On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:20:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >I ran a Win 98SE machine for a while, and had a USB card installed that > >would allow for a card reader. However, it was limited to USB 1.0. I > >don't think USB 2.0 had even come out at that time. In any case, it was > >really amazing to see the difference in file xfer speed between the 98SE > >computer and the then new XP box. Plus, of course, being able to run > >Photoshop in a seamless fashion was a nice "feature" of the new machine. > > > >However, I wonder about how XP would run on a machine with older hardware, > >which is, in essence, how this thread got started. Doesn't XP have some > >minimum hardware requirements that, quite possibly, an older machine might > >not have? > > > >Shel > > That was my original point. If he(?) installs XP and then tries to work > with large files and a later version of Photoshop, he will be worse off > than if he upgrades to SE and uses a card reader. Even than, the > highest PS he can use will be 6 (possibly 7) so only JPEG files will be > available. But at least he will be able to do something. Otherwise, he > is looking at another financial "investment" of at least the size of his > camera to be able to play with his pictures.....
Hardly. For the price of a DL I can get an HP Media Center PC with 1GB PCI3200 memory, 2.8GHz P4, 200GB SATA drive, and a DVD burner. That's far more than is needed for digital photo editing. For that matter, for the same price I can buy a Compaq notebook with 512MB of memory and 60GB hard drive - more than enough for photo editing (it's what I use myself). The notebook comes with built-in wireless, too. It's possible to get a perfectly reasonable desktop machine for half that.
