RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them and
using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you describe.
I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve
conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no
operating system related problems.  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought
I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows
98.  In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those
in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98.  I think Microsoft's
suggested
workarounds on MSDN are hilarious.  I wish I could move to Win2K, but I
am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have
will not work in that environment.  So here's the warning in case you plan
to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer:

>The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
maximum
>cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts.
>Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache
>of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if
needed.
>These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from
0xC000
>through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
>
>On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large
>enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena,
leaving
>no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening
>an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
>
>WORKAROUND
>To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:
>
>Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
>amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
>
>For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click
>the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
Base:
>
>Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
>Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that
Windows
>uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.
>
>For additional information about how to use the System Configuration
utility,
>click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
Knowledge
>Base:
>Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings

>
>Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
>or less.


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing
sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block
every other process.

File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem.

It may come and bite you anytime so unless your feeling really lucky you may
wish to look at my post just above this one.

Steve
- Original Message -
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them
and
> using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you
describe.
> I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve
> conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no
> operating system related problems.  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought
> I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows
> 98.  In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those
> in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98.  I think Microsoft's
> suggested
> workarounds on MSDN are hilarious.  I wish I could move to Win2K, but I
> am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have
> will not work in that environment.  So here's the warning in case you plan
> to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer:
>
> >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
> maximum
> >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows
starts.
> >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a
cache
> >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if
> needed.
> >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from
> 0xC000
> >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
> >
> >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be
large
> >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena,
> leaving
> >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening
> >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
> >
> >WORKAROUND
> >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:
> >
> >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
> >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting,
click
> >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
> Base:
> >
> >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
> >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that
> Windows
> >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration
> utility,
> >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
> Knowledge
> >Base:
> >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings
>
> >
> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Lynn Allen]

Rob wrote:

>If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I
>would already be running Win2K.


>From what I've read here and in various computer mags, maybe you should wait 
for the next "New and Improved" Windows version, if only for saving the cost 
of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows "X" glowing 
reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep the 
free stuff flowing.

Maybe I'm a repressed Ludite, but I think I'll stick to Win98 until it's 
really, *really* obsolete. ;-)

Best regards--LRA



_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows "X" glowing
> reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep
the
> free stuff flowing.

XP aka Whistler looks OK, but Win2K is here and now and stable.

Rob

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Tony Sleep]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500  LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

>  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)

Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what 
I have been told to expect.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info 
& comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Tony Sleep]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:11:40 +1000  =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?= 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.

Daft though this sounds, AIUI there really isn't any point to trying to use 
>512Mb RAM in a W98 machine. It just causes problems.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info 
& comparisons

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Laurie Solomon]

I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one
determines if it is being used or not.  I noticed in both systems that since
the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that
the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.  Since all my
heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use either the
swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult to determing
when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM.
Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500  LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:

>  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)

Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what
I have been told to expect.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

Two of the suggestions amount to not installing your new memory - pretty
dumb suggestions.

So I'd definitely use:

"Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less."

Further I would suggest the bigger the file cache becomes the less efficient
it becomes and in single user workstation environment it is likely to just
hog lots of memory for little benefit. In your position I'd set it to about
2x your largest scan size (about 60Mb LS-30) + about 20Mb extra =  140MB.
This will leave a minimum 600Mb for your applications.

So convert to Kb 140 x 1024 = 143360 and add immediately under the line
"[vcache]" in system.ini

MaxFileCache=143360

You may like to try a little smaller or larger cache size to see if it is
any better. The thing to consider is how you work. If you regularly re-open
multiple files you have just closed then you may do better with a larger
setting. Conversely if you never close files and immediately reopen them
then smaller may be better but I wouldn't go below one big scan of cache as
you always benefit from having enough file cache for the file output. This
allows you to continue working in the shortest possible time when you save a
file. If you save from Vuescan and then open in PSP then this will also come
straight from the memory cache provided you have not done anything else in
between and PSP is already open.

You may also wish to consider setting "MinFileCache" to try to ensure that
the last big file is always available from cache. After all PSP should be
happy with 600Mb. Some people set MinFileCache to the same value they set
for MaxFileCache so their machine does not waste it's time memory managing
the cache. This is a dangerous policy on a low memory  machine but with
600Mb to spare it is unlikely to cause you a problem.

Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:11 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought
> I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows
> 98.  In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those
> in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98.  I think Microsoft's
suggested
> workarounds on MSDN are hilarious.  I wish I could move to Win2K, but I
> am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have
> will not work in that environment.  So here's the warning in case you plan
> to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer:
>
> >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
> maximum
> >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows
starts.
> >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a
cache
> >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if
needed.
> >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from
0xC000
> >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
> >
> >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be
large
> >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena,
leaving
> >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening
> >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
> >
> >WORKAROUND
> >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:
> >
> >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
> >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting,
click
> >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
> Base:
> >
> >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
> >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that
> Windows
> >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration
utility,
> >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
Knowledge
> >Base:
> >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings
>
> >
> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[geoff murray]

Hi Rob,
You can also overcome this problem by using a little memory
management program called Cacheman. It is an excellent program. Go to
http://www.outertech.com/ to take a look at it.

Regards

Geoff Murray
www.geoffmurray.com
http://www.ozimages.com.au/portfolio/gmurray.asp


- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought
> I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows
> 98.  In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those
> in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98.  I think Microsoft's
suggested
> workarounds on MSDN are hilarious.  I wish I could move to Win2K, but I
> am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have
> will not work in that environment.  So here's the warning in case you plan
> to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer:
>
> >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
> maximum
> >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows
starts.
> >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a
cache
> >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if
needed.
> >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from
0xC000
> >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
> >
> >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be
large
> >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena,
leaving
> >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening
> >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
> >
> >WORKAROUND
> >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:
> >
> >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
> >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting,
click
> >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
> Base:
> >
> >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
> >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that
> Windows
> >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration
utility,
> >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
Knowledge
> >Base:
> >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings
>
> >
> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Laurie Solomon]

>This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing
>sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block
>every other process.

You could be right.

>File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this
problem.

But wouldn't file servers be using Windows NT or 2000 rather than Windows 98
as their operating system?  If so this appears to run counter to Rob's
comments: "In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than
those in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K)"

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing
sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block
every other process.

File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem.

It may come and bite you anytime so unless your feeling really lucky you may
wish to look at my post just above this one.

Steve
- Original Message -
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them
and
> using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you
describe.
> I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve
> conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no
> operating system related problems.  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought
> I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows
> 98.  In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those
> in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98.  I think Microsoft's
> suggested
> workarounds on MSDN are hilarious.  I wish I could move to Win2K, but I
> am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have
> will not work in that environment.  So here's the warning in case you plan
> to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer:
>
> >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
> maximum
> >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows
starts.
> >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a
cache
> >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if
> needed.
> >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from
> 0xC000
> >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
> >
> >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be
large
> >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena,
> leaving
> >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening
> >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
> >
> >WORKAROUND
> >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:
> >
> >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
> >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting,
click
> >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
> Base:
> >
> >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
> >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that
> Windows
> >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration
> utility,
> >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
> Knowledge
> >Base:
> >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings
>
> >
> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Jawed Ashraf]

If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON.  It has
a fantastic range of graphs it can show you, including Allocated RAM,
Swapfile in Use, Disk Cache Size, Unused Physical RAM.  Do a File Find for
SYSMON.  If you can't find it, search your Windows disk.  Very handy in
tweaking one's configuration (e.g. setting PS's memory).

If you can't find it I can mail it to you...

Jawed

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
> Sent: 26 July 2001 19:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one
> determines if it is being used or not.  I noticed in both systems
> that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which is one thing which I take as an
> indication that
> the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.  Since all my
> heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use
> either the
> swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult
> to determing
> when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM.
> Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500  LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> >  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> > the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
>
> Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what
> I have been told to expect.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film
> scanner info
> & comparisons
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

- Original Message -
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:25 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> >This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing
> >sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block
> >every other process.
>
> You could be right.
>
> >File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this
> problem.
>
> But wouldn't file servers be using Windows NT or 2000 rather than Windows
98
> as their operating system?  If so this appears to run counter to Rob's
> comments: "In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than
> those in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K)"

Should have clarified this as the few PC file servers that run on Win 9x
(usually small business) most normal setups use NT/2000 or Unix.

Any setup that scans lots of file data without any active program occupying
a large area of memory is likely to run into this problem on Win 9x/me.

Steve

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

>  There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't
> cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit).  With those it may
> degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb.
>

I can't think of any motherboards for Pentium II/III/IV,Celerons,Athlons or
Durons for which this will apply as they all have onboard 2nd level cache
with the exception of the early celerons (266 & 300 [plain 300]). The 266 &
300 celerons were pathetic due to a complete lack of 2nd level cache.

The only limit that I can remember is 64MB for Intel TX chipset which was
for Pentium I.

Steve

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Pat Perez]

This is off topic, but several of Intel's recent chipsets have had memory
addressability limitations. The 810 and it's variants, for instance cannot
even address 1 gig (I forget the threshold, either 512 or 768).


Pat

- Original Message -
From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



> >  There are also large numbers of motherboards around which don't
> > cache the memory above 512Mb (or an even lower limit).  With those it
may
> > degrade overall performance to add more than 512 Mb.
> >
>
> I can't think of any motherboards for Pentium II/III/IV,Celerons,Athlons
or
> Durons for which this will apply as they all have onboard 2nd level cache
> with the exception of the early celerons (266 & 300 [plain 300]). The 266
&
> 300 celerons were pathetic due to a complete lack of 2nd level cache.
>
> The only limit that I can remember is 64MB for Intel TX chipset which was
> for Pentium I.
>
> Steve


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Julian Robinson]

I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource 
meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of 
usage of some stack or similar.

When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly 
run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy 
on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless 
at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to 
release, until there are no more left.  I have to reboot regularly just to 
regain resources.

I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM 
is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.

Julian

Win 98 non-SE
384MB RAM

At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote:
>.  I noticed in both systems that since
>the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
>less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
>resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that
>the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Julian Robinson]

I was trying to catch up by reading messages backwards, so didn't see Rob's 
original post.  I think this answers my question - I  should not bother 
with more than 512MB until I move up from Win98.

Still not sure about what "resources" actually covers though.

Like you Rob I would be using Win2000 today if it didn't mean I'd have to 
upgrade half my existing software and maybe hardware.

Julian

Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Raphael Bustin]

At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000, Julian wrote:

>I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM 
>is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.


Buy it anyway.  It's never been cheaper.  Sooner or 
later it'll come in handy.  Maybe use it in another 
PC in the meantime.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Jon]

People keep saying don't get more than 512M with W98, but having 768M
does speed up Photoshop when working with large files on my old NEC
Athlon system: 

W98SE, PS6.01, PS set to use 80% of free RAM:
(in PS, 768M system has 569,607K, 512M system has 379443K)
1) resizing 20M TIFF to 200M: 768M system= 19 seconds; 512M = 19s
2) resizing 20M TIFF to 400M: 768M system= 42 seconds; 512M = 60s
3) resizing 20M TIFF to 500M: 768M system= 71 seconds; 512M = 87s
4) With/without Cacheman utility, 768M: no difference.

Jon

--- Julian Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was trying to catch up by reading messages backwards, so didn't see
> Rob's 
> original post.  I think this answers my question - I  should not
> bother 
> with more than 512MB until I move up from Win98.
> 
> Still not sure about what "resources" actually covers though.
> 
> Like you Rob I would be using Win2000 today if it didn't mean I'd
> have to 
> upgrade half my existing software and maybe hardware.
> 
> Julian
> 
> Julian Robinson
> in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Ron Carlson]

I'm running Win 95 with 768 MB of Ram and I've never had a problem that I
know of. I wonder if the problem is at all CPU dependent? I remember hearing
about folks running 768 MB of RAM way back when that represented a huge
investment.
Regards, Ron Carlson
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:11 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought
> I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows
> 98.  In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those
> in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98.  I think Microsoft's
suggested
> workarounds on MSDN are hilarious.  I wish I could move to Win2K, but I
> am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have
> will not work in that environment.  So here's the warning in case you plan
> to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer:
>
> >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the
> maximum
> >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows
starts.
> >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a
cache
> >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if
needed.
> >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from
0xC000
> >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena.
> >
> >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be
large
> >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena,
leaving
> >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening
> >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine).
> >
> >WORKAROUND
> >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods:
> >
> >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
> >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting,
click
> >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge
> Base:
> >
> >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size
> >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that
> Windows
> >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less.
> >
> >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration
utility,
> >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
Knowledge
> >Base:
> >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings
>
> >
> >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
> >or less.
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater than
512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have
been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages, or
find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused.  Given my experiences being
different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest
that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above
512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that it
will create problems in WIN 98.  You have to just get some additional RAM
and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it
works and works well.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource
meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of
usage of some stack or similar.

When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly
run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy
on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless
at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to
release, until there are no more left.  I have to reboot regularly just to
regain resources.

I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM
is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.

Julian

Win 98 non-SE
384MB RAM

At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote:
>.  I noticed in both systems that since
>the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
>less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
>resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that
>the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>

I don't know as I only have 512MB but I suspect this is 99% true. That is
99% of users will see no difference because most normal applications just
don't use it. If all you use it for is a huge file cache for running Word it
may even slow you down. Anyone who happens to run applications that
manipulate huge files will probably benefit.

Perhaps someone with win 9x/Me who has 768MB+ would like to try - you DON'T
need to physically remove your ram you can use "msconfig". Click Start->run
and enter msconfig. In msconfig click the advanced button and select "limit
memory to 512MB" then click "OK" and "OK" and reboot and you have 512MB. To
restore your full memory rerun msconfig and deselect "limit memory to 512MB"
then click "OK" and "OK" and reboot.

To test whether there is any potential benefit I suggest you create a couple
of 250MB image files and open them simultaneously in PS (or other image
editor) then time a filter, close and save a reopen whilst alternating
between the two images. Write down the sequence of operations and time each
operation (seconds will do) and then retry with the other memory setting.

Steve

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[B. Twieg]

I had 512 MB RAM and upgraded to 1GB with Win Me and it didn't work well. It
recognized the 1GB, but I got a lot of crashes.

After I switched to Win 2K, all is well and the 1 GB memory is definitely
helpful in Photoshop even with the 100MB images from 35mm scans. Less
switching to the scratch disk after a lot of history states.

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Raphael Bustin
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000, Julian wrote:

>I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM
>is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.


Buy it anyway.  It's never been cheaper.  Sooner or
later it'll come in handy.  Maybe use it in another
PC in the meantime.


rafe b.

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Tony Sleep]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

>  I noticed in both systems that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication 
> that
> the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.

AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are of 
fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info 
& comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[James Hill]

> > I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver
512MB or
> RAM
> > is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
> >
>
> I don't know as I only have 512MB but I suspect this is 99% true.
That is
> 99% of users will see no difference because most normal applications
just
> don't use it.

Well, it doesn't really prove anything, but this was a question
answered on The Screen Savers program yesterday.  Someone from this
list no doubt asked it.  Here's the link to their response:
_
RAM LIMITATIONS IN WINDOWS
Got a ton of RAM in your PC, but Windows
can't use it? There's a reason why.

__



--James Hill
Freelance Photographer
Mebane, NC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Laurie Solomon]

Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
additional RAM is being taken into account and used?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:

>  I noticed in both systems that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
> that
> the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.

AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are of
fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Dana Trout]

A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file and
reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk light
never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!

BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
  --Dana
--
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows
Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM

< snip >

On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
drive.
 A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
25%.
 Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
still.
 Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
with
film scans on my PC.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> >  I noticed in both systems that since
> > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows
proportionately
> > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
> > that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
> AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are
of
> fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.

Tony is correct.  The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in
general,
only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks.

Rob

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

"Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs

Paintshop Pro is the same.  Opening a film scan in PSP takes *far* longer
than in Irfanview.

> BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.

It seems that Adobe and JASC have inefficient code for packing and unpacking
LZW compression, so at least as far as opening and saving LZW TIFF files
goes, CPU speed will matter as well.  But it still a valid point that a
drive with a faster spin rate will improve the general operation of the
machine - image editing programs aside. :)

Rob

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Pat Perez]

Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a
fixed amount of memory regardless of how much system memory you have. I seem
to recall that in 3.x it was two 64K heaps and increased in 95, where it has
stayed the same until Me. These heaps control how many environment
variables, how much memory can be utilized by applications for dynamic
variable access and various and sundry other things. One of the real big
resource hogs was fonts. The more you have, the fewer system resources
available. The increase in the heap sizes after 3.1 mitigated the effect,
but didn't eliminate it as a cause. In short, any 9x based variant has
resource handicaps as compared to NT/2000/XP, which can just keep assigning
more memory (either physical or virtual) as needed.

The 512 meg barrier described is real, but due to different uses to which
people put their computers may or may not affect you. Additionally, some
motherboard/chipset combinations have issues with large memory spaces (of
course in 10 years we'll laugh at the present day notions of what large
memory is).


Pat

- Original Message -
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater
than
> 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have
> been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages,
or
> find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused.  Given my experiences
being
> different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest
> that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above
> 512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that
it
> will create problems in WIN 98.  You have to just get some additional RAM
> and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it
> works and works well.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource
> meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure
of
> usage of some stack or similar.
>
> When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly
> run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy
> on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless
> at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to
> release, until there are no more left.  I have to reboot regularly just to
> regain resources.
>
> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
> Julian
>
> Win 98 non-SE
> 384MB RAM
>
> At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote:
> >.  I noticed in both systems that since
> >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
that
> >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
>
>
> Julian Robinson
> in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
significantly larger.

I often don't bother with the compression anymore until I save to CD-R.

Steve

- Original Message -
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file and
> reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk light
> never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
>
> BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
>   --Dana
> --
> From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
> Windows
> Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
>
> < snip >
>
> On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> drive.
>  A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> 25%.
>  Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> still.
>  Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> with
> film scans on my PC.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

Rather perversely the more you have the more likely you will not have a
program hogging enough memory to block the file cache from growing too big.

Upgrading to Win2K is an expensive solution if it is not necessary.

Rather perversely the more you have the more likely you will not have a
program hogging enough memory to block the file cache from growing too big.

Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have been
much less reliable than my home PCs on Win9x.

This quite possibly as a lot to do with the skill of the person who set them
up :-)

Steve

- Original Message -
From: "B. Twieg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I had 512 MB RAM and upgraded to 1GB with Win Me and it didn't work well.
It
> recognized the 1GB, but I got a lot of crashes.
>
> After I switched to Win 2K, all is well and the 1 GB memory is definitely
> helpful in Photoshop even with the 100MB images from 35mm scans. Less
> switching to the scratch disk after a lot of history states.
>
> Bill
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Raphael Bustin
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000, Julian wrote:
>
> >I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> >is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
>
> Buy it anyway.  It's never been cheaper.  Sooner or
> later it'll come in handy.  Maybe use it in another
> PC in the meantime.
>
>
> rafe b.
>
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Tony Sleep]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

> Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> additional RAM is being taken into account and used?

Dunno, especially as I think PS does some of its own memory management 
instead of the OS. But I simply don't know enough to say anything useful.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info 
& comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Raphael Bustin]

At 09:57 AM 7/28/01 +0100, Steve wrote:

>I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
>try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
>significantly larger.


Sorry, this doesn't sound right.  For a given image, 
a given file format, and compression method, the 
file size should be deterministic.

If this weren't so, it would not be possible to share 
files between applications.

There's no doubt that some applications are more 
efficient than others in terms of file read and write 
times.  NikonScan is dreadfully slow in writing TIF 
files to disk.


rafe b.

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Julian Robinson]

OK thanks Rob and Rafe for luring me to check the price of memory.  I 
nearly fell off my chair - $68(australian) for 256MB so I bought two, and a 
40G HDD as well what the hell I was trying to work out what to do to save 
my over-full disks anyway.

I have just installed same, now have double the RAM and more than double 
the HDD space after retiring a few bits.

As for "resources" this (below) is what I was trying to say and wanted 
confirmed.  In fact, from the observation that System resources is always 
the most pessimistic of User and GDI, I assume it is just an "overall" 
figure and there are actually only two stacks involved.  Who knows... all I 
know is that I run out of the damn things and it is very annoying, and I am 
sure that my comparatively huge new memory will not change this one iota.

  Will report on effect of 768MB on my W98 system when I get time.  Looks 
good so far, fingers crossed that I am one of the lucky ones.

Cheers,

Julian

At 12:38 28/07/01, you wrote:
>"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > wrote:
> > >  I noticed in both systems that since
> > > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows
>proportionately
> > > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> > > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
> > > that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
> > AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are
>of
> > fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.
>
>Tony is correct.  The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in
>general,
>only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks.
>
>Rob


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)]

At 11:27 28-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
>
> > Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> > additional RAM is being taken into account and used?

A more informative Task manager should be helpful. Try TaskInfo2000 at 
http://www.iarsn.com/index.html to get more information about application 
memory usage. Look at the screenshot on the site to see what information it 
can display.

NT and Win2K include a highly configurable Performance Monitor 
(perfmon.exe) but Win9X doesn't have equivalent functionality built in.


Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all 
these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. 
The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." 
~Joseph Campbell

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

"Raphael Bustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, this doesn't sound right.  For a given image,
> a given file format, and compression method, the
> file size should be deterministic.

You're wrong, Rafe. :)  I agree with what you're saying in principle but
what was said is true - Vuescan's LZW TIFFs are compressed better than those
from PS or PSP.  I forget what Ed said he fiddled with in the LZW
compression in Vuescan, but it uses a setting which is much more efficient
than that which Photoshop or PSP use.  PS opens files from Vuescan which are
compressed, PSP won't open 48bit compressed TIFFs from Vuescan but I think
it will open 24bit compressed ones.

As to what Ed did exactly you'd need to ask him. :)

Rob

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

"Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
> PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have
been
> much less reliable than my home PCs on Win9x.

Gah.  I use NT 4.0 SP6a on my computer at work and it is *far* more stable
than my home PC which runs Win98SE.

Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners are
running NT or Win2K?

Rob

PS I have upgraded my computer to a Celeron 850 and 512MB RAM from a Celeron
533 with 288MB RAM.  Using Vuescan and PSP is definitely significantly
faster.

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Jawed Ashraf]

> 
> NT and Win2K include a highly configurable Performance Monitor 
> (perfmon.exe) but Win9X doesn't have equivalent functionality built in.

SYSMON.  As I keep saying.

TaskInfo looks cool, downloading it as I speak.

Jawed

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Lynn Allen]

Steve wrote:
 >I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either - 
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out 
significantly larger.

And Rafe wrote:
>Sorry, this doesn't sound right.  For a given image,
>a given file format, and compression method, the
>file size should be deterministic
>If this weren't so, it would not be possible to share
>files between applications.

It *is* right, though, and file sharing is due to other programs recognizing 
(and adjusting to) PS files. This was not always so, but has been for many 
years. I'd hoped some of the better Photoshop users would chime in here, 
because I'm *not* one. But I learned early on --when a folder of PS-saved 
images couldn't save to a disc which seemed to have plenty of space on it-- 
that PS has its own way of saving images, that can be 20% or more larger 
that the original file.

First of all, PS writes and saves a thumbnail; this can be defeated in the 
Preferences (I think is where that is). It then also saves various 
Photoshop-specific flags and markers (like color space), whether or not 
you've done any actual *work* on the image in PS, so it's the same image 
that you saved in PS when you open it again in PS (I'd suspect it may also 
mark memory space for certain PS modes and actions, but don't know that for 
fact).

Ordinarily, this will cause no problems except that your PS files will be 
larger than you anticipated, and if PS is your working Image Processor it's 
good to have the stuff embedded in the file. Where it becomes a *problem* is 
whenever you have file/memory size constraints--it's the equivalent of 
putting 10 pounds of "stuff" in a 5-pound bag. It's particularly difficult 
when you're doing JPEGs for a final destination like a CD (or web site, or 
email)-- PS is going to make your files bigger than you want with what may 
well be useless information, and AFAICT it doesn't ask for your opinion. :-|

Tony Sleep suggested the solution to this problem, which I personally went 
with--save the final image in another program (Picture Publisher 8 in this 
case), that has a user-selectable size-readout and visually-adjustable 
Preview JPEG output. That's currently what I'm doing--adjust in PS and save 
a TIFF to a Temp file, JPEG in PP8 to another file at a controlable size, 
then save to disc. It involves extra steps, but since I'm publishing 
multiple copies to a finite CD space, it's the best way to procede that I 
presently know of.

Best regards--LRA


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Corel PhotoPaint is the same as PSP - it will open Vuescan 24-bit compressed
but not 48-bit compressed.

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


| "Raphael Bustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Sorry, this doesn't sound right.  For a given image,
| > a given file format, and compression method, the
| > file size should be deterministic.
|
| You're wrong, Rafe. :)  I agree with what you're saying in principle but
| what was said is true - Vuescan's LZW TIFFs are compressed better than
those
| from PS or PSP.  I forget what Ed said he fiddled with in the LZW
| compression in Vuescan, but it uses a setting which is much more efficient
| than that which Photoshop or PSP use.  PS opens files from Vuescan which
are
| compressed, PSP won't open 48bit compressed TIFFs from Vuescan but I think
| it will open 24bit compressed ones.
|
| As to what Ed did exactly you'd need to ask him. :)
|
| Rob
|
|
|

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Mark Edmonds]

I'm running NT4 SP6a, dual 850MHz PIII, 512MB. Reliability: it gets used
for about 3 hours a day, five days a week on average and I think I've
had about 2 blue screens in the last year. Oh, Minolta Scan Speed by the
way.

Mark

>
>Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners are
>running NT or Win2K?
>
>Rob

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Dana Trout]

I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is 33%
faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times by
a like percentage.

As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the performace
of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to upgrade
the scanner computer!

Thanks for your comments,
  --Dana
--
From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM

Hi Dana,
Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file
from
my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17 seconds.
This
on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and two
7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which
has
PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.

Geoff Murray
www.geoffmurray.com

- Original Message -
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file
and
> reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk
light
> never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
>
> BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
>   --Dana
> --
> From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits
in
> Windows
> Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
>
> < snip >
>
> On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> drive.
>  A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> 25%.
>  Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> still.
>  Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> with
> film scans on my PC.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Stan McQueen]

>Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners are
>running NT or Win2K?

My Microtek Scanmaker 35t Plus is connected to my NT4.0 box. My new Epson 
1640SU is connected to my laptop (via USB) running W2K Pro. I was going to 
get a SCSI cable and connect it to my NT box also, but I got sticker shock 
when I found the right cable at CompUSA. I guess I'll stick to the USB 
(cable for which came with the scanner).

I'm still having trouble keeping Vuescan from hanging on the W2K/USB/1640SU 
thingie when scanning reflective. It just happened again a few minutes ago 
with version 7.1.7. Of course, it hasn't happened again since I turned on 
the log file, so maybe that's the answer. It doesn't want to get caught by 
Ed while misbehaving. :-)

Stan
===
Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Sumtingwong]

if you go into the preferences dialogs, you will find a box in the "Saving
Files" dialog that says: Maximize backwards compatibility with older
versions of Photoshop.  Uncheck this!!! It is evil.  Unchecking this should
solve the problem of larger than normal files.

TaskInfo 2000 is a great program, well worth the download.  In my search for
a great memory manager/cleaner, I happenened upon a site with some great
utilites.  It hasn't been updated in awhile, but the software is still
there: www.analogx.com.  The program called MaxMem is a great tool; I use it
every time before I scan.  The RFS 3600software can be a bit buggy and seems
to be sensitive to other software runnig at the same time.  This cures the
problem like a champ.

Aloha!!!

Spencer Stone


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


Steve wrote:
 >I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
significantly larger.

And Rafe wrote:
>Sorry, this doesn't sound right.  For a given image,
>a given file format, and compression method, the
>file size should be deterministic
>If this weren't so, it would not be possible to share
>files between applications.

It *is* right, though, and file sharing is due to other programs recognizing
(and adjusting to) PS files. This was not always so, but has been for many
years. I'd hoped some of the better Photoshop users would chime in here,
because I'm *not* one. But I learned early on --when a folder of PS-saved
images couldn't save to a disc which seemed to have plenty of space on it--
that PS has its own way of saving images, that can be 20% or more larger
that the original file.

First of all, PS writes and saves a thumbnail; this can be defeated in the
Preferences (I think is where that is). It then also saves various
Photoshop-specific flags and markers (like color space), whether or not
you've done any actual *work* on the image in PS, so it's the same image
that you saved in PS when you open it again in PS (I'd suspect it may also
mark memory space for certain PS modes and actions, but don't know that for
fact).

Ordinarily, this will cause no problems except that your PS files will be
larger than you anticipated, and if PS is your working Image Processor it's
good to have the stuff embedded in the file. Where it becomes a *problem* is
whenever you have file/memory size constraints--it's the equivalent of
putting 10 pounds of "stuff" in a 5-pound bag. It's particularly difficult
when you're doing JPEGs for a final destination like a CD (or web site, or
email)-- PS is going to make your files bigger than you want with what may
well be useless information, and AFAICT it doesn't ask for your opinion. :-|

Tony Sleep suggested the solution to this problem, which I personally went
with--save the final image in another program (Picture Publisher 8 in this
case), that has a user-selectable size-readout and visually-adjustable
Preview JPEG output. That's currently what I'm doing--adjust in PS and save
a TIFF to a Temp file, JPEG in PP8 to another file at a controlable size,
then save to disc. It involves extra steps, but since I'm publishing
multiple copies to a finite CD space, it's the best way to procede that I
presently know of.

Best regards--LRA


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Jawed Ashraf]

I went from a PIII 500MHz to a 1.2GHz Athlon recently and file load times
(16-bit 44MB scans, uncompressed PS file format) went from around 7s to 3s.

A set of nasty PS operations on the same file (RGB->CMYK->LAB->RGB,
Dust'n'Scratches, Auto Levels) went from 105s down to 46s.  This test ran
entirely in RAM (I had 640MB of RAM for the PIII, but only 512MB for the
Athlon).

Very worthwhile.  I hate to think how many moons would pass waiting for a
PIII-500 to process ICE and GEM...

7200 drives kill 5400 drives as soon as lots of random disk access occurs
(i.e. not reading or writing a single file).  This is valuable if you are
trying to scan (using say Nikon Scan or Vuescan) while also editing in PS.
And browsing the web.  And writing emails.  And playing Quake, if you're
really dextrous.

A friend just bought some cute little Promise IDE ATA 100 controller for his
PC.  Win 2K sees it as a SCSI device.  Despite the fact he has a PII-450
(groan, PS really doesn't like that generation of Pentium) files on his
system load very quickly now, around 4s for that file I mentioned above (it
was 6-7s).  OK, some of it is W2K, but it seems to me that a separate
controller will make your life just that little bit sweeter.

Jawed

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dana Trout
> Sent: 28 July 2001 20:49
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
> the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is 33%
> faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times by
> a like percentage.
>
> As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the performace
> of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
> Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
> However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
> LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to upgrade
> the scanner computer!
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>   --Dana
> ------
> From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM
>
> Hi Dana,
> Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file
> from
> my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17 seconds.
> This
> on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and two
> 7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which
> has
> PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.
>
> Geoff Murray
> www.geoffmurray.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> > A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> > times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> > compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> > hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> > it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file
> and
> > reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk
> light
> > never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> > that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
> >
> > BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
> >   --Dana
> > --
> > From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits
> in
> > Windows
> > Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> > bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> > drive.
> >  A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> > 25%.
> >  Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> > still.
> >  Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> > with
> > film scans on my PC.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://wordweb.com
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Steve Greenbank]

> >I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well
either -
> >try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes
out
> >significantly larger.
>
>
> Sorry, this doesn't sound right.  For a given image,
> a given file format, and compression method, the
> file size should be deterministic.
>
> If this weren't so, it would not be possible to share
> files between applications.

This is certainly possible for compressed formats where some (eg. mrsid)
compress the data much greater whilst still keeping the data.

I also see no reason why a lossless format cannot be achieved with different
encoding algorithms. It is only important that they can be decoded to the
same data - not that they encode to to the same data. You don't really
expect all the software to share the same code do you ?

I have not checked but  I suspect lossless is actually very nearly lossless.
i.e. there are some rounding errors from the compression algorithms.

Seve

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[geoff murray]

Hi Dana,
I never bother to compress TIFF's, apparently there is not much
space saving anyway and I believe the less an image is mucked about with the
better, even if people say that LZW compression is lossless.

Geoff


- Original Message -
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
> the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is 33%
> faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times by
> a like percentage.
>
> As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the performace
> of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
> Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
> However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
> LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to upgrade
> the scanner computer!
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>   --Dana
> ------
> From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM
>
> Hi Dana,
> Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file
> from
> my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17 seconds.
> This
> on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and two
> 7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which
> has
> PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.
>
> Geoff Murray
> www.geoffmurray.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> > A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> > times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> > compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> > hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> > it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file
> and
> > reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk
> light
> > never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> > that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
> >
> > BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
> >   --Dana
> > --
> > From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits
> in
> > Windows
> > Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> > bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> > drive.
> >  A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> > 25%.
> >  Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> > still.
> >  Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> > with
> > film scans on my PC.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://wordweb.com
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Jim Snyder]

on 7/28/01 11:09 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
>> PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have
> been
>> much less reliable than my home PCs on Win9x.
> 
> Gah.  I use NT 4.0 SP6a on my computer at work and it is *far* more stable
> than my home PC which runs Win98SE.
> 
> Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners are
> running NT or Win2K?
> 
> Rob
> 
> PS I have upgraded my computer to a Celeron 850 and 512MB RAM from a Celeron
> 533 with 288MB RAM.  Using Vuescan and PSP is definitely significantly
> faster.
> 

The question I would have to ask is whether it is the NT at work, ao the
cheap boxes your company buys. There are a lot of unstable boards out
there...

Jim Snyder 

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Arthur Entlich]

Do not assume that all reconstituted images are created equal.

Short cuts are sometimes taken in translating the file back into an
uncompressed image which might speed up decompression, but not represent
the full nature of the image.

Art

Rob Geraghty wrote:
> 
> "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> > times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> > compressed TIFFs
> 
> Paintshop Pro is the same.  Opening a film scan in PSP takes *far* longer
> than in Irfanview.
> 
> > BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
> 
> It seems that Adobe and JASC have inefficient code for packing and unpacking
> LZW compression, so at least as far as opening and saving LZW TIFF files
> goes, CPU speed will matter as well.  But it still a valid point that a
> drive with a faster spin rate will improve the general operation of the
> machine - image editing programs aside. :)
> 
> Rob

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Thanks!  I remember seeing it but did not understand at the time what use it
might be or how to use it.  It now becomes clearer that it might be the more
appropriate indicator as you suggest.  Thanks for bringing it back into my
memory.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON.  It has
a fantastic range of graphs it can show you, including Allocated RAM,
Swapfile in Use, Disk Cache Size, Unused Physical RAM.  Do a File Find for
SYSMON.  If you can't find it, search your Windows disk.  Very handy in
tweaking one's configuration (e.g. setting PS's memory).

If you can't find it I can mail it to you...

Jawed

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
> Sent: 26 July 2001 19:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one
> determines if it is being used or not.  I noticed in both systems
> that since
> the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> resources available), which is one thing which I take as an
> indication that
> the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.  Since all my
> heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use
> either the
> swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult
> to determing
> when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM.
> Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500  LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> >  One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
> > the other has 640MB of RAM.  Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
>
> Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what
> I have been told to expect.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film
> scanner info
> & comparisons
>
>

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Thanks for the recommendation; I will take a look and hope that I understand
what I am looking at. :=)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Enoch's Vision,
Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 9:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


At 11:27 28-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
>
> > Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> > additional RAM is being taken into account and used?

A more informative Task manager should be helpful. Try TaskInfo2000 at
http://www.iarsn.com/index.html to get more information about application
memory usage. Look at the screenshot on the site to see what information it
can display.

NT and Win2K include a highly configurable Performance Monitor
(perfmon.exe) but Win9X doesn't have equivalent functionality built in.


Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all
these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things.
The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object."
~Joseph Campbell

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

The only caution that I would add is that not all memory despite the fact
that they are said to be compatible with a given motherboard or with other
DIMMs may not be and may act up in ways other than expected.  Apart of the
obvious differences between PC 100 and PC 133 RAM or ECC and non-ECC chips,
there are slight differences between manufacture's products which a finicky
mainboard and CPU might react to.  Alas, there are also CL1, CL2, and CL3
varieties of 168 pin PC133 DIMM sets of RAM which appear to have slightly
different timings which some systems do not work well with if you get the
wrong type or mix types.  I discovered this when I tried to install a couple
of 256MB PC133 CL2 chipsets into a system with a 256MB PC 100 CL1 chipset;
they did not work well together resulting in crashes and periodic slowdowns
in operations until I replaced the CL2 DIMMS with CL1 DIMMS.  This is just a
caution and some additional information for you in your evaluations.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


OK thanks Rob and Rafe for luring me to check the price of memory.  I
nearly fell off my chair - $68(australian) for 256MB so I bought two, and a
40G HDD as well what the hell I was trying to work out what to do to save
my over-full disks anyway.

I have just installed same, now have double the RAM and more than double
the HDD space after retiring a few bits.

As for "resources" this (below) is what I was trying to say and wanted
confirmed.  In fact, from the observation that System resources is always
the most pessimistic of User and GDI, I assume it is just an "overall"
figure and there are actually only two stacks involved.  Who knows... all I
know is that I run out of the damn things and it is very annoying, and I am
sure that my comparatively huge new memory will not change this one iota.

  Will report on effect of 768MB on my W98 system when I get time.  Looks
good so far, fingers crossed that I am one of the lucky ones.

Cheers,

Julian

At 12:38 28/07/01, you wrote:
>"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > wrote:
> > >  I noticed in both systems that since
> > > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows
>proportionately
> > > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> > > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
> > > that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
> > AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are
>of
> > fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.
>
>Tony is correct.  The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in
>general,
>only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks.
>
>Rob


Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Yes, so I have been told.  I stand corrected and less ignorant than I was
prior to having the meaning of system resources explained.  I do appreciate
everyone's patience with me and helpful explanations,  Despite my wrongfully
using the wrong indicator, my experiences still remain the same regarding
the Ram over 512 MB being utilized in my system and setup under Win 98.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> >  I noticed in both systems that since
> > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows
proportionately
> > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
> > that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
> AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are
of
> fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed.

Tony is correct.  The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in
general,
only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks.

Rob

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Thank you Pat.  That was a most illuminating and helpful description of what
the hell system resources is and does as well as how it works in WIN 98.  I
already know some of this but did not really understand it until your
response.  It may be because it was an excellent response or because I have
gained some computer aging and maturity along with the increased background
that goes with it to make me ready to understand it now.

As for your second paragraph, I concur which is why I stated in some of my
posts that it has not been my experience but I may have been lucky.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pat Perez
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a
fixed amount of memory regardless of how much system memory you have. I seem
to recall that in 3.x it was two 64K heaps and increased in 95, where it has
stayed the same until Me. These heaps control how many environment
variables, how much memory can be utilized by applications for dynamic
variable access and various and sundry other things. One of the real big
resource hogs was fonts. The more you have, the fewer system resources
available. The increase in the heap sizes after 3.1 mitigated the effect,
but didn't eliminate it as a cause. In short, any 9x based variant has
resource handicaps as compared to NT/2000/XP, which can just keep assigning
more memory (either physical or virtual) as needed.

The 512 meg barrier described is real, but due to different uses to which
people put their computers may or may not affect you. Additionally, some
motherboard/chipset combinations have issues with large memory spaces (of
course in 10 years we'll laugh at the present day notions of what large
memory is).


Pat

- Original Message -
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater
than
> 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have
> been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages,
or
> find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused.  Given my experiences
being
> different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest
> that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above
> 512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that
it
> will create problems in WIN 98.  You have to just get some additional RAM
> and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it
> works and works well.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource
> meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure
of
> usage of some stack or similar.
>
> When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly
> run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy
> on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless
> at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to
> release, until there are no more left.  I have to reboot regularly just to
> regain resources.
>
> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or
RAM
> is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend.
>
> Julian
>
> Win 98 non-SE
> 384MB RAM
>
> At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote:
> >.  I noticed in both systems that since
> >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
> >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's
> >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication
that
> >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account.
>
>
> Julian Robinson
> in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia


_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Neither did I which is why, evidently wrongly, chose to use the system
resource meter as my indicator.  I do know that I get fewer out of memory
messages when using Photoshop, when scanning, and the like than I did before
adding the memory above 512MB.  The only place where I sometimes run out of
space is when printing if the windows\temp folder gets too clogged up with
orphaned files - which is something that really has nothing to do with the
amount of physical RAM installed.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:

> Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
> additional RAM is being taken into account and used?

Dunno, especially as I think PS does some of its own memory management
instead of the OS. But I simply don't know enough to say anything useful.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Dana Trout]

Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-intensive
and there is no comparison between load times for non-compressed and
compressed files (other than compressed files take a *lot* longer).

I compress TIFFs before putting them on CDs because it's much easier to
manage 800 CDs than it is to manage over 1200 CDs. The reason I see a
fairly large compression ratio is that I am saving 48-bit TIFFs, but
the scanner uses only about 40 of them.

There *is* a big hit in load and store times, though, which is the
reason I compress *only* what's going onto the CDs. Images that are
being played with are left uncompressed to reduce the file-handling
times (even though the files are much larger).

The upshot of this conversation is to point out (yet again) that one
needs to look at where the bottlenecks really are. If the process is
largely CPU-bound, as loading and storing LZW-compressed TIFFs are on
my computer, I will realize much greater gains if I spend money to
upgrade the CPU than if I get 10,000 rpm drives. Others who have fast
processors and do not use LZW compression may well find their hard
drives are the bottleneck and would be far better off upgrading them.
It is up to each person to investigate where the bottlenecks are in
*their own* processes and act to relieve them, instead of just assuming
they need a particular item (faster hard drives, more RAM, or
whatever).

As for "mucking about" with the image, lossless compression schemes
like LZW merely encode the values in different bits than straight
binary. It's really a code similar to Morse code -- the most popular
values are stored in fewer bits, and the least popular take lots and
lots of bits but because there are so few instances of them the overall
number of bits (and therefore bytes) needed to store the image is
reduced. As for questions about how lossless the process is, just do a
file compare between the original uncompressed image and one that has
been retrieved from a compressed TIFF. I have yet to see anything other
than an exact match -- if there is a difference there is something
definitely wrong with the computer!

Ta for now,
  --Dana
--
From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:21 PM

Hi Dana,
I never bother to compress TIFF's, apparently there is not
much
space saving anyway and I believe the less an image is mucked about
with the
better, even if people say that LZW compression is lossless.

Geoff


- Original Message -
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which
is
> the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is
33%
> faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times
by
> a like percentage.
>
> As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the
performace
> of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
> Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
> However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
> LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to
upgrade
> the scanner computer!
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>   --Dana
> ----------
> From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM
>
> Hi Dana,
> Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb
file
> from
> my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17
seconds.
> This
> on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and
two
> 7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which
> has
> PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.
>
> Geoff Murray
> www.geoffmurray.com
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> > A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> > times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> > compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough
to
> > hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into
PhotoShop
> > it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file
> and
> > reloaded it into Ph

RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Jawed Ashraf]

800 CDs.  Man I nearly fainted - need some chocolate, quick...

My music collection is around that size, and it makes me stutter just
thinking about the improbability of enjoying it properly.

I use JPEG quality 10 to "archive" my scans - my 36MB 8-bit, full res scans
drop to a cosy 2 to 5MB - the occasional 6MB file doesn't upset me too much.

I guess I'm just not anal enough.  I hope this doesn't get me barred from
the list...

Jawed

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dana Trout
> Sent: 29 July 2001 23:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
> our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-intensive
> and there is no comparison between load times for non-compressed and
> compressed files (other than compressed files take a *lot* longer).
>
> I compress TIFFs before putting them on CDs because it's much easier to
> manage 800 CDs than it is to manage over 1200 CDs. The reason I see a
> fairly large compression ratio is that I am saving 48-bit TIFFs, but
> the scanner uses only about 40 of them.
>
> There *is* a big hit in load and store times, though, which is the
> reason I compress *only* what's going onto the CDs. Images that are
> being played with are left uncompressed to reduce the file-handling
> times (even though the files are much larger).
>
> The upshot of this conversation is to point out (yet again) that one
> needs to look at where the bottlenecks really are. If the process is
> largely CPU-bound, as loading and storing LZW-compressed TIFFs are on
> my computer, I will realize much greater gains if I spend money to
> upgrade the CPU than if I get 10,000 rpm drives. Others who have fast
> processors and do not use LZW compression may well find their hard
> drives are the bottleneck and would be far better off upgrading them.
> It is up to each person to investigate where the bottlenecks are in
> *their own* processes and act to relieve them, instead of just assuming
> they need a particular item (faster hard drives, more RAM, or
> whatever).
>
> As for "mucking about" with the image, lossless compression schemes
> like LZW merely encode the values in different bits than straight
> binary. It's really a code similar to Morse code -- the most popular
> values are stored in fewer bits, and the least popular take lots and
> lots of bits but because there are so few instances of them the overall
> number of bits (and therefore bytes) needed to store the image is
> reduced. As for questions about how lossless the process is, just do a
> file compare between the original uncompressed image and one that has
> been retrieved from a compressed TIFF. I have yet to see anything other
> than an exact match -- if there is a difference there is something
> definitely wrong with the computer!
>
> Ta for now,
>   --Dana

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[geoff murray]

Hi Dana,
I have just scanned an image and saved it as compressed and
non-compressed files. This particular image surprised me in that it
compressed to a remarkable degree, from 55.3mb to 16.5mb. I presume
different images will compress to different degrees depending on their
content. But, I still disagree that it should take so long to open an image.
The uncompressed file opened in 4 seconds flat and the compressed file
opened in 6.95 seconds - I'm quite sure there is nothing wrong with this
computer.

Geoff


- Original Message -
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
> our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-intensive
> and there is no comparison between load times for non-compressed and
> compressed files (other than compressed files take a *lot* longer).
>
> I compress TIFFs before putting them on CDs because it's much easier to
> manage 800 CDs than it is to manage over 1200 CDs. The reason I see a
> fairly large compression ratio is that I am saving 48-bit TIFFs, but
> the scanner uses only about 40 of them.
>
> There *is* a big hit in load and store times, though, which is the
> reason I compress *only* what's going onto the CDs. Images that are
> being played with are left uncompressed to reduce the file-handling
> times (even though the files are much larger).
>
> The upshot of this conversation is to point out (yet again) that one
> needs to look at where the bottlenecks really are. If the process is
> largely CPU-bound, as loading and storing LZW-compressed TIFFs are on
> my computer, I will realize much greater gains if I spend money to
> upgrade the CPU than if I get 10,000 rpm drives. Others who have fast
> processors and do not use LZW compression may well find their hard
> drives are the bottleneck and would be far better off upgrading them.
> It is up to each person to investigate where the bottlenecks are in
> *their own* processes and act to relieve them, instead of just assuming
> they need a particular item (faster hard drives, more RAM, or
> whatever).
>
> As for "mucking about" with the image, lossless compression schemes
> like LZW merely encode the values in different bits than straight
> binary. It's really a code similar to Morse code -- the most popular
> values are stored in fewer bits, and the least popular take lots and
> lots of bits but because there are so few instances of them the overall
> number of bits (and therefore bytes) needed to store the image is
> reduced. As for questions about how lossless the process is, just do a
> file compare between the original uncompressed image and one that has
> been retrieved from a compressed TIFF. I have yet to see anything other
> than an exact match -- if there is a difference there is something
> definitely wrong with the computer!
>
> Ta for now,
>   --Dana
> --
> From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:21 PM
>
> Hi Dana,
> I never bother to compress TIFF's, apparently there is not
> much
> space saving anyway and I believe the less an image is mucked about
> with the
> better, even if people say that LZW compression is lossless.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:49 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> > I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which
> is
> > the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is
> 33%
> > faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times
> by
> > a like percentage.
> >
> > As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the
> performace
> > of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
> > Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
> > However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
> > LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to
> upgrade
> > the scanner computer!
> >
> > Thanks for your comments,
> >   --Dana
> > --
> > From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> > Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 A

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Dana Trout]

Actually, that works out just about right: your 16.5MB compressed file
took 7 seconds to load on a computer that has a CPU about 2.2 times
faster than mine.

My 53MB compressed file is 3.2 times the size of yours, so if I take
the 7 seconds and multiply that by 3.2 to account for the difference in
file size, and then by 2.2 to account for your faster CPU, I come up
with 50 seconds, while I measured 61 on my computer. But no one would
claim a Celeron is as efficient with the MHz as the Athlon, so I think
we can safely say the 20% penalty I am seeing is expected.

Again, we have shown that in this case the drive speed is relatively
unimportant compared to the CPU's speed and efficiency (remember, when
the whole file was in cache so the drive wasn't even accessed it still
took my computer 55 seconds to load the file). If I'm going to do many
compressed TIFFs on this computer I would be better served with a
faster (and better) CPU than I would be with a faster drive.

And as you have amply demonstrated, even on your computer the
compression changed the load time from 4 to 7 seconds. That means even
if *all* the 4 seconds is due to drive throughput limitations, and you
went from a 7200 rpm drive to a 10,000 rpm drive (a 39% increase in
rotational speed), you would realize only a 22% increase in throughput.
Probably less, because I suspect that at least some of that 4 seconds
is due to processor activity.

However, if you increased the processor throughput by the same amount
you would get even less of a boost than by increasing the drive
throughput. Your system has pretty well-matched bottlenecks -- you
can't get a major boost dealing with compressed TIFFs by just upgrading
one thing.
  --Dana 
--
From: geoff murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Sunday, July 29, 2001 6:34 PM

Hi Dana,
I have just scanned an image and saved it as compressed and
non-compressed files. This particular image surprised me in that it
compressed to a remarkable degree, from 55.3mb to 16.5mb. I presume
different images will compress to different degrees depending on their
content. But, I still disagree that it should take so long to open an
image.
The uncompressed file opened in 4 seconds flat and the compressed file
opened in 6.95 seconds - I'm quite sure there is nothing wrong with
this
computer.

Geoff


- Original Message -
From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I
see
> our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very
CPU-intensive
> and there is no comparison between load times for non-compressed and
> compressed files (other than compressed files take a *lot* longer).
>
> I compress TIFFs before putting them on CDs because it's much easier
to
> manage 800 CDs than it is to manage over 1200 CDs. The reason I see a
> fairly large compression ratio is that I am saving 48-bit TIFFs, but
> the scanner uses only about 40 of them.
>
> There *is* a big hit in load and store times, though, which is the
> reason I compress *only* what's going onto the CDs. Images that are
> being played with are left uncompressed to reduce the file-handling
> times (even though the files are much larger).
>
> The upshot of this conversation is to point out (yet again) that one
> needs to look at where the bottlenecks really are. If the process is
> largely CPU-bound, as loading and storing LZW-compressed TIFFs are on
> my computer, I will realize much greater gains if I spend money to
> upgrade the CPU than if I get 10,000 rpm drives. Others who have fast
> processors and do not use LZW compression may well find their hard
> drives are the bottleneck and would be far better off upgrading them.
> It is up to each person to investigate where the bottlenecks are in
> *their own* processes and act to relieve them, instead of just
assuming
> they need a particular item (faster hard drives, more RAM, or
> whatever).
>
> As for "mucking about" with the image, lossless compression schemes
> like LZW merely encode the values in different bits than straight
> binary. It's really a code similar to Morse code -- the most popular
> values are stored in fewer bits, and the least popular take lots and
> lots of bits but because there are so few instances of them the
overall
> number of bits (and therefore bytes) needed to store the image is
> reduced. As for questions about how lossless the process is, just do
a
> file compare between the original uncompressed image and one that has
> been retrieved from a compressed TIFF. I have yet to see anything
other
> than an exact match

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Tony Sleep]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:10:13 +0100  Steve Greenbank 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> I have not checked but  I suspect lossless is actually very nearly 
> lossless.
> i.e. there are some rounding errors from the compression algorithms.

Shouldn't be, in the ZIP/LZW type compression found in compressed TIFF's - 
all that does is replace recurring patterns of byte values with a single 
character, and a code table so it can reconstitute the original

eg, with the first line quoted above

*=I[space]
^=ly
$=lossless

> *have not checked but *suspect $ is actual^ very near^ 
> $.

I believe that LZW algorithms vary in their thoroughness (eg, how big the 
buffer they use to find patterns), which is why some compress more than 
others. Speed differences are common too. But you should get out what went 
in otherwise it's broken.

I don't know if the LZW scheme for TIFF's is fixed or not, but PS shoves 
all sorts of stuff in TIFF headers (IPTC info, ICM tag, thumbnail etc)


Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info 
& comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Tony Sleep]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:09:57 +1000  Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

> Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners 
> are
> running NT or Win2K?

I even bought NT4, but never installed it as the W98 machine I use for PS 
is unbelievably stable, probably because it doesn't get used for a lot 
else.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info 
& comparisons

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

Laurie wrote:
> Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM
> installed on them and using Win 98 and have not
> experienced any problems of the sort you describe.

The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more
of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis).  The article doesn't enlighten
as to why some systems might and others might not.  My guess is that the
hardware (eg. motherboard, what cards are plugged in etc) has a lot to do
with it.  The article also notes that the problem may occur "more readily"
with AGP graphics adapters in the system.

I simply thought "power users" of RAM in this forum might like to know about
the issue.  As I mentioned earlier - I'd upgrade to Win2K today if I knew
all the devices and software would still work.  I'm reasonably positive
they wouldn't.  If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I
would already be running Win2K.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Rob Geraghty]

Julian wrote:
> I understood and would like someone to confirm that
> the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with
> how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of 
> usage of some stack or similar.

You may be thinking of the GDI, USER and SYSTEM resources.  I think in Win98
each of these is a 64K block of memory.  If any of them gets completely
used up, your computer may run extremely slowly or crash.  Different programs
use different amounts of the various resources - for instance a really long
and complicated web page can use them up completely; it's the only thing
I've seen do it.  Running a lot of programs concurrently will use up a lot
of system resources.

Having said all that I don't believe that the "resources" which were referred
to in the Technet note I referred to were connected with the system resources
I have described above, but I'd have to re-read the article in more detail.
 The main problem is the annoying habit of the Win9x file management system
grabbing all "spare" memory for file cache.

> When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still
> regularly run out of resources because I seem to run some
> programmes that are heavy on resources (Eudora and Info Select)
> and because windows is just hopeless at managing resources, and
> because IE5 gets confused and refuses to release, until there
> are no more left.  I have to reboot regularly just to regain resources.

I've never had this problem with Win98SE, but then I don't use Eudora or
Info Select.  The only program I use which noticeably mucks up available
memory and/or resources is Vuescan.

> I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that
> over 512MB or RAM is a waste, as I was thinking of getting
> more RAM on the weekend.

As has been suggested elsewhere, you could give it a try. With RAM as cheap
as AUD$80 for 256MB why not? On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE drive.
 A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least 25%.
 Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better still.
 Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working with
film scans on my PC.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows

[Laurie Solomon]

Rob,
Your explanation sounds like a very reasonable one.  I am sure that your
bringing up the issue is appreciated by all on the forum - some of whom
might very well be effected.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows


Laurie wrote:
> Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM
> installed on them and using Win 98 and have not
> experienced any problems of the sort you describe.

The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more
of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis).  The article doesn't enlighten
as to why some systems might and others might not.  My guess is that the
hardware (eg. motherboard, what cards are plugged in etc) has a lot to do
with it.  The article also notes that the problem may occur "more readily"
with AGP graphics adapters in the system.

I simply thought "power users" of RAM in this forum might like to know about
the issue.  As I mentioned earlier - I'd upgrade to Win2K today if I knew
all the devices and software would still work.  I'm reasonably positive
they wouldn't.  If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I
would already be running Win2K.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com