Thanks, Scott. I'll have to study the Linux part. But I can already
reject the Chromebook. I considered it long ago, in particular for
being my banking and investments machine. But I decided that I wanted
nothing to do with sending all of my printed output through the Google
cloud. Instead, I took the old Dell Win XP laptop, converted it to Win
7 and the only websites that machine knows about are Microsoft update, 2
banks and 2 investment houses. Cost was a copy of Win 7 and I can print
as normal across my network and consider it reasonably secure given it's
very limited usage.
As to using Chromebooks or laptop size machines for everything other
than photos that won't fly in this house as we're both addicted to our
24" screens and our computer desk spaces are already spoken for by the
desktops that use those screens, keyboards and mice. We do have a Win 7
laptop that is only used for travel but its screen is bigger than a
Chromebook. But I'll have to think about that some more. We are
sometimes in competition for the laptop when we travel. Maybe a couple
of Chromebooks would work better unless a Chromebook can't use a mouse.
Neither of us can make do with track pads and likely never will.
But I will think much more on the Linux solution with Photoshop under a VM.
Chuck Norcutt
On 7/31/2016 6:55 PM, Scott Gomez wrote:
P.S. I print easily, including using Google Cloud Print, from all my
devices (Android phone, chromebook and desktop). Updates on Linux are
usually fast, no restart necessary operations. And separating the "Home"
partition in Linux from the rest of the OS partitions means I can do full
upgrades without affecting personal files (but I'm not dumb, or trusting,
enough to do them without making sure I've got a good backup, just in
case). Most mainstream Linux distributions now install more easily than
Windows used to, IMO.
About the only drawback I've run into is that Virtual Box updates sometimes
lag kernel updates by a couple of days, meaning I sometimes have to wait to
be able to run Windows again if my timing is poor. That's nothing that I
can't live with.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:47 PM Scott Gomez <sgomez.baja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/
|