OT - Konica Minolta to stop making cameras



In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
<[email protected]> writes
>Following up to Surfer!
>
>>>blimey, I came back from a week in Wasdale with about 40
>>>exposures! Not that I can process the film ones as the new Nikon
>>>scanner makes 100 MByte files and my 128 of memory isn't enough.
>>
>>I can't think what version of Windows you are running to manage on
>>128MB... 512MB is really the starting point for XP, IMHO.
>
>that's one reason I'm running 98, I'm not in the business of
>funding Bill Gates for the sake of it, I upgrade things when
>absolutely necessary.

AFAIK Bill Gates doesn't make money out of memory. Also, memory is very
cheap these days. I'd also point out that you can buy a brand new PC
complete with XP home and 512MB memory for as little as £320 these days.
OK - it doesn't have a screen, but for that sort of price one surely has
to start asking oneself how long it's worth keeping old kit going, given
that the new kit will also have a much better performance as well.

Anyway, if you upgrade your memory my advice would be to aim for as much
as the PC will support.

>>>Anyone know how to guess which type of SDRAM I have or if I'm
>>>buying new 2 x 256 memory units, will it not matter as long as
>>>the pins are right for the slots? (there seems to be buffered and
>>>unbuffered) BTW can I put a third 256 in the third slot or do I
>>>remember you have to go up in x2s 56, 128, 256, 512 etc?
>>
>>If this is a desktop PC, you can check what make & model your
>>motherboard is (look at it - it will be printed on it somewhere) you can
>>get all the information from the makers web site, unless it's some
>>'brand X' motherboard.
>
>I got the brand from the BIOS but no model, I'm going to open it
>up today to see if I can find more info. as to model. One of the
>memory sellers will predict what memory to use if you know the
>model, which I don't so far of course.
>
>>If it's a laptop check the manual, again from the maker's web site.
>
>a manual would be a nice thing!

So you can't find one on the maker's site?

>
>>My guess is you have 2 x 64MB sticks, which suggests it's a *very* old
>
>1 x 128, it is old, why is that a problem?

It's not a problem, though memory for old PCs costs more than memory for
newer ones, if indeed you can still get it.

Like I said, I was just guessing what was in your PC. You've asked if
we can guess what kind of memory it takes - I tried guessing what the
configuration was and got it wrong. Likely as not I'd guess wrong as
well if I guessed what type it is. You might find something helpful on
the existing memory, but there might also be limitations on what size
sticks and configurations can be used, and a manual (Google might be
your best friend for that) is the way to find out.


--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
 
Surfer! wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
> <[email protected]> writes

>> that's one reason I'm running 98, I'm not in the business of
>> funding Bill Gates for the sake of it, I upgrade things when
>> absolutely necessary.

> AFAIK Bill Gates doesn't make money out of memory. Also, memory is very
> cheap these days. I'd also point out that you can buy a brand new PC
> complete with XP home and 512MB memory for as little as £320 these days.
> OK - it doesn't have a screen, but for that sort of price one surely has
> to start asking oneself how long it's worth keeping old kit going, given
> that the new kit will also have a much better performance as well.

This is all true, but in any case XP really does work acceptably for a
lot of things with 128 Mb. I wouldn't particularly advise that, and
certainly wouldn't on a new machine, but it does work okay (plenty of
PCs here running XP and 2K on 128 Mb).

But what I really wouldn't advise is running Windows 9X if you can
possibly avoid it. Software wrought from cheese, it really is cack.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Following up to Surfer!

>>that's one reason I'm running 98, I'm not in the business of
>>funding Bill Gates for the sake of it, I upgrade things when
>>absolutely necessary.
>
>AFAIK Bill Gates doesn't make money out of memory.

he makes it out of selling you XT.

> Also, memory is very
>cheap these days. I'd also point out that you can buy a brand new PC
>complete with XP home and 512MB memory for as little as £320 these days.
>OK - it doesn't have a screen, but for that sort of price one surely has
>to start asking oneself how long it's worth keeping old kit going, given
>that the new kit will also have a much better performance as well.

all the hassle of reloading everything.

>Anyway, if you upgrade your memory my advice would be to aim for as much
>as the PC will support.

no argument there.

>>>>Anyone know how to guess which type of SDRAM I have or if I'm
>>>>buying new 2 x 256 memory units, will it not matter as long as
>>>>the pins are right for the slots? (there seems to be buffered and
>>>>unbuffered) BTW can I put a third 256 in the third slot or do I
>>>>remember you have to go up in x2s 56, 128, 256, 512 etc?
>>>
>>>If this is a desktop PC, you can check what make & model your
>>>motherboard is (look at it - it will be printed on it somewhere) you can
>>>get all the information from the makers web site, unless it's some
>>>'brand X' motherboard.
>>
>>I got the brand from the BIOS but no model, I'm going to open it
>>up today to see if I can find more info. as to model. One of the
>>memory sellers will predict what memory to use if you know the
>>model, which I don't so far of course.
>>
>>>If it's a laptop check the manual, again from the maker's web site.
>>
>>a manual would be a nice thing!
>
>So you can't find one on the maker's site?

when I know the model i will look again, looking a VIAs site i'm
not sure its that hopeful, we will see.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
In article <[email protected]>, The Reid
<[email protected]> writes
>when I know the model i will look again, looking a VIAs site i'm
>not sure its that hopeful, we will see.

If you can identify the motherboard manufacturer & model (you may have
got a motherboard manual with the PC) you can enter them in the Crucial
Memory Advisor here and it will tell you what it takes and how big they
can go:

http://www.crucial.com/uk/

If you don't have the info you can try their Crucial System Scanner
which might be able to identify the board. It is linked from a button
about halfway down that page on the right.

They generally have reasonably good prices and their service has been
fast when I've used them.

--

Dominic Sexton
 
In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> writes
>Surfer! wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
>><[email protected]> writes
>
>>> that's one reason I'm running 98, I'm not in the business of
>>> funding Bill Gates for the sake of it, I upgrade things when
>>> absolutely necessary.
>
>> AFAIK Bill Gates doesn't make money out of memory. Also, memory is
>>very cheap these days. I'd also point out that you can buy a brand
>>new PC complete with XP home and 512MB memory for as little as £320
>>these days. OK - it doesn't have a screen, but for that sort of price
>>one surely has to start asking oneself how long it's worth keeping
>>old kit going, given that the new kit will also have a much better
>>performance as well.
>
>This is all true, but in any case XP really does work acceptably for a
>lot of things with 128 Mb. I wouldn't particularly advise that, and
>certainly wouldn't on a new machine, but it does work okay (plenty of
>PCs here running XP and 2K on 128 Mb).

I guess it all depends on how large the data files one is working with
are. For image processing I suspect 128MB is a tad on the low side...

>
>But what I really wouldn't advise is running Windows 9X if you can
>possibly avoid it. Software wrought from cheese, it really is cack.

Absolutely - and I suspect WinME comes into a similar category.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>But what I really wouldn't advise is running Windows 9X if you can
>possibly avoid it. Software wrought from cheese, it really is cack.

there's a NG dedicated to those who think the opposite, myself, I
have no idea.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Dominic Sexton

>If you can identify the motherboard manufacturer & model (you may have
>got a motherboard manual with the PC)

I wish!

>you can enter them in the Crucial
>Memory Advisor here and it will tell you what it takes and how big they
>can go:
>
> http://www.crucial.com/uk/
>
>If you don't have the info you can try their Crucial System Scanner
>which might be able to identify the board. It is linked from a button
>about halfway down that page on the right.

It gives the maker only and leaves several choices, I'm going to
open the box in a minute to see if I can find a model

>They generally have reasonably good prices and their service has been
>fast when I've used them.

good, I was planning to use them, nice to have a happy user.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
<[email protected]> writes
>Following up to Surfer!
>
>>>that's one reason I'm running 98, I'm not in the business of
>>>funding Bill Gates for the sake of it, I upgrade things when
>>>absolutely necessary.
>>
>>AFAIK Bill Gates doesn't make money out of memory.
>
>he makes it out of selling you XT.

XT? Do you mean XP? He didn't make much money out of me - I brought an
academic licence.


>
<Snip>
>>>
>>>I got the brand from the BIOS but no model, I'm going to open it
>>>up today to see if I can find more info. as to model. One of the
>>>memory sellers will predict what memory to use if you know the
>>>model, which I don't so far of course.
>>>
>>>>If it's a laptop check the manual, again from the maker's web site.
>>>
>>>a manual would be a nice thing!
>>
>>So you can't find one on the maker's site?
>
>when I know the model i will look again, looking a VIAs site i'm
>not sure its that hopeful, we will see.

VIA is the chipset maker, almost certainly not the motherboard maker.
Something like SiSoft Sandra might help, so might eyeballing the
information that comes up at boot time though the BIOS didn't help much
so that probably won't.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
 
Following up to Surfer!

>For image processing I suspect 128MB is a tad on the low side...

it works with PS for a 20 MByte file, somewhere between 20 and
100 it becomes unworkable.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
The Reid wrote:

>> For image processing I suspect 128MB is a tad on the low side...
>
> it works with PS for a 20 MByte file, somewhere between 20 and
> 100 it becomes unworkable.

Let me guess, you're not doing any layer masking in 16 bit mode? For which
I consider 512 meg to be an absolute minimum.

Now that you've got your new scanner, you really must increase your memory.
If you want to do 16 bit layer masking with 20MP scans, I'd recommend 1 gig
of memory. I really need to increase mine to that, I struggle with large
images (i.e. lots of wasted time using virtual memory on the hard drive).

Paul
 
The Reid wrote:

> there's a NG dedicated to those who think the opposite, myself, I
> have no idea.

My job includes looking after numerous PCs in a working environment. I
have never been anything but underwhelmed with Windows 9x, we avoided 95
in favour of NT4 because it didn't crash if there was a 'y' in the day,
didn't have a Comedy Filesystem, and didn't have have more security
issues than we could shake sticks at, 98 didn't change our minds and
since 2000 Windows 2K has been a very substantial improvement on both 9x
and NT4. IMHO, natch, but it's based on a lot of machines in daily use
with my job being to keep them running well enough.
XP is usually a better bet than 2K, all else being equal, but W2K will
run on some ancient and lowish spec machines that XP really is a bit
much for. I wouldn't run 9X based on my professional experience if I
could reasonably avoid doing so.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
The Reid wrote:

> I upgrade things when absolutely necessary.

Now you've got your new scanner, I'd say that it's now absolutely necessary
to upgrade.

Paul
 
The Reid wrote:

> all the hassle of reloading everything.

True, but it's a necessary evil, and it's good to have a clear out from time
to time. You'd be amazed at how much faster everything loads. Windows has
a terrible habit of collecting junk over time which gradually slows
everything down.

>> Anyway, if you upgrade your memory my advice would be to aim for as
>> much as the PC will support.
>
> no argument there.

Go for 1 gig, seriously. You really will appreciate it with those huge
scans.

Paul
 
Following up to Surfer!

>>he makes it out of selling you XT.
>
>XT? Do you mean XP? He didn't make much money out of me - I brought an
>academic licence.

Yes, XP, (I dont think I qualify for an academic licence). XT
will probably be out soon as hes down to his last few billion.

>>when I know the model i will look again, looking a VIAs site i'm
>>not sure its that hopeful, we will see.
>
>VIA is the chipset maker, almost certainly not the motherboard maker.

Yes, looks that way from the website although they mention
motherboards, they then direct you away from themselves.

>Something like SiSoft Sandra might help, so might eyeballing the
>information that comes up at boot time though the BIOS didn't help much
>so that probably won't.

I'll look up SiSoft Sandra, sounds like a nice girl.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Paul Saunders
>
>> 1 gig? That's barely enough for a decent day's shooting!

> blimey, I came back from a week in Wasdale with about 40
> exposures!

Good grief! Were you using a 10"x8" view camera by any chance?

Either you have incredible self control or you had terrible weather! ;-)

I admit, I do tend to take far more shots than I should, but it's a habit
that's easy to fall into with digital. I've recently started using my MF
camera again, partly as a way of trying to slow myself down and relearn the
art of spending a lot of time over a single shot.

I don't always use 1 gig a day, that was a slight exaggeration, but I
sometimes do. When I photographed the World Rally back in September I shot
1.5 gig in a couple of hours! (258 shots) My main problem was the camera
buffer filling up too fast causing me to pause now and again. But that's a
different type of photography.

On a bad day I may take only 20-30 shots, 50 or so on an average day (short
walks these days) and maybe 80-100 on a good day. On that record camping
trip day I mentioned, I took 222 shots in one day. Note that I included
many action shots of red kits & sheep, plus I took a number of panoramas.

Remember, on Galen Rowell's first assignment for National Geographic, he
used 90 rolls of film in just three days! (over 1000 shots a day) And they
were amazed he got so many good shots with so little film! So I'm quite
restrained really... ;-)

Paul
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>> it works with PS for a 20 MByte file, somewhere between 20 and
>> 100 it becomes unworkable.
>
>Let me guess, you're not doing any layer masking in 16 bit mode? For which
>I consider 512 meg to be an absolute minimum.

it will hardly load the files!

>Now that you've got your new scanner, you really must increase your memory.
>If you want to do 16 bit layer masking with 20MP scans, I'd recommend 1 gig
>of memory. I really need to increase mine to that, I struggle with large
>images (i.e. lots of wasted time using virtual memory on the hard drive).

I'm trying to work out what memory I can fit, I now know it has a
Legend QDI KinetiZ 7T motherboard and the memory is PC100 SDRAM
128 MB DIMM with 84 pins from peering insode the box, I was
surprised the 128m was in the centre of three slots. Anyway I'm
hoping thats going to be enough info to establish what to buy
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>> blimey, I came back from a week in Wasdale with about 40
>> exposures!
>
>Good grief! Were you using a 10"x8" view camera by any chance?

I didnt even take the digital up the hill to save weight, let
alone a view camera.

>Either you have incredible self control or you had terrible weather! ;-)

good weather, I just don't tend to take many shots unless
something really appeals. I must say I sometimes go to far, the
best shot I took, I just took the one (on film) , luckily it is
fine! Should have taken three.

>I don't always use 1 gig a day, that was a slight exaggeration, but I
>sometimes do. When I photographed the World Rally back in September I shot
>1.5 gig in a couple of hours! (258 shots) My main problem was the camera
>buffer filling up too fast causing me to pause now and again. But that's a
>different type of photography.

I would take a lot of that.

>On a bad day I may take only 20-30 shots, 50 or so on an average day (short
>walks these days) and maybe 80-100 on a good day. On that record camping
>trip day I mentioned, I took 222 shots in one day. Note that I included
>many action shots of red kits & sheep, plus I took a number of panoramas.

Red kit, I see you have seen the light and joined the colourful
walkers :) I've never taken more than about 50 shots in a day!

>Remember, on Galen Rowell's first assignment for National Geographic, he
>used 90 rolls of film in just three days! (over 1000 shots a day) And they
>were amazed he got so many good shots with so little film! So I'm quite
>restrained really... ;-)

blimey!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>XP is usually a better bet than 2K, all else being equal, but W2K will
>run on some ancient and lowish spec machines that XP really is a bit
>much for. I wouldn't run 9X based on my professional experience if I
>could reasonably avoid doing so.

I'll take your word for it. I may install XP once this memory
thing is settled as I will then have no reasons (I know of) why
it wont work (more memory, no old minolta scanner).
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>> no argument there.
>
>Go for 1 gig, seriously. You really will appreciate it with those huge
>scans.

if the machine can take it, I'll buy it.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
<[email protected]> writes
<snip>
>
>I'm trying to work out what memory I can fit, I now know it has a
>Legend QDI KinetiZ 7T motherboard and the memory is PC100 SDRAM
>128 MB DIMM with 84 pins from peering insode the box, I was
>surprised the 128m was in the centre of three slots. Anyway I'm
>hoping thats going to be enough info to establish what to buy

Http://www.qdigrp.com/qdisite/eng/support/manual_e.htm

Then pick your motherboard - it's listed. It's glacially slow though...

BTW I suspect that PC133 memory will work as well, though maybe not at
that speed. And now you know what it is, you can use the memory maker's
website tools. The Crucial web site suggests you have 168-pin DIMMS,
and can use PC133 speed. To put 1GB in will be over £100 I think...
£100 that I'd personally put towards a new PC.

http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr+Productline=QDI+&mfr=Q
DI&tabid=AM&model=KinetiZ+7T&submit=Go

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back