> poor. Quiet power supplies were just beginning to emerge 3-4 years ago.
> My solution was water cooling. Water cooling is nearly silent except for
> the water pump.
>
> We upgraded our computers at work with brand new Dells which were almost
> silent. When it came time to upgrade I bought one of the Dells because
> overclocking is no longer really necessary and with the deals Dell was
> giving at the time, I couldn't have built anything close for the price.
> I could sell my 2.5 year old Dell for what I paid for it, maybe more. It
> was a good decision.
>
> > One can build a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.
>
> I never stated nor implied that CPUs cause noise. The idea is
> preposterous and perhaps you are only a newbie trying to help but
> insulting people will only get you ignored.
> --
> Mac Cool

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

gothika wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:16:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Why are you obsessed with ancient history? That is not relevant to
> >someone building a pc now. The focus is on Athlon 64. Discussing
> >Athlon Thunderbird chips now doesn't make much sense.
>
> WHY spend more than is needed? Thats the point.

The price isn't much more. A number of higher performing 32 bit processors
are priced higher than the lower end Athlon 64 bit chips.

>
> If there were affordable 64bit apps that offered some signifigant
> advantage

With a 64 bit operating system many 32 bit applications will
run much faster. Windows 64 for X86-64 may be released
within the next few months. 64 bit applications will start
appearing soon. Many people keep a PC for 3 or 4 years.
Many might wait for 64 bit Windows to be released
before they buy an Athlon 64 system.

> over more economical solutions then you MIGHT have a point.
> Kinda like using a 500,000 lambhorgini to go to the corner market.

Not really. There may be some Athlon 64 systems under $800.


>
> As for noise on old T-bird systems. All of mine are very quiet and
> I've never had any overheat problems.
>
> >
> >Mac Cool wrote:
> >
> >> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> said:
> >>
> >> >> > The cpu doesn't make the noise
> >> >>
> >> >> never said it did
> >> >
> >> > You implied it.
> >>
> >> You inferred it.
> >>
> >> > You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
> >> > heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied
> >>
> >> you inferred
> >>
> >> > that is was somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault
> >> > for not choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply.
> >>
> >> The quiet fans and power supplies you have available now, exist
> >> primarily because people got tired of the noisy equipment that was
> >> produced in copius amounts then. The aftermarket fan and heat sink
> >> market grew so quickly because of the popularity of overclocking. The
> >> AMD Thunderbird was the most popular CPU among overclockers. The
> >> Thunderbird was a blast furnace, especially compared to the intel
> >> offerings, and almost all aftermarket heatsink/fans were larger,
> >> heavier, had more aggressive fans than stock units and sounded like
> >> turbine engines. Some of the copper sinks weighed nearly a pound and
> >> required extreme care when installing. Sure, there were quieter
> >> solutions available, like the Zalman, but their cooling ability was
> >> poor. Quiet power supplies were just beginning to emerge 3-4 years ago.
> >> My solution was water cooling. Water cooling is nearly silent except for
> >> the water pump.
> >>
> >> We upgraded our computers at work with brand new Dells which were almost
> >> silent. When it came time to upgrade I bought one of the Dells because
> >> overclocking is no longer really necessary and with the deals Dell was
> >> giving at the time, I couldn't have built anything close for the price.
> >> I could sell my 2.5 year old Dell for what I paid for it, maybe more. It
> >> was a good decision.
> >>
> >> > One can build a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.
> >>
> >> I never stated nor implied that CPUs cause noise. The idea is
> >> preposterous and perhaps you are only a newbie trying to help but
> >> insulting people will only get you ignored.
> >> --
> >> Mac Cool

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

$200-$300 for an Athlon XP system? Not for one with Windows, a DVD writer,
a decent video card, 200 gig hard drive, a gig of ram of ram, etc. You might be
able to build an Athlon XP 1800+ system with 256 meg, a 30 gig hard drive and
integrated video for around $300.I wouldn't want to build such a system now
though. You could build an Athlon 64 system for under $800, however I used the
$800 figure for a decent system. An Athlon 64 2800+ is only around $170,
which is only around $85 more than an Athlon XP 2800+. figure an
extra $25 of so for a decent motherboard for the Athlon 64 vs
a comparable one for an Athlon XP. Paying $110 more for
having an Athlon 64 2800+ vs an Athlon XP 2800+ isn't so much.
Using 64 bit windows, many applications will run much faster
on the Athlon 64.

gothika wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:30:40 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >gothika wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:16:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why are you obsessed with ancient history? That is not relevant to
> >> >someone building a pc now. The focus is on Athlon 64. Discussing
> >> >Athlon Thunderbird chips now doesn't make much sense.
> >>
> >> WHY spend more than is needed? Thats the point.
> >
> >The price isn't much more. A number of higher performing 32 bit processors
> >are priced higher than the lower end Athlon 64 bit chips.
> >
> Well I haven't seen them. In fact I've seen Athalon systems as fast as
> 3400 going for less than 300 brand new.
> >>
> >> If there were affordable 64bit apps that offered some signifigant
> >> advantage
> >
> >With a 64 bit operating system many 32 bit applications will
> >run much faster. Windows 64 for X86-64 may be released
> >within the next few months. 64 bit applications will start
> >appearing soon. Many people keep a PC for 3 or 4 years.
> >Many might wait for 64 bit Windows to be released
> >before they buy an Athlon 64 system.
> >
> >> over more economical solutions then you MIGHT have a point.
> >> Kinda like using a 500,000 lambhorgini to go to the corner market.
> >
> >Not really. There may be some Athlon 64 systems under $800.
> >
> My point exactly, I can build an Athalon system that is more than fast
> enough for still photography for 200-300 bucks.
> >
> >>
> >> As for noise on old T-bird systems. All of mine are very quiet and
> >> I've never had any overheat problems.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Mac Cool wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> said:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The cpu doesn't make the noise
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> never said it did
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You implied it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You inferred it.
> >> >>
> >> >> > You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
> >> >> > heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied
> >> >>
> >> >> you inferred
> >> >>
> >> >> > that is was somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault
> >> >> > for not choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply.
> >> >>
> >> >> The quiet fans and power supplies you have available now, exist
> >> >> primarily because people got tired of the noisy equipment that was
> >> >> produced in copius amounts then. The aftermarket fan and heat sink
> >> >> market grew so quickly because of the popularity of overclocking. The
> >> >> AMD Thunderbird was the most popular CPU among overclockers. The
> >> >> Thunderbird was a blast furnace, especially compared to the intel
> >> >> offerings, and almost all aftermarket heatsink/fans were larger,
> >> >> heavier, had more aggressive fans than stock units and sounded like
> >> >> turbine engines. Some of the copper sinks weighed nearly a pound and
> >> >> required extreme care when installing. Sure, there were quieter
> >> >> solutions available, like the Zalman, but their cooling ability was
> >> >> poor. Quiet power supplies were just beginning to emerge 3-4 years ago.
> >> >> My solution was water cooling. Water cooling is nearly silent except for
> >> >> the water pump.
> >> >>
> >> >> We upgraded our computers at work with brand new Dells which were almost
> >> >> silent. When it came time to upgrade I bought one of the Dells because
> >> >> overclocking is no longer really necessary and with the deals Dell was
> >> >> giving at the time, I couldn't have built anything close for the price.
> >> >> I could sell my 2.5 year old Dell for what I paid for it, maybe more. It
> >> >> was a good decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> > One can build a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.
> >> >>
> >> >> I never stated nor implied that CPUs cause noise. The idea is
> >> >> preposterous and perhaps you are only a newbie trying to help but
> >> >> insulting people will only get you ignored.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Mac Cool

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

gothika wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 03:53:28 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >$200-$300 for an Athlon XP system? Not for one with Windows, a DVD writer,
> >a decent video card, 200 gig hard drive, a gig of ram of ram, etc. You might be
> >able to build an Athlon XP 1800+ system with 256 meg, a 30 gig hard drive and
> >integrated video for around $300.I wouldn't want to build such a system now
> >though. You could build an Athlon 64 system for under $800, however I used the
> >$800 figure for a decent system. An Athlon 64 2800+ is only around $170,
> >which is only around $85 more than an Athlon XP 2800+. figure an
> >extra $25 of so for a decent motherboard for the Athlon 64 vs
> >a comparable one for an Athlon XP. Paying $110 more for
> >having an Athlon 64 2800+ vs an Athlon XP 2800+ isn't so much.
> >Using 64 bit windows, many applications will run much faster
> >on the Athlon 64.
> >
> The original poster was wanting advice on a STILL photography system.
> You don't need a DVD writer,

He could do without a DVD writer, however backing up all his images on
CD might take a huge number of disks, and be annoying. That is
especially true if they are high resolution images(perhaps film scanned
at 5600 dpi?).

> ANY 24bit video card will do.
> You don't NEED a 200gig HD(massive overkill)

That depends on how large his files are. Some people gave digital
images that are hundreds of megs each.

>
> AND ram is dirt cheap.(I pay less than 100 bucks for 1gig of kingston)
> If still photography is all he'll be doing 512 will be sufficient.

Not really. Photoshop is a memory hog. Some people who edit
high resolution digital images complain that even 4 gigs is not
enough. For using Photoshop, at least a gig of ram is recommended.

>
> I wouldn't wish XP on my worst enemy. I use either win2kpro or Linux.
> Windows on the machines that'll be used for simpler tasks and Linux on
> my video rendering clusters
> I have a couple of Athalon systems that I built for imaging work that
> I spent less than 300 on.
> 1.2gig CPU, 1gig of ram, 80gig ATA133HD's
> And that was last years prices.
> I see 2400+ towers going for as little as 150 buck second hand or on
> clearance sales.

Many people don't want a second hand pc or one with a 1.2 ghz
processor. Most people do want Windows XP, even if they
will be using other operating systems as well.

>
>
> The point is why over spend on something for such a simple task as
> still photography work?

You remind me of the people who ask why pay more than
$29 for a pair of shoes, or more than $100 for a bicycle.
Not everyone wants cheap junk.

>
> If you'd ever HAD to finance a business out of pocket that was
> required to make a profit you'd see the wisdom in not overspending.

Buying low quality items often results in great inconvenience and wasted
time. It also often results in additional purchases very soon. One of my
friends liked to brag about his $29 shoes. I buy $100 Rockport shoes
on sale for $50 instead. He would go through around 4 pairs of the $29
shoes in the 18 moths it took me to wear out the Rockports. Which one
of us is saving money?

>
> Why use a sledgehammer when a ballpeen will do the job?

If I needed to make a hole in a wall, I would hate to have to do it
with a ball point pen.

>
>
> >gothika wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:30:40 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >gothika wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:16:50 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why are you obsessed with ancient history? That is not relevant to
> >> >> >someone building a pc now. The focus is on Athlon 64. Discussing
> >> >> >Athlon Thunderbird chips now doesn't make much sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> WHY spend more than is needed? Thats the point.
> >> >
> >> >The price isn't much more. A number of higher performing 32 bit processors
> >> >are priced higher than the lower end Athlon 64 bit chips.
> >> >
> >> Well I haven't seen them. In fact I've seen Athalon systems as fast as
> >> 3400 going for less than 300 brand new.
> >> >>
> >> >> If there were affordable 64bit apps that offered some signifigant
> >> >> advantage
> >> >
> >> >With a 64 bit operating system many 32 bit applications will
> >> >run much faster. Windows 64 for X86-64 may be released
> >> >within the next few months. 64 bit applications will start
> >> >appearing soon. Many people keep a PC for 3 or 4 years.
> >> >Many might wait for 64 bit Windows to be released
> >> >before they buy an Athlon 64 system.
> >> >
> >> >> over more economical solutions then you MIGHT have a point.
> >> >> Kinda like using a 500,000 lambhorgini to go to the corner market.
> >> >
> >> >Not really. There may be some Athlon 64 systems under $800.
> >> >
> >> My point exactly, I can build an Athalon system that is more than fast
> >> enough for still photography for 200-300 bucks.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As for noise on old T-bird systems. All of mine are very quiet and
> >> >> I've never had any overheat problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mac Cool wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> said:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > The cpu doesn't make the noise
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> never said it did
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You implied it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You inferred it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
> >> >> >> > heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> you inferred
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > that is was somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault
> >> >> >> > for not choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The quiet fans and power supplies you have available now, exist
> >> >> >> primarily because people got tired of the noisy equipment that was
> >> >> >> produced in copius amounts then. The aftermarket fan and heat sink
> >> >> >> market grew so quickly because of the popularity of overclocking. The
> >> >> >> AMD Thunderbird was the most popular CPU among overclockers. The
> >> >> >> Thunderbird was a blast furnace, especially compared to the intel
> >> >> >> offerings, and almost all aftermarket heatsink/fans were larger,
> >> >> >> heavier, had more aggressive fans than stock units and sounded like
> >> >> >> turbine engines. Some of the copper sinks weighed nearly a pound and
> >> >> >> required extreme care when installing. Sure, there were quieter
> >> >> >> solutions available, like the Zalman, but their cooling ability was
> >> >> >> poor. Quiet power supplies were just beginning to emerge 3-4 years ago.
> >> >> >> My solution was water cooling. Water cooling is nearly silent except for
> >> >> >> the water pump.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We upgraded our computers at work with brand new Dells which were almost
> >> >> >> silent. When it came time to upgrade I bought one of the Dells because
> >> >> >> overclocking is no longer really necessary and with the deals Dell was
> >> >> >> giving at the time, I couldn't have built anything close for the price.
> >> >> >> I could sell my 2.5 year old Dell for what I paid for it, maybe more. It
> >> >> >> was a good decision.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > One can build a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I never stated nor implied that CPUs cause noise. The idea is
> >> >> >> preposterous and perhaps you are only a newbie trying to help but
> >> >> >> insulting people will only get you ignored.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Mac Cool

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:03:22 GMT, Jim <chief_jim@go.nospam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:06:47 -0500, gothika <Vampyres@nettaxi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I use either win2kpro or Linux.
>>Windows on the machines that'll be used for simpler tasks and Linux on
>>my video rendering clusters
>
>What application do you like best with Linux?
Knoppix or Gnome.

However if you're thinking cluster/farming there are many sites online
with info on setting up a Beowulf type cluster and the many different
versions of Linnux that work well doing that.(Saw a large cluster the
other day with some version of Mandrake that really blazed.)
Also if you're the big budget type there's the Blades systems too.
>
>
>