# Question on Computers?



## kayliana (Nov 16, 2009)

I was wondering what a good desktop computer would be for photography.  I don't have enough money for a mac.  Can anyone tell me what a good computer with lots of memory would be for around $500? Thanks so much!


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 16, 2009)

For editing photos, you will want lots of RAM.
For storing photos, you will want lots of memory (hard drive)
For getting an accurate representation of what  your photos look like, you will want a good monitor and a calibration device.


----------



## kayliana (Nov 16, 2009)

Thank you so much!  Do you have any idea on what a good brand would be?  HP or dell? or anything? Sorry so many questions!


----------



## KmH (Nov 16, 2009)

Unfortunatly $500 won't buy a decent pre-made computer/monitor/memory for working with photography.

A good monitor will eat up $300 (or so) alone. Then you need a calibration device to make sure it shows you what your images really look like, exposure and color wise, another $100.

Probably the leat expensive way to put a system together would be a custom build. Visit the computer forum BleepingComputer.com. There are many very knowledgeable and dedicated computer people there.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 16, 2009)

As far as brands go, I've had an excellent history with HP products. 4 towers and 2 notebooks over the years and they've all served me well. In fact, they've never failed. They were simply passed on to friends and family.
Possibly consider a used system. I'd recommend a minimum of a Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.4Ghz, 2gb of RAM memory (3-4 preferred) and at least 500gb of hard drive storage. Technology has moved along pretty fast in the last couple years and now the processor tech has raced ahead of the needs of most software out there... meaning a 2 year old system can do pretty much everything a new system can do. But a lot of consumers don't get that fact and are dumping their relatively new PCs to get a i7 processor system with Windows 7. So, there are good deals to be found.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 16, 2009)

^
What he says.


----------



## kayliana (Nov 16, 2009)

Thank you so much!  I'm so lost in all this stuff.  So are macs really worth all the money?  What is the advantage of them?


----------



## Garbz (Nov 17, 2009)

Homogeneity. Macs are fundamentally different from PCs in that Apple controls the hardware and the software. You install OSX expect it to work. Unlike for example my sister's Dell which when SP3 for windows was installed it blue screened constantly because of some dodgy webcam driver.

Also Macs are expensive because of quality. If you price a comparable (and I mean truly comparable) system from Dell or HP you'll likely pay the same or more for it. 

Oh and macs have sex appeal.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 17, 2009)

Right now, the mechanics of an Apple aren't that different than a PC. They use the same Intel processors, the same nVidia graphics solutions (albeit lower end cards), etc. You're paying a lot for image. The build quality is good, but that's not something that justifies the price difference. As mentioned, Apples are a closed environment, meaning you can't option them with all the accessories and upgrades you can on a PC. The upside is, less crashing issues due to hardware conflicts, and the downside is, low tier graphics acceleration, difficult ram/hard drive upgrades and far less 3rd party support.

Their LCDs are top notch though. Especially on a Mac notebook compared to a PC notebook. That for a photographer might be enough to push you into an Apple.


----------



## thoughtcryme (Nov 17, 2009)

New member here.
Sorry I haven't done a formal intro yet, but I really want to chime in here.

I come from a video editing background, and I'm a long time Mac user.

I wanted to comment on one of the most important yet most overlooked aspect of using a Mac for any type of imaging work.
Which is system wide color profiling.
Unlike other systems, MacOS X has built in system wide ICC profiling.
This means that images maintain a constant appearance through all Apple apps and 3rd party applications.
Windows systems are only color managed when using an application that uses color management such as Photoshop.
So on windows, the images you see in an explorer window are NOT color managed, meaning they'll have a much different appearance in explorer than in photoshop.
In contrast, images in a finder window on a Mac will look exactly the same as they do in Photoshop, Aperture, and/or iPhoto.

Do you not have a computer that you work with images on right now at all?
What are you posting here with?
Because honestly, as has already been said, a budget of $500 for a system to work with images on is really not advisable.
That entire budget would still be on the low end for the display alone.
I think even a 20 inch Apple Cinema Display is like $800.
I'd personally hold out until I had more $$$ to work with, sell some stuff you have or take a 2nd job and put it all in the budget for a new machine.
Have you considered a Mac-Mini?
They're not as expensive as other Macs(I think they're $599 for just the unit with no monitor mouse or keyboard) but still offer the same benefits.
They aren't as powerful as a MacPro or MacBookPro, but they're fast enough to get you started in building a client base and workflow that will allow you to generate income you can sink back into the project to get a more powerful system at a later time.
Then you have a seperate machine to run something like QuickBooks on to get yourself even more established.
Add a 'Time Capsule' later too, and you have an all in one backup solution for the Mac-Mini running quickbooks, and your new workstation with all your assets on it.
You really don't want all your eggs in one basket.
I learned that the hard way with the PowerMac G5, which all but completely died on me before it was a full 4 years old.
All my assets were on it, and it set me way back in productivity and money.
I wanted to blame apple, and I still believe they are somewhat at fault, but in the end I was the one who put all my eggs in that basket.
I'm still recovering from that.
But in trying to see the positive, that experience forced me to create a good backup policy.
I created automator actions that copy images to both Aperture library and to network attached storage devices simultaneously everytime I dump a card.


----------



## kayliana (Nov 17, 2009)

I'm using a Sony laptop right now.  I will save my money if a mac is the best route to go.  I'm just afraid because you can't upgrade, and what if one thing breaks?  Aren't the monitor and computer all one?  Thanks for everyones opinions and advice


----------



## ironsidephoto (Nov 17, 2009)

There are many different types of macs. For your budget, I might recomment a mac mini?  You supply your own keyboard/mouse/monitor, and they supply the computer. That way you get all of the benefits and stability of os x, and if you want to upgrade later you didn't put too much money into it. otherwise, saving up for an iMac would be your best bet I think. The thing about macs is that they hold their value much better than PCs do--if you take care of it, you can resell it for more later. 

Also, fyi, ram is totally upgradable, and easy on all macs. Don't buy ram from apple--buy it from a 3rd party. I chose to spend $160 to upgrade to 4gb ram for my iMac, while on apple it was $800 at the time. 


And definitely take heed of what the guy two posts up said--backup backup backup, on ANY system. mechanical parts fail. 

also if you're a student or know one, you can get an education discount from apple--it'll help a little. (and free printer anytime, and ipod if you get one in the summer)


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 17, 2009)

Don't let the OSX operating system be the deciding factor. You can install it on a PC (Google OSx86 and "hackintosh") and run every application designed for Apples only. There is nothing about a Mac that is unique or special. As I said, they do make nice LCD displays either in the notebooks or as a stand-alone monitor. But the core computer itself... it's essentially a PC these days. Gone are the IBM power PC processors and in their place are the same Intel CPUs that PCs run. 9xxx-series nVidia video cards are the same as can be seen in a PC. Running the OSx operating system is merely a matter of bypassing the hardware keys that disallow installation on a non-Apple computer.
When a PC can run OSX, this completely changes the basis of any Mac Vs PC debate. Consider this before spending 3 times as much as a PC on a Mac.

And I'll repeat again... their displays _are_ absolutely beautiful.


----------



## kayliana (Nov 18, 2009)

Thanks to everyone!  I learn so much on the site   I am a student.  Where do I go for the discounts?


----------



## usayit (Nov 18, 2009)

DennyCrane said:


> Don't let the OSX operating system be the deciding factor. You can install it on a PC (Google OSx86 and "hackintosh") and run every application designed for Apples only.



Although true... I wouldn't recommend it unless you are a apple/computer junkie.  

You build a hackintosh to build a hackintosh not as a cheaper alternative to MAC OS X.  Drivers are limited.  Updates break it.  Often things don't run 100%.  It isn't a straight forward install nor an install and forget.  Kinda negates one of the nice things about Apple...


----------



## patrickt (Nov 18, 2009)

Editing photos is not a very computer-intensive activity. Most new computers will handle editing photos. From there, it simply depends on the nature of the work you're doing and how much you obsess about it.

You can get an Eizo 22" monitor for only $4,500. I'm sure it's excellent. But, do you really need that? I don't.

I am not competent to build my own computer but a friend of mine in the business is. I pay him a modest fee to help me construct a computer from the parts I've selected.

There is a big difference, imho, between graphic art and photographic editing. There is a big difference between shooting weddings professionally and taking photos for fun.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 18, 2009)

patrickt said:


> Editing photos is not a very computer-intensive activity. Most new computers will handle editing photos. From there, it simply depends on the nature of the work you're doing and how much you obsess about it.
> 
> You can get an Eizo 22" monitor for only $4,500. I'm sure it's excellent. But, do you really need that? I don't.
> 
> ...


Absolutely spot-on. If you're editing HD video, you need lots of  processing power. To edit photos... not so much. A ~decent~ video solution is preferable... I like nVidia video cards... because they have very good calibration settings over basic on-board graphics chips. Again, if you're editing movies, or doing serious gaming, you might need a top card... but for photo editing, a very basic one will do fine.


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 18, 2009)

You can get a quad core 2.8ghz AMD phenom II dell with a 500GB HDD and 3GB of memory for $560. I think that would handle most any photo editing you'd throw at it, especially with my $2000 MBP is running slowly when editing a 150mb fraternity composite with several other files open.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Nov 18, 2009)

add another fan of HP here.
just got one from best buy (i know, i know) for $679 with a phenom quad core chip, 8gb ram, and 650gb hd. it;s been great at multitasking with hi res pshop editing, illustrator...etc...


----------



## thoughtcryme (Nov 18, 2009)

Yeah, you can run the hacked version of OSX on cheap hardware if you want, or buy a Mac clone.
Although it's an option, it might not be the option for you.
Do you(the OP) have confidence in your ability to install the Hackintosh version and get it running?
Do you have confidence in maintaining this system if at some point Apple makes attempts to disable it?
Or do you just want a reliable machine that will allow you to do exactly what you want to do?
Without having to disable hardware keys in order to get it running?

Personally, my machines are my bread and butter.
I just don't see hackintosh as a viable alternative when it comes to machines that I make my living with.
Apple computers have much tighter integration between hardware and software.
This is possible because Apple has a hardware certification policy, and they don't support every generic device out there like microsoft does.
So if I were to go with hackintosh, I would want to know that all of my hardware was fully supported by the hackintosh OS and was tested and found to have no problems.
But I don't think that's even possible when talking about hackintosh because after all it is a hacked version of OSX that's being made to do something it's not actually supposed to do.
It may have no problems, but it could be a nightmare too.
Clients wouldn't understand that I was unable to meet a deadline because of computer problems.
All they'd see is that I failed to come through for them, and that would be what they tell other people when it comes up in discussion.
So for those reasons, I can't in good conscience reccommend hackintosh.
Add to this that the OP would be switching from windows to OSX, so he doesn't have any background with using OSX.
Which could spell disaster for a young student who really only wants to practice his chosen craft, photography.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 18, 2009)

> Again, if you're editing movies, or doing serious gaming, you might need a top card... but for photo editing, a very basic one will do fine.


:thumbup:
Actually, a new feature of CS4 is that Photoshop can finally take advantage of the video card to out source some of it's required computing.  
And still, you need to use a compatible video card (and maybe the 64 bit version of CS4).


----------



## Garbz (Nov 19, 2009)

Just double up on what Mike has said, anyone who has ever used a CUDA enabled application knows just how much a good video card can mean to many applications.

One example is rendering panoramas. Autopano pro now supports GPU acceleration and it's a lightyear ahead of previous versions in the speed department because of it.


----------



## szaydel (Nov 19, 2009)

One bit I would add is that a ton of memory does little for you if you are using a 32-bit operating system such as XP (not XP-64bit), since only part of that memory will ever be addressable. I think most people are opting for Windows 7 now, but I am not sure if there are any issue between it and Adobe products such as Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. As far as storing images goes, I always recommend a separate device for storage, such as a small NAS server, or something of the sorts. While I build my systems, I often recommend Dell to people, because their internal componentry is more stock than manufacturers like HP, Gateway and perhaps even Asus. It is often easy enough to re-purpose some of the components later, in future builds. I often do that, by reusing only certain items, such as power supplies, heatsinks/fans, sometimes MoBo's, etc.


----------

