Advice on PC laptop and desktop please

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan,

 

If you decide on a PC desktop, you might consider building you own. My son and I started doing so a few years ago and have since built several. Once you identify the motherboard, processor, and RAM that work together, it's more of a relatively simple assembly process. He's thirteen and just built a top-end desktop on his own in about two hours. You'll get exactly what you want at a lower cost.

 

Personally, I don't understand the PC-Mac debate. I work in applications all day and rarely even consider the OS. Windows became stable with XP, and now is very reliable.

 

John

 

Have to agree with you. What I don't understand is why almost everyone that uses a Mac tries to push PC users into switching. If what you now have works for you, and all your software is written for that platform, I see no reason to switch. Be it from PC to Mac or Mac to PC.

I used a Mac and found it no better or worse then Windows XP. Vista is another story and if I was forced to go to Vista I might think of going to the Mac platform. But until that day comes I'm sticking with what I know.

As far as viruses and people stating that Mac's don't get them, or as many. That is because the virus writers don't bother writing viruses for a platform that only has a 3-10% market share.

I don't know of many record companies, if any, making Vinyl LP's anymore either.

[colorflow]

Alan, you *are* a glutton for punishment.

 

 

Yes I am. Thanks for the input on the screens, Bill - answers my original question. Let's hold the PC/Mac debate. I will report back on what I decide.

 

What about the rest of you - which laptop has best screen for PP, and which desk top monitor is best value for PP??

 

This is fun, isn't it.

Alan

[cometsoft]

Hello there

 

I have a MacBook Pro 15" and an iMac 24", both running Parallels and BootCamp for when I need to service PCs.

 

Hope my bit of experience helps.

 

Mustafa -

 

First off, I have barely ever touched a Mac but am interested in the MacBook Pro.

 

I'm curious about using Bootcamp and Parallels together. Do you have to have two installations of Windows and two installations of whatever Windows software you want to use?

 

I like the idea of Parallels, but I know some software isn't going to work so well under it. I'd at least like to try stuff under Parallels and see how well it works. If it didn't then I could use Bootcamp. But if it had to be reinstalled to run under Bootcamp that wouldn't be so good.

 

Thanks,

Robert

[ddp]

We're using Dell Precision workstations here....almost all have minimum 2 Gig's of RAM. Hyperthreading enabled processors with dual or quad cores. Main monitors are Sony Artisans, my personal monitor is an Eizo CE240 LCD now. Gretag MacBeth Eyeone software for that. At home I run a Gateway with 2 Gigs of RAM and an AMD processor. Anything I work on has at least 256 Meg video cards as well.

 

With RAW file processing, lots of RAM is a must.....

 

Corporate IT&S standards do not allow us to use Mac's....and honestly, I have plenty of horsepower to do what I need with massive files. We get the occasional glitch, but for the most part they do what we need them to do....

[mustafasoleiman]

Mustafa -

 

First off, I have barely ever touched a Mac but am interested in the MacBook Pro.

 

I'm curious about using Bootcamp and Parallels together. Do you have to have two installations of Windows and two installations of whatever Windows software you want to use?

 

I like the idea of Parallels, but I know some software isn't going to work so well under it. I'd at least like to try stuff under Parallels and see how well it works. If it didn't then I could use Bootcamp. But if it had to be reinstalled to run under Bootcamp that wouldn't be so good.

 

Thanks,

Robert

 

Robert

 

I have Bootcamp installed in the MacBook and then I have Parallels setup to use the Bootcamp partition as it's own.

One Windows OS installation and one installation of all the related Windows software, perfectly legal because it is on the same computer.

 

The only difference between this and an installation of Parallels with its own partition is a slightly longer startup of the Windows environment, mainly because you cannot save a Bootcamp partition in a sleep state, while in use with Parallels.

 

You can try both options and then decide what you like, or if you have the space, you can keep both options available as I have done. This way I can run Windows three ways:

1. natively via Bootcamp, fastest but I don't have the MacOS running as well

2. via Parallels using the Bootcamp, this mainly to allow me to have both 1 & 2

3. via Parallels with its own partition, gives fastest access, but lacks total native environment.

 

Please note that you want 2gb of ram in your laptop, which is nowadays the standard.

[cometsoft]

Mustafa -

 

Thanks a lot, that's very helpful info. I've got only two apps that require Windows, for everything else I'd probably use the Mac version. I've read that one of the problems with Parallels is flakiness using a Wacom tablet (at least for some apps).

 

Robert

[mustafasoleiman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mustafa -

 

Thanks a lot, that's very helpful info. I've got only two apps that require Windows, for everything else I'd probably use the Mac version. I've read that one of the problems with Parallels is flakiness using a Wacom tablet (at least for some apps).

 

Robert

 

Sorry I do not own a recent Wacom tablet to test it, but I think Parallels should have some info on its compatibility.

May I ask what are the two applications that require Windows?

[cometsoft]

Mustafa,

 

ZBrush 3.0 (2.5 runs on the Mac) and will be out for the Mac eventually and Mudbox (which doesn't run on the Mac at all). Both are 3D apps.

 

I'd read about the Wacom issues on either the ZBrush or the Mudbox user forums.

 

Robert

[andybarton]

As far as viruses and people stating that Mac's don't get them, or as many. That is because the virus writers don't bother writing viruses for a platform that only has a 3-10% market share.

 

That hoary old chestnut again...

 

What do you think the kudos would be, in the virus-writing world, of the first virus to get out into the wild, and actually do some damage? Damage like "I love you", for instance? Incredible. Someone has, just this week, demonstrated a worm for OSX. Apple security slammed by worm maker but, it seems to be pretty well just another "conceptual scare".

 

However, the fact of the matter is that, being Unix based, the Mac OS is inherently more "secure by design", unlike some other OSs out there.

 

OSX has been around for about 5 years now, and there hasn't been a single OS virus or worm or bit of malware of any kind that got beyond a "proof of concept". No OS is impregnable, or virus-proof, but put it this way, I have two Macs connected to the net, with two more in the hands of my children. None of them run any anti-virus software of any kind and haven't done for two or three years, as it's a waste of time. Try that with another, more common, platform and see how long you last

 

(This is, of course, not helping Alan choose a new PC...)

 

I don't know of many record companies, if any, making Vinyl LP's anymore either.

 

My local record store has racks of new vinyl.

 

Maybe not the artists that you might want to buy personally, but it's still out there.

[ericperlberg]

Even though I prefer working on Macs, as Steve has pointed out, you asked about PCs. Now I'll assume that we're only talking about specing a machine for photography work and issues like running software from the year dot are not really applicable.

 

In terms of Windows OS, Vista is having a tough time getting traction. First, a lot of drivers, plugins and other small bits of software weren't Vista capable causing lots of people headaches and causing the big manufacturers to start loading XP back on their new machines. Over time of course, this situation will improve. Vista is the future of Windows so manufacturers will update their stuff. But double check that all your peripherals for your PC will work with Vista. Or try to get a machine with XP

 

Photoshop can only access somewhere between 3 and 4 gigs of RAM on a PC. Of course the OS needs RAM too so consider getting at least 5 or 6 gig of RAM. Photoshop (or lightroom) doesn't need a fast graphics card so unless you do video work or play games, you won't need a top end graphics card.

 

There's a good thread on archiving going on. Don't forget to think through your archiving system. I run 4 internal SATA2 drives on my Mac. SATA2 is max 3gbit throughput compared to firewire 800 at 800mbits or USB2.0 at 480mbs. Those are all nominal speeds, you rarely reach them in reality. But my point is that internal drives on the system bus are way faster than externals so if you can get a system witth interchangeablee internal drives, its brilliant and will save you money. Look for systems that are easy to change and don't require complex sleds. I run a 10000rpm drive for my applications and OS, a 10,000 rpm drive for a photoshop scratch disks and then I keep my data on a highest quality (enterprise grade) drive and then have a second drive as a backup for the first. I schedule nightly backups from the one to the other. Then lastly I use make a bootable copy of my OS/Apps disk that I can use in case of system crash and wipeout.

 

And I run my iTunes library off its own external drive so it doesn't slow down the rest of the system.

 

Photoshop has a dedicated scratch disk system where it writes temporary files. From what I've read and in my own experience, a dedicated, fast 7200RPM (8ms seek times, 16mb cache) or better 10,000RPM hard drive for your applications and a similar one for a scratch disk is optimal. Of course its also expensive.

 

Lightroom is less demanding because its not really manipulating any data. But it also isn't full featured the way photoshop is.

 

I have an Eizo coloredge CG 210 and highly recommend it. I really wanted to buy an Apple monitor but Eizo actually brought a CG210 to my flat and let me use it over a weekend. It was significantly better in several ways than the Apple stuff, as much as I didn't want that to be true. The Eizo CG 210 and 190 are arguably the most all around accurate LCDs under $5000 for various reasons I won't go into. It also pivots so when working on landscape images, set it to wide, when doing portrait shaped images, turn it and you have a tall thin monitor. So in effect you have a 1600x1600 monitor. It also comes with a nice hood which effectively cuts glare. V. nice!

 

LaCie has a top end model which I've seen and thought was good. I'm sure there are a few others. But in general beware of statements like Eizo (or LaCie or x) makes the best monitors because it will only be a very few models that are designed for high end colour work. Some people are happy with less. And as with everything else techy, it won't make you a great photographer.

 

Make sure you buy a display colorimeter (or a spectrophotometre if you want to profile inkjet papers) to calibrate and profile your monitor. This will set the black point, the white point, optimise the tonal response curve. It should be done somewhere between once a week and once a month depending on your expectations for quality.

 

A computer is really a system. Bus speeds, RAM quality, etc all contribute. Don't buy for price if you want a good editing system, put your priority on quality would be my advice.

 

Lastly, even the best laptop displays are nowhere near as good as a good desktop display (I use a 17" MacBook Pro which is a great laptop but the display is not even close to the quality of the Eizo). Laptops are also pound for pound more expensive than desktops and slower than a similarly priced desktop.

 

Sorry if I rambled...

[Shootist]

Alan, you *are* a glutton for punishment.

 

 

Yes I am. Thanks for the input on the screens, Bill - answers my original question. Let's hold the PC/Mac debate. I will report back on what I decide.

 

What about the rest of you - which laptop has best screen for PP, and which desk top monitor is best value for PP??

 

This is fun, isn't it.

Alan

 

Not sure as all 3 of my notebooks are at least 4 years old. I would suggest you skip any real PP on any notebook unless it is connected to a real monitor.

[ericperlberg]

One other little tidbit about Vista is that has real problems with holding monitor profiles correctly. This is from a recent bulletin from Steve Upton of Chromix.com, an internationally recognised colour management guru:

 

a more serious problem, and this one is a show-stopper in my eyes,

is the authorization bug. As you use Vista, you are occasionally

interrupted by the OS as it confirms you have the admin-level

privileges required or confirms certain actions. As a user-interface

effect, Vista dims the screen slightly while offering the user a

password dialog. Unfortunately, this dimming of the display clobbers

the calibration curves in the graphics card and they are not

replaced. So you startup Vista, your 3rd party utility loads your

display calibration correctly but then 5 minutes into your session

Vista requests some authentication and your calibration is gone... so

you restart Vista, reloading the calibration and start out again....

It will be difficult to have confidence in a system's state of

calibration.

[stunsworth]

My local record store has racks of new vinyl

 

Sales of 7" singles up 13%...

 

Back in the groove: young music fans ditch downloads and spark vinyl revival | | Guardian Unlimited Business

[fursan]

Mac...

 

i use to run unix on dec computers ( remember them !). Ran CP/M on S-100 bus.. and on the little Apple..this must date me! The DOS and now Windows.

 

You can partition your disk and boot with your Windows. s/w will run albeit slowly.

Window Office is available on native Mac. Sharing files is a breeze. Mac reads WORD files

etc. Not the other way around.

 

I have a Mac and Windows at home, networked via a simple ethernet hub which is

very inexpensive.

 

Of course, my wife has a Mac, but she runs the unix thru term. I love nerds, but don't

understand why a mouse click is not better than a few lines on a terminal emulator!

 

Regard.

 

.

[colorflow]

Sorry if I rambled...

 

Thanks Eric, that is very helpful.

 

Alan

[andybarton]

You can partition your disk and boot with your Windows. s/w will run albeit slowly.

Window Office is available on native Mac. Sharing files is a breeze. Mac reads WORD files

etc. Not the other way around.

 

 

Sorry to correct you, but...

 

If you have an Intel based Mac and use either Bootcamp or Parallels, you can install Windows and run Windows apps at full speed. There is no emulation necessary.

 

Microsoft Office files created on a Mac open and work just fine on a PC and vice-versa.