Professional Web Applications Themes

98 vs. XP for digital photography - Photography

> I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to > 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I > read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB. 256 Megs of RAM is generally plenty for Windows XP. The more RAM, the better, but with 256 Megs things will run fairly smoothly. > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now. > And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to
    > 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I
    > read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
    256 Megs of RAM is generally plenty for Windows XP. The more RAM, the
    better, but with 256 Megs things will run fairly smoothly.
    > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now.
    > And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all
    > computer resources should be available for image processing.
    That's not a correct assumption. Windows XP will run in 128 Megs of
    RAM, albiet slowly, as long as their is sufficient hard disk space for
    its swap file. XP chugs along quite nicely in 256 Megs of RAM. As I
    type this, I'm running XP with 192 Megs of RAM on a PIII/733 with no
    problems at all. And yes, I process digital images on this machine.
    > How much faster is 98SE than XP ?
    98SE has the appearance of being faster at the OS level, but is
    significantly slower at the application level. 98SE is not a good
    choice for digital imaging. It has a memory hole at 128 Megs that
    causes random crashes. It is unstable in general, especially compared
    to XP.

    How much memory does it burn ?

    Windows 98 SE can run in as little as 32 Megs of RAM, but 64 to 128 Megs
    is recommended. Anything more than 128 Megs of RAM is wasted on 98SE.

    The machine you have is XP capable and that's what you should run.

    JC

    Jeffrey Cohen Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to
    > 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I
    > read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
    >
    > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now.
    > And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all
    > computer resources should be available for image processing.
    >
    > How much faster is 98SE than XP ? How much memory does it burn ?
    XP will run quite happily in 256 meg. XP is faster than 98SE (I have
    both), and vastly more stable and reliable. If you plan to do a lot of
    image processing, more ram is better, regardless of which OS you choose.


    Ron Hunter Guest

  3. Moderated Post

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Removed by Administrator
    Ron Hunter Guest
    Moderated Post

  4. #4

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <Xns93B3BEE2CA8C7nntprogerscom140.99.99.130>,
    > [email]REMOVEnntprogers.com[/email] says...
    >
    >>>I
    >>>read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
    >>>
    >>
    >>XP uses more memory than 98, but the added stability and features (Power
    >>Saving, NTFS, etc) are well worth it.
    >
    >
    > Stability isn't that much of an issue. What I'd like to have is raw
    > speed. Looks like I'll have to add extra memory quite soon.
    If you want raw speed, spend your money on more ram and a faster
    processor and faster disk. The OS won't make that much difference, but
    the twentieth time you crash on 98SE while my XP machine rattles on
    reliably you might notice a bit of difference in throughput.


    Ron Hunter Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >>98SE s chunks. At least XP is pretty stable.
    >
    >
    > I'll take a properly configured 98SE over either version of XP any day.
    > But I really don't give a because I use OS X.
    Which explains a lot about why you think 98SE is better.


    Ron Hunter Guest

  6. Moderated Post

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Removed by Administrator
    Browntimdc Guest
    Moderated Post

  7. #7

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Ron Hunter <rphuntercharter.net> wrote in message news:<92fPa.24259$Sh4.20541fe08.atl2.webusenet.co m>...
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    I personally vote for Win2000.. stable, all new PCs are supported,
    without XP choosing some things for me.. But it as well as the others
    like lots of mem for PS. Maybe laess game oriented, but most all
    graphic apps work very well with it.

    > > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to
    > > 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I
    > > read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
    > >
    > > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now.
    > > And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all
    > > computer resources should be available for image processing.
    > >
    > > How much faster is 98SE than XP ? How much memory does it burn ?
    >
    > XP will run quite happily in 256 meg. XP is faster than 98SE (I have
    > both), and vastly more stable and reliable. If you plan to do a lot of
    > image processing, more ram is better, regardless of which OS you choose.
    Sam Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    In message <3F0D6D29.1070405sympatico.ca>,
    Jeffrey Cohen <cohenjsympatico.ca> wrote:
    >Windows 98 SE can run in as little as 32 Megs of RAM, but 64 to 128 Megs
    >is recommended. Anything more than 128 Megs of RAM is wasted on 98SE.
    That is nonsense. Win9x family can all use up to 1 GB of RAM. I
    personally used 768 MB of RAM with Win98SE, and it was *ALL* usable.
    There is no issue at 128 MB; that is a fairy tale. The only issue is
    that the vcache can't be more than 512 MB of RAM, and of course, your
    "system resource" heaps are small, which means that you can't have
    unlimited programs running, but each one can handle large data items.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPSno.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM
    > (expandable to 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've
    > been using 98SE). I read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying
    > up to half a GB.
    >
    > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it
    > now. And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally
    > all computer resources should be available for image processing.
    >
    > How much faster is 98SE than XP ? How much memory does it burn ?
    See MS comparison of the two here -

    [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/wxpvswin98.asp[/url]


    Tiny Tim Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    SD <siddharthgdalalCOLDmail.com> writes:
    > Conclusion:
    > 98SE = similar to XP Home
    > XP Pro = Way better than both of them..
    >
    I wouldn't say that XP Pro is much better than XP Home. Listed differences
    on [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp[/url] don't really justify "the
    way better" classification of yours.

    Bye, Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
    Dragan Cvetkovic Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    In article <belo02$69slr$1ID-198854.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    [email]t.doddvirgin.net[/email] says...
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    > > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM
    > > (expandable to 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've
    > > been using 98SE). I read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying
    > > up to half a GB.
    > >
    > > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it
    > > now. And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally
    > > all computer resources should be available for image processing.
    > >
    > > How much faster is 98SE than XP ? How much memory does it burn ?
    >
    > See MS comparison of the two here -
    >
    > [url]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/wxpvswin98.asp[/url]
    Hmmm... I don't trust MS comparisons. Anyway, I've ordered the
    subnotebook and also a 512 MB upgrade. Total RAM will be 768 MB -
    hopefully enough.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    [url]http://groups./group/Olympus4040_5050/[/url]
    Olympus 4040 resource - [url]http://www.molon.de/4040.htm[/url]
    Olympus 5050 resource - [url]http://www.molon.de/5050.htm[/url]
    Alfred Molon Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:49:19 +0000, Jonathan Wilson
    <i400shotmail.com> wrote:


    (much snipped)
    >
    >fragmentation is less of an issue, but i would recomend de-fragging a
    >disk once a week... if nothing else it gives the disk a good work out,
    >but if you have never de-fraged a disk in years, DONT DO IT!!!! While
    >its good to work out all the disk frequently, I have known 4 people
    >that did a de-frag for the first time between 1-3 years after purchase
    >whos drives promptly failed !
    >
    (more snipped)
    >--
    >Jonathan Wilson.
    >[url]www.somethingerotic.com[/url]

    Excuse the slightly off topic response - but if a disk has not been
    de-fragged for an extended period of time, there is a much simpler and
    faster, plus safer approach. Just do a full backup, reformat then
    restore.

    Olin McDaniel

    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
    Olin K. McDaniel Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    No it won't. A Ghost restore will do an exact restore, fragmented and all.

    Tom
    "Rick" <meprivacy.net> wrote in message
    news:benr22$6u887$1ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > "Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcdmindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:3f0de8fb.1377252news.mindspring.com...
    > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:49:19 +0000, Jonathan Wilson
    > > <i400shotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > (much snipped)
    > > >
    > > >fragmentation is less of an issue, but i would recomend de-fragging a
    > > >disk once a week... if nothing else it gives the disk a good work out,
    > > >but if you have never de-fraged a disk in years, DONT DO IT!!!! While
    > > >its good to work out all the disk frequently, I have known 4 people
    > > >that did a de-frag for the first time between 1-3 years after purchase
    > > >whos drives promptly failed !
    > > >
    > > (more snipped)
    > > >--
    > > >Jonathan Wilson.
    > > >[url]www.somethingerotic.com[/url]
    > >
    > >
    > > Excuse the slightly off topic response - but if a disk has not been
    > > de-fragged for an extended period of time, there is a much simpler and
    > > faster, plus safer approach. Just do a full backup, reformat then
    restore.
    >
    > Not even. Just a Ghost image backup/restore will do the
    > same thing without reformatting.
    >
    > RickW
    >
    >
    >


    Tom Scales Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Maybe on your planet, Tom. Not here on Earth. Or unless
    you use the -NTC- switch ;-)

    RickW

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoosofthome.net> wrote in message news:gbKPa.1380$Sf1.117fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
    > No it won't. A Ghost restore will do an exact restore, fragmented and all.
    >
    > Tom
    > "Rick" <meprivacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:benr22$6u887$1ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > > "Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcdmindspring.com> wrote in message
    > news:3f0de8fb.1377252news.mindspring.com...
    > > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:49:19 +0000, Jonathan Wilson
    > > > <i400shotmail.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > (much snipped)
    > > > >
    > > > >fragmentation is less of an issue, but i would recomend de-fragging a
    > > > >disk once a week... if nothing else it gives the disk a good work out,
    > > > >but if you have never de-fraged a disk in years, DONT DO IT!!!! While
    > > > >its good to work out all the disk frequently, I have known 4 people
    > > > >that did a de-frag for the first time between 1-3 years after purchase
    > > > >whos drives promptly failed !
    > > > >
    > > > (more snipped)
    > > > >--
    > > > >Jonathan Wilson.
    > > > >[url]www.somethingerotic.com[/url]
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Excuse the slightly off topic response - but if a disk has not been
    > > > de-fragged for an extended period of time, there is a much simpler and
    > > > faster, plus safer approach. Just do a full backup, reformat then
    > restore.
    > >
    > > Not even. Just a Ghost image backup/restore will do the
    > > same thing without reformatting.
    > >
    > > RickW
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >

    Rick Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    In message <wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>,
    Sasha <com> wrote:
     

    Nonsense. WinXP does not crash from programs. WinXP crashes from power
    problems, bad hardware, and bad hardware drivers.

    Even Win9x, when it crashes, is usually crashing due to power, hardware
    or drivers. There are simply more ways for it to happen in Win9x. If
    you have good, solid hardware and drivers, Win9x will be very stable,
    with its vulnerabilities remaining mainly in 16-bit subsystems.

    I ran Win9x with a SB16 and Matrox Millenium for over a year (shutting
    down once a day, of course; Win95 can't run more than 49 days
    continuously) without a system crash, and that included my own
    programming, and lots of experimentation with software.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Sasha wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Well, it depends on applications: I run Photoshop 4-7 for many years on win 3.1,
    > 95, 98 and it have never crashed. A friend of mine use XP for gaming and web
    > surfing and have a blue screen each day. So, there is absolutely no need to
    > upgrade from 98 to XP, both are unstable but only if you run 'unstable'
    > programms.
    >[/ref]
    Windows XP has a number of features that make working with digital
    cameras, camcorders, and pictures easier. IT is also VASTLY more stable
    than Win9x versions (I have used them ALL), and, properly configured, is
    faster as well. WinXP memory management is better, and it has no
    resource limitations.


    Ron Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    <komm> wrote in message news:com... 
    Not true. I have the BlackICE software firewall program that took XP Pro down. When I activated
    the Application Protection feature my system immediately locked up and began dumping memory content
    to my hard drive. This was the first and only time this happened since I went to XP last year, but
    it DID happen. When I ran Win98SE I had weekly crash problems, but XP was very stable until this
    recent crash.


    Jimmy Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    In message <KiySa.71145$central.cox.net>,
    "Jimmy" <com> wrote:
     
    >Not true. I have the BlackICE software firewall program that took XP Pro down. When I activated
    >the Application Protection feature my system immediately locked up and began dumping memory content
    >to my hard drive. This was the first and only time this happened since I went to XP last year, but
    >it DID happen. When I ran Win98SE I had weekly crash problems, but XP was very stable until this
    >recent crash.[/ref]

    Yes, but how do you know that the software didn't expose a low-level
    weakness? That's quite different from software bringing the system
    down.

    You are going by one occurence. You can not find a cause from a single
    occurence. It could have been anything.

    The bottom line is, most system instability in WinXP (and 2k as well),
    that *is* traced, is traced to hardware/driver, in that it can't be
    reproduced with a different set of hardware and drivers. I have
    personally never traced a system instability problem to pure software.
    A particular USB MIDI driver, power dips with a dead UPS, and bad drive
    power-connectors have caused all my personal 2k/XP crashes.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <komm> 
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Sasha wrote: 
    >
    > Well, it depends on applications: I run Photoshop 4-7 for many years on win 3.1,
    > 95, 98 and it have never crashed. A friend of mine use XP for gaming and web
    > surfing and have a blue screen each day. So, there is absolutely no need to
    > upgrade from 98 to XP, both are unstable but only if you run 'unstable'
    > programms.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > ASK[/ref]

    Probably true Sasha, but I use games, programmes hi speed web etc. I do
    have an old TV card which, if I try to change screen resolution, reboots
    the machine. I was more disappointed in losing my old peripherals than
    anything else with XP
    --
    Paul. (This machine will, will not communicate)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Guest

  20. Moderated Post

    Default Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

    Removed by Administrator
    Paul Guest
    Moderated Post

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Photography and Photoshop Does and Don'ts
    By Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Photoshop Mac CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 26th, 08:11 PM
  2. Excellent Digital Photography Site!
    By imacgirl in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 28th, 09:24 PM
  3. Pricing Digital Photography
    By artphotog in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 2nd, 12:16 PM
  4. Light Meter for Digital Photography
    By sjh in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 13th, 03:59 PM
  5. digital photography site
    By Rich in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 2nd, 09:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139