Need another computer

[c***@yahoo.com]

I am within weeks about to begin work on conversion and drawing using
Intellicad for some of those Raster to Vector files. Now, these have a
whole bunch of itty-bitty lines per file. This then runs the overall
file size up to between 50 and 80 meg. Very huge to handle, and then it
takes a good 45 minutes to first see the plan. It is slow work at
present, until the clean up gets done.

I am running on Windows 98 on a five year old computer. Would like to
upgrade the computer (but not the operating system) and wonder where a
point of diminishing returns will happen.

I can easily get a computer with a 1000 MHZ processor and big hard
drive, but will it really result in any visable speed in loading up and
viewing the huge images. As a practible, will a 500 or 700 MHZ work
just as well? I want to keep all the older plug-ins such as monitor,
keyboard, mouse, video cards and other things which plug into the main
board slots.

Wm.

[fruit]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
I am within weeks about to begin work on conversion and drawing using
Intellicad for some of those Raster to Vector files. Now, these have a
whole bunch of itty-bitty lines per file. This then runs the overall
file size up to between 50 and 80 meg. Very huge to handle, and then it
takes a good 45 minutes to first see the plan. It is slow work at
present, until the clean up gets done.

Can you not copy and paste sections of the existing into a number of new
drawings then recombine once all are cleaned?

Post by c***@yahoo.com
I am running on Windows 98 on a five year old computer. Would like to
upgrade the computer (but not the operating system) and wonder where a
point of diminishing returns will happen.

Sorry, can't answer this one as I don't have much experience with Windows.

fruit

[c***@yahoo.com]

The cut/copy/paste routine takes about 10-15 minutes per action. You
can hear the hard drive groan right after the mouse button is clicked.
As mentioned, due to size, it is difficult to not only lay one a single
line, but to bleep out any of the itty-bitty segments. Overall it is
just taking flat too long for a simple command to kick in with the huge
drawings.

To CLOSE the file takes about 45 minutes.

Wm.

[jg]

<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
............

Post by c***@yahoo.com
I am running on Windows 98 on a five year old computer. Would like to
upgrade the computer (but not the operating system) and wonder where a
point of diminishing returns will happen.
I can easily get a computer with a 1000 MHZ processor and big hard
drive, but will it really result in any visable speed in loading up and
viewing the huge images. As a practible, will a 500 or 700 MHZ work
just as well? I want to keep all the older plug-ins such as monitor,
keyboard, mouse, video cards and other things which plug into the main
board slots.

Mine's 4 years old 1.6ghz, it's likely a new one would be about 3ghz. I have
no doubt the speed improvement of everything (except dialup) would make it
worthwhile. Motherboards often have on board graphics now, I would throw
away my graphics card in favour of that for cad. I have stuck with win98,
but there is a growing amount of software which has dropped support and some
new hardware requires XP to take advantage of its features.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Main thing in staying with Windows 98 is that this makes the plotter
compatible. The plotter is not exactly new, but keeps on going like a
heartbeat. Zero repairs to it over past five years, so do not want to
dispose of it.

There is also some configuration problems is connecting up a digitizer
tablet, large or small, to which I use once per week. Manufacturer says
to "try this" or "Try that" and if not, well, it is not noted to be
compatible with XP. Thus have decided to stick with 98. Am also using
output to go to tool room running, and there are very few software
vendors making compatible drivers that run under XP.

I mentioned this on another computer forum, and they all thought
operating Win 98 with a 1000 MHZ or faster is negligible help. It may
save 1/2 second in an operation. Thus they mentioned to aim a bit
slower for similar performance at much-much lower cost. However, they
suggested to contact any other similar users before looking for one to
find if any incompatibilities exist.

Wm.

[jg]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Main thing in staying with Windows 98 is that this makes the plotter
compatible. The plotter is not exactly new, but keeps on going like a
heartbeat. Zero repairs to it over past five years, so do not want to
dispose of it.
There is also some configuration problems is connecting up a digitizer
tablet, large or small, to which I use once per week. Manufacturer says
to "try this" or "Try that" and if not, well, it is not noted to be
compatible with XP. Thus have decided to stick with 98. Am also using
output to go to tool room running, and there are very few software
vendors making compatible drivers that run under XP.
I mentioned this on another computer forum, and they all thought
operating Win 98 with a 1000 MHZ or faster is negligible help. It may
save 1/2 second in an operation. Thus they mentioned to aim a bit
slower for similar performance at much-much lower cost. However, they
suggested to contact any other similar users before looking for one to
find if any incompatibilities exist.

When I migrated Icad and w98 from a 400mhz to 1.6mhz the difference was well
worth it, can't see why any further step up wouldn't be equal improvement.
Except there might be issues with 98 not addressing or fully using newer
hardware such as hd's or memory in the new machine. There's gotta be a way
of reducing those 45mb files though, there is a lisp called econo which
might help. And quite likely others.

[Roberto Waltman]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Main thing in staying with Windows 98 is that this makes the plotter
compatible. The plotter is not exactly new, but keeps on going like a
heartbeat. Zero repairs to it over past five years, so do not want to
dispose of it.
There is also some configuration problems is connecting up a digitizer
tablet, large or small, to which I use once per week. Manufacturer says
to "try this" or "Try that" and if not, well, it is not noted to be
compatible with XP. Thus have decided to stick with 98. Am also using
output to go to tool room running, and there are very few software
vendors making compatible drivers that run under XP.
I mentioned this on another computer forum, and they all thought
operating Win 98 with a 1000 MHZ or faster is negligible help. It may
save 1/2 second in an operation. Thus they mentioned to aim a bit
slower for similar performance at much-much lower cost. However, they
suggested to contact any other similar users before looking for one to
find if any incompatibilities exist.
Wm.

If you have not tried other more modern machines recently, you will be
amazed at the performance improvements. For example, (this is not
related to graphics or Intellicad, but is also CPU bound,) at my work
compiling a large C & C++ program in different computers takes ~45
minutes on a 5 or 6 years old 600 MHz Pentium 3, ~14 minutes on a 3
year old Pentium 4 (I believe is a 2.5 GHz CPU) and less than 5
minutes on an AMD Athlon 3800+. (Which is not, by far, a "high end"
computer today.)
It is not only the CPU raw power, the memory bandwidth, graphic cards
performance, disks transfer rates and access times, etc., are all
continuously advancing.
If you can not get you plotter to work under newer operating systems,
you can keep the old computer just to operate the plotter.
(You could also have a "virtual computer" running Windows 98 using
VMWare or similar products under Windows XP)
About the peripherals, the built-in video interface available in many
motherboards today is most likely faster and better than your five
year old graphics card. The cost of a new keyboard & mouse is
negligible. (I just paid $9 for a brand new set)
If "time is money" is applicable to your case, I would not hesitate to
upgrade.

[JG]

Who makes the plotter? Odds are pretty good that you can find a driver
that will let you use it with XP. Staying with 98 is limiting you to
512mb max memory, which means that your hard drive has to make up the
difference. Also newer computers are sold with XP and the internals are
parts for which no drivers are available to use 98. Due to the use of
proprietary software I have been forced to keep several systems running
using 98 or ME and the problems when upgrades were required have been
enormous. 2-3 days to set up 1 computer using 98 vs 2-3 hours to set up
the same system running XP, which was already on system.

Video drivers have been notoriously a problem since many of the systems
use on-board graphics and the drivers were never written for 98 because
the video chips were never sold to anyone except OEMs that always had XP
pre-installed. Also the cost of a new system running an Athlon x2 3800
runs at $700 US (plus monitor(s) if necessary) with 1 GB memory, and an
upgrade to 2 GB is less than $100, giving a system that will crunch
those drawings about 8-10 times minimum faster than your current system.

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Main thing in staying with Windows 98 is that this makes the plotter
compatible. The plotter is not exactly new, but keeps on going like a
heartbeat. Zero repairs to it over past five years, so do not want to
dispose of it.
There is also some configuration problems is connecting up a digitizer
tablet, large or small, to which I use once per week. Manufacturer says
to "try this" or "Try that" and if not, well, it is not noted to be
compatible with XP. Thus have decided to stick with 98. Am also using
output to go to tool room running, and there are very few software
vendors making compatible drivers that run under XP.
I mentioned this on another computer forum, and they all thought
operating Win 98 with a 1000 MHZ or faster is negligible help. It may
save 1/2 second in an operation. Thus they mentioned to aim a bit
slower for similar performance at much-much lower cost. However, they
suggested to contact any other similar users before looking for one to
find if any incompatibilities exist.
Wm.

[JG]

OH, BTW I am not the same JG.

Post by JG
Who makes the plotter? Odds are pretty good that you can find a driver
that will let you use it with XP. Staying with 98 is limiting you to
512mb max memory, which means that your hard drive has to make up the
difference. Also newer computers are sold with XP and the internals are
parts for which no drivers are available to use 98. Due to the use of
proprietary software I have been forced to keep several systems running
using 98 or ME and the problems when upgrades were required have been
enormous. 2-3 days to set up 1 computer using 98 vs 2-3 hours to set up
the same system running XP, which was already on system.
Video drivers have been notoriously a problem since many of the systems
use on-board graphics and the drivers were never written for 98 because
the video chips were never sold to anyone except OEMs that always had XP
pre-installed. Also the cost of a new system running an Athlon x2 3800
runs at $700 US (plus monitor(s) if necessary) with 1 GB memory, and an
upgrade to 2 GB is less than $100, giving a system that will crunch
those drawings about 8-10 times minimum faster than your current system.

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Main thing in staying with Windows 98 is that this makes the plotter
compatible. The plotter is not exactly new, but keeps on going like a
heartbeat. Zero repairs to it over past five years, so do not want to
dispose of it.
There is also some configuration problems is connecting up a digitizer
tablet, large or small, to which I use once per week. Manufacturer says
to "try this" or "Try that" and if not, well, it is not noted to be
compatible with XP. Thus have decided to stick with 98. Am also using
output to go to tool room running, and there are very few software
vendors making compatible drivers that run under XP.
I mentioned this on another computer forum, and they all thought
operating Win 98 with a 1000 MHZ or faster is negligible help. It may
save 1/2 second in an operation. Thus they mentioned to aim a bit
slower for similar performance at much-much lower cost. However, they
suggested to contact any other similar users before looking for one to
find if any incompatibilities exist.
Wm.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Just to be safe, so not to purchase a computer that doesn't
appreciabbly speed things up any. I was given a somewhat used computer,
with a faster CPU, but less RAM. I loaded up Intellicad on to the hard
drive, and bleeped off a bunch of the games and Wa-zoo software. Now
find that the secondary computer makes the processing a bit quicker. It
is terribly shy of RAM, but the CPU seems to make up for this. It isn't
speedy, but is quicker overall. Intellicad seems to need a quicker CPU
and only the basic 64 RAM, not the K-boodle as on the earlier computer.


I now have an idea as to what to look for, and it probably won't be as
expensive as first imagined.

Wm.

[jg]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Just to be safe, so not to purchase a computer that doesn't
appreciabbly speed things up any. I was given a somewhat used computer,
with a faster CPU, but less RAM. I loaded up Intellicad on to the hard
drive, and bleeped off a bunch of the games and Wa-zoo software. Now
find that the secondary computer makes the processing a bit quicker. It
is terribly shy of RAM, but the CPU seems to make up for this. It isn't
speedy, but is quicker overall. Intellicad seems to need a quicker CPU
and only the basic 64 RAM, not the K-boodle as on the earlier computer.

I added 256k ram to make 512, but it didn't achieve much if anything. 64k
seems small though. Processor, motherboard are important, but so is the HD.
Good graphic cards don't help at all I reckon, specially if they cause
trouble as I believe some do.

[Bob Morrison]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
Just to be safe, so not to purchase a computer that doesn't
appreciabbly speed things up any. I was given a somewhat used computer,
with a faster CPU, but less RAM. I loaded up Intellicad on to the hard
drive, and bleeped off a bunch of the games and Wa-zoo software. Now
find that the secondary computer makes the processing a bit quicker. It
is terribly shy of RAM, but the CPU seems to make up for this. It isn't
speedy, but is quicker overall. Intellicad seems to need a quicker CPU
and only the basic 64 RAM, not the K-boodle as on the earlier computer.

Bump the RAM to at least 512K and you should notice an improvement in
speed. At 64K your system is doing a lot of writing to disk to provide
the necessary operating memory.