Computer for digital imaging

Of late I'm increasingly needing to generate very large files for large photos (up to 24" x 36"). These images often now approach a gig in file size and my current Windows machine bogs down.

I have an Intel Core2Duo, 2.67 GHz machine with 4 gb of RAM running XP Pro. To my dismay, I found out, only after buying both the 4gb of RAM and XP Pro, that the machine will still only allow 3+gb to be used.

I read often about machines with 8gb, 16gb or even more of RAM. I assume then that these are Macs. I checked into a Mac but it would cost $5000 - $6000 to duplicate what I have now except with more RAM. In addition, I'd have to switch over many of my software and just generally don't want the hassle of switching unless there is no other choice.

So my question is, does anybody know if there is a Windows machine which can utilize larger amounts of RAM so I can devote more RAM to my Photoshop CS3 processing of my large images? I guess it would mean having to use Vista too which does not excite me.

Thanks,
John Reed

John,

You need to upgrade to a 64 bit version of Windows to utilize more than 3 GB of RAM. If you can find the 64 bit version of XP, I think that would be your best option. Otherwise, you can get the 64 bit Vista upgrade.

I am not certain about Photoshop as to whether it has a 64 bit version. If so, you will want that, also.

John:
David is right. You need a 64 bit OS to use more RAM. Based on my experience I would recommend Vista 64 bit. It works just fine, despite the anti-Microsoft and anti-Vista tirades you will see online. Besides, XP is going away eventually so why by new an OS that Microsoft will no longer support. I run 8 gigs of RAM and the OS recognizes all 8 gigs, but PS CS3 only recognizes 3.255 gigs. I suspect that with your setup Windows recognizes a little over 3 gigs and Photoshop recognizes 2+ gigs. Also, Adobe has already announced that CS4 for Windows will offer a 64 bit version. 64 bit photoshop won't be avail for Mac until CS5.

While not a specific endorsement for Dell, try looking at their website for prices for 64 bit machines. You will need to look under the corporate workstations to find machines capable of running 64 bit OS's, and being able to use more than 4 gig of memory. The prices for machines equipped with 8 gig of memory are not too bad, although I wouldn't consider them to be cheap either. Certainly better than $5,000.

Going the corporate workstation route also eliminates much of the crap Dell normally loads on their home machines.

Hey John,

Why would you think a Mac would run any faster? Well, unless you're looking at a monster desktop and you can always build an equal PC in performance. Remember, Mac now uses Intel CPU's. I have a custom Dell Precsion mobile workstation (docked in the office) that is running a T9300 2.50Ghz core2duo CPU and 4G of ram (same as the Mac). I'm also using XP Pro SP3. This thing blazes! I work on files that are 4G + when I'm putting books together with no problems. Maybe you have something else going on. Are you working on 16bit images?

The Dell 'Precsion' workstations that Dan is referring to, are a good bet. Not only do they have high end components and available 64 bit OS, they come with warranty and support that is not available on the other Dell lines. It's worth a look-see.

-P

Windows Vista 32 bit will handle up to 4gigs of RAM but SP1 must be installed. Not to mention that Vista Image Viewer allows you to view RAW

John,,,,,I second Preston's suggestion to take a look at Dell's Precision line, and to also check out their business outlet site if you're looking to save some bucks. Last January I got a recertified 690 workstation that was a steal at about 40% off the original price. A three year parts and on-site service warranty as a standard part of the deal made me feel better about buying a reconditioned system. One thing I really like about the workstation line is that it does not come with all of the bloatware and trial cr@p that the consumer machines usually have. I could not find a thing that would have been different from a "new" machine and so far, it's run like a champ.

Everybody,
Wow. What great input. Thanks to you all and keep it coming as I will be exploring alternatives based on input for a while. I know my way around computers just enough to be dangerous and am not an expert by any means. For this reason, I investigate and mull over options for a while before pulling the trigger.

One additional question that I'm seeing mixed opinions on here and elsewhere is Vista. The majority view "seems" to be that it's a pain in the butt because a) it sucks up too darn much RAM itself so you better be able to use a lot b) you have to get all new drivers for peripherals and c) it's not that stable. Any additional views on this?

Finally, regarding Macs, I did not mean to imply I thought a Mac would be faster. The ONLY reason I was investigating Mac was because it seemed Mac was the only way to utilize more RAM.

I am doing both 8 bit and 16 bit images. The ones that get large file sizes are indeed 16bit since they are 2ft x 3ft and larger and for sale so I tweak them to the max.

Again, thanks to you all so very much and if any of you or anybody else has any input, by all means let me have it. Hope I can help all of you one day.

Cheers,
John

John - There are several threads on here talking about Vista, most of which are very positive. The problem is that it definitely DID have issues at first, almost all of which have been resolved (or won't ever be), yet people seem to keep the problems alive on the internet. There are still some of the drawbacks you mentioned, but I wouldn't consider XP if I were buying right now. Here are some good threads :

Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3

Here is another thread on 64 bit PS hosted by an Adobe staffer:

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.html#comments

John, you should rethink your large 16bit imaging. For the most part it is not needed for the final print. Are you shooting digital or scanning transparencies? I went through this when I was shooting 4x5. I would scan at 16bit and a native resolution at the scanners max dpi. The images would be 1 gig +. Even at 2ft x 3ft you don't need 16bit.

On the subject of computers & photography & graphics (a similar art form), people looking to upgrade to a new computer would do well to look at the Mac Pro &/or MacBook Pro as well as high end PCs. Macs seem expensive, but similarly decked out PCs are similarly priced. My studio has both PC & Mac. Adobe works the same on both platforms. On a PC you work within a window, On a Mac the whole screen is your window, it is just more convenient to work with Adobe on a Mac. My MacBook Pro has both Windows & Mac operating system. I can toggle between the 2 platforms as needed, since some PC programs are frequently needed.

People tend to divide into PC or Mac camps. If a person needs a PC for specialized programs & occasionally does photo editing, then PC is probably the most comfortable or economical platform. If a person is mainly involved in photography & graphics, they would find Macs very pleasing - & fast.

Pat

You can set up a fast scratch disk by using two or more drives that are striped (Raid 0). Create a scratch partition on each one and then a data partition. The first or scratch partition will be on the outer diameter of the drive and consequently very fast. Then combine the scratch partitions into one striped one. Then do the same with the other partition. I suggest that one be for your data. The scratch partition can be fairly small say 64GB on each drive. Be sure all the disks you use are the same make and model.

I have a 3 drive Raid 0 setup on my Mac Pro. I use 3 1TB Western Digital RE-3 enterprise drives. Really makes a difference. Just be sure to set that striped scratch partition for your scratch drive in Photoshop. Also it makes reading and writing to the data partition very fast. If you upgrade your computer later you can move the drives over to the new machine.