Windows 7 Pro version?

reeftool · 01-15-2011, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by cats_five

Did many motherboards have integrated graphics 5 years ago? The one I brought then certainly didn't, and I don't remember noticing many of the ones I might have brought having built-in graphics.

The other thing that puzzles me - lots of folks here spend £££££ on cameras and lenses (not all I know) yet are remarkably mean about a decent PC for post-processing and a decent quality monitor. Building a decent PC for photo editing isn't hugely expensive or difficult - it's easy to spend rather more on the monitor - though it's no longer the money-saver it was 10 years back. A gaming PC - now that's a completely different beast.

Yes, they did. Most Gateway's and Dells's, which pretty much was the largest majority of desktop PC's in that time period, all used the same Intel motherboards with the built in Intel Extreme Graphics. My Gateway, which I bought in late 2002, came with 512MB of ram which was considered pretty high end at the time. It has an AGP slot for a graphics card. They advertised these computers as having that AGP graphics slot so many people assumed there was a graphics card inside. There wasn't. My daughter bought a Sony Vaio and the same thing. An AGP graphics slot but no card. It was after dealing with this underhanded crap that I decided to learn to put my own computers together.

The onboard video on recent motherboards is pretty good and is fine for photo editing. All the recent DSLR's have video capability and video editing will tax any system to the max. On my Gateway with a 2.4ghz Pentium 4, Adobe Premeire would crash it. I added another Gig of memory and then it was 50/50 if it would crash. The Windows Movie Maker program ran ok. Transcoding a short 5 min. video of one of my daughter's crew team races would take over 1/2 hour. I haven't tried editing any video yet on my newest build. I am planning on adding a video card and another 4 Gig of memory but I have limited funds right now. So far, I have no complaints as the X3 and onboard ATI graphics are running Photoshop Elements 9 about 5 times faster than Elements 6 runs on the P4 and Lightroom 3 runs just as fast. Lightroom 3 wouldn't run on my P4.

If you don't tinker with electronics and buy your computers, buy one with a video card and a lot of memory. It will probably be cheaper than building one in the end, especially if you need a new monitor. But be careful. I heard a salesman tell a shopper in a store recently that the laptop he was looking at with an Intel Core I3 was a quad core. It wasn't but they are advertising hyperthreading in a dual core as quad core processors. The same shady stuff still goes on so research anything you buy.

cats_five · 01-16-2011, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

<snip>If you don't tinker with electronics and buy your computers, buy one with a video card and a lot of memory. It will probably be cheaper than building one in the end, especially if you need a new monitor.

Unfortunately nearly all the monitors supplies with new PCs are TN panels rather than IPS so the colour is distinctly dodgy, but most people don't like the idea of spending as much (or potentially more) on the monitor than on the PC itself. There is some light on the horizon there though - I've read a review for a Viewsonic 23" monitor with an IPS panel for just over £200. Maybe not an Eizo or a LaCie but streets ahead of the average TN panel. Of course it still benefits from calibrating with a colourimeter...

The other thing is that buying upgrades with a new PC is often a rather expensive way to get whatever it is, though as you say for someone not willing to open the case it's the only way unless they have a friend who will oblige.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Windows 7 desktop backgrounds - Oz version	RichardS	General Talk	0	06-26-2010 02:37 AM
M42 Super Takumar 135/3.5 version 1 vs. version 2	raymeedc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	12-24-2009 11:49 AM
Which sandisk Extreme III sd card for K-7? The 133x version or 200x version?	raider	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	11-30-2009 02:30 AM
Windows users: upgrading to windows 7?	bonovox	General Talk	56	11-09-2009 07:55 AM

01-15-2011, 08:47 PM	#31
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	Originally posted by cats_five Did many motherboards have integrated graphics 5 years ago? The one I brought then certainly didn't, and I don't remember noticing many of the ones I might have brought having built-in graphics. The other thing that puzzles me - lots of folks here spend £££££ on cameras and lenses (not all I know) yet are remarkably mean about a decent PC for post-processing and a decent quality monitor. Building a decent PC for photo editing isn't hugely expensive or difficult - it's easy to spend rather more on the monitor - though it's no longer the money-saver it was 10 years back. A gaming PC - now that's a completely different beast. Yes, they did. Most Gateway's and Dells's, which pretty much was the largest majority of desktop PC's in that time period, all used the same Intel motherboards with the built in Intel Extreme Graphics. My Gateway, which I bought in late 2002, came with 512MB of ram which was considered pretty high end at the time. It has an AGP slot for a graphics card. They advertised these computers as having that AGP graphics slot so many people assumed there was a graphics card inside. There wasn't. My daughter bought a Sony Vaio and the same thing. An AGP graphics slot but no card. It was after dealing with this underhanded crap that I decided to learn to put my own computers together. The onboard video on recent motherboards is pretty good and is fine for photo editing. All the recent DSLR's have video capability and video editing will tax any system to the max. On my Gateway with a 2.4ghz Pentium 4, Adobe Premeire would crash it. I added another Gig of memory and then it was 50/50 if it would crash. The Windows Movie Maker program ran ok. Transcoding a short 5 min. video of one of my daughter's crew team races would take over 1/2 hour. I haven't tried editing any video yet on my newest build. I am planning on adding a video card and another 4 Gig of memory but I have limited funds right now. So far, I have no complaints as the X3 and onboard ATI graphics are running Photoshop Elements 9 about 5 times faster than Elements 6 runs on the P4 and Lightroom 3 runs just as fast. Lightroom 3 wouldn't run on my P4. If you don't tinker with electronics and buy your computers, buy one with a video card and a lot of memory. It will probably be cheaper than building one in the end, especially if you need a new monitor. But be careful. I heard a salesman tell a shopper in a store recently that the laptop he was looking at with an Intel Core I3 was a quad core. It wasn't but they are advertising hyperthreading in a dual core as quad core processors. The same shady stuff still goes on so research anything you buy.

01-16-2011, 01:18 AM	#32
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	Originally posted by reeftool <snip>If you don't tinker with electronics and buy your computers, buy one with a video card and a lot of memory. It will probably be cheaper than building one in the end, especially if you need a new monitor. Unfortunately nearly all the monitors supplies with new PCs are TN panels rather than IPS so the colour is distinctly dodgy, but most people don't like the idea of spending as much (or potentially more) on the monitor than on the PC itself. There is some light on the horizon there though - I've read a review for a Viewsonic 23" monitor with an IPS panel for just over £200. Maybe not an Eizo or a LaCie but streets ahead of the average TN panel. Of course it still benefits from calibrating with a colourimeter... The other thing is that buying upgrades with a new PC is often a rather expensive way to get whatever it is, though as you say for someone not willing to open the case it's the only way unless they have a friend who will oblige.