Jens, While ACDSee is good, you (and others) might want to have a look at SmartPix Manager V7.07. (www.xequte.com). It is bloody brilliant...
I have ACDSee as well, and I like this one is much better. Of course, YMMV Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services 11 Lawrence Way Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 0414-967644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.heritageservices.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 21 November 2004 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Very OT: Upgrading computer for digital True. If one has a fast computer (2-3 GHz), and 512MB-1GB RAM it's fine. Don't forget to set-up Photoshop so the application is not stored on the main (Windows) drive. And remember to assign a proper scratch disc for Photoshop. The only thing I need to buy now is a detachable harddrive - one I can pull out and store in a fire safe place. CD's for photographs don't work for me. They don't last, and I can never find them - and ACDSee (or others) cannot store database info on the CD. So they got to be stored on a big hard drive. This way the search funcions of your database will work. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. november 2004 14:57 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Very OT: Upgrading computer for digital I have been selling and servicing computers for many years now and have learned one thing: Buying a used computer is *very seldom* worth the money. A new machine gives you many more choices, newer tech- nology and most importantly, a warranty. (QC in the computer world isn't much to speak of anymore.) If you buy the technology that was current say, three months ago, instead of insisting on "leading edge" stuff a new unit will cost very little, or no, more than a used one. The machine I am currently using I built 2-1/2 years ago. It's not OLD, but it is nearly OBSOLETE. Photoshop CS is almost more than it can handle. In the case of photo work you need the things you listed below plus: As much RAM as the machine will hold and a nice fast extra hard drive to use as a "scratch disk", this help PhotoShop a lot! Dual monitor support is very nice too. (I can do PS on one and PDML on the other) ;-) Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Very OT: Upgrading computer for digital > > > Hi all, > > I just sent the following to a friend off-list, but then realized that > there are many of you who may have some good advice to give me. > > When buying a digital camera I will also buy a new second hand > computer. I haven't been following the development closely during the > last years, why anything faster than my P 166 seems a wonder of > technology... :) > > I've done a list of obvious features that I will be looking for: > - as fast a processor as possible, > - as much RAM as possible, > - a video card of as much RAM as possible, > - obviously as big storage drives as possible, > - a CD rom/DVD writer, > - a 19 inch monitor of decent quality, > - USB ports. > > As I said, I don't really know even where today's consumer grade > computer technology is, or where it's going in the near future in > terms of expected features/speeds etc.. (Or what the latest OS/image > editing software will require). I simply might overlook something > obvious. > > If you'd find yourself in my situation with a tight budget, along what > lines would your thinking go, like "not less than an "NN" > processor", "not less than such and such a video card" etc. > > (I wouldn't mind either passing on any of my requirements if I will > easily and affordably be able to upgrade at a later stage, or even at > first just buy me something very basic just to be able to deal with > downloading my files from the camera, like "just give me a cheap > computer that will take big hard drives and is equipped with USB:ports > and I will upgrade later".) > > Any thoughts on what might be a wise approach to all this? > > Thanks, > Lasse >
