# Best Computer for Photography?



## Vautrin

So I have a really old laptop and it just doesn't cut it for my photographs anymore.  I do a lot of post processing (panos, hdrs, and the real computing hog, hdr panos) and I want something more powerful.

I want to spend no more than 1,000 EUR, although maybe I could spend a little more if necessary.

I'm looking for a desktop.

On the one hand I could just get a stock iMac for that price.

But I was thinking maybe it would make more sense to get a quad core processor with lots of RAM.  Then later on I could upgrade my graphics card / storage...

Any suggestions?  And any Europeans know a good place to get a computer?

Dan


----------



## usayit

The short answer is to get the most you can afford.  I would focus on loading up on RAM and getting a good monitor.  Do not forget about a strategy to backup your files.  This is true regardless of your choice of O/S; Windows or Mac.


----------



## Vautrin

Well maybe I should rephrase my question.  For 1000 EUR I could get the basic iMac.  The pluses are it's a mac so I'd have things like Aperature, plus macs are sweet.  The down side is I'd be stuck with the configuration I get in the imac for all of its useful life.  

Or I could get a PC desktop.  But since they're upgradable I could get the best motherboard I could afford with dual processors and then upgrade the graphics card and RAM down the line.  I'd have something much more powerful today and in a years time I'd have something much more powerful then the mac.   And dual quad core processors would speed up my panos quite a bit I think...

But it wouldn't be a mac!


----------



## usayit

And the reason why I am keeping it vague is because this forum has had dozens of PC versus Mac threads... that end up in flames.

I am a mac user... I've got a dual G5 fully loaded.  It is old.  It is still a competent machine.  It still is my main workstation.

I also have a single Windows box... It has been replaced a few times and it works fine.  The cost of incrementally replacing it probably equals that of the G5. 

I also have a Hackintosh... running on a netbook.  I like it... it travels with me.  It is tiny... Runs LR2 just fine except for the small display.

My work laptop is a G4 PowerBook...  

My point is... you make a decision on Mac versus PC (only you can decide).  Then purchase as much as you can afford.  Either will work just fine.  My personal preference just happens to be Mac (extending from being a UNIX/Linux guy).  If you are a MAC person, ignore Windows options and just choose a mac.  If you are a windows person, just ignore MAC options and choose a PC. 


BTw....  I much prefer LR2.  You should download a free 30 day trial and see if you like it.  LR2 will run on either Mac or Windows.


----------



## Flash Harry

Find a computer shop (smallish dealer) and buy the components then build your own, its easy and for the money you have should get a top spec system, there's loads of build guides on the net. H


----------



## Lostbox

I use both, not starting a debate, but I do find mac better, It comes preloaded with software I find useful, such as iweb, I personally prefer the way they work, and in my opinion they last longer without slowing down like I have found my PC does. 

But on the other hand PC are cheaper, but with a cheap PC you get cheap slower parts, you may get loads of RAM but it will actually run slower than better quality stuff. 

So it does really depend on what you prefer using, I don't think any one can answer that question.


----------



## Flash Harry

PC's slow down due to the rubbish collected from the net and fragmentation, a good drive cleaner and regular defrag will keep your box up to speed, I last formatted 3 years back use the tools for cleaning, antispyware and regular defrag and have no speed issues on this pc. H


----------



## patrickt

I don't feel qualified to build a computer so I hired a tech to help me. I pick my components. Some components, such as my DVD drives, don't concern me much. I go with price. Some, such as hard drives, do concern me so I set performance specs. Some, such as processor and motherboard are a major concern so I spec a specific item.


----------



## xtort-

I've been working with computers for quite a while now, and can offer the following advice:

1) get  a mac.
OR, if you can't afford a mac:

1) Build your own PC.  Never buy from a manufacturer.  They cut every corner they can, and you end up with a useless computer much quicker than you normally would.
2) Before installing Windows XP (NEVER vista, or even windows 7 (doesn't do anything more than hog more resources)), partition your hard drive.  1st partition should have about 20-30 gigs, and contain program installs only.  The next partition is where you will save all your music, documents, photos, etc.
3) Every 6 months-1 year, as required, wipe that first partition, and reinstall windows.  Windows gets crapped up as it gets used.  There is no disk cleaner, virus scanner, ad blocker, etc, that will fix your computer like a fresh install of windows will.  

You don't need any more than 2 gigs of ram unless you are doing something really strange.  Instead of buying 4 gigs of decent RAM, get 2 gigs of the fastest stuff your motherboard can handle.  You DO need a fast SATA drive.  You DO need a good graphics card.  

The best computer you can buy is the one you build yourself- or have a small computer store build for you, as suggested above.


----------



## CrazyCanuck

Im sorry Xtort, but the never install Vista and every six months reinstall the OS really struck a nerve with me.

lets start on Vista, Vista is more secure than XP (for the time being) has quite a few useful features (start menu search, widgets, etc), but yes, it requires a few more resources.

Next reinstalling the OS every 6 months, pure rubbish. I have desktop that I built up in 2002, and have not reinstalled XP since then. All that one needs to do, is not let spyware build up, virus' or other bloatware. Also, clearing the internet cache on occasion helps, defragging, and not installing/uninstalling programs a bunch of times.


----------



## usayit

xtort- said:


> You don't need any more than 2 gigs of ram unless you are doing something really strange.  Instead of buying 4 gigs of decent RAM, get 2 gigs of the fastest stuff your motherboard can handle.  You DO need a fast SATA drive.  You DO need a good graphics card.



You do have a different approach but I disagree with the 2gb memory.  I HIGHLY recommend pushing for as much memory as you can possible stuff into a box.  Graphics programs are memory bound.. Their demand increases
* as your library gets more complex in Lightroom 
* as you do more complex editing in photoshop (layers lots of layers for example)
* as the camera's sensors grow and produce larger files
* as Microsoft keeps releasing new Windows Versions the trend is more memory.
* as you start to work on multiple files at the same time (cards too if you go multiple monitors).  
.. Just to name a few.. 

You will see performance improvements with faster processors and more of them BUT the improvements are far less dramatic.  The applications are not CPU bound and many are not optimized for multiple CPUs (especially quads).

This is similar to the power hungry video processing folks.... Load up on memory.  Even on older machines, you should consider maxing out memory before jumping to a new machine.

As for drives, your work drive should be fast (eSATA fast rpm).  Drives used for archiving don't necessarily have to be (USB 2.0 externals)


----------



## usayit

CrazyCanuck said:


> Im sorry Xtort, but the never install Vista and every six months reinstall the OS really struck a nerve with me.
> 
> lets start on Vista, Vista is more secure than XP (for the time being) has quite a few useful features (start menu search, widgets, etc), but yes, it requires a few more resources.
> 
> Next reinstalling the OS every 6 months, pure rubbish. I have desktop that I built up in 2002, and have not reinstalled XP since then. All it that one needs to do, is not let spyware build up, virus' or other bloatware. Also, clearing the internet cache on occasion helps, defragging, and not installing/uninstalling programs a bunch of times.



I always see this "it does for ME" or "it doesn't for me" arguments in these threads.  Face it... there are those that (for whatever reason) have problems with MAC OS X and other don't.  There are those that (for whatever reason) have problems with Windows and others don't.  

What exactly are you trying to say here when you (single individual) are generalizing your experiences over the general public of millions of users?  You are right and everyone else is doing something wrong?  if so, then you should start a consulting company and fix everyone's problems.... 

People post that they need to reinstall the OS often... Lots of people do.  Take it is.  I for one work in an mix environment of servers.  Windows servers do get refreshed more often than any of our UNIX, Linux, nor our one MAC server.  Just stating my experiences but not discounting others that might counter mine.  Calling someone's different experiences/observations 'rubbish" is certainly not a productive post... is it?


----------



## AlexColeman

I can't really contribute, I picked something far above the price point, the Mac Pro would be the best option, Macbook Pro, next best.


----------



## Jaszek

I buit my own pc:ASUS p5k premium motherboard, 4gb of ram(forgot the speed), core 2 duo 2.6 ghz, 680watt power supply, geforce 8400gs, and a lot of hard drives (60 internal, 120 internal, 320 internal, 120 external, 1TB external) and it runs Photoshop cs4, lightroom, kaspersky antivirus, and a lot more programs without a problem. Last time I reformated was about a month ago because I was playing around the internet and got a virus which I dodn't feel like scanning for.


----------



## wagaboo

CrazyCanuck said:


> Im sorry Xtort, but the never install Vista and every six months reinstall the OS really struck a nerve with me.
> 
> lets start on Vista, Vista is more secure than XP (for the time being) has quite a few useful features (start menu search, widgets, etc), but yes, it requires a few more resources.
> 
> Next reinstalling the OS every 6 months, pure rubbish. I have desktop that I built up in 2002, and have not reinstalled XP since then. All that one needs to do, is not let spyware build up, virus' or other bloatware. Also, clearing the internet cache on occasion helps, defragging, and not installing/uninstalling programs a bunch of times.


you havent format in 6 yrs....WOW I'd shoot that box...lol.jk but vista IS a resource hog and always WILL be,a good xp pc with around 2 gigs of fast ram a good vid card and good monitor theres no debating it that Vista is a pig even with alot of ram. Just try xp then vista on the same pc and you'll see the difference. I have made many cd's of my own copy of xp and slim-lined it down to use just 128mb of ram and my cs3 SMOKES on that pc. I have built many pc's from scratch (figure of speach) and if vista wasnt a problem then why windows 7 ? 
I have been a beta tester since win98 and all my contacts say the same Cool it on the eye candy it takes to much resources.
If you buy a vista pc and want to try XP then make sure all drivers are on a cd for xp as well as yer system disc for vista.


----------



## Dwig

Vautrin said:


> ...
> But I was thinking maybe it would make more sense to get a quad core processor with lots of RAM.  Then later on I could upgrade my graphics card / storage...



Don't blow your budget on the basic machine. DO NOT delay purchasing more and better hard drives. Make a fast second hard drive part of your basic purchase, preferably a Firewire. In general, RAM and drive performance as both as important as processor speed. Anyway, good fast HDs are relatively inexpensive.

All this is particularily critical if you are using Photoshop and demand decent performance. You want PS's scratch disk to be separate piece of hardware from the drive your OS uses. 

On the Mac/Windows front, I'm rather neutral when it comes to photographic software. Neither is better than the other; some people just prefer one "style" over the other.

As to the "reinstall Windows every 6 months" issue, you only need to do that if you don't know how to use Windows. One big issue with Windows is "bloteware" and the biggest offender that you are likely to encounter is Windows Update. Learn how to clean out the substantial collection of downloaded update packages that aren't needed after they've been run and much of the problem goes away. That, a good malware protection suite, and avoidance of Internet Explorer (I recommend Opera instead, but Firefox is also good stuff) will cure most ills.

On the Windows side, I would vote to avoid Vista for performance reasons. Its a resource hog. If you buy a Windows machine it will probably come with Vista, just be sure it comes with the "downgrade to XP" option. Word has it that when Windows 7 is released, it will offer a downgrade to XP also (interestingly, not a downgrade to Vista).


----------



## wagaboo

Actually its an upgrade to 7 on new pc's that still have vista until ALL new pc's have 7 , Im a beta tester.
PS:: I agree on Opera its not bloatware what so ever, FF is good but imo its bootup time is slower than opera and IE.


----------



## Vautrin

So I actually went ahead and bought a quad core, 4gb ram, 2 hard drives computer.  BUT it came with vista.  Any suggestions on speeding it up?  I've never seen a computer take 2GB of memory just when i boot up...


----------



## Jaszek

install XP . Make sure you find all the drivers before hand. If you cant find them i say go for the 7 beta, if you can still download it. If you want I can provide you with a key (don't worry mods, I got them from micosoft during the free beta test B4 for people that wont make it, I wont charge for them....or will I? <dramatic chimpmunk> no illegal activity here ). Vista drivers work on 7 (or did, I got rid of it couple months back)


----------



## DeadPixel

Most important - good monitor.
With slow pc you still can work... 
but with bad monitor you are like half blind 

.... as about operating system - my choice would be Windows XP.
Windows Vista uses more resources and can affect on a work speed.


----------



## usayit

Vautrin said:


> So I actually went ahead and bought a quad core, 4gb ram, 2 hard drives computer.  BUT it came with vista.  Any suggestions on speeding it up?  I've never seen a computer take 2GB of memory just when i boot up...



You can disable a lot of the eye-candy stuff in vista to free up resourcs....  google it for details.  It worked wonders on my wifes windows box... but in the end... Vista is hog.  I'd dump it for XP.


----------



## Mindy

Vautrin said:


> So I actually went ahead and bought a quad core, 4gb ram, 2 hard drives computer.  BUT it came with vista.  Any suggestions on speeding it up?  I've never seen a computer take 2GB of memory just when i boot up...



Be sure to increase your virtual memory (aka page file or swap file). If you have 4GB RAM I would set your minimum to 4.5 to 5G and the maximum to three times that. It's best to place the swap file on a dedicated partition or drive. It is most desireable to have it at the beginning of your second hard drive (first partition). Be sure you have plenty of room for growth for when you add memory.

If you will be running 3rd party anti-spyware and a firewall, you might want to disable the firewall and windows defender. 

With the quad core you have a 64 bit processor. You can get Vista 64 and increase your RAM past the 4GB barrier. With a 32 bit processor and/or vista 32, you are limited to 4GB RAM. But I would ensure that your photo editing software is supported under that OS.




Jaszek said:


> install XP . Make sure you find all the drivers before hand. If you cant find them i say go for the 7 beta, if you can still download it. If you want I can provide you with a key (don't worry mods, I got them from micosoft during the free beta test B4 for people that wont make it, I wont charge for them....or will I? <dramatic chimpmunk> no illegal activity here ). Vista drivers work on 7 (or did, I got rid of it couple months back)



Windows 7 beta is expiring on July 1. The RC is available now for Technet and MSDN subscribers, and beginning May 5 for the general public.


----------



## flea77

First let me tell you about me: 

I am not the guy down the street who built a couple machines for himself and his parents, upgraded some hard drives in friends computers, and then proclaimed himself a guru.

I am the guy who has been doing this for about 26 years, starting out at work with Fortran and Cobal, at home with a TRS-80 Model 1 and a tape drive. I am part owner of the largest VAR within fifty miles or so, we maintain some county stuff, two complete school districts, many multi-million dollar corps, and thousands of smaller customers. Been through DOS, Windows, OS/2, BeOS, Linux, MacOS, BSD, and many others. Was president for years of the local user's group, the OS/2 SIG leader, and the MacOS SIG leader.

That being said, with what you have said, I would say you need a Windows PC, 4GB memory minimum, two hard drives (one boot, one data). I would suggest Asus motherboards (for the moment not the i7, a C3D Q9550 is excellent for the price, or a E8600 for a dual core), a GOOD power supply is essential (note I said good, not large, a good 300 will beat the snot out of a poor 500).

As for Vista, I ran the betas on a seperate machine but this is my main machine and has been running Vista Ultimate since the retail version was out for about two months, no reformats, no reinstalls, no real problems (OK, I have this old printer which refuses to print more than one copy of anything, bummer, that is also a driver issue NOT a Vista issue). I have since converted my other two home machines and two office machines to Vista and never looked back.

For the 64bit vs 32bit question, if all your software will run on 64bit then without question do that. I have a couple customers buying new 32bit installs because they absolutely have to have a certain piece of software which will only run under a 32bit OS, all the rest are now getting 64bit installs.

For dual core vs quad core, once again check your apps. If they do not support more than two cores then you will be better served with the E8600 with its higher clock speed. If they support more than two, then the Q9550 is a better choice. Remember you can always upgrade later with no hassles.

For your hard drive, I like Velociraptors. They are very fast, very quiet, pretty cool (temps), and come with a five year warranty. The extra speed these things offer is a really nice feature when you have tons of images trying to load. Of course you can start off with something slower now, and then jump to something faster later. SSDs are pretty out there, very expensive and not that much faster than the Velociraptors right now, they will however get much faster and cheaper in the next few years.

Any other questions ,feel free to PM me.

Allan


----------



## flea77

wagaboo said:


> Just try xp then vista on the same pc and you'll see the difference.



Now reformat that same exact PC and install Windows 98, you want to talk about SCREAMING! Or take a Mac that came with OSX 10.5 and install OS 7.1, WOW! The time I save on Vista far outweighs any performance loss.

Allan


----------



## Mindy

flea77 said:


> First let me tell you about me:
> 
> I am not the guy down the street who built a couple machines for himself and his parents, upgraded some hard drives in friends computers, and then proclaimed himself a guru.Allan
> 
> ...



Allan, are you insinuating that you know anything about others here, specifically me? Because you don't. I didn't hear anyone except yourself who proclaimed themselves a guru. Personally I don't feel that I need to give a resume here to be of value.




flea77 said:


> I am the guy who has been doing this for about 26 years, starting out at work with Fortran and Cobal, at home with a TRS-80 Model 1 and a tape drive. I am part owner of the largest VAR within fifty miles or so, we maintain some county stuff, two complete school districts, many multi-million dollar corps, and thousands of smaller customers. Been through DOS, Windows, OS/2, BeOS, Linux, MacOS, BSD, and many others. Was president for years of the local user's group, the OS/2 SIG leader, and the MacOS SIG leader.


----------



## flea77

Mindy said:


> Allan, are you insinuating that you know anything about others here, specifically me? Because you don't. I didn't hear anyone except yourself who proclaimed themselves a guru. Personally I don't feel that I need to give a resume here to be of value.



If I was asking for information on a particular topic I would like to know if the person who is giving me advice actually knows what they are talking about or not, I would assume the OP might like to know that as well. I made no references to anyone at all, good or bad, take it as you like. I also never said I was a "guru", I showed that I happen to have a ton of experience in this particular area.

Allan


----------



## Flash Harry

Vautrin said:


> So I actually went ahead and bought a quad core, 4gb ram, 2 hard drives computer.  BUT it came with vista.  Any suggestions on speeding it up?  I've never seen a computer take 2GB of memory just when i boot up...



try black viper.com for service registry tweaks for vista, there's so much crap running in the background its just eating ram, I have laptops running vista and hate how it works but after tweaking I can put up with it, I would have overwritten it with XP but it could be problematic with the newer hardware and drivers. I use XP pro on the desktop/ editing PC which is also tweaked and fast even after 3 years, never crashed or let me down in any way. H


----------



## DeadPixel

Flash Harry said:


> try black viper.com for service registry tweaks for vista, there's so much crap running in the background its just eating ram, I have laptops running vista and hate how it works but after tweaking I can put up with it, I would have overwritten it with XP but it could be problematic with the newer hardware and drivers. I use XP pro on the desktop/ editing PC which is also tweaked and fast even after 3 years, never crashed or let me down in any way. H


Thanks for suggestion Flash Hary about black viper, me too use vista on a laptop, it has 4 gb ram, but photoshop work too slow, and stock sometmes for short while (expecially when use clone stamp, or healing brush etc. when need a lot of actions in a short time). I always liked xp, just this time got the laptop with vista installed. Thought i might try, but seems that much worst than i expected (regarding working speed, of course)


----------



## Flash Harry

Also try allocating more ram to Photoshop in the program itself, put plugins n scratch disc on another drive if you have two, use black viper super tweaks for vista to take the load off but back up everything first, windows has too much running that isn't needed, we need a tool that works our way not bloody bill gates way. H


----------



## DeadPixel

Flash Harry said:


> we need a tool that works our way not bloody bill gates way. H


:mrgreen:


----------

