New PC for my mum. Q6600 for photoshop?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
yah need to put you OS and apps on a drive outside the RAID array . . .
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means? Why would you have to put anything outside the array. Possibly WiseCracker means you should set the OS up on its own partition but other than that I would disregard that post.
 
it means that a single error can take down the entire array. it is safer to put apps and the os on a separate hard drive not part of the array so that when an error occurs. you do not need reinstall everything. imo i set up my friend with 3 drives. a raptor 36 gig as the main os hard drive. and two 400 gigs in raid 0 that held the apps and files. this way he was protected from reinstalling the os while maintaining the balance of speed that raid 0 affords. the fact of the matter is that the more writes made to a hard drive the likelier chance of a failure.
 
OK, I understand now. Personally I run two 80GB HDDs in RAID0 with the OS on a 10GB Partition and the programs and utilites on the rest of the array. All saves are to a separate 250GB HDD. As back up I have a 320GB HDD in an external. This way I have the speed of RAID 0 and the data saved to a standalone drive. If I need to reload windows and therefore all the apps I simply unplug the third drive, install everything and then pug the third drive in and set the saves to the third drive.
 
Thanks for the advice but I don't understand. What is the problem with setting up the array in the BIOS then installing OS, Apps and everything? I appreciate that there will be a slow 'scratch area' but I don't think that will matter considering the 4GB of ram.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means? Why would you have to put anything outside the array. Possibly WiseCracker means you should set the OS up on its own partition but other than that I would disregard that post.
Click to expand...

See brick88's post - By utilizing a dedicated internal OS drive, independent HD transfer rates will improve efficiency, speed, and reliability - plus ...

In Windows 4Gb of RAM is initially divided as 2GB for user space and 2GB for system space. It is my understanding that V does a much better job of management as compared to XP but herein lies part of your problem.

You will have your OS, apps, scratch & VM all on the same drive. Even on a separate partition you won't speed up performance. In fact, performing some operations may even take longer because the read/write heads will have to travel farther.

It is my understanding that *Superfetch* does a better job than *Prefetch* BUT WinV has a paging file option whereby the SuperFetch retrieval operation will take advantage of large capacity USB 2.0 flash drives for swaps - not as fast as physical memory, but much faster than a hard disk.

Optimally I think the ultimate I/O read/write goal on Windows would be 1 single drive for OS/apps with your paging file on a separate drive. Then, of course, as many separate scratch disks as your work demands.

Yippeee!
 
The last time I set my raid-array as a bootable drive, I had to set up the array in BIOS first before installing the OS. It's much easier to just get a smaller capacity hard drive and dedicate it to your OS, then set up different sets of drives in raid array to store the rest of your data.
 
I've been running Vista Ultimate for abour 4 months and LOVE it.

Of course you will have a few little devils in the software, but I've found workarounds and updated my programs

If you use Vista, do a little research before hand and download your drivers and update your programs first.

This would have saved me LOTS of headaches when my wireless card would not work at first.... hard to download drivers w/o internet connection....


Anyways, Vista has been WAAAY better stability wise than XP Pro ever was for me.
 
Sorry, I'm not replying to you, just hit the nearest button.

Thanks for the comments about seperate scratch file and so on.

For those who said about 'one error and the array goes down', this is going to be a RAID 1 (mirror) array so that in the unlikely event that my mum does not backup and one disc crashes, we still have all the data. I would not consider putting a RAID 0 array in someone elses PC, they would blame me!

We have a 320GB Seagate 7200.10 in the old PC as the data drive. I'll recommend to my mum that she uses it as the system drive. Assuming she takes that advice, would we be better putting the page file on the 320 system drive or the RAID 1 array considering they are both using 7200.10 discs?

No, my mum is not a gamer unless you include Free Cell.
 
umm the paging file should be located on a drive separate from the os. i wouldnt suggest on a raid 1 array however because of the nature of software raid. im assuming that you do not have a dedicated raid card so your raid will be performed through a software layer. it will be using processes on your main processor and will negate any performance gained from a separate page file location because of the mirroring.
 
4 gigs and a 32 bit os?
you know with 32 bits you only see a max of 3 gigs right?
It doesn't make sense to get vista 32 since you're most likely going to need more ram (considering vista can be a resource hog).
 
yeah i also suggest vista x64. otherwise you will be limited by the memory problem inherent in 32 bit.
Click to expand...

You know that Photoshop and all the other apps the OP mentioned are 32-bit only, right? A 64-bit OS won't change the fact those apps can only use 2 gig of ram.

Also.. it's for your mom. I assume since she's not the one posting she's not a computer guru. The Vista vs. XP argument really comes down to - how much tech support does the OP want to do? XP is known to be mostly stable on all machines. Vista is unknown - it might work, it might not. But when you're giving a PC to someone who isn't a computer expert... forget massive overclocking and cutting-edge stuff. They just want the damn thing to work! Go XP.
 
yeah i also suggest vista x64. otherwise you will be limited by the memory problem inherent in 32 bit.
Click to expand...

You know that Photoshop and all the other apps the OP mentioned are 32-bit only, right? A 64-bit OS won't change the fact those apps can only use 2 gig of ram.

Also.. it's for your mom. I assume since she's not the one posting she's not a computer guru. The Vista vs. XP argument really comes down to - how much tech support does the OP want to do? XP is known to be mostly stable on all machines. Vista is unknown - it might work, it might not. But when you're giving a PC to someone who isn't a computer expert... forget massive overclocking and cutting-edge stuff. They just want the damn thing to work! Go XP.

Here is a link explaining ram usage in Photoshop CS2. http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/04/photoshop-cs2-how-much-ram-fact/

Vista is largely stable for me and realize that although it is for his mom, he will be doing all the gruntwork. and although they do want the damn thing to work, they also want it to work as fast as possible. and also xp does not support 4+ gigs of ram (xp x64 is lacking in support and implementation). support for vista x64 is much better supported. and vista isnt exactly the minefield that you describe it as. there are many people on this forum using a combination of an e6600, gigabyte s3 and vista so it isnt such a hit or miss concept.
 
Just scanning down the page, I can't help notice you wanted to get another fan to keep the HDDs cool.

Google did some research a while back and discovered....warmer HDDs actually perform slightly better and fail less!

And its quieter :)

x64 rids you of alot of Virus's btw

can 32bit not use 4gb of RAM, I thought it could, as 2^32 divided by 1,000,000 is approximatley equal to 4.....
 
the problem is that there are also memory allotments to other things on the computer such as the graphics card. you end up with 3.2 gigs
 
i don't know what your talking about. ive installed oblivion, madden, rct3, bf2, sims 2, hl2, css, hl2 episode 1, dod, galciv2, c&c3, and san andreas. and the games that don't work i just set the compatibility to xp sp2 and it works fine. have you even tried using vista or are you just going with what people say?
 
yeah i also suggest vista x64. otherwise you will be limited by the memory problem inherent in 32 bit.
Click to expand...

You know that Photoshop and all the other apps the OP mentioned are 32-bit only, right? A 64-bit OS won't change the fact those apps can only use 2 gig of ram.

Also.. it's for your mom. I assume since she's not the one posting she's not a computer guru. The Vista vs. XP argument really comes down to - how much tech support does the OP want to do? XP is known to be mostly stable on all machines. Vista is unknown - it might work, it might not. But when you're giving a PC to someone who isn't a computer expert... forget massive overclocking and cutting-edge stuff. They just want the damn thing to work! Go XP.
an example of why people do some research other than just asking other people.
What i'm trying to say is that 4 gigs on a 32 bit xp or vista is only going to show up or be used as 3 gigs.
Gustafarian:
If you really want a 32 bit os (that will not be as 'future-proof') i suggest not gettin no more than 3 gigs (2X1 gig + 2 X 512MB, to keep dual channel.) again these are just suggestion just as "do some independent research" (reading, not asking people) is.
Not trying to be rude just a bit objective.
 
Glupee, I take what you mean about the 4GB on 32bit OS problem but we have already bought the RAM and Vista 32 so there is no going back. I can't even swap it with RAM from the old PC because it used DDR. Oh well.

Luckily I found another 120GB disk sitting around so I am going to put it in the new pc. So now we have:

320GB for OS and application
2x500GB in RAID1 for data project storage
120GB (this is only a Seagate 7200.9) for page file and PS scratch disk

What about that? Is it ok to put the page file and scratch on the same disk?

In XP I believe you could put the 'My Docs' on a different disk from the OS. Is this possible in Vista Home Premier and would you advise me to put it on the RAID?

JonIsGinger, I believe they do run better when slightly warmer but there are three reasons for placing the fan there:
1) I once cooked a disk
2) I am going to have 4 discs in close proximity so they would be too hot
3) I want to draw air in over the dust filter

Thanks again for all the great advice peeps!
 
First of all,a quad core is overkill for what your mom does.A good quality dual core processor will keep your mom going for at least a few more years.I would be more concerned about the video card as tomorrows graphice become more of a challenge.A good,solid dual core processor will do your mom fine for now.Just make sure the GPU is up to snuff.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2 5600+ @ 2.8ghz(stock)
M2N32-SLI DELUXE MB
2 GIGS DDR2 800 RAM
THERMALTAKE 850WATT PSU
7950GT KO(WAITING FOR MY OTHER TO COME BACK FROM RMA)
ACER 22IN. LCD
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
80GIG/250gig SATA2 HD's
XP MCE
 
dahak, its not a gaming pc. its a photoshop build. a video card won't help rendering times at all in the photoshop game. a q6600 is useful because photoshop, unlike many games, can take advantage of multiple cores.
 
Luckily I found another 120GB disk sitting around so I am going to put it in the new pc. So now we have:

320GB for OS and application
2x500GB in RAID1 for data project storage
120GB (this is only a Seagate 7200.9) for page file and PS scratch disk

What about that? Is it ok to put the page file and scratch on the same disk?

In XP I believe you could put the 'My Docs' on a different disk from the OS. Is this possible in Vista Home Premier and would you advise me to put it on the RAID?
Click to expand...

Yup. I'd create a *shortcut* on the desktop and 'target' at your 'hot file' folder / subdirectories on your RAID and save all your data there.

Tough call on the page file/scratch disk. I'd be tempted to put the scratch on the RAID thinkin' that there would be less 'thrashing' than if you put the page file there but I really don't know.

I'd also be tempted to use the 120 HD for the OS & apps and the SATA drives for as much as you can for everything else. It's also your smallest drive and yer os/apps probably won't amount to much.
 
how old is the hard drive. if its older than a couple yrs, i would keep your os and apps on the newer 320gb drive. reason being that the 120gb drive will probably be more apt to failure because of its advanced age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom