I need help buying a new computer

[okietool]

Hi everyone.
I would like to by a new computer.
My current  computer is  P4 2.8 Ghz with 2 gigs or ram. I have 2 500 gig hard drives.
What I want to accomplish: surfing the web, scanning photos, a little video editing, burning cds. I have an Epson Perfection V500 photo scanner that I would like to continue using, with my current set up, I can't scan at the highest res the scanner has because the images are too large to handle.
 I can pick out the dress up stuff I want (card reader, hdmi video, etc) but I have no idea what speed and model processor would be best and how much memory. I don't want to build it myself.

Thanks for looking. And double thanks for any suggestions.

[patio]

Best place to start is with a budget...you did not mention that...

[okietool]

Thanks patio.
Yes, that would be nice. $1000 for the box, I don't really need a monitor or any peripherals.

[Geek-9pm]

My current  computer is  P4 2.8 Ghz with 2 gigs or ram. I have 2 500 gig hard drives

What? Your old P4 can not handle large images? I don't believe it. Here there is a old P4 2.8 Ghz that does just fine. It  can scan anything that fits on the scanner bed at any resolution the scanner can do.
Do you need a new computer?
-OR-
Do you crave a new computer?

In the USA thee are a few Wal-Mart stores that sell computers.
http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=walmart+computers&FORM=HURE
OR, on the north end of the pond...
http://www.misco.co.uk/
It is sooo hard to choose!

[okietool]

Thanks Geek-9pm.
The P4 can, but my motherboard won't accept but the 2 gigs of ram. I always buy 8 1/2" by 11" photos then scan them at the highest resolution the scanner will accept. I'm assuming the scanner software is recognizing the maximum size my equipment will handle. The highest res I have been able to scan so far is 1600 by 1600. And that was a smaller photo. I usually use tif format, because that is what I ahve always used. I know it isn't the smallest or the best, but it works with the software I like to use for printing, etc.

[mr-bisquit]

And what will you do with your old computer?
I have two Dell Dimension 3000 models. One has 786M the other 1280M of RAM. Neither has ever used up the entire memory even while doing 3d rendering. Perhaps what also matters is that I have Debian, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD installed on them.

Why not use another format and then convert to tiff?

You can weed out most of the electronics department of WalMart, BestBuy, etc. They are there to sell a product and few have any idea of how one works.

Speed and processor type won't matter if you're running a lot of programs.

HDMI should be on the graphics card. Card reader doesn't really matter. You can modify the case and attach another to an internal usb to motherboard connector.

Surfing the web isn't going to be fun if the system you use and the browser you choose to use are eating up cpu cycles, RAM, and paging files constantly.

[patio]

There's little here that makes any sense ...

[mr-bisquit]

There's little here that makes any sense ...

Let me hold your hand and walk you through this.

And what will you do with your old computer?
I have two Dell Dimension 3000 models. One has 786M the other 1280M of RAM. Neither has ever used up the entire memory even while doing 3d rendering. Perhaps what also matters is that I have Debian, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD installed on them.

Buying a new computer when your old one is still efficient. The problem is in the OS design and requirements. The same applies for the programs. Change what is installed on the equipment not the equipment.

The same thing said two different ways. Communication must be difficult for you.

Why not use another format and then convert to tiff?

Do you really need a translation for this statement. Yes? Okay. use a format that requires less memory. Transfer that to your computer. Use a conversion program to change it to tiff.

 

You can weed out most of the electronics department of WalMart, BestBuy, etc. They are there to sell a product and few have any idea of how one works.

sales and profit have little to do with honesty or being knowledgeable about something. I hope that your being daft is a put on.

Speed and processor type won't matter if you're running a lot of programs.

An inefficient system that is a memory hog will be a waste of time and money.

 

HDMI should be on the graphics card. Card reader doesn't really matter. You can modify the case and attach another to an internal usb to motherboard connector.

HDMI connectors are on the graphics card. Is the system without a card reader? Well, does it have a free bay? If so, pop out the shield, place another card reader in it, and connect it internally.  You must pay the bills of your local computer shops' employees.

Surfing the web isn't going to be fun if the system you use and the browser you choose to use are eating up cpu cycles, RAM, and paging files constantly.

It's using up too much memory.


And now, for your signature and what is wrong with it.

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
- Jeremy S. Anderson

I believe Sandoz was based in Switzerland and LSD was an accident from trying to make perfume.
UNIX was started at Bell Labs.

[Geek-9pm]

There's little here that makes any sense ...

Yes. Maybe the OP will clarify why he thinks his old PC can not handle large images.
Aat home I edit images up to 3000 by 4000 and can print them on my color printer with quality close to a photograph. The issue is the paper quantity, not the limit of the PC. My scanner will do 600 DPI, which is very close to photograph quality. And PC speed, monitor, CPU and  RAM and HD are never an issue. Unless you do it for commercial use, in which case you would not want a PC anyway. Go buy a commercial thing from Kodak.
Maybe he just wants a new PC. For whatever reason.

[okietool]

Maybe he just wants a new PC. For whatever reason.

Not particularly. What I want is a computer that will handle my scanner's top resolution. I am satisfied with the printer output that I have. I want to scan at higher resolutions to save the very best copy of the image possible. Some of the photos I want to scan are 70 years old or older. I want digital copies that are as hi-res as possible. By possible I mean at the top end of my current scanner. If it was a matter of just wanting or "craving" a new computer, I would already have it. I guess my real question should be " what processor & how much memory do I need to handle a scan to .tif of an 8 1/2" by 11" @ 6400 dpi.
It would also be nice if it would do it as fast as the scanner will scan.
The reason I started using .tif is because it is a "lossless" format.

[Computer_Commando]

... I guess my real question should be " what processor & how much memory do I need to handle a scan to .tif of an 8 1/2" by 11" @ 6400 dpi.
It would also be nice if it would do it as fast as the scanner will scan.
The reason I started using .tif is because it is a "lossless" format.

1.  WinXP-32bit can use no more than about 3.0GB RAM.
2.  If the application needs more than available RAM, it will use Virtual Memory.  You may have to allocate more virtual memory to scan at that size & resolution.

[BC_Programmer]

.tif of an 8 1/2" by 11" @ 6400 dpi

54,400x70,400 pixels, at 24 bpp would be 11,489,280,000 bytes (approx 11GB). Scanners to the best of my understanding don't compress any of the data before they send it to the computer; and even if they did it would just be expanded anyway. you can't work with compressed data directly, so the format/compression used is only relevant to the resulting filesize, not to the possible resolution and color depth,

Really though this isn't a case of unsufficient physical memory anyway. Most of that data would be swapped to virtual memory anyway. Sounds more like a hard-set limitation set by the software, possibly unrelated to memory configuration; although if the pagefile/swap settings were manually changed from system managed, and the software was actually doing calculations on the fly to determine how big of an image to process (which I personally doubt for a number of reasons) then it could be deciding that the user cannot scan a super huge image.

It may be a good idea to try another piece of software that supports acquisition from a scanner.

[Geek-9pm]

   Do You Really Need All That Resolution?
It seems even the scanner makers are now caught up in the more-is-better routine. A few years ago 300dpi 16-shade grey was an incredible scanner, to-day it seems if you dont have a 600dpi 24-bit scanner youll likely to get drummed out of the local DTP users club. But do you really need 600dpi?
.... (more)
http://www.scanhelp.com/288int/scontent/needres.html

[Salmon Trout]

Let me hold your hand and walk you through this.

The same thing said two different ways. Communication must be difficult for you.

I hope that your being daft is a put on.

I suspect yours is not. Neither is your unpleasant rudeness.

And now, for your signature and what is wrong with it.

I believe Sandoz was based in Switzerland and LSD was an accident from trying to make perfume.

You don't know much about the 1960s, do you? Ever heard of Owsley?

If you wish to attack others (on specious grounds) it is good to make sure your own ignorance is not exposed for all to see.