Go to Windows 7 Insider Guide
Community Newsletter: Q&A: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs
- 4/18/08 11:26 AM
PC's ARE as good as Mac's for graphics
by lois228lois - 4/19/08 5:23 PM In reply to: PC's ARE as good as Mac's for graphics by IanMatthewI was just reading last night that Leopard now on Mac lets you use PC version Windows applications on your Mac now. What are the system requirements if any with the Windows Appliction and crieteria. Has anyone run into any problems with this.
Boot Camp, Run Windows on your Mac
Url address:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html
The moment you install Windows on a Mac...
by IanMatthew - 4/20/08 10:49 AM In reply to: PC's ARE as good as Mac's for graphics by lois228lois...you effectively turn it into a PC!!! Macs are now part of the PC family tree, from a hardwere perspective. Putting Windows on a Mac is fine if you need a Windows app which is not available for Mac (an increasing problem - see my earlier post). If using Windows full time, why not buy a PC??
Unless you appreciate the asthetics of the Mac....
don't do it
by puma - 4/20/08 4:05 PM In reply to: PC's ARE as good as Mac's for graphics by lois228loisfor graphics i would stay with Mac. once you use install and start using windows on your Mac, the windows partition will be soon exploited since the windows OS is weak on security and stability, and lags way behind in rendering graphics
How much memory can my computer use?
by chappejw - 4/12/08 11:08 AM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
If you have a 32 bit processor, the largest number that can fit into a register is 2 to the power of 32, therefore the processor can address 4 gigabytes of RAM.
If you have a 64 bit processor, the largest number that can fit into a register is
2 to the power of 64, therefore the processor can address 2 terabytes of RAM.
New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs
by stane cauld - 4/12/08 3:40 PM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
It's a bit of a farce when someone who is using software which is in the $2,000+ bracket is looking for the hardware to run it at for under $1,000.....or am I on the wrong track? If you're already using the software then what's the problem?
Why not buy software to fit the hardware instead of the other way around? I know that if I was able to buy "Photoshop", "Dreamweaver" and "Illustrator" then the purchase of a high-end computer would be the least of my worries.
Why buy all that expensive software if all you want to run it on is a ZX Spectrum?
I don't mean to be rude but ....
You are wrong
by jpachner - 4/20/08 11:05 AM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by stane cauldYou are wrong about the price, especially if you are a student. Everyone starts somewhere and many buy the programs in the course of learning to use them, as I have done. At this point I was using a pc that I had been happy with as a word processor and lite photo editing, but when I added these programs to the mix the machine I had was obviously no longer up to the task, no matter what I did, including cleaning registry, defrag, and adding memory.
overkill from most
by MichaelF - 4/13/08 3:07 AM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi
Everybody seems to be at the overkill range in their recommendations. Have you checked the system requirements on the box for the programs you wish to run?
Photoshops system requirements only say a Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM and 64MB Video RAM.
I myself have Photoshop CS3 (actually the whole master collection) installed and runs comfortably on my Pentium 4 2.4GHZ(single core) with 1GB RAM and a separate midrange video card. I feel the biggest issue is the video card, if you are using onboard video it will be slow, spend a small amount on a separate video card and you will be laughing. On top of that current systems should run it comfortably without going over the top, especially as 2GB seems to be the standard RAM now anyway.
I should note that I am on a PC I built myself using standard of the shelf parts such as an Intel MB and cpu, Legend RAM, Seagate hard drives. It has been running strong for 3 yrs plus without problems. A PC compat cannot fairly be compared to a MAC, due to the size of the market, the large range of quality and components and the large varied user base. A small closed shop market of a MAC is obviously going to have better stats, MACs do have problems, do lock up, has had recalls but as the market is so small they get ignored.
Good luck
Beware of the bunk
by chappejw - 4/13/08 3:53 AM In reply to: overkill from most by MichaelFLet me see...
"Have you checked the system requirements on the box for the programs you wish to run?"
- this is like asking... hmmm... so you want to buy a new car... well, let's see the average speed limit is 55 MPH, so you want to make sure you get a car that can go 55 MPH... Only thing is, that all cars can go 55MPH so this is a useless thing to investigate.... Basically, just get the best deal on a computer you can afford. Don't get too caught up in the details... "Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM and 64MB Video RAM"...? If we are talking internet years, this system is about 2 decades ago...
"off the shelf parts such as an Intel MB and cpu, Legend RAM, Seagate hard drives".... - nobody cares....
"It has been running strong for 3 yrs plus without problems..." - about 9 internet years old..!! Who would have though solid state would last.
"A PC compat cannot fairly be compared to a MAC, due to the size of the market...".... Ha ha ha ha... this is such a bogus comment.. This is like saying alot more hamburgers are sold than new york sirloin so obviously hamburgers cannot be compared to new york sirloin. Um, I'll take the sirloin thanks..!
"...the large range of quality and components and the large varied user base. A small closed shop market of a MAC is obviously going to have better stats" - stats regarding...? "A small closed shop market...?" ===> Fallacy...
"...MACs do have problems" ... care to mention any? if you compared the number of problems that Windows has vs. Mac, Macs do not have a significant number of problems to even mention that they have "problems"
"...do lock up, has had recalls but as the market is so small they get ignored." - total BS... In argumentation this is known as a Fallacy of Relevance.
Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply don’t bear on its truth. "but as the market is so small they get ignored." In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance don’t do this; "do lock up, has had recalls..."... the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if they don’t have any evidential value.
unnecessary
by MichaelF - 4/13/08 5:51 AM In reply to: Beware of the bunk by chappejwHi
I think looking at the system requirements to be a good starting point. If you cared to look at my post with a positive eye you would see that I said that a current computer with its standard 2GB Ram would clearly be more than adequate with a seperate video card. I never once said that you should get a computer as old as mine, only that if a computer as old as mine and being a pc compat with Windows XP can run it comfortably then you should take all the horror stories and overblown exagerations with a pinch of salt.
Your derogatory comments and insults add nothing to the discussion, and I will leave it at that.
box
by puma - 4/20/08 3:41 PM In reply to: unnecessary by MichaelFdoesn't matter if your system is old or new, it still runs windows which falls short when it comes to high-end graphic apps. most people never used Macs so they discount it to justify their preference for the windows os. since you can not compare both because of your lack of Mac, you convince yourself that the Mac can not be a viable solution... don't get me wrong, windows has its place for basic office type apps and games, but it still trails behind any flavors of Unix/Linux. windows is expensive in cost compared to other OS's yet cheap in quality. you don't see that because you are scared to try new things. just think outside of the box, you'll see...
So typical of a Mac fanatic
by b_laur14 - 4/20/08 2:58 PM In reply to: Beware of the bunk by chappejwThe previous poster gave great advice to the tc, and you in your mac arrogance, had to bash everything he said. Just because you can't handle anything negative said about your precious mac. Its the truth, face it macs are a minority in the market...Have less software and are tightly controled by a corporation, and kept on a short leash. Less programs, and the programs avialable have been approoved by apple equals less problems. But if one were to take a way apples's iron grip on the platform and make it open..and the user base and program library was to increase 100000x(the size of the win32 library) then problems would be all over the place. Small tightly controlled os and library is why you don't here about mac problems as much.
For viruses, virus writers want to infect the most people as possible, they know macs are only .5% of the computer user base, so why bother?
The previous poster said to check the system requirements on a box to run. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place. Just becasue your computers are all the same, clones of each other, in software and design(god awful ugly apple look!) doesn't mean that people using pc's don't need to do that. It something we do as our systems are all different do to the wonderful open platform!
Using the type of analogies you like so much...It would be like saying "Who needs freedom, when the government, gives us all we need to know and do(ie mac.)" Where as in pc land it would be..."let freedom ring, the government has very little control on what we do or how we do it besides setting some standard laws so anarchy doesn't occur"
easy
by puma - 4/20/08 3:55 PM In reply to: So typical of a Mac fanatic by b_laur14people write virii for windows because it is easy. script junkies don't want to exploit your typical windows box in your living room, they go for servers of corporations where there is more to gain. when it comes to servers in production, it almost a 50/50 split (50% Unix/Linux, 50% windows). so why are 99.4% of exploits geared to windows? by your analogy one would think that the non-windows servers are getting exploited but they are not. they problem is that the windows kernel is flawed spaghetti code plus many services are enabled by default which in itself is stupid (or suicidal if you're an admin)
you still haven't provided a valid argument as to why use windows for graphics except that you might go postal if is someone doesn't. just relax and respect other people's expertness because when it comes to anything other than windows, you have no clue
Yes, but
by jpachner - 4/20/08 7:49 PM In reply to: overkill from most by MichaelFWhat you say is theoretically correct but I ran into two problems.
1) In reality I used Photoshop in conjunction with Dreamweaver, often switching btwn the two programs, which was too much for my machine. and 2)Because I had bought a less expensive computer, I was not able to upgrade the graphics card to anything worth paying for.
Photoshop advice
by tdc100u - 4/13/08 4:45 AM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
First, read what Adobe says.
Optimize performance of Photoshop CS3 on Windows XP and VistaOptimize performance of Photoshop CS3 on Windows XP and Vista
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401088
OR
Optimize performance in Photoshop (Mac OS)
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=317280
Another good read if you are running Vista:
Community Newsletter: Q&A: What can I do to improve the speed of my Vista machine?
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=275745&messageID=2669588&tag=nl.e497#2669588
If you plan on editing RAW photos from something like the $7000 21Mp Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, just read what Adobe has to say and go build a custom workstation for PS.
If your're a hobbyist or new to digital photography and shooting with a pro-sumer DSLR, read what Adobe has to say, and take what you can from my personal experience.
First of all, I've got an 8 and a 10 MP DSLR that generate jpegs in the 4-5Mb range and print on and HP Photosmart 13x19. (When it comes to cameras, unless you are a seasoned expert, start out with a modest digital camera from a reputable brand name. You can do some pretty awesome stuff with a brand x camera and PS.) I decorate the house with photos, take them to my photo club and I'm starting to show them in galleries. With this level of equipment, I've tried but not seen a real advantage to shooting RAW. For examples of what I do, see my work a the photo-critiquing site http://photo.net/photos/tcairns. I mention this because if you don't like what I'm doing with my camera and PS, my experience may not be very helpful. Otherwise read on.
I run the Adobe CS3 Web Premium on two laptops. One is a couple of years old, single core, 1GB RAM, 256Mb graphics, and running XP. The other is a new dual core, 3GB RAM, 512Mb graphics, with dual 160Gb 5400 RPM drive running Vista. I've followed Adobe's instructions and both machines blow the doors of my previous 4 year old Pentium/PS CS2.
I use laptops exclusively because as a amateur photographer I like the ability to be highly mobile. When I'm home I hook in to additional monitors. I've thought about building a workstation around PS. Ideally, it'd be Vista Pro, quad core, gobs of RAM, high end graphics, and most importantly, a have a separate striped array of 10,000 rpm server grade disks for the scratch disk, and a couple of big flat panels. It's a nice dream.
Back to reality. The Vista laptop previously mentioned is an HP I picked up at Circuit City for about $1250. It is in the DV9700 series and a good choice as they have dual hard drives and dedicated graphics. I mention where it came from because you can go to HP and customize a 9700 but the get quite expensive quite fast if you don't buy the mass-marketed version they put on the shelf at the chain stores.
On mine, it takes about 4 seconds from the time you click on PS until it is ready to use. Resource intensive renderings can be counted in seconds vs. minutes on my older laptop. All in all I'm happy with my setup. If I ever go pro, I'll grow into the $$$ DSLR and custom PS workstation, but for now, I'm doing things that photographers could only dream of 10 years ago on a relatively modest setup.
Hope this helps and good luck!
useful links, thanks
by jpachner - 4/13/08 1:13 PM In reply to: Photoshop advice by tdc100uBoth of the above links to Adobe are very helpful, thanks.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
