Ideal Computer?

G'day everyone,

I'd like to buy a laptop computer to process my raw images in the field, but Have a tight budget.

I am wondering what should I look for ...

I don't know if you heard about the EeePC 10'' Netbook

http://event.asus.com/eeepc/microsites/en/index.htm

What do u think about it ?

Characteristics

• Intel Atom CPU
  
• 1 GB Ram
  
• 80GB HDD
  
• Wireless 802.11/b/g/n
  
• 4.5 hours battery Life
  
• XP home
  

And another question:

I also have a choice to buy a second-hand laptop with the following characteristics

TOSHIBA TE2000

Intel Pentium III 1.2GHz Processor

1GB Memory

30GB Hard Drive

14.1" Active TFT LCD Colour Screen (XGA (1024 x 768)

Video out jack PAL or NTSC

DVD ROM

Integrated 10/100 Network Card

Wi Fi Module

Integrated 56K Modem

2x USB Ports

COM 1 Port [standard Serial 9 Pin RS-232 etc]

irDA 1.1

What do u reckon ?

Cheers

Daniel

What worries me is the size of the screem, around 10''...

But if you say that it should be enough, I will probably consider to buy it as it is convenient for travelling...

Cheers

Daniel

I have an Asus EEE 900. Very similar to the 10 inch version.

It really depends on what you consider processing, really. For making a keep/delete decsision, they are great. However they do NOT have the 'power' to effectivly adjust or correct RAW files. I love it and will continue to take it on trips, because I can use it to transfer photos to a portable HD and then I can keep/dump images with it. But I'll continue to save the big processing for the big desktop machine at home.

I have an Asus EEE 900. Very similar to the 10 inch version.

 

It really depends on what you consider processing, really. For making a keep/delete decsision, they are great. However they do NOT have the 'power' to effectivly adjust or correct RAW files. I love it and will continue to take it on trips, because I can use it to transfer photos to a portable HD and then I can keep/dump images with it. But I'll continue to save the big processing for the big desktop machine at home.

I see, so how many RAM should I have at least... 3 GB RAM?

I see, so how many RAM should I have at least... 3 GB RAM?

Unless you have Vista 64, you should not buy/use more than 2 GB of Ram. Windows XP and Vista 32 bit operating systems cannot/do not address/use more than 2 GB or RAM. I would say that 2GB is more than enough. Maybe investing on an SSD Drive (uses chips instead of rotating plates) would bring a better performance enhancement.

My 2 cents.

Unless you have Vista 64, you should not buy/use more than 2 GB of Ram. Windows XP and Vista 32 bit operating systems cannot/do not address/use more than 2 GB or RAM. I would say that 2GB is more than enough. Maybe investing on an SSD Drive (uses chips instead of rotating plates) would bring a better performance enhancement.

 

My 2 cents.

Hmmm! 2**32 -1 = 4 GB. (Two to 32nd power minus 1). A 32 bit OS can and does address 4 GB. I find that 2 GB of RAM is sufficient for both XP & Vista Home Premium running CS2 and Lightroom. The more RAM the merrier, but a fast, dual CPU is important. Just my 32 bits = $ 4.00.

Regards,

Bob

When it first came out I went to the Apple store to check out the Mac Air. Then drove down the street to check out the Sony factory store and their 11" laptop.

No comparison. The Mac Air was better equipped, virtually as light and had a 13" screen. Did I add that it was cheaper.

I've since compared a number of these mini laptops. The Air is so light and has a much larger display than any 10 or 11" laptop.

No one would claim it is a powerful as a full size top end laptop. It does look like the best option for travel. I intend to get one before I go to Cocos.

You can slip it inside a manila folder as shown in Apple's add. I went down to the Apple store and tried it. Lady at the store laughed. Said someone does that about once a day.

That's an exageration. 32 bit Windows is limited to 4GB, and due to hardware / bios mapping issues the maximum usable memory is usually 3.25 - 3.5 GB.

Many systems are now sold with 64bit Windows by default, and removing these limitations. HP is going 100% 64bit this year.

Unless you have Vista 64, you should not buy/use more than 2 GB of Ram. Windows XP and Vista 32 bit operating systems cannot/do not address/use more than 2 GB or RAM. I would say that 2GB is more than enough. Maybe investing on an SSD Drive (uses chips instead of rotating plates) would bring a better performance enhancement.

 

My 2 cents.

Go check out a Dell 1330! $1100 for a 4GB, 160gb HD, 2ghz dual core CPU, 13" LED screen, < 4lbs. Excellent system & highly rated for $700 less than the base model MacBook Air which has half the disk, half the ram, and a much slower CPU. (Apparently the Air is maxed out at 2GB with NO upgrade option available.)

When it first came out I went to the Apple store to check out the Mac Air. Then drove down the street to check out the Sony factory store and their 11" laptop.

 

No comparison. The Mac Air was better equipped, virtually as light and had a 13" screen. Did I add that it was cheaper.

 

I've since compared a number of these mini laptops. The Air is so light and has a much larger display than any 10 or 11" laptop.

 

No one would claim it is a powerful as a full size top end laptop. It does look like the best option for travel. I intend to get one before I go to Cocos.

 

You can slip it inside a manila folder as shown in Apple's add. I went down to the Apple store and tried it. Lady at the store laughed. Said someone does that about once a day.

Hmmm! 2**32 -1 = 4 GB. (Two to 32nd power minus 1). A 32 bit OS can and does address 4 GB. I find that 2 GB of RAM is sufficient for both XP & Vista Home Premium running CS2 and Lightroom. The more RAM the merrier, but a fast, dual CPU is important. Just my 32 bits = $ 4.00.

 

Regards,

Bob

Not quite, technically speaking. Most/all 32bit operating systems use signed longs for pointers and the maximum value for such a pointer is 2^(32-1) or 2^31 which is equivalent to 2GB. The registers are 32 bit and AFAIK most kernels use unsigned long's internally, so the maximum memory available to the OS is 2^32 or 4GB. Over the years, many work arounds have been developed and some 32bit versions of windows (Enterprise server) are able to address as much as 64GB using PAE. Windows XP introduced the 3GB switch which allows a single process to address up to 3GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and 4GT, but such workarounds often impose penalties. There are many nuances that affect just how much memory is available and how much can be addressed to a process, but as a general rule it's 2GB/process and 4GB for the OS.

However, memory fragmentation and OS requirements will significantly reduce the amount of RAM available to any one process so there are good reason for having 4GB ram even if no one process can access more than 2GB. K, enough techo babble.

Not quite, technically speaking. Most/all 32bit operating systems use signed longs for pointers and the maximum value for such a pointer is 2^(32-1) or 2^31 which is equivalent to 2GB.

That's a good one. Name an OS that uses signed integers as pointers. Poorly written applications may make that mistake but kernel programmers aren't so stupid.

If fact, this is all BS. 32 bit Windows has a 2GB virtual memory space limit. This is because it reserves 2GB for the kernel so that processes can access their own and kernel memory at the same time. 32 bit Windows has a physical memory limit of 4GB, though memory mapped IO will make some of that memory unusable. That memory limitation is part of the 32 bit PCI architecture for x86 and all operating systems suffer from it.

The 2GB virtual memory limitation effects few programs adversely yet the having the kernel share the address space makes kernel calls more efficient. That means that 32 bit Windows is faster than other platforms (which it is).

Ask Microsoft about it. Here is a good place to start.

The MBA has an awful hard drive. It's a machine for those who have little to do but need to be seen doing it. You almost have to add an external, powered USB hub to make it work for photography. Once you do, there goes the portability advantage. A Macbook will slip into that manilla envelope as well if the truth were told.

Op's. Yup my bad. Speaking out of my butt again. I was just searching and it if I understand correctly it's the call to malloc that controls the maximum size of a variable and that is OS dependant, is that correct? K... way off topic. I'll shut up now.

Op's. Yup my bad. Speaking out of my butt again. I was just searching and it if I understand correctly it's the call to malloc that controls the maximum size of a variable and that is OS dependant, is that correct? K... way off topic. I'll shut up now.

Oh, gee. are we all friends now? I borrowed a lenovo LT with a 160 GB solid state HD for a workshop in Banff; fast, light, and sweeeeet. I think it retails for about $2k. My friend may have to hunt me down to get it back.

Oh, gee. are we all friends now? I borrowed a lenovo LT with a 160 GB solid state HD for a workshop in Banff; fast, light, and sweeeeet. I think it retails for about $2k. My friend may have to hunt me down to get it back.

I have the Lenovo X300 (with a mere 64GB solid state HD) and it's awesome. It weighs 3Lbs, 4GB ram, 13" screen (higher resolution than the Air), great battery, lots of USB ports (unlike the Air) and very fast. It has been working very well for my Photo processing work on the road, mostly Nikon Capture NX. I run Vista 64 on it, so none of these crazy 32 bit limitations apply.

They also run about $2000 now, and there is a new and improved X301 model just now becoming available.

I have the Lenovo X300 (with a mere 64GB solid state HD) and it's awesome. It weighs 3Lbs, 4GB ram, 13" screen (higher resolution than the Air), great battery, lots of USB ports (unlike the Air) and very fast. It has been working very well for my Photo processing work on the road, mostly Nikon Capture NX. I run Vista 64 on it, so none of these crazy 32 bit limitations apply.

 

They also run about $2000 now, and there is a new and improved X301 model just now becoming available.

OBTW, I did not mention that the SS HD does not generate as much heat - no stewed oysters if you know what I mean.

OBTW, I did not mention that the SS HD does not generate as much heat - no stewed oysters if you know what I mean.

Yep. The Lenovo X300 runs quite cool even at full load. No steamed oysters so far!

Testing shows that current SSDs don't consume power much differently than notebook HDs. Whether or not a notebook gets too hot for the lap has little to do with the hard drive installed in it.

Final benchmarks are up for my dual OCZ Core Series v2 SATA II 120GB RAID. Craig, I know that you hate benchmarks, but I'm not sure how else to do a test -- especially given limited time.

http://echeng.com/journal/2008/09/28/strip...-a-macbook-pro/

By the way, here's my favorite Lenovo ad. It crushes the MacBook Air.

I also like this SSD vs normal HD video. Although, it doesn't show the external drives you have to attach to the SSD machine to store all your music, photos, and video.