What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best. If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites.
These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media. Submit a News Tip! Reading mode: Light Dark. Login Register. Best cameras and lenses.
All forums PC Talk Change forum. Started Mar 18, Discussions. Forum Threaded view. Mar 18, Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain. Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain.
Malch is right. Clean install required. Lots of driver and some app compat issues on XP64, many key apps don't run at all Photoshop, Lightroom, etc You may as well upgrade to Win7 64 if you currently use XP No one else does In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde. I have other legacy that means older graphics pgms that I expect will run well. Nikon D Nikon D5. Eric Carlson's gear list: Eric Carlson's gear list. Eric Carlson wrote: As I said in the other thread to your similar comment: Almost totally untrue, unless your computer is very limited on RAM, like 1. With the added memory capacity, I can do things in P'shop not possible in XP.
Wrong, and those percentage numbers have been pulled out of a dark, dank place. On which planet? Oh look, more wrongness. Where are you getting this info?!? I'd agree with that, but your next part Honestly, your reasoning is decidedly odd, if not downright disingenuous. F Forum M My threads. Latest sample galleries. Canon EOS R3 sample gallery. Nikon Z9 production sample gallery.
See more galleries ». Latest in-depth reviews. Read more reviews ». Latest buying guides. Best cameras for landscape photography in They assume on server Windows the drivers will be better written, I guess. Hopefully that's understandable. If it's not, please ask questions. TL;DR version -- Windows has the capability, but it is intentionally restricted to workaround broken drivers.
There's nothing that can be done beyond switching operating systems. How much RAM you lose is dependent on your hardware. You have 36, 40, or 48 bits of physical address space depending on your CPU. However, chipset limitations always reduce that to a smaller number. Sometimes, that's bits, but it isn't always.
Some space below 4GiB is reserved for hardware. Space above 4 GiB is not reserved in any special fashion. Virtual addressing has nothing to do with reserved addresses for hardware. Virtual addresses are just that. Any 4-kiB page of virtual addresses can be made to point to any page of physical addresses. There's no tradeoff. And, as I said eariler, the only OS that can't do this is desktop Windows, due to a delibrate limitation.
However, they work just fine with bit addresses too, and since the system has to support those, they're rarely used or seen. There's some special stuff at the very bottom of the address space, normally.
But again, it's not worth worrying about. TLB thrash. Which has nothing to do with the amount of RAM the operating system can use. I'm going to say this explictly, because I should have done so sooner: the restrictions on virtual addressing have nothing to do with the restrictions on physical addressing. They're totally unrelated. What you're talking about is a restriction on virtual addressing. This is why everyone else does not do this. Err, nothing put together like that. As I said earlier, tasks on a modern operating system use virtual addresses.
These addresses have to be mapped to physical addresses the processor can assert to talk to RAM and perpherials. Now, different tasks may map different virtual addresses to different physical addresses. The best way to think of this is that every task has its own unique virtual address space. However, the TLB doesn't store what task a mapping belongs to. This means when the CPU switches tasks and virtual address spaces , it has to throw out all the cached mappings and look up the mappings for the new task.
Now, the most common task to switch to is the kernel. Also, anytime the hardware interrupts the machine, its is the kernel that responds to the interrupt. The point is that the kernel is switched to very often. To mitigate the cost of throwing away the TLB mappings every time the kernel runs, most bit x86 operating systems split the virtual address space into two pieces.
One piece is always used by the kernel, and one piece is used by your user-space applications. This is why your userspace applications can only allocate 2 GiB or 3 GiB, under the right conditions of virtual memory.
Half of the address space has been walled off. But by walling the space off, the address space for the kernel is always present, no matter what task is running on the CPU. So when your task switches to the kernel, a flush of the TLB mappings is no longer required.
This speeds up access to the kernel. However, OS X doesn't do this. It uses a seperate 4 GiB virtual space for the kernel, requiring a flush of the TLB everytime you enter the kernel. And this does cause a performance hit, compared to everyone else. Most architectures have smarter TLB systems than x Is this what Hyperthreading was supposed to help with?
I assume now each core has a separate mapping cache? Hyperthreading is a mechanism to allow two tasks to share the computational resources of a single core. Multiple cores and SMT don't really have any bearing on what's going on here.
Would it be possible to add extensions to x86 that prevent TLB thrashing? Does an x processor reduce these as the address space is huge? Briefly yes, but it isn't trivial. The usual approach is that the TLB entries get tagged with some sort of context indicator.
In Windows terms this would be the process ID. You can then ask the TLB "do you know about virtual address 0x for process ? However, this won't do any good unless the TLB is large, really large - many times larger than typical current sizes.
How much larger it would need to be depends on the number of processes among which you are frequently switching context. Otherwise you get lots of TLB misses after every process switch anyway. This would also require that some notion of "which process am I in? I suppose this could just be CR3 contents.
Traditionally though it is a small number referred to as the "address space number. I believe PowerPC has TLB tagging already, which is why keeping the "kernel" in a separate address space isn't as much of a problem there.
Itanium has this too -- but who cares? Back to present day x this overhead is really not that bad, as the TLB has relatively few entries e.
Yes, a few hundred references to the same number of different pages, after a process context switch, will take a lot longer than they would have otherwise -- this is not that many, so the total extra time is small.
Of course, if the process does not exhibit good locality, there will be TLB churn In Windows this is set for all PTEs defining system-space addresses. So even when you change from one process to another, TLB entries that happen to be cacheing PTEs that define system-space addresses are preserved. Apparently the issues is that asking for a TLB flush is just godawful slow on x Apparently reloading the mappings is quite fast, especially since they can be cached by the regular CPU caches.
And x86 since the Pentium Pro does have a global flag that indicates that the mapping for a page shouldn't be invalidated unless explictly asked for I didn't know this. However, since it's performing the flush that's slow, not reloading the mappings per se , this doesn't really help. The fix is to make TLB flushing not slow.
However, I doubt that will ever happen. So we made it to March before this issue got rehashed this year! Christ this issue has existed for this many years, and it still floats up again. I saw the longer explaination in thread already but lets bottom line this.
However if you have older software with 16bit or heaven forbid 8bit code, be ready to install a Virtual environment so you can install a 32bit windows VM. Windows Professional and Server can do it. Windows and Server, all editions, can do it. Windows XP before SP2 can do it too.
I won't speak to NT 4 or 3. The limit on how much RAM you will see on desktop Windows is determined by your hardware. It's like you didn't even read the thread.
And I spent a lot of time addressing all the issues in a fashion I thought was adequate for a lay person, including all the misconceptions you just put forth again. That's pretty sad when you stop and think about it. NT can go to 2 or 4 GB only. I poked around a bit to find out if my laptop could support 4gb of RAM. So even if I have a 64bit processor running a 64bit OS with 4gb installed memory, my laptop cannot address all the installed memory, because of the 32bit memory controller.
I just did this the other day, and the performance increase is amazing. Unfortunately, there is no other recourse as long as you're using bit Windows. The closest you can get is to use the "3 Gig Switch". Edit your boot. The hardware can support that much, but only if you have a bit operating system on top of it. As far as I know, there is nothing you can do. Its simply a limitation of the OS. They did make a bit version of Windows XP, but its no longer supported.
And running a dedicated graphics card in your workstations if you're not already will eek out a few more MB for your cause. The only way you are going to be able to take advantage of the additional RAM is by running a bit OS as others have stated.
Having dealt with ADP as the Director of IT for the largest auto dealer group in Wyoming it will be at least another 10 years before they figure out what bit computing is as they just barely upgraded all of their code to 32 bit 2 years ago when I was running them for our auto dealer group. My condolences to you but keep up the good fight.
I doubt it. Most decently new processors support bit. All processes running on that system get a virtual memory address space of 4 GB, 2GB for private memory , 2GB for operating system stuff; regardless of how much RAM is available. If you have 3GB installed on the systems in question, then that should be sufficient for your requirement.
I was just thinking the same, that my only option without having to switch to 64bit XP is to go up to 3GB RAM and hope that it'll be sufficient to run all processes and applications.
If you move to a 64bit OS don't move to XP 64bit as it is very badly supported plus XP itself is being phased out , move to Windows 7 64bit instead, it is a much better OS and works perfectly in 64bit plus has a lot more support in terms of drivers for hardware. Intel Core 2 Duo should be a x64 bit processor. If you purchase a copy of Windows 7 Professional, you can use XP mode and should be able to run your software that is only designed for x86 bit.
This will allow you to take full advantage of both the additional memory and the 32 currently unused lanes in your hardware. Does this mean that Win 7 Pro is 64bit by default or is it also 32bit?
You should be fine with your processor. I would definitely recommend moving to Windows 6 Professional or Ultimate if you need encryption bit instead of XP.
0コメント