A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

which PC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 6th 07, 05:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default which PC

mogh baba wrote:
hi,

I have a question which I hope someone can give me e good answer.
Recently, my computer died and the serviceman says the usual word: You
do not win by repairing this and it is better to get a new pc.
the only sertiouse requirement I have from a new pc is that it is good
for working with digital RAW files. The specifications suggests that
the new computer with 250 G HDD and 1024 ram and an Intel Core 2 duo
2.0 desktop seems to be good enough for me. My only question is about
the integrated garaphic card. the seller says it is very good and if
i want to get a seperated card it will cost me more than 150 US
dollar. shall I go for the integrated card or get a seperate one?
Shall I think about other specifications? The integrated card is
called: "onboard Intel GMa3000 256mb".

I hope I have given enough information.

best regards,

Mojtaba


1. Two hard drives (one specifically for Photoshop scratch drive...second
drive can be smaller).
2. As much RAM as it allows (minimum 2GB, better at 4GB).
3. Dual core helps a lot...especially for programs designed to take
advantage of it (photoshop).
4. If you can, get a machine with XP Pro instead of Vista. Vista is still a
royal waste of system resources/speed.
5. If you're using a flat panel, make sure it can accept a digital signal,
and get a card with DVI outs.
6. If you don't have one...spend another $130 on a Spyder2 colorometer.

MarkČ


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #12  
Old June 6th 07, 08:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
dennis@home
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default which PC


"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , M-M
wrote:

Macintosh, of course!


ALRIGHT! Someone with a clue!


Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.

I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you would
say it was the best PC ever.
Hang on that's what they have done.


  #13  
Old June 6th 07, 10:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default which PC

mogh baba wrote:
hi,

I have a question which I hope someone can give me e good answer.
Recently, my computer died and the serviceman says the usual word: You
do not win by repairing this and it is better to get a new pc.
the only sertiouse requirement I have from a new pc is that it is good
for working with digital RAW files. The specifications suggests that
the new computer with 250 G HDD and 1024 ram and an Intel Core 2 duo
2.0 desktop seems to be good enough for me. My only question is about
the integrated garaphic card. the seller says it is very good and if
i want to get a seperated card it will cost me more than 150 US
dollar. shall I go for the integrated card or get a seperate one?
Shall I think about other specifications? The integrated card is
called: "onboard Intel GMa3000 256mb".

I hope I have given enough information.

best regards,

Mojtaba

ONly a couple of suggestions.
First, get the best monitor you afford as the monitor IS what you see.
Second, get as much ram as your computer will allow. This will make
everything run faster, and will allow your photo editing software to run
most efficiently. 1GB is NOT enough for heavy photo editing!

Unless you really want to do gaming, having the top of the line video
adapter is NOT necessary. If you have a good LCD display, make sure it,
and the computer both have the ability to handle digital video.
  #14  
Old June 6th 07, 11:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Shawn Hirn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 410
Default which PC

In article , mogh baba
wrote:

hi,

I have a question which I hope someone can give me e good answer.
Recently, my computer died and the serviceman says the usual word: You
do not win by repairing this and it is better to get a new pc.
the only sertiouse requirement I have from a new pc is that it is good
for working with digital RAW files.


Consider a Mac; there are several models to look at. With a Mac, you get
Apple's world class customer service, tops in user friendliness, tops in
reliability, and the ability to run all Windows and Mac software. Out of
the box, the Mac will come with a very good tool to work with photos.
  #15  
Old June 6th 07, 11:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Shawn Hirn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 410
Default which PC

In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , M-M
wrote:

Macintosh, of course!


ALRIGHT! Someone with a clue!


Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.

I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you would
say it was the best PC ever.
Hang on that's what they have done.


Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for yourself
or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur
photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs rings
around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I
spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS
updates and no security issues.
  #16  
Old June 6th 07, 11:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Ortt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default which PC

Agreed

Separate graphics card is not necessary for 2D work.

Only exceptions are people who want to play 3D games and/or do 3D modelling.

One other possibility is if you want to Multi-monitor and the onboard only
has one output.


"dmaster" wrote in message
s.com...
On Jun 5, 12:22 pm, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:
"Dave Cohen" wrote in message

news:xCe9i.6892$My4.6842@trndny05...





Allen wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
mogh baba wrote in message
...
hi,


I have a question which I hope someone can give me e good answer.
Recently, my computer died and the serviceman says the usual word:
You
do not win by repairing this and it is better to get a new pc.
the only sertiouse requirement I have from a new pc is that it is
good
for working with digital RAW files. The specifications suggests that
the new computer with 250 G HDD and 1024 ram and an Intel Core 2
duo
2.0 desktop seems to be good enough for me. My only question is
about
the integrated garaphic card. the seller says it is very good and
if
i want to get a seperated card it will cost me more than 150 US
dollar. shall I go for the integrated card or get a seperate one?
Shall I think about other specifications? The integrated card is
called: "onboard Intel GMa3000 256mb".


If its just normal photo editing then integrated graphics should work
fine.
Its 3D games performance that you pay extra for.


You may want more RAM you never have enough IME.


Make sure you get a good monitor.
You need to be able to see what you are editing.


If expense is not a problem have a look at a tablet PC..
they are notebooks but they have a full screen graphics tablet built
in.


Make sure you get one with a Wacom compatible screen as some of the
newer low cost ones just have a touch screen and not a graphics
tablet.
If it only works with the supplied stylus it should be a wacom.
If it works with your finger nail its not.


You may still want a monitor but they all support that AFAIK.


Assuming that you are looking at an IBM-type new PC, it will almost
certainly come with Windows VISTA installed, so your first requirement
should be at least 2064 Mb of RAM. Also, you should investigate the
cost
of adding a second HD of at least 250 Gb or larger. Especially in the
case of memory it is cheaper to get these things as part of a new
machine.
Allen


I agree with the RAM statement, it's reasonably cheap and more can
never
hurt. However, I would consider an external hd as an alternative to a
2nd
internal. The machine is otherwise ok assuming it includes a good 19"
or
better monitor.
Dave Cohen


I would get a 512MB video card or the 256MB video card, minimum.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Given that the O.P.'s intent was photo work, why? He's not going to
be swapping large texture files or doing anything else that might take
advantage of even a fraction of the video memory. Nor is he planning
to run any intense 3D games that might make use of the GPU that is
presumably on the "512MB video card" you recommend.

And if you changes his mind and wants a capable game card, then I'd
suggest picking a good GPU since that's probably going to be way more
important than the difference between 512MB and 256MB of video memory.

Dan (Woj...)



  #17  
Old June 6th 07, 01:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Randall Ainsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 559
Default which PC

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.

I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you would
say it was the best PC ever.
Hang on that's what they have done.


Have fun with your virus-ridden, bloated OS.
  #18  
Old June 6th 07, 01:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
dennis@home
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default which PC


"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...

Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for yourself
or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur
photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily.



Mac OS X runs rings
around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I
spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS
updates and no security issues.


Do you want to look at that in detail?

Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as I
run applications and not OSes as such).
OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free and
don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you are
asking for trouble.

Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too.
Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
PCs.

You can even buy a two or three button mouse for a Mac to make it useable.
PS what *idiot* invented a circular mouse for a Mac?


  #19  
Old June 6th 07, 01:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
dennis@home
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default which PC


"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.

I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you
would
say it was the best PC ever.
Hang on that's what they have done.


Have fun with your virus-ridden, bloated OS.


Which one?
I use at least five (and none have a virus).


  #20  
Old June 6th 07, 01:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Scott Schuckert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 368
Default which PC

In article , Shawn
Hirn wrote:

Consider a Mac; there are several models to look at. With a Mac, you get
Apple's world class customer service, tops in user friendliness, tops in
reliability, and the ability to run all Windows and Mac software. Out of
the box, the Mac will come with a very good tool to work with photos.


What he said. For the most part, you're using application software like
Photoshop, so re-learning your applications isn't an issue; in fact
re-buying it may not be either. Adobe offers an exchange where you can
swap your software for the Mac versions for just a few dollars.

And as stated, if for some reason you need specific Windows apps or
even want to go back to Windows entirely, you can keep the Macintosh
hardware. I know a few people who've bought high end Macs specifically
to run Windows because THEY WERE A BETTER VALUE.

While Apple refuses to compete in the bottom end of the market, their
better computers are actually cheaper than an equivalent PC.

So, it's cheaper, better made, better supported, may not require
retraining or repurchasing software, and will run virtually anything
out there - Windows, OSX, Linux... Seems like an easy choice.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.