A couple of suggestions:
1) Save the desktop machine for running apps where a desktop machine really
helps... like Photoshop
2) Consider a Chromebook (laptop equivalent) or Chromebox (lightweight
desktop) for uses not requiring "desktop" hardware, such as email, web
surfing and the like. Cheap, light, so far fully virus immune, and runs 8
hours+ on a charge.
3) If considering running Photoshop in WINE under Linux, consider instead
that Photoshop in a virtual machine (VM) under Linux is generally faster
and more stable than with WINE, as the VM can be "pure" Windows. Virtual
Box works well for the two programs I still use that I can't yet replace
with Linux software, and XP actually installs (and even more... updates)
faster than XP did running native on the same hardware. VMs also provide
the ability to tweak the number of processor cores in use and the amount of
memory allowed. Most modern machines can handle running this with ease,
just buy a bit of extra RAM over that required to run the base OS (if
running Virtual Box) or enough RAM to run both OS (if virtualizing an
entire machine, as with VMWare). Both Virtual Box and VMWare have free for
personal use versions.
>From personal experience, about the only time I run the Desktop machine any
more (AMD 8-core processor, 16GB RAM, three hard drives, 27" monitor,
currently on Fedora 23) is to handle photos: I've been using Digikam (photo
management, including excellent keywording; and light editing) and GIMP for
some time now and don't miss Photoshop at all. Workflow is different for
GIMP as compared to PS, but I've been able to do what I need. There are
quite a number of other very good photography software choices available.
All the rest of the time I'm using the Chromebook. Who really needs more
for email and web, and especially now that there are a number of
applications that run on it even if a network connection is not available.
As always, YMMV.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:15 PM David Thatcher <plusphoto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 04:29:37PM -0400, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> > I can see that it will take quite a bit of effort to sort out the CPU,
> > motherboard and memory thing but it appears that the top end i7 is about
> > $100 more than the top end i5 (neither of which has a fan or heatsink...
> > apparently to satisfy overclocking users who want their own custom
> > cooling solution).
>
> Since leaving my old employer and starting my own business I spend a lot
> more time at my desk. I have 2 desktops that run nearly all the time and
> the stock CPU coolers are horribly noisy (and people on the other end of
> the phone have commented!). My old machines are 'of retirement age', so
> I have built new ones, this time with add-on low noise CPU coolers (made
> by Noctua).
>
> davidt
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> --
---
Scott
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|