FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and PCing in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron CRT running at 1200x1600 and the difference is huge compared to my old monitor. I would never go back to 960x1280 and that's about all you can get on the trendy "flat panel" LCD displays at this point. jco
-----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 3:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis" Subject: Re: Full Frame > > I think even those days are coming to an end. I used to upgrade our > home PCs every 18 months to two years (staggered, so the older machine > could be as much as four years old by the time it got replaced), but > there's no real pressure to replace two-year-old hardware nowadays. > Our main home machine is a 2.8GHz P4 (with 1GB of memory), and it is > still easily fast enough for > anything. My (work-supplied) notebook is over two years old (2.4G/512MB), > and still seems more than capable (although, admittedly, it did just get > a disk upgrade, at a price which would pay for a low-end home PC). > > I've been considering one more upgrade for a machine which would be used primarily for image editing (I may be a while before I get back into the darkroom), and am considering one of the AMD 64 bit dual core processors. Is this going to net me a performance improvement over my Athlon 3200+, all else being equal or somewhat better? Thanks William Robb
