Version: 2008
  • On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
Advanced Search
advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

Forum display:

Community Newsletter: Q&A: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs

by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator - 4/18/08 11:26 AM
advertisement
Post 226 of 234

Photoshop advice

by tdc100u - 4/14/08 8:58 AM In reply to: useful links, thanks by jpachner

After reading your question and a few of the other replies, my reply went off a little sideways. Following those Adobe links may enhance PS performance on your XP box to the point where you don't need to add hardware. Or if you could make a few relatively low-cost upgrades, say a second hard drive, for better performance.

The older laptop that I have with XP, single core and hard drive and 1 Mb RAM runs almost PS almost as well as my new dual-core Vista box with 3GB RAM and dual hard drives. In short, just about any new mid-level XP box with a gig or two of RAM will run PS pretty well if it's configured properly unless you using huge image files from high end cameras. I'm guessing that an $800 to $1000 XP desktop would make you very happy.

If you don't mind hitting that $1500 mark, I'd recommend going to an electronic retailer, get an HP DV97xx laptop and inexpensive external flat panel monitor for home. As a photographer, you'll appreciate the mobility that a laptop allows. I recommend the external monitor too because it allows you to move the PS tools out of the workspace to the external monitor, which is really nice when editing. If you really want to splurge, get one of the larger flat screens that flips so that you can edit portrait pictures on an appropriately oriented screens.

On the XP v. Vista issue, 1-2 GB RAM on XP or 2-3 on Vista is adequate for general PS operations at least for me. I was skeptical about Vista but it's kinda hard to avoid on non-customized configs. Nonetheless, I've found PS is works fine on either. Just a note, if you end up with Vista, the 'Home' version will see at most 3GB of ram - you can learn more about that from MS. That was another reason that I was skeptical about Vista. I've found that for what I'm doing, PS runs fine on XP and Vista. Furthermore, with the stated resources on either box, I can multi-task with a browser, mp3 tunes, etc. without having system melt downs.

Anyhow, hope this helps and good luck again.

Post 227 of 234

Best option Workstations HP

by navigatore - 4/13/08 10:43 PM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Have you consider a worksation like HP model xw4600 or Dell Precision 490. Is about $1,400 and the monitor is free. You can upgrade and manage, the operating system, the graphics with high performance, the memory up to 32GB, the storage up to 2.5 TB !! and the processor from Intel Core 2 Duo up to Intel Quad-Core Xeon (3Ghz). Workstation are designed to analysis engineering, advanced 2D and 3D graphics and programs like Dreamweaver, Adobe, Autodesk, Avid, Pinnacle, and many more. Im not suggested a PC, because you cannot upgrade with a second processor, or second disc, etc.

Post 228 of 234

save your money

by puma - 4/18/08 9:05 PM In reply to: Best option Workstations HP by navigatore

weak against any sub $1000 Mac. why waste money?

Post 229 of 234

More of CPU and memory along with the OS than drive size

by welrdelr - 4/20/08 9:11 AM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Have a minimalist desktop with a good processor.

Post 230 of 234

hardware

by fahimali2000 - 7/8/08 5:09 AM In reply to: New PC recommendations needed for graphic-intensive programs by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

2GB of ram is enough.

Post 231 of 234

2gb

by puma - 7/8/08 7:00 AM In reply to: hardware by fahimali2000

2gb is enough if you're on a Mac. windows on the other hand is a memory hog. i'd go with 4gb on xp. for graphic intensive apps, please stay away from vista as its still broken and may take a year or two for microsoft to fix it...

Post 232 of 234

XP does NOT require 4 Gb!

by IanMatthew - 7/8/08 11:40 AM In reply to: 2gb by puma

Nonsense!!!! XP does not need nor can it take advantage of 4Gb, unless its XP 64 bit (which I would not reccommend).

Go to the Adobe forums to see the problems some are having with OSX 10.5x Leopard and CS3 apps. Many there do not reccommend it!

Post 233 of 234

32 over 64?

by puma - 7/8/08 12:12 PM In reply to: XP does NOT require 4 Gb! by IanMatthew

windows require a lot of memory. of course so will your graphics apps. windows also has a tough time releasing memory once the program is closed, its called a memory leak... and you would rather use a 32bit OS than 64?

also what does Mac have to do with this topic? OS X is a totally different OS - LOL

Post 234 of 234

Vista uses memory far more effieciently

by IanMatthew - 7/8/08 1:27 PM In reply to: 32 over 64? by puma

Windows XP is only viable in its 32 bit incarnation. XP 64 bit was an experimental version. Its only recently that XP 64 drivers have appeared in greater numbers. Of course why bother with XP 64 bit when Vista 64 bit offers the same level of power with better hardware and software compatability? Many use 32 bit Windows as that's what they have installed on their PC by the maufacturer. Vista uses memory A LOT more effeciently than XP by the way.

I mention OSX as you mentioned Vista being 'broken'. I suspect you have used Vista for all of 5 minutes to come up with that over uesed line. OSX Leopard is 'broken' according to what others are saying esp with Adobe CS3 apps. Not having personal exp, I cannot say this for sure myself, so would never actually call OSX Leopard 'broken' until I have used it.

Forum legend:
Locked Locked thread
Moderator Moderator
CNET staff CNET staff
Samsung staff Samsung staff
Norton Authorized Support team Norton Authorized Support team
AVG staff AVG staff
Windows Outreach team Windows Outreach team
Dell staff Dell staff
Intel staff Intel staff
Powered by Jive Software