Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.comp.hardware
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 08:08 PM
Harry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Graphic's Card Questions

Hello,

I just had my very, slow computer upgraded with
"life-time guarantee" memory, and it helped a lot, but the
larger graphics, i make on a particular art program, still
wont get through the saving stage: they just turn off the art
program, leaving me sitting there starring in shock at my
desktop, of course i lose, not minutes, but hours of work.

The C.P.U. runs at100% when trying to save the work,
however the C.P.U. is new, as is the entire computer, and i
would rather find another way such as a graphics card, now
that the memory problem might possibly be solved. I donot
mind waiting for the work. Losing it altogether is another
story!!!!! So what i want to do, if possible, is to now
upgrade my graphics card.

Can i put in a most powerful graphics card (and what is
"the most powerful graphics card"), and would the new
memory i have work, or do i need special, graphics
memory for this super, deluxe graphics card i hope to have
installed? I only paid $500.00 for this computer at
WalMart, but never used it, so i would rather spend a few
hundred dollars on it to work with my one heavy- duty, art
program, than go out and pay $4,000.00 for a computer
with a lot junk-to-me in it that i donot need nor will ever
use.

Norton is a nice program, however i feel itis massive and
helping to cause the problem, and that is why i thought
more R.A.M. was the answer. I willnot take the time here
and now to go into it, however i know there is nothing
wrong with the art program, nor the computers.

Truly


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 08:58 PM
Grinder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

Harry wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just had my very, slow computer upgraded with
> "life-time guarantee" memory, and it helped a lot, but the
> larger graphics, i make on a particular art program, still
> wont get through the saving stage: they just turn off the art
> program, leaving me sitting there starring in shock at my
> desktop, of course i lose, not minutes, but hours of work.
>
> The C.P.U. runs at100% when trying to save the work,
> however the C.P.U. is new, as is the entire computer, and i
> would rather find another way such as a graphics card, now
> that the memory problem might possibly be solved. I donot
> mind waiting for the work. Losing it altogether is another
> story!!!!! So what i want to do, if possible, is to now
> upgrade my graphics card.
>
> Can i put in a most powerful graphics card (and what is
> "the most powerful graphics card"), and would the new
> memory i have work, or do i need special, graphics
> memory for this super, deluxe graphics card i hope to have
> installed? I only paid $500.00 for this computer at
> WalMart, but never used it, so i would rather spend a few
> hundred dollars on it to work with my one heavy- duty, art
> program, than go out and pay $4,000.00 for a computer
> with a lot junk-to-me in it that i donot need nor will ever
> use.


I don't believe that a higher performance graphics card will solve your
problem. If I'm reading you right, photoshop-like program is choking on
large files. Those programs aren't really that demanding when it comes
to graphic cards--CPUs, memory and hard drives, yes, but not the GPU.

If you are using an onboard video chip, plugging in a graphics card
might free up a bit of memory, which could help, but I don't forecast a
dramatic improvement.

> Norton is a nice program, however i feel itis massive and
> helping to cause the problem, and that is why i thought
> more R.A.M. was the answer. I willnot take the time here
> and now to go into it, however i know there is nothing
> wrong with the art program, nor the computers.


Try disabling Norton for a bit, and see if it improves your lot.

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 10:20 PM
Trimble
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

You losing work when trying to save is nothing to do with any graphic card.
It COULD ! be any of many things .You don't give any details of machine &
Program.
Reinstall the program perhaps ...check Windows settings ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse




Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 10:47 PM
Paul
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

Harry wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just had my very, slow computer upgraded with
> "life-time guarantee" memory, and it helped a lot, but the
> larger graphics, i make on a particular art program, still
> wont get through the saving stage: they just turn off the art
> program, leaving me sitting there starring in shock at my
> desktop, of course i lose, not minutes, but hours of work.
>
> The C.P.U. runs at100% when trying to save the work,
> however the C.P.U. is new, as is the entire computer, and i
> would rather find another way such as a graphics card, now
> that the memory problem might possibly be solved. I donot
> mind waiting for the work. Losing it altogether is another
> story!!!!! So what i want to do, if possible, is to now
> upgrade my graphics card.
>
> Can i put in a most powerful graphics card (and what is
> "the most powerful graphics card"), and would the new
> memory i have work, or do i need special, graphics
> memory for this super, deluxe graphics card i hope to have
> installed? I only paid $500.00 for this computer at
> WalMart, but never used it, so i would rather spend a few
> hundred dollars on it to work with my one heavy- duty, art
> program, than go out and pay $4,000.00 for a computer
> with a lot junk-to-me in it that i donot need nor will ever
> use.
>
> Norton is a nice program, however i feel itis massive and
> helping to cause the problem, and that is why i thought
> more R.A.M. was the answer. I willnot take the time here
> and now to go into it, however i know there is nothing
> wrong with the art program, nor the computers.
>
> Truly
>


Run Belarc Advisor and tell us about your hardware.
It helps if we know something about your hardware.
(Note - *don't* copy the license key section, just the
hardware details.)

Belarc Advisor:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/Belarc_Advisor_d1385.html

Just randomly buying more hardware for a computer, will
not fix it cheaply or efficiently. You need to work on
the symptoms, to find a solution. For example, you could
check Event Viewer, for error messages created by the
failing Art Program.

For an Art Program, virtually any graphics card will do.

Paul

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 10:49 PM
Harry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Mar 12, 6:20 pm, "Trimble" <no-s...@at-all.here> wrote:
> You losing work when trying to save is nothing to do with any graphic card.
> It COULD ! be any of many things .You don't give any details of machine &
> Program.
> Reinstall the program perhaps ...check Windows settings ??
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") Mouse


>
>


Hello,

I donot always lose the work; only when itis a huge file.

Ihave an oldy goldy computer where it works fine. I just
want to retire the old computer, instead of having towork
on 3 or 4 different computers.

Would you please tell me if a graphic's card needs a
special R.A.M.

Truly


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2007, 11:44 PM
GT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting. That would slow
down heavy disk access.



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 06:39 AM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.


Nope.

> That would slow down heavy disk access.


Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.



Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 08:20 AM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On 12 Mar 2007 13:08:25 -0700, "Harry"
<paminifarm3@netscape.net> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>?I just had my very, slow computer


Tell us about it.


>upgraded with
>"life-time guarantee" memory,


How much?


> and it helped a lot, but the
>larger graphics,


How large?

>i make on a particular art program,


What program?



>still
>wont get through the saving stage:


Where does it stop exactly?


>they just turn off the art
>program, leaving me sitting there starring in shock at my
>desktop, of course i lose, not minutes, but hours of work.


Unless your hard drive is full it might be that your art
program has a severe bug such that it can't handle this size
image, but you have failed to provide a lot of important
information about the scenario.




>
>The C.P.U. runs at100% when trying to save the work,
>however the C.P.U. is new, as is the entire computer,


Is it otherwise 100% stable?



>and i
>would rather find another way such as a graphics card,


Another way to what?
A graphics card isn't going to do anything for your problem.



>now
>that the memory problem might possibly be solved. I donot
>mind waiting for the work. Losing it altogether is another
>story!!!!! So what i want to do, if possible, is to now
>upgrade my graphics card.


Ok, but it won't help with this problem.



>
>Can i put in a most powerful graphics card (and what is
>"the most powerful graphics card"), and would the new
>memory i have work,


yes, as well as it does already - no better or worse



>or do i need special, graphics
>memory for this super, deluxe graphics card i hope to have
>installed?


No


>I only paid $500.00 for this computer at
>WalMart, but never used it, so i would rather spend a few
>hundred dollars on it to work with my one heavy- duty, art
>program, than go out and pay $4,000.00 for a computer
>with a lot junk-to-me in it that i donot need nor will ever
>use.


We need exacting details of what is happening to help you
determine why it has a problem. A video card is not likely
to help.



>
>Norton is a nice program, however i feel itis massive and
>helping to cause the problem, and that is why i thought
>more R.A.M. was the answer. I willnot take the time here
>and now to go into it, however i know there is nothing
>wrong with the art program, nor the computers.



Get rid of the Norton software, it can cause problems, but
it may not be the cause of THIS problem.

You don't know there is nothing wrong with the art program,
as it seems to be pretty clearly failing. If you had
insufficient memory or drive space it should not crash like
that, it should tell you it can't save the image or do what
you were trying to do with it. No work lost.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 11:14 AM
GT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55mv8rF25nrp6U1@mid.individual.net...
> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.

>
> Nope.


How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have you
tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one word put-down,
know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing people off? You should
find some friends and get out more!

>> That would slow down heavy disk access.

>
> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.


An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect
performance while saving a large file. I have made the assumption that while
waiting for the computer to churn on for ages, it either gets into a
'pickle', or the user gets bored waiting and starts to 'press things', then
there is probably going to be a resulting crash and loss of data.



Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 03:26 PM
Harry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Mar 12, 4:08*pm, "Harry" <paminifa...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just had my very, slow computer upgraded with
> "life-time guarantee" memory, and it helped a lot, but the
> larger graphics, i make on a particular art program, still
> wont get through the saving stage: they just turn off the art
> program, leaving me sitting there starring in shock at my
> desktop, of course i lose, not minutes, but hours of work.
>
> The C.P.U. runs at100% when trying to save the work,
> however the C.P.U. is new, as is the entire computer, and i
> would rather find another way such as a graphics card, now
> that the memory problem might possibly be solved. I donot
> mind waiting for the work. Losing it altogether is another
> story!!!!! So what i want to do, if possible, is to now
> upgrade my graphics card.
>
> Can i put in a most powerful graphics card (and what is
> "the most powerful graphics card"), and would the new
> memory i have work, or do i need special, graphics
> memory for this super, deluxe graphics card i hope to have
> installed? I only paid $500.00 for this computer at
> WalMart, but never used it, so i would rather spend a few
> hundred dollars on it to work with my one heavy- duty, art
> program, than go out and pay $4,000.00 for a computer
> with a lot junk-to-me in it that i donot need nor will ever
> use.
>
> Norton is a nice program, however i feel itis massive and
> helping to cause the problem, and that is why i thought
> more R.A.M. was the answer. I willnot take the time here
> and now to go into it, however i know there is nothing
> wrong with the art program, nor the computers.
>
> Truly


Hello,
Iam sorry, however ihave been using the
wrong word. Ihave been saying "Save"
when i shouldhave been saying "Generate Files",
or: "Make An Image", or "Do Graphics".
Here is a deceiving example of what the
old computer can do, so that you can
see about what iam speaking.
Iam a computer artist so-to-speak, and
make images suitable for my Epson
1280, and larger for commercial blow-ups.
Looking at my files for blow-up: i see one
for over 50,000 KB.
lillyrouge.tripod.com/enter.html

Truly


Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 04:08 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:14:09 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:55mv8rF25nrp6U1@mid.individual.net...
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.

>>
>> Nope.

>
>How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have you
>tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one word put-down,
>know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing people off? You should
>find some friends and get out more!
>



Relax, Rod gets off on this kind of arguing.

What he meant (which I'm sure he'll disagree with just to be
disagreeable) is that a fragmented drive should not cause
the app to just terminate like that in the middle of trying
to save the work. It might make the drive thrash about like
crazy and take quite a while to save the file if it was
huge, especially if there's a lot of paging going on to free
up enough space to do an operation (like a compression
routine for the output format it would be saved in), but
without some OS or app flaw behind it, it should just take a
longer but still work.


>>> That would slow down heavy disk access.

>>
>> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.

>
>An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect
>performance while saving a large file. I have made the assumption that while
>waiting for the computer to churn on for ages, it either gets into a
>'pickle', or the user gets bored waiting and starts to 'press things', then
>there is probably going to be a resulting crash and loss of data.
>


It's certainly possible the user gets impatient, the amount
of time can get pretty crazy on a system with insufficient
memory, but as of yet we don't have enough evidence to
assume this. It could drastically effect performance but
the app shouldn't abruptly close.

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 04:34 PM
GT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:rfidv21r9vpvcvocden8b01jpoq1mdrj79@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:14:09 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:55mv8rF25nrp6U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.
>>>
>>> Nope.

>>
>>How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have you
>>tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one word
>>put-down,
>>know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing people off? You should
>>find some friends and get out more!
>>

> Relax, Rod gets off on this kind of arguing.


Thanks for the support Kony. I have unfortunately 'experienced' Rod's highly
reasoned points before! He will no doubt be pleased to know that this time
he caught me in a bad mood and unfortunately I took his bait!

> What he meant (which I'm sure he'll disagree with just to be
> disagreeable) is that a fragmented drive should not cause
> the app to just terminate like that in the middle of trying
> to save the work. It might make the drive thrash about like
> crazy and take quite a while to save the file if it was
> huge, especially if there's a lot of paging going on to free
> up enough space to do an operation (like a compression
> routine for the output format it would be saved in), but
> without some OS or app flaw behind it, it should just take a
> longer but still work.
>
>>>> That would slow down heavy disk access.
>>>
>>> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.

>>
>>An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect
>>performance while saving a large file. I have made the assumption that
>>while
>>waiting for the computer to churn on for ages, it either gets into a
>>'pickle', or the user gets bored waiting and starts to 'press things',
>>then
>>there is probably going to be a resulting crash and loss of data.

>
> It's certainly possible the user gets impatient, the amount
> of time can get pretty crazy on a system with insufficient
> memory, but as of yet we don't have enough evidence to
> assume this. It could drastically effect performance but
> the app shouldn't abruptly close.


I agree - low, badly fragmented disk space shouldn't cause an app to close -
the app shouldn't really know anything about it, but it might cause the app
to stop responding for a while and ultimately cause a crash / data loss. He
said he has maxed out his RAM (or something to that effect), but he is
working with a multimedia program that outputs a 50MB datafile, so he must
be using a lot of memory. If his disk is fragmented and if he is saving data
from the virtual memory file, the slowdown could be significant. A lot of
'if's and assumptions about user impatience, but in my experience guesswork
and hypothesis solves at least 50% of PC problems! Cue Rod's sweeping,
derogatory, inaccurate 1 syllable statement. I predict "Nope", or "Wrong"...



Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 10:29 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote


>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.


>> Nope.


> How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented


I didnt. I JUST said that it wont be the cause of the problems he is seeing.

> - have you tested it?


Dont need to to know that however fragmented the drive may
be, that wont be what is causing the problem with saving files
that sees the app crash back to the OS without saving them.

> Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one word


There was a hell of a lot more than one word in my reply, child.

> put-down, know-it-all attitude.


I correct terminal stupiditys like yours, so that the OP wont waste his
time on something that cant be the cause of the problem he is getting.

> Do you actually enjoy pissing people off?


I do find it rather amusing that silly little pig ignorant children
get so upset when their nose is rubbed in their terminal stupiditys.

> You should find some friends and get out more!


Cant even manage an original line. Pathetic.

>>> That would slow down heavy disk access.


>> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.


> An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect performance while saving a
> large file.


Performance is irrelevant to the problem he is getting,
a failure to save the results of the editing session.

> I have made the assumption that while waiting for the computer to churn on for ages,


That wouldnt happen just because its fragmented.

You wouldnt even be able to pick the increased
time to save the file in a proper double blind trial.

> it either gets into a 'pickle',


Doesnt happen when the drive is fragmented. ALL that
does is marginally increase the time to save the file.

> or the user gets bored waiting and starts to 'press things',


The user wouldnt be able to pick the extra time due to a fragmented
drive, so thats no more likely to happen than with it defragged.

And if that involves loss of his hours of work, its pretty
bloody unlikely that he'd be that stupid anyway.

> then there is probably going to be a resulting crash and loss of data.


Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, child.



Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote


>>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.


>>> Nope.


>> How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have
>> you tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one
>> word put-down, know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing
>> people off? You should find some friends and get out more!


> Relax, Rod gets off on this kind of arguing.


It wasnt even arguing, just rubbing that stupid child's silly little
nose in the FACT that even if the drive is fragmented, that
wont produce the problem that the OP is seeing, the app
crashing when attempting to save the work thats been done.

> What he meant (which I'm sure he'll disagree with just to be disagreeable)


Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again ?

> is that a fragmented drive should not cause the app to just
> terminate like that in the middle of trying to save the work.


What I said below in different words, you pathetic excuse for a ******** artist.

> It might make the drive thrash about like crazy


Nope, doesnt happen with a fragmented drive.

> and take quite a while to save the file if it was huge,


Bet you wouldnt be able to pick the extra time
to save the work in a proper double blind trial.

> especially if there's a lot of paging going on to free up
> enough space to do an operation (like a compression
> routine for the output format it would be saved in), but
> without some OS or app flaw behind it, it should just
> take a longer but still work.


Bet you wouldnt be able to pick the extra time
to save the work in a proper double blind trial.

>>>> That would slow down heavy disk access.


>>> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.


>> An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect
>> performance while saving a large file. I have made the assumption
>> that while waiting for the computer to churn on for ages, it either
>> gets into a 'pickle', or the user gets bored waiting and starts to
>> 'press things', then there is probably going to be a resulting crash
>> and loss of data.


> It's certainly possible the user gets impatient,


Nope, because you wouldnt be able to pick the extra
time to save the work in a proper double blind trial.

> the amount of time can get pretty crazy on a system with insufficient memory,


Separate matter entirely to whether the drive is FRAGMENTED.

> but as of yet we don't have enough evidence to assume this. It could
> drastically effect performance but the app shouldn't abruptly close.


Wot I said hours ago.



Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 10:40 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:rfidv21r9vpvcvocden8b01jpoq1mdrj79@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:14:09 -0000, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:55mv8rF25nrp6U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have
>>> you tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one
>>> word put-down,
>>> know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing people off? You
>>> should find some friends and get out more!
>>>

>> Relax, Rod gets off on this kind of arguing.

>
> Thanks for the support Kony. I have unfortunately 'experienced' Rod's
> highly reasoned points before! He will no doubt be pleased to know
> that this time he caught me in a bad mood and unfortunately I took his bait!


You actually got pissed about having your terminal stupiditys exposed for everyone to laugh at.

>> What he meant (which I'm sure he'll disagree with just to be
>> disagreeable) is that a fragmented drive should not cause
>> the app to just terminate like that in the middle of trying
>> to save the work. It might make the drive thrash about like
>> crazy and take quite a while to save the file if it was
>> huge, especially if there's a lot of paging going on to free
>> up enough space to do an operation (like a compression
>> routine for the output format it would be saved in), but
>> without some OS or app flaw behind it, it should just take a
>> longer but still work.
>>
>>>>> That would slow down heavy disk access.
>>>>
>>>> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.
>>>
>>> An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect
>>> performance while saving a large file. I have made the assumption
>>> that while
>>> waiting for the computer to churn on for ages, it either gets into a
>>> 'pickle', or the user gets bored waiting and starts to 'press
>>> things', then
>>> there is probably going to be a resulting crash and loss of data.

>>
>> It's certainly possible the user gets impatient, the amount
>> of time can get pretty crazy on a system with insufficient
>> memory, but as of yet we don't have enough evidence to
>> assume this. It could drastically effect performance but
>> the app shouldn't abruptly close.


> I agree - low, badly fragmented disk space shouldn't cause an app to close - the app shouldn't
> really know anything about it, but it might cause the app to stop responding for a while


Nope.

> and ultimately cause a crash / data loss. He said he has maxed out his RAM (or something to that
> effect), but he is working with a multimedia program that outputs a 50MB datafile, so he must be
> using a lot of memory.


Not necessarily, depends on what the edit involves.

> If his disk is fragmented and if he is saving data from the virtual memory file, the slowdown
> could be significant.


Nope. You wouldnt even be able to pick it in a double blind trial.

> A lot of 'if's and assumptions about user impatience, but in my experience guesswork and
> hypothesis solves at least 50% of PC problems!


Wota stunningly precise estimate, child.

> Cue Rod's sweeping, derogatory, inaccurate 1 syllable statement. I predict "Nope", or "Wrong"...


There's always more than just one syllable, you pathetic excuse for a lying ******** artist.



Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2007, 11:27 PM
Harry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Mar 13, 6:40*pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> GT <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "kony" <s...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:rfidv21r9vpvcvocden8b01jpoq1mdrj79@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:14:09 -0000, "GT"
> >> <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:55mv8rF25nrp6U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> GT <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.

>
> >>>> Nope.

>
> >>> How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have
> >>> you tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one
> >>> word put-down,
> >>> know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing people off? You
> >>> should find some friends and get out more!

>
> >> Relax, Rod gets off on this kind of arguing.

>
> > Thanks for the support Kony. I have unfortunately 'experienced' Rod's
> > highly reasoned points before! He will no doubt be pleased to know
> > that this time he caught me in a bad mood and unfortunately I took his bait!

>
> You actually got pissed about having your terminal stupiditys exposed foreveryone to laugh at.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> What he meant (which I'm sure he'll disagree with just to be
> >> disagreeable) is that a fragmented drive should not cause
> >> the app to just terminate like that in the middle of trying
> >> to save the work. *It might make the drive thrash about like
> >> crazy and take quite a while to save the file if it was
> >> huge, especially if there's a lot of paging going on to free
> >> up enough space to do an operation (like a compression
> >> routine for the output format it would be saved in), but
> >> without some OS or app flaw behind it, it should just take a
> >> longer but still work.

>
> >>>>> That would slow down heavy disk access.

>
> >>>> Not enough to matter, and wouldnt cause the loss of the edits etc.

>
> >>> An almost full and badly fragmented hard drive would directly affect
> >>> performance while saving a large file. I have made the assumption
> >>> that while
> >>> waiting for the computer to churn on for ages, it either gets into a
> >>> 'pickle', or the user gets bored waiting and starts to 'press
> >>> things', then
> >>> there is probably going to be a resulting crash and loss of data.

>
> >> It's certainly possible the user gets impatient, the amount
> >> of time can get pretty crazy on a system with insufficient
> >> memory, but as of yet we don't have enough evidence to
> >> assume this. *It could drastically effect performance but
> >> the app shouldn't abruptly close.

> > I agree - low, badly fragmented disk space shouldn't cause an app to close - the app shouldn't
> > really know anything about it, but it might cause the app to stop responding for a while

>
> Nope.
>
> > and ultimately cause a crash / data loss. He said he has maxed out his RAM (or something to that
> > effect), but he is working with a multimedia program that outputs a 50MB datafile, so he must be
> > using a lot of memory.

>
> Not necessarily, depends on what the edit involves.
>
> > If his disk is fragmented and if he is saving data from the virtual memory file, the slowdown
> > could be significant.

>
> Nope. You wouldnt even be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
>
> > A lot of 'if's and assumptions about user impatience, but in my experience guesswork and
> > hypothesis solves at least 50% of PC problems!

>
> Wota stunningly precise estimate, child.
>
> > Cue Rod's sweeping, derogatory, inaccurate 1 syllable statement. I predict "Nope", or "Wrong"...

>
> There's always more than just one syllable, you pathetic excuse for a lying ******** artist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


>
>


Hello,

On the old Win 98 computer that works fine with the art
program in question, i found the "Display Properties" for
the Plug and Play Monitor were set at the lowest setting for
color resolution and the newer computers are up to the next
higher setting. The old computer is very blurry so i thought
if i raised the resolution to what the newer computers have
it would get rid of the blur, well it worked, howerver now
the old computer is broken and now i have to take it back
to the shop. I cannot even get in on "safe" to change it.

So anyway i lowered the resolution setting on one of the
bothersome computers that are making me lose my work
and now everything looks huge and the computer seems to
be much slower - what have i done?

On the newer computer where i just set the resolution, it is
at the lowest setting of 800 by 600 pixels. I got a rather
experimental image through, but it was just a quickie trial.
I willnot know if this lower resolution is going to really
work or not until ihave done actual work on the computer.
If it works then ihave found the secret.
[all the computers are at the computer highest (32bit)]

Again: Why does everything look so huge with the lower
setting of 800 by 600. You would think "bigger" would be a
disadvantage?

Truly


Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2007, 01:38 AM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

Harry <paminifarm3@netscape.net> wrote

> ?On the old Win 98 computer that works fine with the art
> program in question, i found the "Display Properties" for
> the Plug and Play Monitor were set at the lowest setting for
> color resolution and the newer computers are up to the next
> higher setting. The old computer is very blurry so i thought
> if i raised the resolution to what the newer computers have
> it would get rid of the blur, well it worked, howerver now
> the old computer is broken and now i have to take it back
> to the shop. I cannot even get in on "safe" to change it.


> So anyway i lowered the resolution setting on
> one of the bothersome computers that are making
> me lose my work and now everything looks huge


Thats normal, see below.

> and the computer seems to be much slower


It shouldnt have any effect on that.

> - what have i done?


Likely its just an illusion.

> On the newer computer where i just set the resolution, it is
> at the lowest setting of 800 by 600 pixels. I got a rather
> experimental image through, but it was just a quickie trial.
> I will not know if this lower resolution is going to really
> work or not until ihave done actual work on the computer.
> If it works then ihave found the secret.


Its very unlikely indeed to be the cause of your original problem.

> [all the computers are at the computer highest (32bit)]


> Again: Why does everything look so huge with the lower setting of 800 by 600.


Basically thats how Win does the font sizes.

> You would think "bigger" would be a disadvantage?


Many find that the tiny fonts used at the highest resolutions are too hard to read.



Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2007, 05:59 AM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:35:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote

>
>>>>> How full is your hard disk? Perhaps it needs defragmenting.

>
>>>> Nope.

>
>>> How can you possibly say that his hard disk isn't fragmented - have
>>> you tested it? Why do you always jump in with your obnoxious, one
>>> word put-down, know-it-all attitude. Do you actually enjoy pissing
>>> people off? You should find some friends and get out more!

>
>> Relax, Rod gets off on this kind of arguing.

>
>It wasnt even arguing,


I don't think we really need to argue about the fact that
you are arguing before you even realize it... but I'm sure
you'd like to argue about it.

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2007, 11:09 AM
GT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

>> low, badly fragmented disk space shouldn't cause an app to close - the
>> app shouldn't really know anything about it, but it might cause the app
>> to stop responding for a while

>
> Nope.


Rod doesn't know much about software. He is so badly informed that he can
only reply with a single syllable retort!

>> and ultimately cause a crash / data loss. He said he has maxed out his
>> RAM (or something to that effect), but he is working with a multimedia
>> program that outputs a 50MB datafile, so he must be using a lot of
>> memory.

>
> Not necessarily, depends on what the edit involves.
>
>> If his disk is fragmented and if he is saving data from the virtual
>> memory file, the slowdown could be significant.

>
> Nope. You wouldnt even be able to pick it in a double blind trial.


Completely, utterly, absolutely, definitely wrong. Rod talks through his
arse.

>> A lot of 'if's and assumptions about user impatience, but in my
>> experience guesswork and hypothesis solves at least 50% of PC problems!

>
> Wota stunningly precise estimate, child.
>
>> Cue Rod's sweeping, derogatory, inaccurate 1 syllable statement. I
>> predict "Nope", or "Wrong"...

>
> There's always more than just one syllable, you pathetic excuse for a
> lying ******** artist.


He always replies with more than one syllable? Taking his first response in
this very thread - "Nope", let's all help Rod with his maths and count the
syllables? Lets count them together. One... Ah that's it. A one syllable
reply. Guess you are wrong again Rod, you do normally reply with a 1
syllable reply. You would be better to stay quiet and leave us wondering if
you are stupid or not, but instead you choose to write things like that and
prove that you are!

Rod is the bi-product of in-breading. This unfortunately leaves him with
only 3 teeth and his brain is squeezed into a smaller than normal skull,
which results in his unfortunate 1 syllable outbursts from time to time. He
is good at the banjo though, impressive for a backwards 12 year old! When
puberty hits he will hopefully mature slightly, but until then we have to
put up with his insults. All I can suggest to everyone is to just ignore
him - something I find impossible to do!



Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2007, 10:01 PM
t1gercat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Mar 13, 11:26*am, "Harry" <paminifa...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 4:08*pm, "Harry" <paminifa...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello,

>
> > I just had my very, slow computer upgraded with
> > "life-time guarantee" memory, and it helped a lot, but the
> > larger graphics, i make on a particular art program, still
> > wont get through the saving stage: they just turn off the art
> > program, leaving me sitting there starring in shock at my
> > desktop, of course i lose, not minutes, but hours of work.

>
> > The C.P.U. runs at100% when trying to save the work,
> > however the C.P.U. is new, as is the entire computer, and i
> > would rather find another way such as a graphics card, now
> > that the memory problem might possibly be solved. I donot
> > mind waiting for the work. Losing it altogether is another
> > story!!!!! So what i want to do, if possible, is to now
> > upgrade my graphics card.

>
> > Can i put in a most powerful graphics card (and what is
> > "the most powerful graphics card"), and would the new
> > memory i have work, or do i need special, graphics
> > memory for this super, deluxe graphics card i hope to have
> > installed? I only paid $500.00 for this computer at
> > WalMart, but never used it, so i would rather spend a few
> > hundred dollars on it to work with my one heavy- duty, art
> > program, than go out and pay $4,000.00 for a computer
> > with a lot junk-to-me in it that i donot need nor will ever
> > use.

>
> > Norton is a nice program, however i feel itis massive and
> > helping to cause the problem, and that is why i thought
> > more R.A.M. was the answer. I willnot take the time here
> > and now to go into it, however i know there is nothing
> > wrong with the art program, nor the computers.

>
> > Truly

>
> Hello,
> Iam sorry, however ihave been using the
> wrong word. Ihave been saying *"Save"
> when i shouldhave been saying "Generate Files",
> or: "Make An Image", or "Do Graphics".
> Here is a deceiving example of what the
> old computer can do, so that you can
> see about what iam speaking.
> Iam a computer artist so-to-speak, and
> make images suitable for my Epson
> 1280, and larger for commercial blow-ups.
> Looking at my files for blow-up: i see one
> for over 50,000 KB.
> lillyrouge.tripod.com/enter.html
>
> Truly- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Make sure you haven't run out of space on your hard drive. If that's
not the case, see if the program sets aside temporary space. It could
that it defaults at, say, 30,000 KB and then doesn't make the room to
handle your file. You should be able to adjust that number, however.
Check your software manual. Finallym, you may not have enough RAM to
handle that large a file. You might need to increase your RAM a bit.


Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2007, 11:40 AM
GT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

> Make sure you haven't run out of space on your hard drive. If that's
> not the case, see if the program sets aside temporary space. It could
> that it defaults at, say, 30,000 KB and then doesn't make the room to
> handle your file. You should be able to adjust that number, however.
> Check your software manual. Finallym, you may not have enough RAM to
> handle that large a file. You might need to increase your RAM a bit.


I suggested this, but Rod Speed has personally checked the drive (so he
claims) and it is not full and not fragmented.




Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2007, 07:32 PM
t1gercat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Mar 15, 7:40 am, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Make sure you haven't run out of space on your hard drive. If that's
> > not the case, see if the program sets aside temporary space. It could
> > that it defaults at, say, 30,000 KB and then doesn't make the room to
> > handle your file. You should be able to adjust that number, however.
> > Check your software manual. Finallym, you may not have enough RAM to
> > handle that large a file. You might need to increase your RAM a bit.

>
> I suggested this, but Rod Speed has personally checked the drive (so he
> claims) and it is not full and not fragmented.


Sorry about my typing; it was awful. I had some similar problems with
Photoshop 4.0, and it had to do with the temporary drive space
allocation. I simply expanded it and the problems went away.


Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2007, 01:34 AM
Harry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

On Mar 15, 3:32 pm, "t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 7:40 am, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Make sure you haven't run out of space on your hard drive. If that's
> > > not the case, see if the program sets aside temporary space. It could
> > > that it defaults at, say, 30,000 KB and then doesn't make the room to
> > > handle your file. You should be able to adjust that number, however.
> > > Check your software manual. Finallym, you may not have enough RAM to
> > > handle that large a file. You might need to increase your RAM a bit.

>
> > I suggested this, but Rod Speed has personally checked the drive (so he
> > claims) and it is not full and not fragmented.

>
> Sorry about my typing; it was awful. I had some similar problems with
> Photoshop 4.0, and it had to do with the temporary drive space
> allocation. I simply expanded it and the problems went away.


>
>


Hello, "t1gercat",

Is the "temporary drive space" the same as "temporary Internet files"?
Or where would i find the "temporary drive space", and how
do i re-set it?

Truly


Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2007, 06:59 PM
Pen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

Harry wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:32 pm, "t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 7:40 am, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Make sure you haven't run out of space on your hard drive. If that's
>>>> not the case, see if the program sets aside temporary space. It could
>>>> that it defaults at, say, 30,000 KB and then doesn't make the room to
>>>> handle your file. You should be able to adjust that number, however.
>>>> Check your software manual. Finallym, you may not have enough RAM to
>>>> handle that large a file. You might need to increase your RAM a bit.
>>> I suggested this, but Rod Speed has personally checked the drive (so he
>>> claims) and it is not full and not fragmented.

>> Sorry about my typing; it was awful. I had some similar problems with
>> Photoshop 4.0, and it had to do with the temporary drive space
>> allocation. I simply expanded it and the problems went away.

>
>>

>
> Hello, "t1gercat",
>
> Is the "temporary drive space" the same as "temporary Internet files"?
> Or where would i find the "temporary drive space", and how
> do i re-set it?
>
> Truly
>

I suspect he really meant the paging file size.

Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2007, 01:43 AM
Trimble
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

Harry you are a lovely Bloke (or a Troll ?)
Nice to see someone in this group
who actually wants to get on & use his computer rather than fiddling with
it.

But I really don;'t think you have the sort of detailed knowledge to sort
this problem
& the creatures who do live here ain't really going to help.
I suggest you find some body with good computer knowledge to come & check
your machines.
You will likely go mad trying to get it sorted from us lot & our squabbles.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse



Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-17-2007, 03:27 PM
GT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Graphic's Card Questions

I don't think your graphics card is the problem - the problem is that the
CPU usage hits 100% when you try to save a large graphic from your software.
You need to give us a bit more information in order to help:

What graphics software are you running, that has the problems?
How much RAM and what CPU do you have (Right click My Computer and choose
'properties', then tell us what is under "Computer:")?
How much hard disk space do you have on the drive where you are saving your
pictures (Right click on the drive in explorer and choose properties, then
tell us the used space GB number and the free space GB number)?




Reply With Quote
Reply


« 2.5" disk - what do 1/4H, 1/6H, 1/8H mean? | Radeon card loses resolution »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
problems with graphics card raja2281 Troubleshooting 0 12-21-2006 01:29 PM
Recommendations for graphics card The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan alt.comp.hardware 5 12-01-2006 05:40 PM
Do I just need a new graphics card? Travis alt.comp.hardware 3 08-24-2006 12:53 PM
Re: Is this graphics card any good? GrimJack808 alt.comp.hardware 0 08-20-2006 08:13 AM
Problems wiht NVIDIA 6600GT graphics card Fernando alt.comp.hardware 1 07-18-2005 10:47 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45