86barettaguy
|
| posted on 23/11/04 at 08:20 PM |
|
|
laptop for CAD
I'm looking into getting a "new" (probably used) computer. More specifically, I'm looking for a laptop computer which will be
good enough to run CATIA V5 and ProE.
I'm thinking ProE won't be a problem, at least not with the version I have available at home right now, but how about CATIA? What are the
minimum system requirements for running CATIA V5?
Don't tell me I need a 2.4GHz stationary thing with 1GB graphic memory and 2GB RAM to have it running smoothly because I'm quite aware
that a faster computer with more memory will make it work better, just tell me what I need to run it smoothly enough not to go crazy (like with ProE
where the whole screen would be messed up when rotating your 3D model if your computer wasn't up to the task).
Oh yes, did I mention it HAS to be a laptop? I'm finding it hard to carry my stationary computer (which won't run catia v5 btw) with me
when visiting relatives...
|
|
|
|
|
Staple balls
|
| posted on 24/11/04 at 05:20 AM |
|
|
Looking at the CATIA site and requirements, it seems the requirements are pretty modest
pentium 3/4 cpu
256mb ram (512 reccomended)
2Gb free HDD space.
reasonable graphics chip
however, i would lean strongly towards a higher end machine;
2ghz + pentium 4 (or pentium "m" )
768mb+ ram (512 is in reality the minimum to run windows well)
40gb+ HDD
a proper onboard graphics chip, preferably *NOT* using shared memory.
unfortunately, the site appears to be very specific on what you can use, but not what you can't, so don't hold me to those specs.
also, you should take into account that a machine like this will be portable but will probably weigh the wrong side of 8lbs, and last a good 90mins on
battery at best.
unfortunately, the way you set your post out has put me off trying to help you any more than that, at least without some specific requirements and a
cheers wouldn't go amiss.
[Edited on 24/11/04 by Staple balls]
|
|
|
86barettaguy
|
| posted on 24/11/04 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
yeah, I noticed that info on the catia website. They're not very generous with information, are they? Then again, they don't really have
to, do they?
2GHz+ is what they use at work, and although I'd love to have that, it's not really worth what you have to pay for it right now. For
laptops that is. Stationary is a different matter altogether. Makes me wish that was what I was looking for...
"unfortunately, the way you set your post out has put me off trying to help you any more than that, at least without some specific requirements
and a cheers wouldn't go amiss"
Uhm, was I being rude or something? If so, I apologize.
My specific requirements: I need to have a computer to practice CATIA with and which will also run ProE and Photoshop. There are a lot of reasons to
try to make it work with a laptop. Battery time is not something I really care about as I will most likely always be able to plug it in. When I
don't have that option, I could always do something else, like read a book. I do not feel the need for fancy graphic options. I'm guessing
that for large assemblies, you'll need more memory, but just how much memory would be needed for something like a strat trem (30-40 parts)? How
about a complete locost chassis with suspension and bodywork?
A guy at work will be lending me copies of CATIA R5 and R7. Hopefully, I will have them this weekend so that I can try to run them on my fathers
laptops, just to see how it works. As long as the software isn't altered too much, it shouldn't matter which version I use, right?
Anyway, I hope someone around here is running CATIA V5 on their "old" laptop and is able to tell me what version they're using and
the specs of their laptop.
Now I'm off to re-install ProE. Pleasant evening 
|
|
|
86barettaguy
|
| posted on 24/11/04 at 08:32 PM |
|
|
OK, so I just tried SW2001 on my stationary (500MHz, 184MB RAM and whatever graphics card compaq decided to put in it) and found that it works quite
alright this far. A tad slow maybe, but quite alright for creating solids. Just about any laptop I could find should perform way better than this.
Thinking about it, 184MB can't be correct. Anyone know any reasons as to why there would appear to be less RAM than there should be?
|
|
|
|
