Core 2 Duo / i3 / i5

[beej]

Thks kha...

I will go for Windows 7 for sure, I'm not a big fan of Windows but my all 3 computers at office use Windows. So I get use to it. I tried Ubuntu at an open source training center (Joomla) I think it's ok... but I have to learn the new process... so better not.

I went to check out the price from Microsoft vendors

Window 7 starter is about 15xx baht and Home basic is about 3500 baht something.So I don't know I should go for the genuine one?

I installed Beta 2010 on my laptop, the one that i'm using... I quite like it... The first time that I went to Microsoft for training the new features of MS 2010 my jaws dropped... Some work that we have to use PhotoShop and Video editing stuff... 2010 can do that now. love it.

And yeah khun Birdtongchai, I'd love to borrow your "nice collections"

Like I said, we've got a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate if you want it?

[birdtongchai]

Give me a pm if you wanna borrow some of the software.

I'm going to buy win7 as well, i am tired of finding a new crack version everytime and it's not really expensive... check out jedicool.com, they have them in stock.

[Crustyjuggler]

Give me a pm if you wanna borrow some of the software.

I'm going to buy win7 as well, i am tired of finding a new crack version everytime and it's not really expensive... check out jedicool.com, they have them in stock.

Agreed, copied operating systems can make a big problem with updates and security patches in the future and could even lock you out of your system. A new laptop should come with windows 7 anyway, right?

[birdtongchai]

They do, but they sell'm cheaper without windows... Windows doesn't "come" with anything for free... You'll always pay for 'm....

hmmm... where have I heard that before :shock:

[Chatty]

At Commart, not many vendors sell, "windows ready"

You can find "DOS" or "Linux" kha. they said they can't install it for me.. cuz in the expo they can't support illegal stuff... so if I want Windows 7 I have to install myself... or go to Microsoft vendors and ask them to install for me.

[zeusbheld]

one thing to consider, if you can afford it:

you say you'll be doing a lot of photoshop. even if you get as much RAM as you can, photoshop uses a lot of virtual memory (that means, it pretends the hard disk is RAM). it has its own built-in VM scheme and you can't get around it as far as i know. so what's the best way to speed up photoshop?

don't spend money on a faster CPU, you won't even notice much of a difference (except how much uglier your bank account balance has gotten).

if you can afford it, get a solid state drive instead of a regular hard drive. besides being a LOT more reliable (they have no moving parts, so nothing to scratch) they are FAST. no matter what operating system you run all disk access will be much, much faster. and disk access, more than anything else, will be what slows you down.

As far as I know Photoshop uses the virtual memory or the 'scratch disk' when the system runs out if available RAM - like the swap or paging file used by the OS. The reason is that photoshop can only use the first 2 GiB of RAM and the rest is left to the system. (Not sure about 64bit OS, probably different) When this is not enough it uses the scratch disk which is normally a ATA/IDE or SATA HDD which is obviously much slower than RAM so the system will slow down or hang but this is rarely a problem unless your using 512MiB/1GiB of RAM.

as of a few years ago Adobe employees had confirmed that Photoshop runs a VM scheme pretty much constantly. if you work with large-ish images 2GB of ram is nothing. their approach may have changed, it's entirely possible that i haven't kept up, but as of about 2004 Photoshop, regardless of platform, used the hard drive for its own VM scheme constantly, full stop.

I wouldn't recommend a solid-state drive. Although faster and more reliable, they are still expensive. I can't see scratch disk issues being a problem for most users although setting up an SSD as a dedicated scratch disk on a PC would be ideal and would ensure optimum performance.

i'd just get a 50 GB SSD (about US$200 right now) and use it as the main hard drive and also as scratch disk, that way you reap all the benefits (such as near instantaneous booting of OS or apps). if i personally go that way i will replace the DVDR drive in my computer with a 500GB hard drive, as compact DVDRs for notebooks are crappy and fragile anyway, and i have an external (full sized) one. only downside is i'd have to rip my in-flight movies to the (big) hard drive before i fly somewhere...

[zeusbheld]

It's always interesting when people start the debate of Microsoft over Apple....

you can stop right there, it's been over 10 years since the debate of Microsoft over Apple was in any way interesting...

[Kitschiguy]

one thing to consider, if you can afford it:

you say you'll be doing a lot of photoshop. even if you get as much RAM as you can, photoshop uses a lot of virtual memory (that means, it pretends the hard disk is RAM). it has its own built-in VM scheme and you can't get around it as far as i know. so what's the best way to speed up photoshop?

don't spend money on a faster CPU, you won't even notice much of a difference (except how much uglier your bank account balance has gotten).

if you can afford it, get a solid state drive instead of a regular hard drive. besides being a LOT more reliable (they have no moving parts, so nothing to scratch) they are FAST. no matter what operating system you run all disk access will be much, much faster. and disk access, more than anything else, will be what slows you down.

As far as I know Photoshop uses the virtual memory or the 'scratch disk' when the system runs out if available RAM - like the swap or paging file used by the OS. The reason is that photoshop can only use the first 2 GiB of RAM and the rest is left to the system. (Not sure about 64bit OS, probably different) When this is not enough it uses the scratch disk which is normally a ATA/IDE or SATA HDD which is obviously much slower than RAM so the system will slow down or hang but this is rarely a problem unless your using 512MiB/1GiB of RAM.

as of a few years ago Adobe employees had confirmed that Photoshop runs a VM scheme pretty much constantly. if you work with large-ish images 2GB of ram is nothing. their approach may have changed, it's entirely possible that i haven't kept up, but as of about 2004 Photoshop, regardless of platform, used the hard drive for its own VM scheme constantly, full stop.

I wouldn't recommend a solid-state drive. Although faster and more reliable, they are still expensive. I can't see scratch disk issues being a problem for most users although setting up an SSD as a dedicated scratch disk on a PC would be ideal and would ensure optimum performance.

i'd just get a 50 GB SSD (about US$200 right now) and use it as the main hard drive and also as scratch disk, that way you reap all the benefits (such as near instantaneous booting of OS or apps). if i personally go that way i will replace the DVDR drive in my computer with a 500GB hard drive, as compact DVDRs for notebooks are crappy and fragile anyway, and i have an external (full sized) one. only downside is i'd have to rip my in-flight movies to the (big) hard drive before i fly somewhere...

With regards to SSD's I was talking about laptops initially since that's what the OP was asking for advice about (budget around B20000)

As I understand it a VM scheme is constantly running, but the virtual space is used when the available system RAM is used up. This happens regularly as far as I know, not just because of the size of the file but because of layers, masks and all the other info. In CS4 PSB files can be up to 2GB and TIFFs can be up to 4GB.

For desktops, if you don't think you've got enough RAM (which should be the first thing to address, before CPU and GPU performance which are the other most important factors. I have a 64 bit operating system with 16GB of RAM and a 64 bit version of Adobe CS4 - photoshop CS4 can address 8GB of RAM. My point is that it's not an issue for me so I've never had to do it) you're much better off dedicating a separate HDD for a scratch disk.

Yes, an SSD would be perfect as would a RAID 0 array, as they offer the fastest read/write times but obviously nowhere near as fast as RAM which is dynamic, volatile memory. I don't think a 50GiB would be big enough (after a 64 bit OS and Adobe CS4 - getting on for 20GiB already) But as it's a performance issue, ideally a scratch disk shouldn't be running the OS and should be at least a separate, dedicated, defragmented volume, but ideally a separate disk with at least 20GiB of free space as it'll be competing with the system for read cycles.

I just checked a technical doc and it stated that CS4 supports 64 Exabytes spread over 4 volumes (the same amount of RAM supported by 64bit OS's).

That's what I would do anyway (if I was getting out of RAM errors).

ps. 2004? 6 years is a bloody lifetime in software development terms!

[sinderella]

one thing to consider, if you can afford it:

you say you'll be doing a lot of photoshop. even if you get as much RAM as you can, photoshop uses a lot of virtual memory (that means, it pretends the hard disk is RAM). it has its own built-in VM scheme and you can't get around it as far as i know. so what's the best way to speed up photoshop?

don't spend money on a faster CPU, you won't even notice much of a difference (except how much uglier your bank account balance has gotten).

if you can afford it, get a solid state drive instead of a regular hard drive. besides being a LOT more reliable (they have no moving parts, so nothing to scratch) they are FAST. no matter what operating system you run all disk access will be much, much faster. and disk access, more than anything else, will be what slows you down.

As far as I know Photoshop uses the virtual memory or the 'scratch disk' when the system runs out if available RAM - like the swap or paging file used by the OS. The reason is that photoshop can only use the first 2 GiB of RAM and the rest is left to the system. (Not sure about 64bit OS, probably different) When this is not enough it uses the scratch disk which is normally a ATA/IDE or SATA HDD which is obviously much slower than RAM so the system will slow down or hang but this is rarely a problem unless your using 512MiB/1GiB of RAM.

as of a few years ago Adobe employees had confirmed that Photoshop runs a VM scheme pretty much constantly. if you work with large-ish images 2GB of ram is nothing. their approach may have changed, it's entirely possible that i haven't kept up, but as of about 2004 Photoshop, regardless of platform, used the hard drive for its own VM scheme constantly, full stop.

I wouldn't recommend a solid-state drive. Although faster and more reliable, they are still expensive. I can't see scratch disk issues being a problem for most users although setting up an SSD as a dedicated scratch disk on a PC would be ideal and would ensure optimum performance.

i'd just get a 50 GB SSD (about US$200 right now) and use it as the main hard drive and also as scratch disk, that way you reap all the benefits (such as near instantaneous booting of OS or apps). if i personally go that way i will replace the DVDR drive in my computer with a 500GB hard drive, as compact DVDRs for notebooks are crappy and fragile anyway, and i have an external (full sized) one. only downside is i'd have to rip my in-flight movies to the (big) hard drive before i fly somewhere...

With regards to SSD's I was talking about laptops initially since that's what the OP was asking for advice about (budget around B20000)

As I understand it a VM scheme is constantly running, but the virtual space is used when the available system RAM is used up. This happens regularly as far as I know, not just because of the size of the file but because of layers, masks and all the other info. In CS4 PSB files can be up to 2GB and TIFFs can be up to 4GB.

For desktops, if you don't think you've got enough RAM (which should be the first thing to address, before CPU and GPU performance which are the other most important factors. I have a 64 bit operating system with 16GB of RAM and a 64 bit version of Adobe CS4 - photoshop CS4 can address 8GB of RAM. My point is that it's not an issue for me so I've never had to do it) you're much better off dedicating a separate HDD for a scratch disk.

Yes, an SSD would be perfect as would a RAID 0 array, as they offer the fastest read/write times but obviously nowhere near as fast as RAM which is dynamic, volatile memory. I don't think a 50GiB would be big enough (after a 64 bit OS and Adobe CS4 - getting on for 20GiB already) But as it's a performance issue, ideally a scratch disk shouldn't be running the OS and should be at least a separate, dedicated, defragmented volume, but ideally a separate disk with at least 20GiB of free space as it'll be competing with the system for read cycles.

I just checked a technical doc and it stated that CS4 supports 64 Exabytes spread over 4 volumes (the same amount of RAM supported by 64bit OS's).

That's what I would do anyway (if I was getting out of RAM errors).

i was talking about an economical upgrade for a mid-range (or older high-end) laptop, with a SATA drive bay and a SATA DVDR. 30 Gb RAM isn't an option as far as i know.

bay1: if partitioned, you have plenty of room for OS/apps/desktop files (wp docs etc) on one partition, and the rest for scratch disk. basically i want anything involving waiting for a hard drive on the SSD except for files i don't use every day. they'd go in bay 2; remove the DVDR and install a 500 Gb, 7200 RPM HItachi hard drive. total cost, $350 or so including parts and shipping to thailand. not sure what any of these parts cost here, but i find usually brand name stuff (Hitachi, Seagate, etc is cheaper to order from overseas.

SSDs are still not offering a lot of storage per dollar or baht spent compared to HDs, but as the technology matures and larger drives are available cost-effectively, it'll make it a LOT easier to cut video on a laptop--SSDs are fast enough to pretty much eliminate the usual drop frame/fragmentation issues, and no moving parts so no scratching/peeling platter issues...

ps. 2004? 6 years is a bloody lifetime in software development terms!

you'd be surprised how much 1994-ish code is still kicking around in MS Word.... hmmmmm if you've actually run word, maybe not. bad example!

[Kitschiguy]

one thing to consider, if you can afford it:

you say you'll be doing a lot of photoshop. even if you get as much RAM as you can, photoshop uses a lot of virtual memory (that means, it pretends the hard disk is RAM). it has its own built-in VM scheme and you can't get around it as far as i know. so what's the best way to speed up photoshop?

don't spend money on a faster CPU, you won't even notice much of a difference (except how much uglier your bank account balance has gotten).

if you can afford it, get a solid state drive instead of a regular hard drive. besides being a LOT more reliable (they have no moving parts, so nothing to scratch) they are FAST. no matter what operating system you run all disk access will be much, much faster. and disk access, more than anything else, will be what slows you down.

As far as I know Photoshop uses the virtual memory or the 'scratch disk' when the system runs out if available RAM - like the swap or paging file used by the OS. The reason is that photoshop can only use the first 2 GiB of RAM and the rest is left to the system. (Not sure about 64bit OS, probably different) When this is not enough it uses the scratch disk which is normally a ATA/IDE or SATA HDD which is obviously much slower than RAM so the system will slow down or hang but this is rarely a problem unless your using 512MiB/1GiB of RAM.

as of a few years ago Adobe employees had confirmed that Photoshop runs a VM scheme pretty much constantly. if you work with large-ish images 2GB of ram is nothing. their approach may have changed, it's entirely possible that i haven't kept up, but as of about 2004 Photoshop, regardless of platform, used the hard drive for its own VM scheme constantly, full stop.

I wouldn't recommend a solid-state drive. Although faster and more reliable, they are still expensive. I can't see scratch disk issues being a problem for most users although setting up an SSD as a dedicated scratch disk on a PC would be ideal and would ensure optimum performance.

i'd just get a 50 GB SSD (about US$200 right now) and use it as the main hard drive and also as scratch disk, that way you reap all the benefits (such as near instantaneous booting of OS or apps). if i personally go that way i will replace the DVDR drive in my computer with a 500GB hard drive, as compact DVDRs for notebooks are crappy and fragile anyway, and i have an external (full sized) one. only downside is i'd have to rip my in-flight movies to the (big) hard drive before i fly somewhere...

With regards to SSD's I was talking about laptops initially since that's what the OP was asking for advice about (budget around B20000)

As I understand it a VM scheme is constantly running, but the virtual space is used when the available system RAM is used up. This happens regularly as far as I know, not just because of the size of the file but because of layers, masks and all the other info. In CS4 PSB files can be up to 2GB and TIFFs can be up to 4GB.

For desktops, if you don't think you've got enough RAM (which should be the first thing to address, before CPU and GPU performance which are the other most important factors. I have a 64 bit operating system with 16GB of RAM and a 64 bit version of Adobe CS4 - photoshop CS4 can address 8GB of RAM. My point is that it's not an issue for me so I've never had to do it) you're much better off dedicating a separate HDD for a scratch disk.

Yes, an SSD would be perfect as would a RAID 0 array, as they offer the fastest read/write times but obviously nowhere near as fast as RAM which is dynamic, volatile memory. I don't think a 50GiB would be big enough (after a 64 bit OS and Adobe CS4 - getting on for 20GiB already) But as it's a performance issue, ideally a scratch disk shouldn't be running the OS and should be at least a separate, dedicated, defragmented volume, but ideally a separate disk with at least 20GiB of free space as it'll be competing with the system for read cycles.

I just checked a technical doc and it stated that CS4 supports 64 Exabytes spread over 4 volumes (the same amount of RAM supported by 64bit OS's).

That's what I would do anyway (if I was getting out of RAM errors).

i was talking about an economical upgrade for a mid-range (or older high-end) laptop, with a SATA drive bay and a SATA DVDR. 30 Gb RAM isn't an option as far as i know.

bay1: if partitioned, you have plenty of room for OS/apps/desktop files (wp docs etc) on one partition, and the rest for scratch disk. basically i want anything involving waiting for a hard drive on the SSD except for files i don't use every day. they'd go in bay 2; remove the DVDR and install a 500 Gb, 7200 RPM HItachi hard drive. total cost, $350 or so including parts and shipping to thailand. not sure what any of these parts cost here, but i find usually brand name stuff (Hitachi, Seagate, etc is cheaper to order from overseas.

SSDs are still not offering a lot of storage per dollar or baht spent compared to HDs, but as the technology matures and larger drives are available cost-effectively, it'll make it a LOT easier to cut video on a laptop--SSDs are fast enough to pretty much eliminate the usual drop frame/fragmentation issues, and no moving parts so no scratching/peeling platter issues...

ps. 2004? 6 years is a bloody lifetime in software development terms!

you'd be surprised how much 1994-ish code is still kicking around in MS Word.... hmmmmm if you've actually run word, maybe not. bad example!

I agree with what you say about SSD's, in fact I've said they are the best option for a scratch disk at least twice but only if you don't have enough RAM. I still don't think one would make an economical upgrade unless, as you suggest, it's a high-end one. But then I would think it would have sufficient RAM and GP capabilities.

30 Gb RAM isn't an option as far as i know.

Not too sure what is meant by this but if you're talking about the 30GiB of free space on a 50GiB SSD then It's not the same thing. You can't compare free space on any kind of storage device to RAM. RAM is a zillion times faster unless you're talking about DRAM SSD's as opposed to flash SSD's (about 10x more expensive I think)

I hate to disagree on another point but I don't see the point in removing an optical drive and installing a standard 7200rpm 500GiB HDD. Why not just use a cheaper external and leave the optical drive there or save the money and buy a bigger SSD and give yourself a larger partition for your scratch disk?

If you have more than 4 GB (to 8 GB), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of that extra RAM, the RAM cache can increase performance of Photoshop.

I copied the previous paragraph from a tech doc. All in all SSD's are better - faster and more reliable, whether or not you choose to upgrade is a personal choice but if you want to optimize photoshop I would advise against using one as a primary disk and a scratch disk because it won't be optimal or big enough and they do have limitations i.e can be written to a limited number of times.

If you go for it please post and tell about the results. I've never done it and would be interested to see.

[birdtongchai]

All nice and fun but when the budget is limited to 20.000 baht max, neither a second 500Gbyte harddisk nor an SSD drive are an option...

Oh, I have an SSD drive... Intel x25.... but instant boot times? come on.... you really fell for that?? I am running an Asus P5Q Premium motherboard with 4x1GB LAN 6x Raid 5 Sata ports on board, 2x Raid 1,0 onboard and those mirrored, (10 sata ports) and have an 3ware escalade 8500-12 Raid 5 card with 9x1Tb WD Caviar Black...

It takes around 15 seconds for all the posts and biossessesses to initialize... after the windows loading screen it still takes about 5 seconds to boot...

with the original HD it took around 10 seconds to boot...

I boot about 3 times per week, that's 15 seconds saved... 1 minute per month, 12 minutes per year.... does NOT justify the costs of an SSD

With 8Gbyte of RAM, my applications (general use) are loaded withing 2-3 seconds... Photoshop takes about 6 seconds to load...

With SSD those times will be cut in half...but again it safes about 2-3 minutes per months... SSD is great technology, but at the moment just not justify the costs...SPECIALLY when you're on a 20k budget for a whole machine!

[sinderella]

All nice and fun but when the budget is limited to 20.000 baht max, neither a second 500Gbyte harddisk nor an SSD drive are an option...

Oh, I have an SSD drive... Intel x25.... but instant boot times? come on.... you really fell for that?? I am running an Asus P5Q Premium motherboard with 4x1GB LAN 6x Raid 5 Sata ports on board, 2x Raid 1,0 onboard and those mirrored, (10 sata ports) and have an 3ware escalade 8500-12 Raid 5 card with 9x1Tb WD Caviar Black...

It takes around 15 seconds for all the posts and biossessesses to initialize... after the windows loading screen it still takes about 5 seconds to boot...

with the original HD it took around 10 seconds to boot...

I boot about 3 times per week, that's 15 seconds saved... 1 minute per month, 12 minutes per year.... does NOT justify the costs of an SSD

With 8Gbyte of RAM, my applications (general use) are loaded withing 2-3 seconds... Photoshop takes about 6 seconds to load...

With SSD those times will be cut in half...but again it safes about 2-3 minutes per months... SSD is great technology, but at the moment just not justify the costs...SPECIALLY when you're on a 20k budget for a whole machine!

good points, but she already bought her machine, so we've kinda moved on a bit. SSDs will come down in price A LOT in the next few years

the reason i'd replace the DVDR is that it will almost certainly break again within a year (unless i pretend my laptop is a desktop) and my warranty's up. a 500GB HD can store lots of stuff that would otherwise have to travel externally, i can rip DVD movies to it, and i've rarely had to burn a DVD on the road, so i'd just leave my DVDR at home.

so what's next? netbooks? was in fortune today and saw that a typical netbook with about a 360 Gb HD (or so, 3## anyway), 1 GB ram, for about...

9000 baht. WHOA. want one. or six.

[birdtongchai]

Yeah I am thinking of buying one too, but keep it mind that a netbook has almost got NO processing power...

Yes it can display movies in Full HD, but that's due to a videochip dedicated to decoding full hd video... Your application start really slow, trust me, you don't want to create or edit photoshop images on that...

I want one for displaying purposes only. Show clients websites that i have created, show them interactive videoclips, brochures, flashcards, presentations, that kind of stuff...

It's not really a machine to work ON, more a machine to work WITH...

Another thing that i'm considering is the iPad... for the same reasons....

[koolbreez]

The one big thing about a netbook though is it does not have a dvd/cd drive, so no playing cds, or dvds on them. They are for basically just websurfing, and emailing, which fits into what allot of people do.

[allseasonsman]

How about this one? Lenovo is ok?

That one looks perfect for you. Right price and good spec is [more than enough for what you will be using it for]

[Crustyjuggler]

[more than enough for what you will be using it for]

For heavy photoshop and video editing, you think? It's a budgeted compromise, hardly more than enough...

[allseasonsman]

[more than enough for what you will be using it for]

For heavy photoshop and video editing, you think? It's a budgeted compromise, hardly more than enough...

The problem with this logic is that if you stop and think about it the rate at which hardware has developed over the last decade alone, it is such that anybody who buys a computer a laptop today is buying something which would have cost thousands of dollars only a few years ago.

So let’s consider Photoshop and video editing, In the strictest sense there is almost nothing that would be ever fast enough if you want to think like that, even though there are actual limits to how much you can get out of a software program regardless of the hardware.

I can still recall the day when people would tell you that 64mb of ram was not enough and you needed at least 128mb, but ideally 256, with anything more than that being hard to comprehend or insanely expensive! Nowadays you can get a Laptop ]not even a need to get a desktop mind you] for around the 20k baht price range and it will have 2 gig ram! And a graphics card of 512mb not too mention a 320 hard disk and a dual core processor!

As I say, all this is more than enough and an excellent choice by bcool in terms of value and getting a PC for what you do!

To compare! I am writing on a Laptop from 2006 which has a 60 gig hard disk [upgraded as the original was 40 gig] and 756 mb ram – also upgraded from 256 and 1.8ghz AMD processor, but a puny 64mb graphics. It uses Photoshop no problem but is very poor for video editing or even playing certain high resolution formats, cant really handle HD files!.

My other Laptop has 3 gig ram, 512 graphics and a dual core AMD processor. It flies along using PhotoShop, Flash, HD and all other manner of things. In other words it has more than enough to do all the things I want it to do. Could it be even better? You bet! Id love a really toned up machine with 16 gig ram on a 64 bit machine etc etc but it is simply a fact that for 20k baht you will get an amazing machine as compared even with a few years a go and people will not use a fraction of its capacity.

Looks like bcool has made an excellent choice and will be very happy with her new machine. Excellent value by the looks of it. As for the OS well for goodness sake is it not good to just buy a copy of win 7 for 100 baht or whatever and make sure the settings are set to NOT UPDATE OR DOWNLOAD ANYTHING FROM MS. Then after 6 months or a year you can buy a more recent copy of win 7 for another 100 baht?

[CiaranM]

Looks like bcool has made an excellent choice and will be very happy with her new machine. Excellent value by the looks of it. As for the OS well for goodness sake is it not good to just buy a copy of win 7 for 100 baht or whatever and make sure the settings are set to NOT UPDATE OR DOWNLOAD ANYTHING FROM MS. Then after 6 months or a year you can buy a more recent copy of win 7 for another 100 baht?

well except for the fact that she didn't buy the Lenovo !!! :roll: :roll:

[Chatty]

I wrote about it on page 5 and yes p'Ciaran, it's not Lenovo.

[CiaranM]

I wrote about it on page 5 and yes p'Ciaran, it's not Lenovo.

how r u finding the Asus Neung ? i'm thinking of buying a laptop when i go home in the summer and would never have thought of buying an Asus before reading this thread. it seems to be quite well recommended here and gets pretty good reviews also !!

[Crustyjuggler]

The problem with this logic is that if you stop and think about it the rate at which hardware has developed over the last decade alone, it is such that anybody who buys a computer a laptop today is buying something which would have cost thousands of dollars only a few years ago.

So let’s consider Photoshop and video editing, In the strictest sense there is almost nothing that would be ever fast enough if you want to think like that, even though there are actual limits to how much you can get out of a software program regardless of the hardware.

You talk like software and commercial hardware stood still but processors, kept on going...

Photos are now 15mp up to 25mp just on entry level cameras (40+ on commercial cams) A 20,000b lappy would lock up for an hour using CS4's gaussian blur on an image from my current camera..

Pure HD content is 1gb for every couple of minutes.. thats 25 frames x 1900 pixels for just a second of video (maybe you still think 640x480 is the norm)... convert 40 minutes of that and your 20,000 laptop is out of use for 6 hours or more.

My state of the art notebook comes to a crawl doing this type of work which should really be left to the desktop in reality. 8 core technology still crunches away on HD content, so no, my logic is not wrong... this is my business.

Stick to the stuff you know mate, spreadsheets presumably?

[Chatty]

I wrote about it on page 5 and yes p'Ciaran, it's not Lenovo.

how r u finding the Asus Neung ? i'm thinking of buying a laptop when i go home in the summer and would never have thought of buying an Asus before reading this thread. it seems to be quite well recommended here and gets pretty good reviews also !!

It's quite god kha p'Ciaran. A friend of mine said he use it about 4 years now without problem... it can handle hard work.

This one i think it's quite fast for me nah, and it's not hot... love it.

Anyway, I always blame TRUE and Dtac internet... cuz I got 4 MB. high speed internet, when i use Toshiba I found it was damn slow... Dtac was damn damn damn slow ... I never know 4MB from True is pretty fast until i changed laptop.

[Kitschiguy]

The problem with this logic is that if you stop and think about it the rate at which hardware has developed over the last decade alone, it is such that anybody who buys a computer a laptop today is buying something which would have cost thousands of dollars only a few years ago.

So let’s consider Photoshop and video editing, In the strictest sense there is almost nothing that would be ever fast enough if you want to think like that, even though there are actual limits to how much you can get out of a software program regardless of the hardware.

You talk like software and commercial hardware stood still but processors, kept on going...

Photos are now 15mp up to 25mp just on entry level cameras (40+ on commercial cams) A 20,000b lappy would lock up for an hour using CS4's gaussian blur on an image from my current camera..

Pure HD content is 1gb for every couple of minutes.. thats 25 frames x 1900 pixels for just a second of video (maybe you still think 640x480 is the norm)... convert 40 minutes of that and your 20,000 laptop is out of use for 6 hours or more.

My state of the art notebook comes to a crawl doing this type of work which should really be left to the desktop in reality. 8 core technology still crunches away on HD content, so no, my logic is not wrong... this is my business.

Stick to the stuff you know mate, spreadsheets presumably?

Yeah, this is quite a good way of looking at things when you're buying hardware.

I think for those calculations though, you're talking about uncompressed raw data. But HD still requires a hell of a lot or processing power. My video camera records in HD 1920x1080 @60fps and I can get around 43 minutes on an 8Gib SDHC card. I think all consumer video cameras use compression algorithms to compress the data i.e the H.264 codec in my case.

If you calculate it like this 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels x 3 = 6220800 (because each pixel requires 3 bytes to display 24bit colour - 1 for each channel) Then if you're shooting at 60fps = 373248000 bytes per second. Divide by a million = 373.248Mib per second.

[Crustyjuggler]

Yes, uncompressed HD, about 70 mins on a 64GB P2card... not much fun on any notebook trying to edit those files... Lightroom editing with 21mp raw photos is frustrating on 60,000+ notebooks, but unfortunately i can't get a desktop and monitor inside my rucksack.

[CiaranM]

I wrote about it on page 5 and yes p'Ciaran, it's not Lenovo.

how r u finding the Asus Neung ? i'm thinking of buying a laptop when i go home in the summer and would never have thought of buying an Asus before reading this thread. it seems to be quite well recommended here and gets pretty good reviews also !!

It's quite god kha p'Ciaran. A friend of mine said he use it about 4 years now without problem... it can handle hard work.

This one i think it's quite fast for me nah, and it's not hot... love it.

Anyway, I always blame TRUE and Dtac internet... cuz I got 4 MB. high speed internet, when i use Toshiba I found it was damn slow... Dtac was damn damn damn slow ... I never know 4MB from True is pretty fast until i changed laptop.

thanks Neung .... i'll be probably be home in august for holiday .... so might buy myself a laptop as my BD present !!!