# Mac or Pc $1300.00 to spend



## stpierre87 (Nov 26, 2012)

I have been wrapping my head with this for days. I have about $1300.00 to spend, roughly. I've always used a pc but I also like to use my wifes macbook. I use adobe lightroom 4, adobe photoshop, and adobe premeire. The pc I currently have now is about five years old and is starting to have a hard time keeping up with the work flow. It also can't run full HD video in the source monitor of premiere. I mostly only do photos, but once and awhile I like to dabble in videos. So... for that price range, whats everyone's opinion. 

Please, and thanks !


----------



## bunny99123 (Nov 26, 2012)

I use a HP tower with a Dell Hd monitor, but I have used a Mac. My husband is in the printing and graphic field and uses a Mac at work. He has the latest PS, and his monitor resolution is awesome. I really like Apple computers, and hope my next computer is one.  I have had my tower for about a year, and it is fine for now, but would have bought an Apple if I had the money. Good luck on your decision


----------



## runnah (Nov 26, 2012)

If you need a computer with some horse power PC's are always the best bet. If you want something that looks cool at a coffee shop, get a mac.


----------



## bhop (Nov 26, 2012)

I like Macs... so I guess I vote Mac.  I'm not going to bother to justify it because people (such as above) that don't like Macs will just dismiss them as pretty things to be used in coffee shops..

That said.. I don't hate PCs, so get whatever works for you.


----------



## runnah (Nov 26, 2012)

bhop said:


> I like Macs... so I guess I vote Mac.  I'm not going to bother to justify it because people (such as above) that don't like Macs will just dismiss them as pretty things to be used in coffee shops..



I like macs and have owned 3, but I am not rich and know that I can get twice the PC for the price of a laptop.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2012)

If you like Mac, get a Mac. $1300 will buy a better PC, but IMO, only if you build it yourself, though this is not difficult at all. Another thing to consider is that software upgrades on mac will cost about $30 each, while windows upgrades will cost about $100, but you are eligible for a longer period. So if you skip an upgrade on Mac, you may need to buy the last two versions to be up to date, with windows, if you have one of the last few versions, you're eligible for the upgrade. PCs, especially those which you built yourself, are easy to upgrade. Macs tend to depreciate slower.

I think what it really comes down to is which operating system you prefer. You can use Windows on your Mac, but you can't reliably use MacOS on your PC (though I don't recommend running Windows on a MacBook). Hackintosh generally sucks. Don't even go there.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 26, 2012)

runnah said:
			
		

> If you need a computer with some horse power PC's are always the best bet. If you want something that looks cool at a coffee shop, get a mac.



I whole heartily agree.


----------



## stpierre87 (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks everyone that has responded so far. The comments I have received are pretty much what I expected. Just to make things alittle clearer, I'm not looking to get a Mac laptop, it would be a Imac. I'm seem to be so conflicted. This is a purchase I plan on having for awhile. Like I had said, the Pc I'm using now I've had for about 5 years and I baby it. Does anyone know if I can upgrade an IMac like you would a PC Tower, such as Memory and Storage ?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2012)

memory and storage, yes. I don't think you'll find as many HD bays or memory slots as you would in a tower. But simple upgrades are possible.

Honestly, at $1300 I think you're better off with a PC, especially as you seem to understand how to maintain a PC. Macs don't get viruses, you just don't worry about that sort of thing. But if your familiar with this risk and prevent it, then it's a sort of non-issue. You'll get more power (processor, ram, etc) from a $1300 home-built PC than an iMac. Though, those iMac monitors are nice, and this may be something you'll want to consider.

Will it be sufficient processor-wise for photography? Absolutely.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 26, 2012)

On paper, the PC will always buy you better specs for the same money. With Mac, you're paying for the user interface. You say you're already familiar with it, so it seems like you just need to decide which is more important: specs or interface.

For me, I can't go back to PC. I was a PC user for 20+ years until 2010, and then I got a MBP. You might consider a gently used model. About two months ago, I bought a totally spec'd 2010 model iMac for $1600 via FM. I'd have paid over $3500 for a new model with the same specs. IMO, that's a great way to get the best of all worlds (specs, Mac UI, affordable). Obviously, the most important thing is to do your homework and buy from a reputable source. Fred Miranda has a seller rating system that makes this very easy.

Just a thought. Hope that helps.


----------



## sactown024 (Nov 26, 2012)

PC are like Chevys, you get a lot of power for your buck but they break down after 100k miles and lose all their value after one day of use.

Macs are like a Lexus, you pay big bucks but they last forever and hold their value. 

I have had an $1800 PC (i7 Asus laptop) and a Macbook Pro and I would never go back to using a PC, no comparison IMO. 

$1300 will get you a really nice used 15" i7 macbook on ebay. Just look for a late 2011 model.

Ive noticed a lot of the people that prefer PC over Mac are the ones that have never owned a Mac and think all us mac users are "fanboys"


----------



## 2fastlx (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm a Mac guy all the way. BUT, with only 1300 to spend you should stay with the pc. However once you go Mac you'll never want to make the switch back.


----------



## Nickj54 (Nov 26, 2012)

With $1300 you wouldn't be able to get a Mac unless it was used. I use my 27" iMac and my 13" retina MacBook. If I were you, I would wait another month and save to get an iMac or a 15" MacBook Pro.


----------



## gerardo2068 (Nov 26, 2012)

I think Mac too. You can search on the refurbish section on Apple's website. Most of my family's Macs has been refurbish or used Mac. The refurbish ones have the same warranty as a new Mac and used one never gave a problem. You could get used to anything but as others have point out, once you go Mac it's hard to see yourself going back to PC. As Bhop says I can't just explain a single thing that is good about them because some people don't get it. It is a whole experience, specs takes second place in a certain way. Not that specs are not important, but specs alone don't paint the whole picture... literally.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 26, 2012)

How many posts DOES it take to get to the center of a mac vs. pc religious war?

One...

Ta-whoooo...

Three...

*crunch*

THREE.


----------



## Mully (Nov 26, 2012)

runnah said:


> If you need a computer with some horse power PC's are always the best bet. If you want something that looks cool at a coffee shop, get a mac.


You need to stay away from those coffee shops and get to use a Mac so you know what you are talking about.


----------



## stpierre87 (Nov 26, 2012)

I had to of assumed I would be starting a Mac vs. Pc debate. As for the 'Specs' references, arn't really good Specs something I should be lookng for in the case of program usage. The 'User Interface' is alot simplier on the Mac, but will that be worth the Lack of Specs it will have for up and coming program upgrades and requirements. Considering this is a computer I will have this for the next 4 or 5 years, depending on my future budget. I was looking at the brand new IMac 21.5in. 2.7ghz, Thats roughly my price range, But at the same time just Built my own HP on there site and was able to get double the 'Specs' for the same price. 

Tough choices,
     Thanks for the help.


----------



## Mully (Nov 26, 2012)

Buy a used Mac Pro, you can upgrade it till it screams ....you won't be sorry.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2012)

I think MacOS is a bit more efficient in a lot of areas, but it still really depends. Adobe has a long history with Apple, and MacOS is built on a solid, proven foundation. In many ways, Microsoft's legacy is still holding it back, though to a lesser extent, post-Vista. MacOS is 64bit, you don't have to worry about getting a 64-bit "edition". MacOS uses OpenCL to a greater extent and the framework is implemented at the system level. Apple seems to believe in OpenCL, and I think that OpenCL is the future. I am not sure where Microsoft stands on this technology.

My macbook pro is from late 2008, I do have some power management issues with it, and I did have to replace the DVD drive - but performance-wise, I do not believe there has been an issue. At all. I do not have any real need to replace this machine in the near future. Even with only 2gb of memory. 

We're editing photos here. We're not doing protein sequencing (though Apple products do have a long history in biosciences, though that has more to do with it's OS X server's ease of clustering). I am pretty certain that your iMac will be perfectly capable of handling what you throw at it. Many photographers, videographers and graphic artists, some likely doing much more demanding work than you, use a Mac with no problem. Most of this is probably tradition - but the bottom line is, Apple products do work and work well in this field.


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 26, 2012)

Mully said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a computer with some horse power PC's are always the best bet. If you want something that looks cool at a coffee shop, get a mac.
> ...



Exactly. The decision is not at all based on looks its based on user friendliness of the OS and the level of support you get from the maker. 

The Mac OS is hands down the easiest OS to learn, and the easiest to fix when there are problems. 

As for support when you buy a PC the hardware makes always blame the windows for weird issues and windows always blames the hardware makers for the issues. With an Apple computer they make both. Apples support has continually ranked number one in the tech industry for years.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2012)

and it's not like you can't get in and really muck about if you really wanted to. While Apple has an obnoxious habit of obscuring things from it's users, it's all right there if you know how to and need to access it (or just want to destroy file systems). Many windows users complain that you can't access underlying systems on a mac, and that simply isn't true. 

You can futz up a Mac just as much as you can a PC, it's just a matter of knowing how.

In fact I prefer Mac over Windows in this area as Apple doesn't tend to spew shared libraries all over everywhere.

---

But as pro mac as I am, the ONLY reason why apple is the choice for "creative professionals" is because Adobe used to be a Mac-only developer. As such, PostScript was only available on mac. PostScript is what made everything in desktop publishing possible in the early 1990's, from laser printers to digital typesetters. It really has nothing else to do with anything other than tradition. This tradition has allowed apple to market to creative professionals, and implement features which creative professionals might appreciate. But in the end, it's just tradition, and nothing else.


----------



## John27 (Nov 26, 2012)

Just something to remember, Apple displays are pretty top notch when it comes to using them for Photoshop, et al.  An iMac or an Apple laptop will have a better display than a PC with a cheaper display, or just about any PC laptop.

That said, I use a homebuilt PC.  For about $1300 I got a machine equivalent to a very high end mac pro.  Add a few hundred more for an IPS display, and I have a machine that does a pretty good job in post.  On the flip side, I deal with a much less reliable operating system, and despite some incredible horsepower (4GHz quad core, 16GB of RAM, SSD, etc.) I still have to deal with occasional hiccups that you wouldn't have on a mac.  OS X is based on rock-solid unix, it's just a better operating system.  Unfortunately, Apple doesn't allow you to install OS X on a PC.  It CAN be done, but it's such a complicated process that yields unreliable results with, obviously NO support from Apple (including no updates) that, in my opinion, makes it no more than a novelty and no better than just running Windoze.

There's a lot to weight.  With a $1300 budget, I don't think either would be a bad choice.  You can't look at an image and say 'ooh, that one must have been done on a mac', unless the comparison was one done on a macbook vs one done on a PC laptop with a crummy inaccurate display!

If this were a discussion about laptops the display alone would lean me to suggest the Macbook, but when it comes to desktops, I think both are valid.  Good luck!

Also, if you go the Mac route, don't discount the Mac mini.  It has very similar specs to the iMac, but you can pair it with a good IPS display and come out a little cheaper, FWIW.  Pair it with an Apple Cinema Display (one of the better displays out there, with an incredibly high resolution which is really nice for working on high resolution images), and you're only a couple hundred bucks over your budget, something to think about.  (Or a $400 PC and an Apple Cinema display)

*So, in my humble opinion*, a decent multi-core processor and a decent amount of memory will handle the latest photo editing software.  Your budget should *REALLY* consider an excellent display, as that is a crucial component of photo editing.  Dell, Apple, and Hewlett-Packard all make fantastic IPS displays for this kind of work.  Though I'm partial to the Apple and certain Dell offerings because of their very high resolution (2560x1440).  When you 'zoom out' on an image you are working on, there is a level of distortion and a level of inaccuracy to the color because several pixels are now crammed into one.  A high resolution monitor allows you to view the photo at 100% (pixel for pixel) while still retaining a workable size, AND the color accuracy of a good IPS display really improves your end result.  I have an IPS display and a second monitor (NOT used for photo editing outside of a place to stick the tools windows or the 'workflow' in lightroom) that is an older HP model, and the difference in color is incredible... makes me wonder how people get away with editing photos on something like that!

So if it were me, the options would be;

An iMac for $1300,

A mac mini and $1000 for a display,

Or $1000 for a Display, and $300~$500 on a decent PC (that would be, spec wise, in line with the iMac anyway)

I think ANY of those three would be a good combination.

You *DO NO* have to just like one or the other.  Both Macs and PCs are excellent machines that can do any work you'd like, each with their unique advantages and their unique disadvantages.  I've owned both all my life, at the same time, and at different times.



unpopular said:


> and it's not like you can't get in and really muck about if you really wanted to. While Apple has an obnoxious habit of obscuring things from it's users, it's all right there if you know how to and need to access it (or just want to destroy file systems). Many windows users complain that you can't access underlying systems on a mac, and that simply isn't true.
> 
> You can futz up a Mac just as much as you can a PC, it's just a matter of knowing how.
> 
> ...



+1.  In the 90's Apple was the creative professional choice.  Period.  Bar none.  No exceptions.  If you weren't using an Apple computer, you were severely limiting yourself.  It's like "professional photographers" using a point and shoot camera.  Do they get pictures?  Yes.  But they are severely limited and the quality of their product is sub par.

Now, however, you can do all of it on the PC.  But many have never felt a need to shift over, and many people who make a living as a graphics professional on a computer have no desire to learn a new interface or learn how to tackle new challenges.  They, in turn, teach the next generation, and so on.  So Apple remains the most-used system for creative professionals.  That's not ALWAYS the case though.  I've got a relative who is a creative professional, does marketing/graphics design/photo retouching (for ads and articles) for a large firm.  He now runs a PC with 3 30" high-end calibrated IPS displays.  The PC has the software he needs and runs a few specialty pieces of software not available on Mac OS.  He has worked there for close to 30 years doing this same job, and as long as there has been a Macintosh (just about), he has been using it, all up until now.  Does that mean PC is better?  No.  Does that mean Mac is better? No.  It means the two have converged to a point that either one can be a winning combination in capable of hands, whichever has the software availability and features you need is the one you should choose!


----------



## gerardo2068 (Nov 26, 2012)

Adobe also stopping support on older windows OS.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 26, 2012)

^^ well. They've stopped support on PPC macs, too. That's just kind of how things go.


----------



## JLMILLS (Nov 26, 2012)

You do get more PC for your buck compared to MAC. However, that extra power is overkill for everything I do. I don't game. I don't render video. I process photos and watch HULU. 1300 Bought all the MAC I need. I still have a PC as well. Ok several, but MAC's OS is so intuitive. It just makes sense. I'm on a Macbook Air witch is the weakest they make. I've never experienced a bottleneck. I do, however, keep my PC around for when I need more horses. I just upgraded the HDD to SSHD and It is like a brand new machine. (the pc, i mean) Mac came with a SSHD


----------



## John27 (Nov 26, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ well. They've stopped support on PPC macs, too. That's just kind of how things go.



Was about to say the same thing.  PLUS, the OP is looking to buy a NEW PC, which means he will be running Windows 7 or 8, not Windows 98!

They will be dropping support for XP, and a lot of people DO run XP (I do on my laptop, it came with vista, which was awful, so I 'upgraded' to XP.  Don't do photo editing on it though!), but Microsoft has also stopped issuing new licenses for Windows XP, meaning ANY new computer will run at least Windows 7

As an add, Apple switched to Intel based macs in 2005, and Windows XP was released in 2001.  CS6 works on Windows XP (2001) but not OS 9 or PPC versions of OSX (pre-2001 to 2005) so really, the PC's got a longer support run than Apple did!


----------



## Dave Devoid (Nov 27, 2012)

Would always go for Mac over PC now...Had my Mac for 2 years...Its still as fast now as the day i bought it..Ive not had one virus/malware etc and it copes with everything i chuck at it...One more bonus is the OS upgrades are dirt cheap..The latest mountain lion was like £13.99 from the app store..

A no brainer in my opinion...


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2012)

John27 said:


> They will be dropping support for XP, and a lot of people DO run XP (I do on my laptop, it came with vista, which was awful, so I 'upgraded' to XP.  Don't do photo editing on it though!), but Microsoft has also stopped issuing new licenses for Windows XP, meaning ANY new computer will run at least Windows 7



When you support old operating systems in a time like today where there are these big shifts you're only holding yourself back either performance-wise, or economically. Up until the 21st century computing power has been primarily about RAM and Clock Speed. But today demands on computers have become so sophisticated, distribution of tasks had to be addressed. Todays technology really doesn't have a lot in common with 20th century technology, beyond the most basic premis that both are devices that make calculations using binary logic. But the architecture that lays on top of that foundation is more or less all new from the ground up.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 27, 2012)

dave_cath00 said:
			
		

> ...Had my Mac for 2 years.....Ive not had one virus/malware etc ...



That has more to do with the user than the software/hardware. If you don't open up malware/virus infected content you'll most likely never get a virus. I haven't had a virus in years on my PC. It's a matter of using what common sense you are blessed with or else you will get farked no matter what OS you run. It's a common misconception that Apple OS machines are less likely to get viruses and malware. Not to mention the more popular they get the more they will targeted.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2012)

Here's the thing though. If you're talking about security, what is more secure - essentially having no possible threat, or having a threat which you must take precautions about?

On a Mac, you don't even THINK about it. You don't. You don't need virus software. You can pretty much download ANYTHING. You don't have to be "careful", you don't need "common sense". It's a total and complete _non-issue. _Will it ever be? Sure, and it has been. But the simple fact of the matter is right now harmful code is simply not an issue on a mac.

End of story. It's not a misconception. What is a misconception is that macs are immune to future threats.


----------



## John27 (Nov 27, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> dave_cath00 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I definitely agree with that.  I haven't had a virus or malware on any of my PC's in years.  I'm fairly proficient when it comes to PC's and have the experience and knowledge to know what to stay away from.  The VAST majority of viruses and malware are installed by the user with permission, they don't just suddenly appear (though the user often thinks it did).  But that cool toolbar or awesome 'free cursor pack' you downloaded a couple weeks ago was where the virus got in!  Remember, TINSTAFL- There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, anything 'free' on the internet should be carefully evaluated.  What does the producer stand to gain. 

However, as to the misconception, the inherit security of OS X comes from it's unix architecture.  There have only been a couple (as in a couple, not millions like in the PC world) of viruses out in the wild, none for the longest time.  Instances of malware on Mac OS / OS X machines are significantly lower than their PC counterparts.  People use the 'but less people have them' argument, but that's pretty false.  Virus developers can easily develop the same malware for other platforms, and they have tried.  It's just a very tight operating system.  With a windows PC, installing software opens up a huge line of shared libraries, the registry, and all sorts of ways for software to do nasty things.  Unix (the backbone of OS X) is much more locked down.  It is, by design, a much more secure operating system.  It is also MUCH more protected from remote attacks (though those are highly unlikely with a typical persons computer!)

As a matter of fact years ago a large anti-virus company was sued and later hit with a big class action fraud lawsuit when they produced a Mac anti-virus.  The reason?  It had 0 definitions in it.  It was a dormant program, there were no viruses, thus, there was nothing for the AV to detect or fix!  There HAVE been a couple of malware pieces here a little bit more recently, but instead of an AV, Apple promptly released fixes closing the loophole that allowed them to be destructive.  Microsoft has also been more pro-active though, the NT Kernel isn't very secure nor is the design of windows, but Microsoft goes the other way and provides an arsenal of free and excellent anti-virus solutions and monthly updates to keep up with the onslaught of viruses.  The typical user who is somewhat tech savvy should be perfectly fine on a Windows machine running Microsofts security tools.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 27, 2012)

Ugh


Macs and PCS are both viable.

Macs have come a long way but you will still find more titles  available  for pcs that are not available for macs, though there are cases of the reverse.

Bang/buck pcs are still a bit cheaper.

Macs are a bit simpler to use but you are also typically boxed into a reduced number of ways to do things.

These are FACTS.  Not opinions.


----------



## jamesdak (Nov 27, 2012)

I am in pretty much the  same situation.  Have to update a 7 year old machine used for all my photography work.  When it came right down to it I just could not justify the price of a Mac no matter how much I wanted to use it.  You get so much more for your dollar with a PC.  And yes I could have looked at use Macs but same thing, buying a PC used would really yield one heck of a machine.  Now people talk about virus but I run good anti-virus on my PC and don't share this computer with my kids so viruses are never really a concern.  And no Macs are not immune to viruses...  I was going to build my own PC but found a well spec'd Dell at a really cheap price and went that route.  No regrets at all.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 27, 2012)

If you buy a laptop think about getting a Mac. Their laptop screens are sooo much better than the budget screen you get from Dell/HP/whoever.

With PCs though you can get a faster PC for the same price as a Mac, AND can get a nice bright screen as well.


----------



## Designer (Nov 27, 2012)

stpierre87 said:


> I had to of assumed I would be starting a Mac vs. Pc debate. As for the 'Specs' references, arn't really good Specs something I should be lookng for in the case of program usage. The 'User Interface' is alot simplier on the Mac, but will that be worth the Lack of Specs it will have for up and coming program upgrades and requirements. Considering this is a computer I will have this for the next 4 or 5 years, depending on my future budget. I was looking at the brand new IMac 21.5in. 2.7ghz, Thats roughly my price range, But at the same time just Built my own HP on there site and was able to get double the 'Specs' for the same price.
> 
> Tough choices,
> Thanks for the help.



Dear OP; you're going at this bass-ackwards.  You FIRST need to decide on the software applications you intend to use, THEN that will indicate what hardware to get.

For instance; if the software you wish to run is not available for the Mac, but is for the PC, then that will make your decision for you.  

I have an iMac, BTW.  We also have two HP's, but I use the Mac for my stuff.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2012)

jamesdak said:


> I was going to build my own PC but found a well spec'd Dell at a really cheap price and went that route.  No regrets at all.



You will in about two years. It's a Dell.


----------



## jamesdak (Nov 27, 2012)

unpopular said:


> jamesdak said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to build my own PC but found a well spec'd Dell at a really cheap price and went that route. No regrets at all.
> ...



LOL, whatev!!  Still have two 10+ year old dell pentium 4 towers running at the house right now.  No concerns about buying Dell at all.  Especially with the deal I got,  hell financially if it blew up in a year I'd be happy.  So there!


----------



## stpierre87 (Nov 27, 2012)

Through out all of this I believe I have decided to choose the new IMac. I now have another Techy question if everybody would care to respond and give me some more advice. In the mean time, while saving for a more expensive Imac I'm thinking of just upgrading my Pc to hold me over. I already have a really good display. The pc is a HP p6110, all stock. Pentium dual core CPU E5300, 2.6 ghz, RAM 6 GB, 64 Bit operating system, 640GB 7200RPM  3g/sec hard drive. I Baby this computer. Just some programs are running slow and I try not to run two programs at once. The actual question.... What is the first piece of hardware I should upgrade to make things run faster. ?

Thanks.


----------



## John27 (Nov 27, 2012)

stpierre those specs are pretty good.  Are the *same *programs running slower than they did before?

Keep in mind some applications are just demanding.  I have a very high end system and it still takes a couple seconds to do some things in photoshop.

If the issues you are struggling with are related to video or high resolution images, then a discrete graphics card may be the best upgrade.  This will take some of the load off of the CPU and better process the images on your screen.  It doesn't have to be anything extreme, just something a little faster than the likely onboard graphics.

Also, when you say a 'good' monitor, do you mean an IPS display?  It's not just about being 'good', it's about being a display capable of handling a full spectrum of colors and being accurate.  If you aren't doing this professionally it's certainly not crucial, but I really think it can help you get the most out of your images.


----------



## texkam (Nov 27, 2012)

Defrag. Run CCleaner.


----------



## stpierre87 (Nov 28, 2012)

John27 said:


> stpierre those specs are pretty good.  Are the *same *programs running slower than they did before?
> 
> Keep in mind some applications are just demanding.  I have a very high end system and it still takes a couple seconds to do some things in photoshop.
> 
> ...



I do have a IPS display, its a 23' 1920 x1080 Res, Full Hd monitor. Its not a apple display but I think its nice. Do you think the graphics card is keeping my source monitor in adobe premiere running slow. ?  The other programs such as adobe light room, and photoshop just seem to run slow switching in between presets or zooming in, things of that nature.


----------



## stpierre87 (Nov 28, 2012)

texkam said:


> Defrag. Run CCleaner.



As I said before I do baby thing comuter, I run the defrag once a week as well as the disk cleaner.


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 28, 2012)

Defrag is good and so is CCleaner but why not try formatting and reloading your OS before dropping all that money on a new comp?  No matter how good you are after a while you just need a fresh start.

$1300 would pay for a really nice prime lens. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Rhoads238 (Nov 28, 2012)

Apple is great for photo and video editing. but for a 1300 dollar price range you arent going to get much from mac. get a pc. It's what I have even though i wanted a mac but I couldn't find one that had the features I wanted for around that price point (mine was slightly lower). But I managed to get one that can run all the programs I need, has a boat load of disk space and has a pretty decent 17" display (i got a laptop).


----------



## John27 (Nov 28, 2012)

stpierre87 said:


> John27 said:
> 
> 
> > stpierre those specs are pretty good.  Are the *same *programs running slower than they did before?
> ...



If it is slow now but wasn't slow before (with the same version of the program working on the same resolution images) then the issues lies somewhere else.  A fatal flaw in Windows is it's registry that, over time, becomes sort of 'clogged up' with unnecessary data.  The OS would need to be re-installed in that case.

However, if you are talking about running Adobe Premiere on an onboard graphics chip, then you definitely need to upgrade that. 

You will need a PCI Express port on your motherboard in order to upgrade this.  If you aren't sure if you have this, then take the side panel off of your computer and take a picture and upload it here.  If you don't have a PCI-E port then you are pretty much as fast as you are realistically going to get.  You can rarely upgrade the CPU on an OEM motherboard (the BIOS is usually very limited) and you have more than enough RAM to handle the stuff you are doing.  And besides, I really think your bottleneck is your GPU.

If you do have a PCI Express slot, here are two good options;

Newegg.com - MSI R6670-MD1GD3 Radeon HD 6670 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

Newegg.com - MSI N640GT-MD1GD3 GeForce GT 640 1GB DDR3 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

You could even go cheaper if you need to, but these will perform excellently and really speed up any video editing and certainly any high resolution image editing.


----------

