13.12.2012 Views

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Choosing a Computer System for Digital Imaging<br />

SCSI vs. IDE/ATA: I think that most people would benefit little from SCSI. Its<br />

main advantages -- faster seek times and the ability to handle multiple access<br />

requests intelligently -- are <strong>of</strong> use where one needs to get lots <strong>of</strong> little files spread<br />

all over the disk(s) rather than loading one big image file. Modern IDE/ATA<br />

controllers <strong>of</strong>ten use less cpu time than SCSI. A 7200 rpm ATA-100 or ATA-133<br />

drive will give decent performance and double the capacity at half the price <strong>of</strong> a<br />

10000 rpm U160 SCSI drive. Better to spend your money elsewhere. Seagate and<br />

Maxtor make dependable drives. Avoid IBM; they have had some reliability<br />

problems recently with their IDE/ATA drives.<br />

dual cpu -- Here is a review where they compared Intel and AMD systems using<br />

photoshop and a 50 MB file:<br />

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000321<br />

Notice that the dual-cpu setup doesn't provide much benefit. It may be that the<br />

system is limited by RAM bandwidth, or Adobe didn't optimize very well for 2<br />

processors. This may not apply to Mac systems, for which Adobe is known to<br />

optimize photoshop. If you are trying to run many programs at the same time, a<br />

dual-cpu system would probably be more responsive. If the memory performance is<br />

really the limiting factor (as the reviewer claims), then Macintosh systems should<br />

be at a disadvantage relative to the systems in the above article. I haven't seen any<br />

comparisons involving large files on both modern Mac and PC though. Probably<br />

best to pick whichever operating system you feel more comfortable with.<br />

s<strong>of</strong>tware -- Micros<strong>of</strong>t started putting useable color pr<strong>of</strong>iling in Windows with<br />

Windows 98. It is reportedly identical to what was used on Macintosh at the time.<br />

The Mac version may have been improved since then but I don't know how or what<br />

effect this would have. Adobe Photoshop Elements reportedly *does* support color<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>iling. It is limited to sRGB (appropriate for output to a web page) and Adobe<br />

RGB (what you would use to print on your color inkjet). It doesn't support things<br />

like CMYK, which is what commercial printers use. Photoshop LE, etc. do not<br />

support color pr<strong>of</strong>iles.<br />

Note that Windows 98 (and possible ME as well) may limit the amount <strong>of</strong> RAM<br />

you can use to 768MB. Windows XP has a number <strong>of</strong> drawbacks, mostly related to<br />

security. Windows 2000 is probably the best <strong>of</strong> the bunch for photo editing.<br />

printing -- With inkjet printers, you aren't buying a printer. You're buying an ink/<br />

paper system. The printer is cheap and not intended to last decades. Would you<br />

want a Leica M2 if you could only use 1950s film with it? Using the latest inks<br />

usually requires the latest printer. Printer companies reportedly don't make money<br />

http://www.photo.net/photo/computers (23 <strong>of</strong> 33)7/3/2005 2:19:07 AM

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!