Karlo no Dabas maajas via QGIS-User <[email protected]> writes:
> I was surprised by the statement, “My old computer cannot support a > more recent version.” It’s likely that the computer in question > struggles with the operating system (e.g., Microsoft Windows) rather > than QGIS itself. For instance, macOS High Sierra supports more recent > QGIS versions, so a Mac is unlikely to be the issue. I too found it a strange statement, and the only reasonable interpretation was that the base OS software was too old and the person was unwilling (or too organizationally constrained) to fix that. > To clarify, I’ve successfully performed resource-intensive tasks using > QGIS 3.38 on a 13-year-old Dell Inspiron (8 GB RAM, Intel Core > i3-2370M CPU) running a Linux-based system. I see no significant > barriers to upgrading to the latest QGIS version, aside from my own > reluctance to update. It makes sense to me that it runs fine. I suspect if you were dealing with 64G of point cloud, or doing imagery transforms on 64G of imagery *all the time*, you'd want a bigger computer. My main computer is only 6 years old, 32 GB RAM, i7-9700 and SSD - a Dell bought used retiring from corporate service. I wasn't worried about qgis usage when I got it and I'm still not. Startup is non-instant, taking 5s when I think it should be 1s, but not a big deal (probably a lot of serialization with netowrk delays, not bad enough to motivate anybody!), and after that things are generally very good. > I’d appreciate any insights on standardized benchmarking or hardware > recommendations for QGIS. This gets asked a lot, and I think it comes to "qgis is not a workload". qgis is a program with which one can do many things. It's like asking how big a computer do you need to compile C programs, to run emacs, or to have a postgresql database. It depends: do you want one table with 100 rows, or do you want to store the entire openstreetmap database and serve read/write requests for the entire population of editors? (My impression is that the main OSM db server is very impressive, and 512 MB of RAM and a 400 MB spinning disk will do fine for one pgsql table, the best 2002 had to offer.) A project with one or two TMS base layers and a few geopackages with a hundred features is going to run ok on computers that are considered just barely able to run a modern (bloated) web browser. (Your computer is arguably 4x as big as what I mean here.) Someone wanting to load 32 GB of imagery or point cloud and do operations on them is going to have a hard time on a computer with 2 GB of RAM. Someone wanting to process 1 TB is going to have an even harder time. I think it comes down to; if you're going to be doing heavy raster processing, for professional use, then get a lot of memory. Regardless, get a fairly large amount of memory, and use good-quality SSDs. Separately from QGIS, I'd say "do not buy a computer now unless it has at least 32 GB of RAM". And if you are building a professional-use qgis workstation for raster processing (not just basemap display or looking at imagery), then I'd get 128 GB. But really think about your data qsizes and try it on a 32 GB RAM machine first. There's probably more to it, but to me this shows the gulf between those who think like I do and those who think this is more complicated and more well defined. I could very well be off; corrections and actual experience welcome. Greg _______________________________________________ QGIS-User mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
