[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

>Actually, I tried that, but virtually all machines place a huge emphasis on
>processor speed, and treat RAM as an afterthought.

While that is true for the pre-bundled packages found inthe big box discount
stores and the online discounters (at least in the US), one often can
negotiate modifications to the pre-packaged bundle even in those outlets.
Even if that is not the case, one can get additional RAM or substitute
replacement RAM chips for a reasonable price unless one is looking for 1GB
or larger RAM chips which tend to be special order items at premium prices.

>since it came with Windows XP Home Edition, which is
>deliberately crippled to prevent it from supporting the full hardware
>addressing capability for memory, the most I could have added would have
>been another 512 MB.

Maybe your motherboard has a limitation in memory slots and a memory
capacity of 512; but my motherboard, which cost $180 US, has four memory
chip slots for DDR RAM and each can hold 512MB DDR RAM chip modules of which
I have two which cost me $139 US each.  As an aside, the motherboard also
has a built in EIDE two channel four drive RAID controller in addition to
two non-RAID EIDE controllers that will take two hardrives or other eide
drives on each.  My system also uses Windows XP Home Edition, which is not
crippled to prevent it from addressing more than 512MB or 1024 MB as you
suggest since I am currently running at 1024MB and have been told that I
could add two more 512 MB modules under my current setup.  I believe the
limnitation is not a Windows one but a motherboard chipset one.

>I could easily use 8 GB if that were possible (but
>it's not, not with current 32-bit processor architecture).

I am not sure I understand you.  I could easily use 100 TB (whether I
actually need it or not) if that were possible but it is not.  The outer
limitation is obviously hardware related and defined to a large degree by
the 32-bit architecture.  But 32-bit architechture is obviously the current
standard architecture for most workstations.  One does not tend to see
different architechture until one starts moving into large network server
components. If one has money to burn and one wants to move into the cutting
edge network system components, one can probably find pre-bundled packages
available from those who sell to this market.  If you mean something else
besides what I have interpreted you as saying, you will need to clarify.

>That would have been a lot more than a few extra dollars.

Of course, what constitutes a "few extra dollars" is relative and I will not
dispute that. But a motherboard with an onboard EIDE RAID controller is only
around $60-$80 more than the same board without one. And since the original
post was suggesting the multi zero costs were an acceptible range for a
system configured for digital darkroom, I would think that the addition of
$200 -$280 per hard drive for four drives to use in the RAID would not be
all that outrageous relative to the multi zero range overall cost limit or
even in the cost of a medium quality workstation used for professional
photography and digital darkroom operations.  If one is practical and
penny-pinching, one would not be able to buy the specialized configurations
that everyone is proposing anyway even if they were readily available by
retail outlets or specialty customizers; one would have to settle for
compromises similar to the options that are already available.

>I was strapped for cash as it was.  I was forced to buy a machine in order
>to support my new scanner, because the old machine, being more than eight
>weeks old, was already running on obsolete hardware.

I understand and accept that.  It is a practicality of a very real nature
that we all face; but this was not about you or anyone individual
personally.  It was about why there are not specially configured
workstations on the market in pre-packaged form dedicated to digital
darkroom work within a price range of up to some unspecified multi zero cost
figure.  My response is that what comprises the appropriate configuration is
dependent on the sort of work that one is doing and the peripheral
componentst that are to be used with it.  My additional response replying to
comments was that for most digital darkroom operations by most workers
professional and non-professional except high volume production studios and
labs many of the pre-packaged systems on the market for under $1000 US with
a few alterations are very acceptible for the majorituy of digital darkroom
operations that are engaged in.  In short, it theoretically boils down to
how one wants to dice and slice the money in terms what components to give
emphasis to and what not to which is quite different from practical concerns
of any given individual such as you have brought up.

>The prices for most of those options are very high.  LCD monitors of
>acceptable quality cost 5-8 times more than comparable CRTs, and good CRTs
>are already very expensive.  And have you tried bending over a desk with a
>130-pound CRT in your hand to position it on the desk?

May be truer in other parts of the world than in the US; but even in the US,
you are correct a high quality LCD monitor of 21" size would be
comparatively expensive as compared to a similar quality and size CRT.  Most
of us put money into a new monitor which we use as a primary monitor in a
multi monitor setup and use the older monitors as the secondary monitors in
that set up, which makes upgrades of the total setup much less expensive
options than going out and purchasing two entirely new monitors of equal
quality - especially since it currently is not viable to achieve independent
color management in the various constituent component displays in a multi
display setup.  You can get a good reasonable quality 21-22" CRT monitor for
around $800 US give or take a $100 or so.  But of course, here we get into
the fact that what is and is not very expensive is relative.  When I got my
first Hitachi 21" CRT monitor, it cost me $1200 US; but two years later, I
got a replacement when UPS destroyed the original which was being sent back
for warrantee service for $750 US.  The $750 looked like a bargin as
compared to the $1200.

I have tried and actually done the "bending over a desk with a 130-pound CRT
in your hand to position it on the desk" but it is not something that one
does frequently - at least I don't.  It has been my experience that I do not
have to align the monitor up as exactly to be able to see and read it as is
the case with a lighter LCD monitor which I found I was always having to
align it precisely so as to be able to read it easily even with text
materials.  That is not to say that if  they come down in price and go up in
color quality for the price, I would not put up with the aggrevation of
having to continuously realign a LCD display in the future - but not now.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:12 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?


Laurie writes:

> By shifting the monies around, you could
> probably get a slower processor and buy more
> RAM ...

Actually, I tried that, but virtually all machines place a huge emphasis on
processor speed, and treat RAM as an afterthought.  My current machine
doesn't even have enough slots for me to add as much memory as I'd like; and
even if it did, since it came with Windows XP Home Edition, which is
deliberately crippled to prevent it from supporting the full hardware
addressing capability for memory, the most I could have added would have
been another 512 MB.  I could easily use 8 GB if that were possible (but
it's not, not with current 32-bit processor architecture).

> ... for a few additional dollars, you can get
> a RAID motherboard or even add a RAID card
> with up to four 7200 RPM EIDE 120MB Western
> Digital hard drives with 8MB caches.

That would have been a lot more than a few extra dollars.

I was strapped for cash as it was.  I was forced to buy a machine in order
to support my new scanner, because the old machine, being more than eight
weeks old, was already running on obsolete hardware.

> I personally would prefer two 21 inch CRT
> monitors or a single 21 inch CRT monitor
> and a 17 CRT inch monitor for the palettes
> to a single LCD monitor of any size or a CRT
> monitor bigger than 21 inches.

The prices for most of those options are very high.  LCD monitors of
acceptable quality cost 5-8 times more than comparable CRTs, and good CRTs
are already very expensive.  And have you tried bending over a desk with a
130-pound CRT in your hand to position it on the desk?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body