Yet it seems that everyone is saying you need lots of RAM, 2 gigs or so. Why would the iMac work when it seems to say it has 512 MB of RAM, and the graphics card 128 MB of RAM?
Yet it seems that everyone is saying you need lots of RAM, 2 gigs or so. Why would the iMac work when it seems to say it has 512 MB of RAM, and the graphics card 128 MB of RAM?
You will never use more than 1 gig of ram.
I have some multi-image panoramas that go ever 500MP in file size, 13" x 42" at 400 dpi). Editing them in photoshop and keeping the history will use much more than 1 GB RAM.
Yet it seems that everyone is saying you need lots of RAM, 2 gigs or so. Why would the iMac work when it seems to say it has 512 MB of RAM, and the graphics card 128 MB of RAM?
You will never use more than 1 gig of ram.
I have some multi-image panoramas that go ever 500MP in file size, 13" x 42" at 400 dpi). Editing them in photoshop and keeping the history will use much more than 1 GB RAM.
You will never use more than 1 gig of ram...unless you are this guy.
Yet it seems that everyone is saying you need lots of RAM, 2 gigs or so. Why would the iMac work when it seems to say it has 512 MB of RAM, and the graphics card 128 MB of RAM?
You will never use more than 1 gig of ram.
I have some multi-image panoramas that go ever 500MP in file size, 13" x 42" at 400 dpi). Editing them in photoshop and keeping the history will use much more than 1 GB RAM.
You will never use more than 1 gig of ram...unless you are this guy.
LOL - I was also told the same thing years ago when I wanted to go to 64 MB RAM, "You'll never use more than 16 MB RAM". Of course, RAM was about $50 per MB at the time!
lol true, when I bought my first computer it had an 80 megabyte hard drive, and bill gates said this would be all you would ever need.
I feel that the amount of memory you buy should be based on what equipment that that PC is servicing. My camera has relitivly small file sizes and I don't ever use much more than 512 of my gig of ram. If you were to have some huge files, then yes I could see the need, and yes someday soon we will all have terabytes of ram. But that doesn't mean that you need it right now.
Did you hear about that new processor they built that is 100o times faster than anything we have today. That thing is going to hit the market in a few years and then we will all be upgrading. light speed processor
Yet it seems that everyone is saying you need lots of RAM, 2 gigs or so. Why would the iMac work when it seems to say it has 512 MB of RAM, and the graphics card 128 MB of RAM?
You will never use more than 1 gig of ram.
The sales person told me something like that yesterday, and now I'm not buying his computer :)
The only thing I suggest is to NOT go with a cheap LCD monitor.
The out of the box Dells are not great, and since you want to do a lot of photo editing, I'd suggest a CRT any day over the same size/price LCD. A really great LCD is still only as good as a good CRT for color quality and contrast.
The only thing I suggest is to NOT go with a cheap LCD monitor.
The out of the box Dells are not great, and since you want to do a lot of photo editing, I'd suggest a CRT any day over the same size/price LCD. A really great LCD is still only as good as a good CRT for color quality and contrast.
The only thing I suggest is to NOT go with a cheap LCD monitor.
The out of the box Dells are not great, and since you want to do a lot of photo editing, I'd suggest a CRT any day over the same size/price LCD. A really great LCD is still only as good as a good CRT for color quality and contrast.
The only thing I suggest is to NOT go with a cheap LCD monitor.
I fully agree with this statement. Get a good one.
I probably couldn't afford it, but what's considered to be the best overall screen out there for photography work? I read about one a little while back, but I can't remember the name (some short name I think it was). But it was very expensive.
...what's considered to be the best overall screen out there for photography work?
Modern, high-quality LCDs will work fine for photo editing IF properly calibrated with an Eye-One or Spyder. HERE'S a good 20" for $367. The 24" version is even better and includes a built-in card reader, but it's $800.
...what's considered to be the best overall screen out there for photography work?
Modern, high-quality LCDs will work fine for photo editing IF properly calibrated with an Eye-One or Spyder. HERE'S a good 20" for $367. The 24" version is even better and includes a built-in card reader, but it's $800.
But I'm wondering, is "fine" good enough? He, he, I'm turning into a real snob. But seriously, LCDs are so flat, no matter what things look flat on them IMO. I haven't seen one of the gloss screens, so that might be different, but to me, photos just don't look right on an LCD screen, they always look almost more like a "cartoon" of a photo if that makes sense.
Oh ya, and one thing I love to add to my pc's is removable drive bays. This is great for storing large amounts of files. Just snag up a drive mount it and hot swap it any time.
By "fine" I mean that a very discerning eye would be hard pressed to tell the difference between images displayed on a calibrated LCD and CRT. BOTH types of monitors have flat faces, so that shouldn't make a difference. Older LCD screens had a problem with images getting darker when viewed at an angle, but that's not a problem anymore with current technology.
We have a place in Colorado that has tons of monitors all side by side, and for photos the gloss flat screens look amazing. I think the one I liked best was by zerox or something weird like that, but it was amazing.
I don't know how Macs handle RAM... but if you install Linux on your Mac... ;)
OS X is based on UNIX, so it will certainly take avantage of all available RAM. That said, I don't notice any appreciable diffference in Photoshop between my home Mac (1GB RAM) and my office workstation (3.5GB RAM). Running Linux on a Mac is like towing a fully-loaded Jeep with a stripped-down Jeep... you could do it, but why would you?
I don't know how Macs handle RAM... but if you install Linux on your Mac... ;)
OS X is based on UNIX, so it will certainly take avantage of all available RAM. That said, I don't notice any appreciable diffference in Photoshop between my home Mac (1GB RAM) and my office workstation (3.5GB RAM). Running Linux on a Mac is like towing a fully-loaded Jeep with a stripped-down Jeep... you could do it, but why would you?
Cuase the stripped down Jeep is free and upgraded more often for free :)
Not to mention all the accessorites for the Jeep are free.
I don't know how Macs handle RAM... but if you install Linux on your Mac... ;)
OS X is based on UNIX, so it will certainly take avantage of all available RAM. That said, I don't notice any appreciable diffference in Photoshop between my home Mac (1GB RAM) and my office workstation (3.5GB RAM). Running Linux on a Mac is like towing a fully-loaded Jeep with a stripped-down Jeep... you could do it, but why would you?
Because it just looks *so* cool when it's done like this;
Cause the stripped down Jeep is free and upgraded more often for free :)
You can't buy a Mac without OS X, so you'd already have it before you could run the "free" Linux, and the difference in usability is enormous. There's plenty of freeware and open-source software for OS X (including GIMP), but there's no equivalent to iPhoto (also included) in the Linux world.
