XP 64 Bit Intel Server MB

[Guest 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

[Guest 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.

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

>

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

>

[Guest 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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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