Most photo friendly computer ?

311

I've been wondering if there is a certain machine best suited to working on photos. Either Laptop/ibook or Pc/Imac.

Was thinking of a new machine and I don't really mind going over to apple if it's better for photo reproduction. Anyone familiar with the differences and benefits ?

Enright

look at the lidl TARGA computer offer with todays newspapers, 320 gb harddrive, and capable of taking 23 different types of camera cards, as well as usb and firewire, one serious pc with ober igb ram. no monitor though excellent graphics card

Zillah

Theres no such thing really. It depends on what you want it to do. Lots of RAM, hard drive space and processing speed is good for anything, including photo stuff.

Aside from that you'd like as good a monitor as possible.

Everything else is pretty unimportant. Most digital cameras connect with USB these days, and you'd have to struggle very hard to find a PC that doesn't have several USB ports...

311

I was more thinking along the lines of architecture of the machine ,rather than the actual features and bits and bobs of it.
Theres actually 3 pc's at home here at the moment and I have a laptop that I use for photos.
I will need to buy a new machine soon and I'm thinking of going for an apple for photoshop and media. I'll be on a budget ,but photo work will be the goal.

melekalikimaka

the gap between aplle and ibm pcs really has closed alot recently, ya could get an apple and with the intel based ones even stick xp on a partition...but i've heard bad things bout the first apple batches on intel based machines, many are waiting til the bugs are ironned out before taking the plunge.

Personally I'd go for a ibm pc with as much ram i can throw at it and a top spec monitor and fast drives, maybe a smallish extra drive for scratch in ps. graphic cards aren't used in photo editing what so ever, so you don't 'need' one...but sure they make the games pretty. you could put together a top spec photo pc easily without breaking the bank

311

If I was to go the route of a pc ,I take it the duo core intel chips are better than AMD .
The dedicated scratch disc sounds like a great idea ,small really fast drive for that . A pc means a fairly hefty monitor bill ,I'd go for a calibrator if I was using a pc ,which means I'd probably spending a grand on the monitor alone :eek: ( Possible to use a HDTV ,with a calibrator ?)

melekalikimaka

well an apple screen is dandy but nothing overly special... dunno bout the need for hd really..would be nice...but for isn't essential, maybe get a dell widescreen(great quality) and a tablet...and a legal version of ps and your flyin

311

Cheers Mele ,I was expecting someone to stick up for apple ,they're obviously not all their cracked up to be.

melekalikimaka

ah now my only real issue with apple at the mo is the intel chips are rather new and peeps aren't really commiting to the intel chips for a few more batches

davmigil

You can get pretty much the same software on XP or OS X so it is not such a big deal (unless there is something in particular you want to use or maybe if you do video editing). Mac Intels give you the oppurtunity to run both XP and OS X, so that is in their favour, but I wouldn't take it as a major point. XP needs a bit more maintenance than OSX to keep it running optimally, but ones you do that it's fine. OSX in my less than humble opinion provides a much nicer user experience, but again its not that important. You get more bundled software (e.g garage band) with Apple, but if you are not planning to use it, it doesn't matter to your decision

If space isn't an issue I would go PC desktop rather than laptop (or Imac - which is somewhere in between).

Apple make great machines, but if you are building to a budget PC probably better option. With a PC you can upgrade more easily (eg add in a second internal hard drive), where as with an Apple Imac you can't. You can on an Apple Pro, but they are expensive in the first place. MacBook laptop screen is small for photo work (13 inch 1280x800), MacBook Pro better, but more expensive. Imac a bit like a not very portable MacBook Pro, so probably best of the budget models or maybe a mac mini.

Personally if building a PC I would go Intel instead of AMD, because I believe Intel motherboard drivers are more stable. That's only my opinion based on my past experiences.

Other option if available to you is to upgrade existing PC if recent model (e.g. more memory/another hard drive).

tea

Well allow me to weigh in on the pro-Apple side then!

I usually carry a Macbook with me when travelling and photographing, mostly for backup and editing as I go, and it's been great.

On the specifics of using it for photography, I rate it particularly for:

- Burning DVDs of photos is integrated nicely into the OS, making it easy to know what you're burned and haven't.
-The 'Pictures' folder is much better integrated my 'My Pictures' in Windows IMHO
- A remote control is included and can control slideshows
- I use 4 applications in my workflow, and I find it maddening to keep track of their windows in Windows. On a Mac, its easy.

TBH, none of the specifics around photography are all that strong individually, but when you see how they integrate together, its just a much nicer experience, IMHO - in short, the OS gets out of your way so that you can use the computer to gett your photos edited and backed up quickly.

One rider though, is that I despise the whole post-shooting workflow phase, and I'm willing to pay extra for anything (like a Mac) that makes it even slightly less tedious. If you're happy with PCs already though, you'll probably be just as happy to use them for photo editing as anything else.

davmigil

Brian, maybe an option would be to upgrade an existing PC (e.g. up the memory and maybe second hard drive) and get a MacBook for on the road. Make sure install at least 1Gb of memory, runs much better. Might be cheaper to get memory upgrade (e.g. 2 x 512Mb) from Crucial than from Apple, not sure if still the case, but check price first. As a primary system 13inch a bit small, but as for travelling light you can't beat it.

melekalikimaka

can you merit the extra cost of a laptop..can you see yourself doing THAT much photo editing on the road

311

Thanks for the replies on this ,they are exactly what I wanted to hear.
Windows really annoys me ,it's like a badly drawn diagram of a program you know doesn't work as it should.
I'm not in IT ,so I don't have any oppurtunities or the knowledge to be sure about such stuff.
My main machine ,2GHZ intel with 768MB Rambus 800MHhZ with about 320GB of Hd, USB2 Card ,LG monitor. The machine is four years old now and the bus speed of the board is only 133MHZ. The ram is useless for new MB's ,so I can't really upgrade the machine .

Apple sounds like a nice retirement option from the labrynth that is windows.

rymus

if you can justify the expense I suppose. I'd like nothing more than to get a 17" Macbook Pro but cant exactly justify that kind of money when I don't really need a new laptop.

Could always get a mac mini Brian, that's always an option to ease into the ol world of Apple before taking out the mortgage to buy a bigger & more powerful machine.

311

rymus wrote:

Could always get a mac mini Brian, that's always an option to ease into the ol world of Apple before taking out the mortgage to buy a bigger & more powerful machine.

I'd put the mac mini out of my mind because of the calibration issues for photography ,I've asked about it in another forum here and it got a good call for it's build quality and speed.
I could always get a KVM splitter and branch the mini into my current monitor and keyboard. Ease of use is the priority for me ,so I don't want to be in the same place as I am now.
Boot time for the mac mini is 20 seconds ,which is sweet.

Thanks
Brian.

PaulieC

_Brian_, if I could just mention Windows Vista before you make up your mind. It will be on the shelves in January, but should be available from manufacturers as OEM before Christmas.
I've been using it for the last six months and it's now got tot he stage where it's very stable and all the UI features are in place and it's much nicer than XP to use, dare i say it, more than mac-like.
Anyway, it needs a pretty hefty config to make the most of it (e.g. at least 1gb RAM, 256mb video, massive HD etc), but you'd get a massively specced PC with Dell monitor for a lot less than the price of a decent Apple...

TempestSabre

_Brian_ wrote:

Thanks for the replies on this ,they are exactly what I wanted to hear.
Windows really annoys me ,it's like a badly drawn diagram of a program you know doesn't work as it should.
I'm not in IT ,so I don't have any oppurtunities or the knowledge to be sure about such stuff.
My main machine ,2GHZ intel with 768MB Rambus 800MHhZ with about 320GB of Hd, USB2 Card ,LG monitor. The machine is four years old now and the bus speed of the board is only 133MHZ. The ram is useless for new MB's ,so I can't really upgrade the machine .

Apple sounds like a nice retirement option from the labrynth that is windows.

Personally I don't find Windows Or Mac OS hard to use. Never really had a problem with either. Sounds to me that your mind is made already and you are just looking for justification to help you feel better about it. IMO the most important thing doing graphics is the screen and the mouse you have.

311

I don't find windows hard to use ,it's just very slow and I've been using microsoft before the invention of windows.
I think maybe a new monitor might be the answer alright ,I've only got an LG 17" 1730 monitor at the moment ,very small and not very photo friendly.
I could still use it in conjunction with a new larger monitor though.
I could use the 17" for the web and the large monitor for photowork ,would be cool especially when I upgrade to core Duo.

Theres a dell 24" widescreen for 800 euro ,with a multi card reader built into it. The response time is 16Ms though ,is that very slow or not noticable???

440Hz

Just found this thread now as have been offline all weekend. :SHOCK:

quit the Apple bashing will ya!!!

I own a Macbook Pro. I WILL NEVER OWN A PC.

Apples are superior in too many ways to list here. Checkout the mac forum here for why it is better to own a mac. Currently I run bootcamp, ie running XP on my machine cos I need it for development purposes.

Anyway I dont have the energy to list all the reasons why macs are better, just wanna say that they are so that someone can fight the mac corner.

I have always owned Apples, and always will.

Regarding a machine for photography... I would be more concerned with the screen on said laptop alternatives... From an Apple point of view....

Macbooks are currently shipping with GLOSSY screens only. Now personally I would HATE this for photography so I avoided that and went for the MBP (macbook pro) (and also cos I needed the higher spec for running pro audio applications). Anyway the Macbook Pro comes with the option of either a matte or glossy screen (I picked matte).

Zombrex

Windows and Mac suck! Linux rules! Losers! .....


.... I'll get my coat




To the OP. Buy a Mac. Nothing wrong with using a PC for graphics (I do), but if you are buying a new machine you might as well go for a Mac.

311

The macbook pro sounds like a tasty piece of kit ,the laptop I have at the moment I got last october ,so I'd have to sell that first
If I bought a macbook ,I would still eventually have to upgrade my base machine which I'll have to do in the next 12months.
If I only I knew then what I knew now ,I'd have bought a macbook back then:rolleyes:

Wicknight ,I gave ubuntu a go ,but it felt like I was lost in a jungle :O

311

I'm sorry I went to the apple site now ,I've seen a machine I would love
Mac Pro Dual core 2.66 ,dual bus 1.33GHz ,500GB HD with a 23" HD monitor.

I wouldn't be able to buy it even if I was able to ,a machine like that and no software to abuse it with .

It's either a mac mini or a large monitor ,for a mere mortal like me.

TempestSabre

_Brian_ wrote:

I don't find windows hard to use ,it's just very slow and I've been using microsoft before the invention of windows....

Slow? If you'd been using it that long you'd think you'd know how to optimise it then.

Apple and PC hardware are very similar now the only difference is the software, and thats down to subjective opinion more than anything else. But there should be little between them for speed as the hardwares the same. But if you want speed a Mac Mini seems an odd choice.

Zombrex

TempestSabre wrote:

But there should be little between them for speed as the hardwares the same.

Oh if only that were true.

Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is a much better operating system than XP. Don't get me wrong Xp is an improvement over 95/98, but it still isn't great. And OS X has its own problems, and probably isn't as good as a proper FreeBSD or Linux install (but then none of the Mac software would work).

Things like memory usage, and harddrive fragmentation cause problems on Windows machines. Is there anyone who uses their Windows XP system a lot that doesn't have to reformat and reinstall the entire system every 6 or 12 months?

311

Windows XP takes time to boot up ,it's constantly hacked to bits and needs updates ,I'm just fed up with it ,as an operating system.
Sometimes I wish I was back in the days ,when I ran a bulletin board from my pc at home ,with pc express.
No wonder bill gates has chucked the towel in ,everything has a life span.

Heinrich

As the owner of 4 PCs and an iMac I have to admit that the mac monitor leaves the PC stuff behind. I have always owned a mac which was used for working (Xpress, Photoshop, Illustrator) and I needed something that was not always crashing!

The PCs are fine if they are well protected with antivirus! That problem doesn't exist with a Mac.;)

The image quality on my laptop is not great so I would not recommend that one.

Frankly, if it is to be used for photos then the iMac would be the ideal investment.

311

Heinrich wrote:

Frankly, if it is to be used for photos then the iMac would be the ideal investment.

Thanks heinrich ,I would settle for the imac 20" machine ,it's 1500 euro ,so not overly priced I wreckon. But someone has mentioned that the new partnership with intel ,has not yet ironed out all the niggles.
Would be nice to get one at christmas for the holidays.

Cheers for the replies,
Brian.

440Hz

_Brian_ wrote:

someone has mentioned that the new partnership with intel ,has not yet ironed out all the niggles.

Im running an Intel mac and it has been problem free. My dad also uses one and he has never had any issues either. Although there are some users on here who will say otherwise. Same as any machine, some people will have problems, some wont. The only thing that has even bugged me about my MBP to date, is iTunes 7.0. Evil update

311

Thanks for all the opinions and replies ,I rang up apple to get a run down on the options and software.
I'll probably go for the either the 20" or 24" imac for christmas ,

Cheers ,
Brian.

Heinrich

440Hz wrote:

Im running an Intel mac and it has been problem free. My dad also uses one and he has never had any issues either. Although there are some users on here who will say otherwise. Same as any machine, some people will have problems, some wont. The only thing that has even bugged me about my MBP to date, is iTunes 7.0. Evil update

Download 7.01. Had some crackling so disinstalled/reinstalled which helped and then the update came out. No more problems...

440Hz

Heinrich wrote:

Download 7.01. Had some crackling so disinstalled/reinstalled which helped and then the update came out. No more problems...

Did that within hours of the update coming out, no joy. still crashing. thread in mac forum about it. thanks anyway for the tip

TempestSabre

Wicknight wrote:

Oh if only that were true....

http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html
http://compreviews.about.com/od/general/ss/MacXP_7.htm

I like Mac's have used them for a long time. But the amount of drivel that gets posted about them is unreal. We have plenty of systems that are running XP and servers running Windows for years without any issues.

311

TempestSabre wrote:

http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html
http://compreviews.about.com/od/general/ss/MacXP_7.htm

I like Mac's have used them for a long time. But the amount of drivel that gets posted about them is unreal. We have plenty of systems that are running XP and servers running Windows for years without any issues.

I've no experience with apple as you know ,but surely the osX is slower because the software communicates with the hardware better and so stops the machine from crashing.
I'd be happier with quality rather than quantity ,I'm sure the tests were done with no anti virus software running ,no internet connection ,no firewall ,no programs loaded as is the case with benchmark tests. Which is not the way windows runs in real life.

TempestSabre

So its better because its faster, but even if its slower its still better

Just buy it. You don't have to justify it or make up reasons

Valentia

I have an Amiga and I am never ever going to succumb to the corporate devils of Apple or Microsoft....ever, do you hear me?

That's a direct quote from my goodself in the pub about 10 years ago :rolleyes:

Regarding speed of windows...I wonder how many people leave XP set at the defaults with all that fancy fading and animation sh1t. Turn off all that crap and use win98 visuals and it is a different system speed wise.

I know very little about Apple except that a friend has one and it looks gorgeous but there is only so much gorgousity (!) I can take. I really can't see how speed is so different on either machine. Reading PS books the writers usually come from a Mac background but all admit that there is no practical difference between using a PC or a Mac. A decently specced breed of either will do the business. Apples are grossly overpriced and aimed at the image conscious. Better spend the money on a decent monitor and an extra lens imo.

Another idea is to build your own PC. I've built five now and when I did the first one I thought it would be difficult. It wasn't and it is so much easier to sort out afterwards. You get great value and hand picked components by building your own. It's easily and affordably upgradable also. Try that with a Mac (or a Dell), gorgeous and all as they are

It's also worth making a backup image of your setup once everything you want is installed. It only takes a few minutes to go back to a clean efficient system.

311

Is the apple not softer and more fluid than windows ??
I really find something crass about windows when I use it ,theres nothing personal about it .
I've gone through about six pc's ,starting with an olivetti 286 back in 1990 or so. I don't think I'd have a problem building a PC ,the only trouble I can think of is copper grease on the CPU and adding a fan.

Also just to add ,the imac is suppose to be really quiet ,which is a great plus. I was looking at fanless PSU's at peats and water cooling for the cpu ,but it's all work and no play .

I haven't seen an Imac in action ,so that will have to be done before I pass over .

mloc

to be honest, if you want a really good PS computer, a mac pro or good pc will do just as good. a fast cpu (dual core isn't a bad idea, PS has supported them for years), plenty of RAM (preferably 2gb or more, 4 if your really serious), at least two fast hard drives, and a good screen (20 inches would be a good start although quality might be more important than size)

graphics card wise, for photos, anything that can drive your monitor will do.

311

Like canon and nikon ,they both have their differences.
The 24" mac is HD ready and can be wall mounted with a res of 1920 x 1200 with an nvidia 7300 GT.
I'm not sure if a 24" monitor is too much though ,probably blinding ??

mloc

_Brian_ wrote:

I'm not sure if a 24" monitor is too much though ,probably blinding ??

I use one, it's great for photoshop tools etc. I used to use two 17" inch monitors, but I much prefer the 1x24 setup.


Until I get enough money for another 24 inch hehehehe

melekalikimaka

an apple for photos is over kill... the benifits you lose outweigh the benifits you gain imo

311

Mele ,it wouldn't be just solely for photos ,it would be for media in general aswell. I would probably set it up with my stereo and have it as a semi-tv /audio set up . I have an Ipod and I buy a few albums every couple of weeks , that I put straight onto it.
I've really got to the stage that I hate the noise of fans going aswell.

TempestSabre

The iMac is meant to be quiet. Personally I'd go with an Mac Mini then you can use any screen you want with it. I think are just so much nicer looking than the iMac. What are you doing that calibration is such a big deal?

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article594-page1.html
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article306-page1.html

mathias

I really find something crass about windows when I use it ,theres nothing personal about it .
I've gone through about six pc's ,starting with an olivetti 286 back in 1990 or so. I don't think I'd have a problem building a PC ,the only trouble I can think of is copper grease on the CPU and adding a fan.

Wow , " Copper Grease" , its been a long long time since I heard that , you must be nearly as old as me !!

Things have moved on my friend , fans/heatsinks/CPU's now come in a box , the fan/CPU combo is pre greased with a compound like arctic silver and all you do is place it gently on the CPU and clamp it shut.
Building a PC is no more difficult than Lego , everything only fits one way, even if you were totally new to it you'd figure it out eventually. Its just a question of where does it fit ?

If you want a really good Photo Computer , then build it yourself , there is no other way to get exactly the machine you want ,
Say what you will about PC's the open format is a godsend and allows you to build your own system from the base up ,you pay for what you want and no more , A clean XP install will last for years if you keep it clean , the only reason people have to Format/reinstall is all the crappy programs that keep getting installed and uninstalled , build it , lock installations , and it'll work for years , just like any PC in a work environment.

( In essence , this is what happens when you buy an apple , third party software is impossible to find so the original install remains largely intact ! )

If you really dont like XP then go the linux route , but PS wont work in Linux and you'll have to learn the Gimp.

Whatever Mac you choose theres no escaping the proprietary format and the ghastly prices. And future upgrades are limited.

mloc

TempestSabre wrote:

What are you doing that calibration is such a big deal?

A properly calibrated monitor is essential for anyone interested in photography at any serious level.

311

Lordy ,I must really hate my setup ,I can't think of any other reason why people would stick up for a PC system.
Are the fanless power supplies any use ? ,is it possible to build a pc without any fans installed ???

TempestSabre

Yup

http://www.hushtest.de/hushshop/shop/index.html

TempestSabre

mloc wrote:

A properly calibrated monitor is essential for anyone interested in photography at any serious level.

I know what calibrated monitor is for, I wanted to know what _Brian_ is doing that he feels he needs one. I mean does he have one now?

311

Tempest ,all I want is a machine that works properly and stays working.
I've spent the last 8 years buying bit and pieces ,upgrading machines when I felt I have to. I just want a machine that does what I want it to .

The imac is clutter free and with a bluetooth mouse and keyboard ,the only cable would be the power cable.

Thanks for the link to that hush site ,the stuff seems very expensive and very couch orientated though.

mathias

Regarding building a quiet PC , this sticky is from the Tweaking and modding forum over in Tech ,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=276210

Its possible , I build all my own , and they are all whisper quiet.

TempestSabre

Sounds to me like you've already decided. Heres more fuel for the fire...:D

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17588397&highlight=Apple+Desktop