Yeah, I expected that to be the case. If I can get MS Office, and
transfer PSE 11, I think I can live with the things that won't run on
the new machine. I'll think about that.
I'm not sure how to interpret the specs on the current machines. I've
been looking at Dell refurbs. I would like to continue to use my
external eSATA hd for photos. I put a card in my present machine to
allow this. Would I have to still use the card, or do the built-in SATA
connections accomodate this? I can't tell.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 11/15/2013 7:10 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> But keep in mind that the switch is not without a few small bumps in the
> road... but much smaller than I had thought would be the case.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 11/15/2013 6:07 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jim Nichols
>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>
>> On 11/15/2013 5:03 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>> The real goal was 64-bit. I'll never go back to 32.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/15/2013 5:39 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>>>> Chuck, did you find a need for 64-bit Win 7, or go with 32-bit?
>>>>
>>>> Jim Nichols
>>>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2013 4:26 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>>> That's really why I finally upgraded to Win7. I bought a refurb'd HP
>>>>> Pavilion (p7-1233w) with AMD A8-5500 and 8GB RAM for $350. Not exactly
>>>>> top-of-the line stuff but it's much, much faster than my old Dell with
>>>>> dual core Intel processor, XP and 4GB RAM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/15/2013 1:08 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>>>>>> In my case, Chuck, I have more than Win XP can support. I hope that
>>>>>> Michael Dell will post some bargains, now that he has taken the company
>>>>>> private. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Nichols
>>>>>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/15/2013 8:10 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>>>>> How much real memory do you have and can you add more? Memory is pretty
>>>>>>> cheap these days and real memory size is often at the heart of
>>>>>>> performance problems. As the old saying goes, nothing improves virtual
>>>>>>> memory performance better than more real memory. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/14/2013 5:16 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>>>>>>>> I was a bit startled at the difference in loading and even processing
>>>>>>>> time between Nikon D3 (12.1mp) and the D800 (36mp). I vastly prefer
>>>>>>>> the D800 and its files, but I do spend a lot more time tapping my
>>>>>>>> foot these days. Unfortunately, and new computer is not in the cards
>>>>>>>> for a while. If ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Bob Whitmire Certified Neanderthal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you considered how you will process those humongous files?
>>>>>>>>> When I first opened an X-E1 RAW file, using my elderly PC running
>>>>>>>>> XP, I couldn't believe how long it took the computer to load the
>>>>>>>>> file. And that is only 16mp. I suspect my next purchase will be a
>>>>>>>>> new computer, not camera. :-(
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|