XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

[Bob AZ]

My Plan

To build a new and better computer for my Digital Photography.

So far I have made a tentative decision to use an Intel S5000XVNSATA
motherboard with a Xenon 5130 Processor. I will start out with 8GB of
memory. Also I will install/use the Windows XP Pro 64 Bit Operating
System. My Epson printer has a 64 bit driver available.

Is all the above feasable?

Thanks for any assistance
Bob AZ

 

[johnsuth@nospam.com.au]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

In <4a253ea1-7ada-42aa-bfc9-86b6f035377e@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Bob AZ <rwatson767@aol.com> writes:
>My Plan
>
>To build a new and better computer for my Digital Photography.
>
>So far I have made a tentative decision to use an Intel S5000XVNSATA
>motherboard with a Xenon 5130 Processor. I will start out with 8GB of
>memory. Also I will install/use the Windows XP Pro 64 Bit Operating
>System. My Epson printer has a 64 bit driver available.
>
>Is all the above feasable?


I steered away from Intel because the mobo I was reading about did not have
serial and parallel ports for legacy peripherals.

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Frankly, for digital photography, I'd choose Vista 64-bit, but you should be
OK either way.

I'm not sure why you'd choose a 5130 over one of the newer 5000 series
processors. After all, I've got a server with two of the 5130s, but it was
spec'd over 2 years ago. There are better, but still well priced, procs out
there now. Unless you're just repurposing one, in which case fine.

You really haven't said what you're doing for video, or what you're doing
about I/O - both of those will have a dramatic effect on your digital media
experience.

Overall, that's a pretty old workstation motherboard. I can think of several
others I'd likely choose first, for the kind of money that's going for. If
you can stretch, and want to stay with Intel, I'd look at the BOXD5400XS.
Still has the potential for dual Xeons, but now you can do 54xx CPUs. Only 4
memory slots, so limited to 16 GB at this point. But much better graphics
potential. And there's other, non-Intel choices...

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Bob AZ" <rwatson767@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4a253ea1-7ada-42aa-bfc9-86b6f035377e@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> My Plan
>
> To build a new and better computer for my Digital Photography.
>
> So far I have made a tentative decision to use an Intel S5000XVNSATA
> motherboard with a Xenon 5130 Processor. I will start out with 8GB of
> memory. Also I will install/use the Windows XP Pro 64 Bit Operating
> System. My Epson printer has a 64 bit driver available.
>
> Is all the above feasable?
>
> Thanks for any assistance
> Bob AZ

 

[Bob AZ]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB


>
> > Is all the above feasable?
>
> > Thanks for any assistance
> > Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Charlie

Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
like to do.

I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.

I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
lots of memory and more processing capability.

No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
me.

I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
processors according to Intel.

The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
name with me and I know little about others.

Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
Bob AZ

 

[Juergen Kluth]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Hi,
if everything works fine, tell what does not !

The rendering to your printer might be affected by the memory the printer
has installed. This might be upgradeble.
Also by the interface you use. You should use the USB option over parallel
port (if possible).

You also should tell, which software you use to work on your photographs.
If it is a 32 bit SW , 8 GB wont help that much.

jk

 

[JM Schroff]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Bob,

I am a Canon DSLR user, dual booting XP32 & XP64. There are issues with
Canon's software under XP64, particularly EOS Utility not launching when
the USB connection is made. As they (Canon) states, their installer is
not supported under XP64, requiring you to be creative to get the
requisite applications installed at all. Outside the connection issue,
they function well under XP64, but I do not see any performance gains on
my system with any of Canon's software, unlike Lightroom & Photoshop.

They (Canon) do support Vista 64, but I do not know if it installs them
as X86 or native 64-bit applications.

Bob AZ wrote:
>>> Is all the above feasable?
>>> Thanks for any assistance
>>> Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Charlie
>
> Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
> like to do.
>
> I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
> are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
> 4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
> Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
> has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.
>
> I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
> media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
> Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
> is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
> lots of memory and more processing capability.
>
> No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
> address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
> me.
>
> I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
> from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
> real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
> input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
> processors according to Intel.
>
> The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
> memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
> name with me and I know little about others.
>
> Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
> Bob AZ

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Well, on a couple of points:

1.) That Intel mobo is hardly up to speed. It appears it may have issues
with the latest Intel CPUs, so you may not have as many choices beyond the
5130 as I thought.

2.) There's a nice Asus mobo that takes 2 Xeons (including 52xx and 54xx)
and 6 FBDIMMs - that will get you to 12 GB with 2 GB FBDIMMs, and by the
time you need more, you'll find 4 GB are down in price. It has PCIe Mod2

3.) there are others that are out there, that was just one off the top of my
head. There are LOTS of mobos that handle 8 (or more) slots and dual procs.
Both Intel and AMD procs. The key is video support. You don't want one that
doesn't have decent video card bandwidth.

4.) Vista - for what you're doing, you'd be better off, IMO. There are
actually fewer problems than with XP x64, since drivers are catching up and
passing by a good margin.

5.) For printer speed, try moving to a network print server. Offloads the
whole thing and you can get on about your business.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Bob AZ" <rwatson767@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c3f9e277-569b-4c37-a438-d27763397395@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

>
> > Is all the above feasable?
>
> > Thanks for any assistance
> > Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Charlie

Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
like to do.

I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.

I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
lots of memory and more processing capability.

No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
me.

I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
processors according to Intel.

The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
name with me and I know little about others.

Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
Bob AZ

 

[Bob AZ]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB


> You also should tell, which software you use to work on your photographs.
> If it is a 32 bit SW , 8 GB wont help that much.
>
> jk

JK

I am using Firewire. I have also tried USB. I don't have parallel as
an option. Epson 4800 printer.

I am using Photoshop Elements. Older but the later versions simply
don't do much if any more. Since my busy time starts later this month
there is no way to upgrade software editing until next summer.

I believe the printer memory is fixed at 75 megat bytes. Will check
into that. Sometimes my files run way over that. I do have the
spooling enabled in my RIP but that is not really working well.

Thanks for the input.
Bob AZ

 

[Juergen Kluth]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Hi,
as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.

The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc itself.
that would avoid filling up the network with data.

if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph with
32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
number.
The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).

jk

 

[Bob AZ]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

On Aug 12, 6:25�am, JM Schroff <James_Schr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I am a Canon DSLR user, dual booting XP32 & XP64. There are issues with
> Canon's software under XP64, particularly EOS Utility not launching when
> the USB connection is made. As they (Canon) states, their installer is
> not supported under XP64, requiring you to be creative to get the
> requisite applications installed at all. Outside the connection issue,
> they function well under XP64, but I do not see any performance gains on
> my system with any of Canon's software, unlike Lightroom & Photoshop.
>
> They (Canon) do support Vista 64, but I do not know if it installs them
> as X86 or native 64-bit applications.
>

>
> > Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
> > Bob �AZ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

JM

I have not used any of the Canon utilities since for the most part
everything has gone well. I am not sure how to handle dual booting
either. I will be putting WIN XP 64 bit on the new computer.

Another brought up the subject of video cards and I will be checking
that tomorrow. What they say does make sense. Also two friends that I
spoke with today mentioned video cards. I have been pleased with the
display video so did not think of it. I can get a good video card
locally so should I need a new one it is no problem. I don't want to
change editiors but will if I have to.

Thanks for the reply
Bob AZ

 

[Bob AZ]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

On Aug 12, 12:43�pm, "Juergen Kluth" <jkluth-newsko...@dokom.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
> SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
>
> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc itself.
> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
>
> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph with
> 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
> number.
> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
>
> jk

JK

The printer is directly connected to the computer. There is no
connection from my present photography computer to the internet. or to
a network.

My Canon SLR is 12 MPixel. And the files are more than 12MB so I will
be checking the Video Card memory. Most of my pictures are under
impossible lighting conditions so I have to edit more than I like.
Should I have a picture come up that needs nothing I think there s
something wrong and double check things. It happens but rarely.

Thanks for the reply. More later.
Bob AZ

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Putting the printer on your network with a print server would offload some
of the problems, I suspect.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Bob AZ" <rwatson767@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d362fd8-4fdb-4c88-8d26-49cdb6f1910d@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 12:43�pm, "Juergen Kluth" <jkluth-newsko...@dokom.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
> SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
>
> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
> itself.
> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
>
> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
> with
> 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
> number.
> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
>
> jk

JK

The printer is directly connected to the computer. There is no
connection from my present photography computer to the internet. or to
a network.

My Canon SLR is 12 MPixel. And the files are more than 12MB so I will
be checking the Video Card memory. Most of my pictures are under
impossible lighting conditions so I have to edit more than I like.
Should I have a picture come up that needs nothing I think there s
something wrong and double check things. It happens but rarely.

Thanks for the reply. More later.
Bob AZ

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will actually
see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the way the WOW64
layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4 GB virtual memory
address space. So applications that can use the additional memory will
actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the /3GB startup switch, but
it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do anything, nor does it have any
downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Juergen Kluth" <jkluth-newskonto@dokom.net> wrote in message
news:OKXMePL$IHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32 bit
> SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
>
> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
> itself.
> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
>
> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
> number.
> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
>
> jk
>

 

[R. C. White]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Hi, Charlie - and Bob.

Photoshop Elements 6.0 installed itself in Program Files (x86) on my Vista
Ultimate x64 and there is not even a subfolder for Adobe or for PSE in
(64-bit) Program Files. I assume that means that it is a 32-bit only
application.

During the Vista beta, I struggled with installing PSE 4.0 in each build,
with results that gradually got better with later Vista builds. By Vista
RTM, PSE 4.0 was loading and behaving acceptably. So then I got PSE 6.0.
It installed easily on the RTM version of Ultimate x64 and has been running
fine for over a year. I seldom run Vista x86 or any version of WinXP
anymore, although I have installed them and dual-boot into them now and
then, but I don't think I've installed PSE on any of them in a long time.

My new (in 12/06) mobo got 2 GB of PC6400 to start; I added another 2 GB but
had to remove one stick because it apparently failed, so I've been running
with 3 GB for a month or so. I've become a shutterbug since getting a
digital camera a few years ago, but I'm far from a photo pro so few of my
10,000 pix are over 3 MB each, 8 MB max. As I understand it, this uses a
lot of disk space but not much RAM.

So far as I know, there is not yet a 64-bit version of PSE.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:OspICeV$IHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
> recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will actually
> see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the way the
> WOW64 layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4 GB virtual
> memory address space. So applications that can use the additional memory
> will actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the /3GB startup switch,
> but it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do anything, nor does it have
> any downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Juergen Kluth" <jkluth-newskonto@dokom.net> wrote in message
> news:OKXMePL$IHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32
>> bit SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
>> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
>>
>> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
>> itself.
>> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
>>
>> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
>> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
>> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
>> number.
>> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
>> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
>>
>> jk

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

This has nothing whatsoever to do with a 64-bit version. We're _strictly_
talking about 32-bit versions.

There is a choice that a developer makes when they compile a 32-bit
application. That choice is whether to be aware of memory address spaces
beyond 2gb, or not. (notice I did NOT say RAM.) If the program is compiled
to be aware of them, then they will automatically see a flat memory address
space of 4 GB when running on 64-bit windows. 64-bit Windows has a subsystem
called "WOW64" (Windows on Windows 64) that runs 32-bit applications. Each
32-bit application is assigned 4 GB of memory address space. If it knows how
to use it, it will. If not, it will run with a 2 GB memory address space.

As for where any program would install itself - yes, certainly it's in
Program Files (x86) - it's a 32-bit app. That's fine.

I've written several whitepapers on this stuff around the time XP x64 and
Server 2k3 x64 released. They're still up on the MS site. Take a look for a
longer and more detailed discussion.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:OjObanh$IHA.792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Charlie - and Bob.
>
> Photoshop Elements 6.0 installed itself in Program Files (x86) on my Vista
> Ultimate x64 and there is not even a subfolder for Adobe or for PSE in
> (64-bit) Program Files. I assume that means that it is a 32-bit only
> application.
>
> During the Vista beta, I struggled with installing PSE 4.0 in each build,
> with results that gradually got better with later Vista builds. By Vista
> RTM, PSE 4.0 was loading and behaving acceptably. So then I got PSE 6.0.
> It installed easily on the RTM version of Ultimate x64 and has been
> running fine for over a year. I seldom run Vista x86 or any version of
> WinXP anymore, although I have installed them and dual-boot into them now
> and then, but I don't think I've installed PSE on any of them in a long
> time.
>
> My new (in 12/06) mobo got 2 GB of PC6400 to start; I added another 2 GB
> but had to remove one stick because it apparently failed, so I've been
> running with 3 GB for a month or so. I've become a shutterbug since
> getting a digital camera a few years ago, but I'm far from a photo pro so
> few of my 10,000 pix are over 3 MB each, 8 MB max. As I understand it,
> this uses a lot of disk space but not much RAM.
>
> So far as I know, there is not yet a 64-bit version of PSE.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:OspICeV$IHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
>> recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will
>> actually see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the
>> way the WOW64 layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4
>> GB virtual memory address space. So applications that can use the
>> additional memory will actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the
>> /3GB startup switch, but it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do
>> anything, nor does it have any downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Juergen Kluth" <jkluth-newskonto@dokom.net> wrote in message
>> news:OKXMePL$IHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32
>>> bit SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
>>> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
>>>
>>> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
>>> itself.
>>> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
>>>
>>> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
>>> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
>>> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
>>> number.
>>> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
>>> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
>>>
>>> jk
>

 

[R. C. White]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

Hi, Charlie.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:#aL4Wui$IHA.5192@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with a 64-bit version. We're _strictly_
> talking about 32-bit versions.
>
> There is a choice that a developer makes when they compile a 32-bit
> application. That choice is whether to be aware of memory address spaces
> beyond 2gb, or not. (notice I did NOT say RAM.) If the program is compiled
> to be aware of them, then they will automatically see a flat memory
> address space of 4 GB when running on 64-bit windows. 64-bit Windows has a
> subsystem called "WOW64" (Windows on Windows 64) that runs 32-bit
> applications. Each 32-bit application is assigned 4 GB of memory address
> space. If it knows how to use it, it will. If not, it will run with a 2 GB
> memory address space.
>
> As for where any program would install itself - yes, certainly it's in
> Program Files (x86) - it's a 32-bit app. That's fine.
>
> I've written several whitepapers on this stuff around the time XP x64 and
> Server 2k3 x64 released. They're still up on the MS site. Take a look for
> a longer and more detailed discussion.
>
> --
> Charlie.
>
>
> "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
> news:OjObanh$IHA.792@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi, Charlie - and Bob.
>>
>> Photoshop Elements 6.0 installed itself in Program Files (x86) on my
>> Vista Ultimate x64 and there is not even a subfolder for Adobe or for PSE
>> in (64-bit) Program Files. I assume that means that it is a 32-bit only
>> application.
>>
>> During the Vista beta, I struggled with installing PSE 4.0 in each build,
>> with results that gradually got better with later Vista builds. By Vista
>> RTM, PSE 4.0 was loading and behaving acceptably. So then I got PSE 6.0.
>> It installed easily on the RTM version of Ultimate x64 and has been
>> running fine for over a year. I seldom run Vista x86 or any version of
>> WinXP anymore, although I have installed them and dual-boot into them now
>> and then, but I don't think I've installed PSE on any of them in a long
>> time.
>>
>> My new (in 12/06) mobo got 2 GB of PC6400 to start; I added another 2 GB
>> but had to remove one stick because it apparently failed, so I've been
>> running with 3 GB for a month or so. I've become a shutterbug since
>> getting a digital camera a few years ago, but I'm far from a photo pro so
>> few of my 10,000 pix are over 3 MB each, 8 MB max. As I understand it,
>> this uses a lot of disk space but not much RAM.
>>
>> So far as I know, there is not yet a 64-bit version of PSE.
>>
>> RC
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:OspICeV$IHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> IF photoshop is compiled with the LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag, and my
>>> recollection is that it is, then in 64-bit XP (or Vista), it will
>>> actually see more than 2GB - it will see 4 GB of memory. Because of the
>>> way the WOW64 layer works, there is no reservation for the OS in that 4
>>> GB virtual memory address space. So applications that can use the
>>> additional memory will actually see it. (This is the equivalent of the
>>> /3GB startup switch, but it's 4 GB and it doesn't require you to do
>>> anything, nor does it have any downside, unlike /3GB on 32-bit Windows.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>>
>>> "Juergen Kluth" <jkluth-newskonto@dokom.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OKXMePL$IHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi,
>>>> as on Photoshop requirements (pentium like processor) i think it is 32
>>>> bit SW, so even on x64 you have the same limitation for
>>>> the 2 Gig Memory the SW itself can use.
>>>>
>>>> The printer , i would prefer, should be connected to the working pc
>>>> itself.
>>>> that would avoid filling up the network with data.
>>>>
>>>> if you have a really up to date SLR with 12 Mpixel or so, a photograph
>>>> with 32 bit colors makes up for 50 MB of size.
>>>> You should have a grapficscard in your machine with memory above that
>>>> number.
>>>> The multiplication of it (say 512 MB graphicsmemory) can hold the same
>>>> amount of photographs in its ram while scrolling (here 10).
>>>>
>>>> jk

 

[PJB]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB


I do photography with XPx64 and Vista Ult 64bit PC's.
But before I updated my hardware 2 years ago I chose a board that was the
latest at the time. I purchased 2 x Tyan 2895 server boards and put 4 x Dual
core Opteron processors with 2 lots of 16Gb of memory. I installed nVidia
8900 video cards in each and 2 x 1000w P/Supplies and checked the
manufactures websites for XP 64bit drivers before I purchased. I have never
had any problems since except 1 blown power supply a month ago.

I use the Epson 4800 and 7800 printers but only via USB. Networks are too
slow for printing large images (250megs+) over a network. Firewire is
useless with these printers and well documented.

Rips, well I won't even go into those waste of time programs. The 800 series
printers are so good you can use Qimage and are better off. Download a free
trial copy and buy it for $89 (studio edition). Photoshop Elements uses too
old a print engine to be of use anymore. It's fine for colour work but
Lightroom has now taken away alot of what we do in Photoshop. No 64 bit with
Photoshop until CS4 later this year.

Canon DSLR software not good with 64bit , ????? works OK for me but I use
Capture One and writeout .tif files only, or just plug my camera memory card
into my PC and copy to my HDD in 2 separate places for backup. Qimage works
straight in Raw as does Lightroom.
Next you'll need colour profiling equipt to creat monitor and printer icc
profiles. If not your flying blind with colour. The manufactures profiles
are OK but they are down on your equipt and equipt ages.

Now have a look around and check drivers first, get the lastest boards,
processor/s first with 64 bit drivers confirmed. Memory can be bought
anytime and is cheap. You'll need at least 3 HDD of 500Gb + DVD and card
reader. Then you'll need 2 x excellent monitors so you can spread out your
desktop. All my machines have 2 monitors. Could'nt work without them.

If done properly you will not be disappointed. Photographers are very
critical and will only accept the best and so should you.

One last thing. Put up silver window blinds and change all your lights to
5000 kelvin and don't do any colour work until your equipt and lights has
been turned on for 1 hour and everything profiled. Then WYSIWYG. I
guarantee. Well you should.

Peter Banks
New Zealand


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:%23QBEm1I$IHA.4380@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Well, on a couple of points:
>
> 1.) That Intel mobo is hardly up to speed. It appears it may have issues
> with the latest Intel CPUs, so you may not have as many choices beyond the
> 5130 as I thought.
>
> 2.) There's a nice Asus mobo that takes 2 Xeons (including 52xx and 54xx)
> and 6 FBDIMMs - that will get you to 12 GB with 2 GB FBDIMMs, and by the
> time you need more, you'll find 4 GB are down in price. It has PCIe Mod2
>
> 3.) there are others that are out there, that was just one off the top of
> my head. There are LOTS of mobos that handle 8 (or more) slots and dual
> procs. Both Intel and AMD procs. The key is video support. You don't want
> one that doesn't have decent video card bandwidth.
>
> 4.) Vista - for what you're doing, you'd be better off, IMO. There are
> actually fewer problems than with XP x64, since drivers are catching up
> and passing by a good margin.
>
> 5.) For printer speed, try moving to a network print server. Offloads the
> whole thing and you can get on about your business.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Bob AZ" <rwatson767@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:c3f9e277-569b-4c37-a438-d27763397395@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> > Is all the above feasable?
>>
>> > Thanks for any assistance
>> > Bob ?AZ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Charlie
>
> Glad someone who appears to know something about what I think I would
> like to do.
>
> I did want 8 memory slots and also want to stay away from DIMMS that
> are not easily replaced. I can get 1GB and 2GB locally. The price for
> 4GB is stiff and I am not sure there are any locally. I also wanted
> Intel for probably the name. Hopefully the quality also. Also Intel
> has lots of support and documentation that is easily available.
>
> I do digital still photography with Canons. No interest in any other
> media forms such as video etc. I upload from the DSLR and print to my
> Epson 4800. Everything works fine except the rendering to the printer
> is slow. And my picture files are too large for many other options. So
> lots of memory and more processing capability.
>
> No Vista yet. Too many problems that I don't have the inclination to
> address right now. Maybe next summer. Besides everything is XP for
> me.
>
> I will look at other processors. I just picked the 5130 for the price
> from Newegg. I really don't know enough about processors to make a
> real informed decision. This is why I picked this newsgroup to get
> input. With the Intel S5000 series boards I do have to do Xenon
> processors according to Intel.
>
> The S5000 series boards are the only boards I know about that are 8
> memory slots and handle multiple processors. Again Intel is a good
> name with me and I know little about others.
>
> Thanks for the input. More research tomorrow.
> Bob AZ

 

[Bob AZ]

Re: XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

On Aug 17, 2:35�am, "PJB" <pe...@byweb.co.nz> wrote:
> I do photography with XPx64 and Vista Ult 64bit PC's.
Peter

Your reply suggests that you use two PCs. One with XP and another with
Vista. I can barely manage one at a time so will stay with one. I did
like/want to use Intel for the quality and name. Support for both the
board and processor on the same site is an advantage in my opinion.
There online support and documentation is very good. Almost too much
for the average user like me.

I did not think about the PSE engine thing for my 4800 printer. I did
try PSE 5 but it was blah. Pales against PSE 2. I have started
printing seriously again for the next few months so will not be able
to change editors for a while. Probably at least 8 or more months. Too
many irons in the fire during the school year. A school that I do work
for suggested changng to Lightroom or CS3. I will look at these as
time permits. I have never felt the need for PhotoShop. Too much
program for my photography activities.

Wish I had room for something larger than the Epson 4800.

I have the ColorBurst RIP 7.6 Layout series. Expensive but it does
have lots of capabilities that I have not found in any other places.
Multiple different images, sizes and orientations. Nice long prints
like 16 X 40. The documentation and user instructions are not what
others are but I have learned enough to do it OK. The brightness of
the prints was different at first but I found out how to match things.
And after I get a big job all set up to go I can walk away fronm the
printer and the RIP prints it all out with ease. Maybe 50 prints at a
time. Roll or sheet. Somethimes I deliver a job with maybe 20 8X10s
all on one large piece of paper. Lots of folks like this.

I too noticed that FireWire was slow. Sometimes it simply did not work
at all. I dropped that the first week I had the 4800. USB ever
since.

One thing that I did not consider was the motherboard video
capabiities. Also the memory size of the Video Board. I will look at
both of these before I settle on a Motherboard. It seems that my
present Video Board is adequate at 256 MB but I can go to a 1GB with
no problem.

Thanks for you input. It is appreciated.

Bob AZ SA