Digital darkroom equipment questions
Longfellow
the thread, but figuring out all this stuff is a process that continues
in any case.
I've decided I like the Epson 3800, based on the reports that the little
bit of clogging it does is almost always immediately resolved. Also
like the 17" capacity of a machine not that much bigger than one that
can only do 13". No Linux drivers that I can find, so a Mac/PC is
necessary, I guess.
I've also conditionally decided on an NEC monitor of modest size that
includes a dedicated calibrator. I gather that Ezio is the best now,
but at those prices, I'm unimpressed; I'll never be a professional user
in any case. Don't know what I should get for a graphics card; don't
know if any particular one is preferable for NEC monitors, though I can
see the benefit of dual monitors (the 2nd one I may already have).
So now I need to discover what sort of computer I should get to drive
all this. I realize that 32bit vs 64bit architecture is a matter of
controversy, and that it particularly addresses how much RAM would be
available. I suspect that this issue is almost entirely oriented
towards Photoshop CS4.
It also occurs to me that I may find any of the CS versions a matter of
overkill, but won't know until I start using this system. In another
post in this NG, the poster stated that he found Photoshop Elements and
Lightroom quite adequate for his needs, but as I don't know what either
of those software products offer, I can only ponder that statement. I'd
be pleased by offered opinions, of course... :)
I guess the question should be whether or not I really need more than
the current PCs offer. Do I really need all that much RAM? For
instance, how many layers over how large a file will exceed the capacity
of the RAM enabled by a 32 bit system? Current processers are now
multicore, I gather, which should provide enough processing horsepower
for anyone who is not driven by deadlines, or is not inundated by a
killing workflow. Don't need anything extraordinary for sound. USB and
Ethernet should be all the connectivity I should require. DVD readers
and burners are yet another issue to be addressed; what about Blue-ray
for quality, if not capacity?
The point of timeliness here is that I need the computer in place in
order to ascertain that the monitor and printer function as they should
before the delivery warranty period expires. Getting the monitor and
printer before getting the computer is likely to leave me unable to test
either until too late to get a replacement, and so forth. So this is a
question I need to answer before ordering anything.
Unless there is some serious lack of understanding on my part, and given
that I don't like Apple's lack of open architecture (hence, no Macs), it
would seem that a standard PC that is up to some gaming, plus a graphics
card of choice, should be what I now need to acquire. Question is:
What PC?
If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
What graphics card is best for NEC monitors?
If that's not an issue, what is or might be?
What am I missing here?
Thanks for reading, and thanks to all respondents.
Longfellow
ray
> I've posted here before about this subject; can't remember the title of
> the thread, but figuring out all this stuff is a process that continues
> in any case.
>
> I've decided I like the Epson 3800, based on the reports that the little
> bit of clogging it does is almost always immediately resolved. Also
> like the 17" capacity of a machine not that much bigger than one that
> can only do 13". No Linux drivers that I can find, so a Mac/PC is
> necessary, I guess.
No need to 'guess' - check avasys.jp and see if it's supported or not.
>
> I've also conditionally decided on an NEC monitor of modest size that
> includes a dedicated calibrator. I gather that Ezio is the best now,
> but at those prices, I'm unimpressed; I'll never be a professional user
> in any case. Don't know what I should get for a graphics card; don't
> know if any particular one is preferable for NEC monitors, though I can
> see the benefit of dual monitors (the 2nd one I may already have).
>
> So now I need to discover what sort of computer I should get to drive
> all this. I realize that 32bit vs 64bit architecture is a matter of
> controversy, and that it particularly addresses how much RAM would be
> available. I suspect that this issue is almost entirely oriented
> towards Photoshop CS4.
No controversy at all. 64 bit architecture is what you get in anything but
a minimal system. Once you get it, you can use either a 32 or 64 bit os -
that's your choice, and that is where any 'controversy' lies - not in the
architecture itself.
Stefan Patric
> I've posted here before about this subject; can't remember the title of
> the thread, but figuring out all this stuff is a process that continues
> in any case.
>
> I've decided I like the Epson 3800, based on the reports that the little
> bit of clogging it does is almost always immediately resolved. Also
> like the 17" capacity of a machine not that much bigger than one that
> can only do 13". No Linux drivers that I can find, so a Mac/PC is
> necessary, I guess.
No Linux driver? I found this:
http://driverscollection.com/?file_cid=389751283353d053f742b8f246f
>
> [snip]
>
> So now I need to discover what sort of computer I should get to drive
> all this. I realize that 32bit vs 64bit architecture is a matter of
> controversy, and that it particularly addresses how much RAM would be
> available. I suspect that this issue is almost entirely oriented
> towards Photoshop CS4.
Most all contemporary systems are 64-bit hardware now. And there are 64-
bit OSes, but accompanying 64-bit applications are lagging behind, at
least with Windows. Not so much with Linux or Mac. However, third party
utilities like Flash, etc. are just beginning to be released in 64-bit.
The main advantage of 64-bit is being able to directly access more than
3.2 GB, the limit of a 32-bit OS, of contiguous RAM at once. "Paging" is
a way around this limit and 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit systems have been
doing it for decades, but having direct access is better and faster.
> It also occurs to me that I may find any of the CS versions a matter of
> overkill, but won't know until I start using this system. In another
> post in this NG, the poster stated that he found Photoshop Elements and
> Lightroom quite adequate for his needs, but as I don't know what either
> of those software products offer, I can only ponder that statement. I'd
> be pleased by offered opinions, of course... :)
My thoughts exactly. Photoshop for your average amateur photographer and
most pros is like buying an 18-wheel, semi with triple trailers when all
you really need is a mini-van. Start by taking a look at GIMP. It's
available for Windows, Mac and Linux in 32-bit and 64-bit, IIRC.
> I guess the question should be whether or not I really need more than
> the current PCs offer. Do I really need all that much RAM? For
> instance, how many layers over how large a file will exceed the capacity
> of the RAM enabled by a 32 bit system? Current processers are now
> multicore, I gather, which should provide enough processing horsepower
> for anyone who is not driven by deadlines, or is not inundated by a
> killing workflow. Don't need anything extraordinary for sound. USB and
> Ethernet should be all the connectivity I should require. DVD readers
> and burners are yet another issue to be addressed; what about Blue-ray
> for quality, if not capacity?
The real secret to getting (or building) the "ultimate" machine is
picking a motherboard that is reasonably upgradable/expandable. So that
it will carry you through for the next 3 to 5 years as your needs change.
For example, I build a 64-bit system two years ago to replace my aging 5
year old 32-bit system, which had just become too slow to be productive
even though it was max'd out by that time--1.5 GHz processor, 1.5 GB RAM.
It started at 900 MHz and 256 MB. For the new system I picked an Abit
KN9 AM2 MB, which would take any Athlon 64 CPU, single or dual core, most
any speed. Max RAM was 8 GB. The board had SATA as well as IDE, so I
could use drives from the old system. I started with a 2.0 GHz single
core Athlon 64 (dual cores were REALLY expensive 2 years ago) and 2 GB
RAM dual booting Fedora Core 6 32-bit and 64-bit, so I could compare
performance against need--64-bit was still an infant, then. In about a
month I was exclusively 64-bit and had added an additional 2 GB of RAM
making 4. 2 GB was insufficient for the photo image processing I was
doing, which were RAW and jpeg images from a 6 megapixel DSLR. I'd hit
the swap regularly.
Today, I'm running Fedora 9 64-bit with the original single core 2.0 GHz
CPU and RAM, but will upgrade the CPU shortly to a 2.6 to 3.0 GHz dual
core mostly because the prices have come down so much in 2 years, and not
because the system is lacking in performance. It's snappy enough for now.
> [snip]
> Unless there is some serious lack of understanding on my part, and given
> that I don't like Apple's lack of open architecture (hence, no Macs), it
> would seem that a standard PC that is up to some gaming, plus a graphics
> card of choice, should be what I now need to acquire. Question is:
>
> What PC?
Build your own, then you get EXACTLY what you want. No compromises.
> If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
serious image processing and such.
> What graphics card is best for NEC monitors?
I have a GeForce 6600 256MB nVidia card running DVI out to a 19" LG
Flatron. Worked well with the old CRT monitor (SVGA), too, before I got
the LG.
> If that's not an issue, what is or might be?
If you're not going to do 3D like for games or fancy desktop features,
then most any good video card without 3D acceleration built-in will do.
That GeForce of mine, I bought used for $50. Retailed new at the time (2
years ago) for $125, I think.
> What am I missing here?
You don't have to get the latest and greatest, most top-of-the-line
hardware and spend lots of $$$$ in the process to have a useful,
productive system. Frugal doesn't mean cheap.
Stef
tony cooper
wrote:
>My thoughts exactly. Photoshop for your average amateur photographer and
>most pros is like buying an 18-wheel, semi with triple trailers when all
>you really need is a mini-van. Start by taking a look at GIMP. It's
>available for Windows, Mac and Linux in 32-bit and 64-bit, IIRC.
If you like that type of analogy, then Gimp for your average amateur
photographer is like entering a drawing and winning an 18-wheel, semi
with triple trailers when all you really need is a mini-van.
In complexity of use, over-kill of features, and ability to use the
program effectively without considerable study of non-vendor-provided
source material, Photoshop and the Gimp are about the same for the
amateur. The difference is in the cost of the program to the user.
Adobe Elements is simple to use, relatively inexpensive, and has more
than sufficient features for the advanced amateur photographer. I
know there are other programs in the free-to-under $100 range that the
same can be said for, but I'm not personally familiar with them.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
nospam
<n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> > It also occurs to me that I may find any of the CS versions a matter of
> > overkill, but won't know until I start using this system. In another
> > post in this NG, the poster stated that he found Photoshop Elements and
> > Lightroom quite adequate for his needs, but as I don't know what either
> > of those software products offer, I can only ponder that statement. I'd
> > be pleased by offered opinions, of course... :)
>
> My thoughts exactly. Photoshop for your average amateur photographer and
> most pros is like buying an 18-wheel, semi with triple trailers when all
> you really need is a mini-van. Start by taking a look at GIMP. It's
> available for Windows, Mac and Linux in 32-bit and 64-bit, IIRC.
and look at photoshop elements, the consumer version of photoshop. it
has what most users need for photo editing and is about $100 (less if
you shop around).
> > If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
>
> Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
> serious image processing and such.
nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac. prices
are similar for similar configurations.
> If you're not going to do 3D like for games or fancy desktop features,
> then most any good video card without 3D acceleration built-in will do.
> That GeForce of mine, I bought used for $50. Retailed new at the time (2
> years ago) for $125, I think.
quite a lot of software, including photoshop cs4, uses the video card
for acceleration. this is only going to increase in the future.
> You don't have to get the latest and greatest, most top-of-the-line
> hardware and spend lots of $$$$ in the process to have a useful,
> productive system. Frugal doesn't mean cheap.
that's true. even five year old hardware can do real time adjustments
which means that the bottleneck is the *user* deciding how much to
adjust brightness/contrast/colour/etc.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "Longfellow" <n...@this.address> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:sf-dnUg1_cnMc-rU...@posted.olypeninternet...
find a vendor that sells his own OEM PCs, from quality components. Or DIY,
if you are skilled with a philips screwdriver, and some elbow grease, too.
> If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
>
> What graphics card is best for NEC monitors?
ram. It's quite powerful for gaming, and autocad.
> If that's not an issue, what is or might be?
>
and ask for x bucks (or x quid) what do you offer? Or google and search
online shops.
> What am I missing here?
>
My specs:
mobo:Intel DG31PR (very fine and stable)
proc:intel e 8200 2,66 GHz core2duo
ram:kingston 2 GB dual channel
video:ASUS E2600 pro/512 MB
HD:Hitachi deskstar 320 GB sata 2 8 MB cache
DVD R/W:LG
DVD ROM:LG
CABINET:8025 BLACK CASE 400 W
bought in 22/4/2008 for 500 euros, with a PCI USB card
also 66 euros for OEM version of windows XP 32 bit greek
I also play world of warcraft, grand theft auto, world in conflict,doom3,
quake 4, alone in the dark. I also have japanese loaded, that means I can
type in japanese. I have removed all uneccesary applications from the
taskbar with msconfig (absolutely necessary). also a regular defrag, too. I
have a samsung sync master 206 BW 20" with DVI and VGA, for 250 euros more.
(NOTE:does your nec LCD have a VGA?Then any card with DVI can connect, with
an adapter. If it's an expensive one with DVI, it would be a shame to
connect it through VGA, but usually the monitor will have either both or vga
only.
> Thanks for reading, and thanks to all respondents.
>
HTH,
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
ray
IMHO - GIMP has significantly more than most folks will normally use.
Assuming the OP will be doing processing of RAW files, I find that ufraw
does basic editing without a lot of overkill - and still with the full
dynamic range.
Stefan Patric
> In article <GV5el.61041$Nv1....@newsfe03.iad>, Stefan Patric
> <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> > [snip]
>
>> > If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
>>
>> Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
>> serious image processing and such.
>
> nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac. prices
> are similar for similar configurations.
I don't know what planet you've been shopping on, but Macs are and always
have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent PC
hardware. And if you build your PC instead of buying it ready-made, the
difference is even more. (And that doesn't mean that Macs are inferior
to PCs. So, no flaming, please, you Mac people. ;-) )
Guess our concept of "lots" is different.
>> If you're not going to do 3D like for games or fancy desktop features,
>> then most any good video card without 3D acceleration built-in will do.
>> That GeForce of mine, I bought used for $50. Retailed new at the time
>> (2 years ago) for $125, I think.
>
> quite a lot of software, including photoshop cs4, uses the video card
> for acceleration. this is only going to increase in the future.
Most all modern video cards have built-in acceleration these days. The
difference is whether its 2D or 3D. My little GeForce is accelerated,
but doesn't have the 3D acceleration that many of the new games and 3D
desktops use to improve the display, which is fine since I'm not a gamer
and don't use a 3D desktop--waste of cpu cycles. For processing and
displaying "flat", bitmap images like stills or movies, you don't need 3D
acceleration, and there will be no improvement even if you do.
Stef
J. Clarke
Uh, you're behind the times.
From the Adobe site, under "System Requirements" for Photoshop CS4:
"Some GPU-accelerated features require graphics support for Shader
Model 3.0 and OpenGL 2.0".
Just "accelerated" doesn't cut it--the boards have to have certain
specific features, and you only find those features on very recent
3D-accelerated boards.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
nospam
<n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> >> Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
> >> serious image processing and such.
> >
> > nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac. prices
> > are similar for similar configurations.
>
> I don't know what planet you've been shopping on,
earth.
> but Macs are and always
> have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent PC
> hardware.
maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and certainly
not now that they are intel based.
> And if you build your PC instead of buying it ready-made, the
> difference is even more. (And that doesn't mean that Macs are inferior
> to PCs. So, no flaming, please, you Mac people. ;-) )
few people bother building their own computers, particularly with
laptops which is where the market is seeing the largest growth (not
just apple). most people want to open one box, plug it in, and have it
just work, and if there's a problem, have one company to deal with.
> Guess our concept of "lots" is different.
i guess our concept of 'similar configuration' is different. what i
often see is a comparison with two very different configurations and
not surprisingly, the one with fewer features costs less. when you
match specs as close as possible, the prices are about the same.
> >> If you're not going to do 3D like for games or fancy desktop features,
> >> then most any good video card without 3D acceleration built-in will do.
> >> That GeForce of mine, I bought used for $50. Retailed new at the time
> >> (2 years ago) for $125, I think.
> >
> > quite a lot of software, including photoshop cs4, uses the video card
> > for acceleration. this is only going to increase in the future.
>
> Most all modern video cards have built-in acceleration these days. The
> difference is whether its 2D or 3D. My little GeForce is accelerated,
> but doesn't have the 3D acceleration that many of the new games and 3D
> desktops use to improve the display, which is fine since I'm not a gamer
> and don't use a 3D desktop--waste of cpu cycles. For processing and
> displaying "flat", bitmap images like stills or movies, you don't need 3D
> acceleration, and there will be no improvement even if you do.
i'm not a gamer either but a number of applications including photoshop
cs4 as well as the operating system itself now use high end video cards
to do all sorts of things, greatly improving the performance.
Stefan Patric
Re GIMP: I agree--OSFAM (One Size Fits All Mentality); but that's the
most time effective development method. I wish it were more modular/
customizable. That way, you can just configure it, the menus, the tools,
etc. to suit your needs, leaving out what you don't want.
I use ufraw a lot, either alone or in conjunction with GIMP. However,
for the quick and dirty, gross image processing, I use mostly gthumb or F-
Spot, both Linux only. However, for localized corrections, sharpening,
layering, etc., I use GIMP. The major complaint I have against it is
that it is only 24-bit, 8-bits per pixel. Of course, there's always
Cinepaint, which handles up to 16-bits per pixel.
Stef
Stefan Patric
> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:19:17 -0800, nospam wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> If you're not going to do 3D like for games or fancy desktop
>>>> features, then most any good video card without 3D acceleration
>>>> built-in will do. That GeForce of mine, I bought used for $50.
>>>> Retailed new at the time (2 years ago) for $125, I think.
>>>
>>> quite a lot of software, including photoshop cs4, uses the video card
>>> for acceleration. this is only going to increase in the future.
>>
>> Most all modern video cards have built-in acceleration these days. The
>> difference is whether its 2D or 3D. My little GeForce is accelerated,
>> but doesn't have the 3D acceleration that many of the new games and 3D
>> desktops use to improve the display, which is fine since I'm not a
>> gamer and don't use a 3D desktop--waste of cpu cycles. For processing
>> and displaying "flat", bitmap images like stills or movies, you don't
>> need 3D acceleration, and there will be no improvement even if you do.
>
> Uh, you're behind the times.
>
> From the Adobe site, under "System Requirements" for Photoshop CS4:
> "Some GPU-accelerated features require graphics support for Shader Model
> 3.0 and OpenGL 2.0".
>
> Just "accelerated" doesn't cut it--the boards have to have certain
> specific features, and you only find those features on very recent
> 3D-accelerated boards.
I don't keep up much with Photoshop, since they don't make a Linux
version. (Only briefly read about CS4 on the Adobe site last week in
conjunction with some other research I was doing.) So, I'll just accept
your word for it. Although, the "System Requirements" don't specifically
say you need a 3D-type board, only that "support" is needed. Does that
mean dedicated, on-board hardware or can the "support" be provided by a
loadable graphics library?
Stef
nospam
<n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> Although, the "System Requirements" don't specifically
> say you need a 3D-type board, only that "support" is needed. Does that
> mean dedicated, on-board hardware or can the "support" be provided by a
> loadable graphics library?
cs4 can offload computations to the video card, so if you have a
supported card, some features of cs4 will be dramatically faster.
J. Clarke
If you've got enough CPU power then it is possible to emulate Shader
3.0 with third-party software, but if you've got a machine old enough
for Shader 3.0 to be an issue then CPU power is likely to also be an
issue. How well the emulator works with Photoshop I have no
idea--it's designed for gamers. OpenGL is another story--while in
theory it can be done in software, in practice most such attempts have
proven to be disasters.
Stefan Patric
> In article <qypel.113077$4M4....@newsfe02.iad>, Stefan Patric
> <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
>> >> serious image processing and such.
>> >
>> > nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac.
>> > prices are similar for similar configurations.
>>
>
>> but Macs are and always
>> have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent PC
>> hardware.
>
> maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and certainly not
> now that they are intel based.
Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more expensive
than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to New
Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz Duo Core
Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower from Dell,
Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550. A nice 20" flat panel
adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac costs 50% more, which
in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any faster or "better."
>> Guess our concept of "lots" is different.
>
> i guess our concept of 'similar configuration' is different. what i
> often see is a comparison with two very different configurations and not
> surprisingly, the one with fewer features costs less. when you match
> specs as close as possible, the prices are about the same.
No, I mean with similar hardware or as close as you can come with pre-
configured systems.
Stef
Stefan Patric
> In article <qypel.113077$4M4....@newsfe02.iad>, Stefan Patric
> <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
>> >> serious image processing and such.
>> >
>> > nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac.
>> > prices are similar for similar configurations.
>>
>
>> but Macs are and always
>> have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent PC
>> hardware.
>
> maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and certainly not
> now that they are intel based.
Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more expensive
than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to New
Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz Duo Core
Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower from Dell,
Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550. A nice 20" flat panel
adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac costs 50% more, which
in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any faster or "better."
>> Guess our concept of "lots" is different.
>
> i guess our concept of 'similar configuration' is different. what i
> often see is a comparison with two very different configurations and not
> surprisingly, the one with fewer features costs less. when you match
> specs as close as possible, the prices are about the same.
No, I mean with similar hardware or as close as you can come with pre-
configured systems.
Stef
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:11:31 -0800, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <qypel.113077$4M4....@newsfe02.iad>, Stefan Patric
>> <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
>>> >> serious image processing and such.
>>> >
>>> > nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac.
>>> > prices are similar for similar configurations.
>>>
>>
>>> but Macs are and always
>>> have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent PC
>>> hardware.
>>
>> maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and certainly not
>> now that they are intel based.
>
>Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more expensive
>than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to New
>Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz Duo Core
>Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower from Dell,
>Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550. A nice 20" flat panel
>adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac costs 50% more, which
>in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any faster or "better."
Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth,
wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nospam
<n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more expensive
> than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to New
> Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz Duo Core
> Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower from Dell,
> Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550.
how is that similar?? a tower with separate monitor is not similar to
an imac. try comparing an imac to something like the gateway one. a
quick google finds the gateway about $1200, the same as the imac.
imagine that.
> A nice 20" flat panel
> adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac costs 50% more, which
> in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any faster or "better."
what cpu speed is this mystery tower? what video card does it have?
does it have firewire, gigabit ethernet, 802.11n, bluetooth, etc. ?
> > i guess our concept of 'similar configuration' is different. what i
> > often see is a comparison with two very different configurations and not
> > surprisingly, the one with fewer features costs less. when you match
> > specs as close as possible, the prices are about the same.
>
> No, I mean with similar hardware or as close as you can come with pre-
> configured systems.
yet you didn't do that.
J. Clarke
Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.
Stefan Patric
> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:52:20 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan Patric wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:19:17 -0800, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>> From the Adobe site, under "System Requirements" for Photoshop CS4:
>>> "Some GPU-accelerated features require graphics support for Shader
>>> Model
>>> 3.0 and OpenGL 2.0".
>>>
>>> Just "accelerated" doesn't cut it--the boards have to have certain
>>> specific features, and you only find those features on very recent
>>> 3D-accelerated boards.
>>
>> I don't keep up much with Photoshop, since they don't make a Linux
>> version. (Only briefly read about CS4 on the Adobe site last week in
>> conjunction with some other research I was doing.) So, I'll just
>> accept your word for it. Although, the "System Requirements" don't
>> specifically say you need a 3D-type board, only that "support" is
>> needed. Does that mean dedicated, on-board hardware or can the
>> "support" be provided by a loadable graphics library?
>
> If you've got enough CPU power then it is possible to emulate Shader 3.0
> with third-party software, but if you've got a machine old enough for
> Shader 3.0 to be an issue then CPU power is likely to also be an issue.
> How well the emulator works with Photoshop I have no idea--it's designed
> for gamers. OpenGL is another story--while in theory it can be done in
> software, in practice most such attempts have proven to be disasters.
Thanks for the info. This link from Adobe TechNotes clarifies:
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404898
Stef
Ray Fischer
whisky-dave
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:497c1ecb$0$1663$742e...@news.sonic.net...
And a very decent monitor, unlike the ones shipped the majority of
box shifting PCs.
I use PC's at work and if I shift a little to the left or right I can hardly
see
what's on the display. I can certain see the individual pixels when looking
close,
something I can't see on my iMac. Sound quality is also a lot better on my
iMac than
a box PC.
And I'm not embarrasest to have my iMac seen or heard, and I can sleep with
the iMac
on but most PC's I've seen And I have 36 of these in my work lab, I can't
get a wink of sleep
at work with them buzzing and whirling away !!!!!!!!!! ;-)
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:497d4362$0$1630$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> microphone,
another 15 euros
>>>speakers,
30 euros with subwoofer
>>>>gigabit ethernet,
built in on my mobo
>>> bluetooth,
15 euros
>>> wireless networking
20 euros for the receiver
>>>, video editing software, firewire,
firewirecard with Ulead video studio 8.0 15 euros not the best but a good
workhorse
>>>and dual
>>> monitor support
My asus ati 2600 pro is dual head
>>> and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.
>>
>>Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
>>microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.
>
> And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.
>
> --
euros casio G-Shock digital watch, likewise a Mercedes is better than a
Volkswagen beetle.... But not everybody can afford a Mac! Especially in
Greece, when I was serving in Rhodes, I met a cartoonist who is the only
person I met that has a mac in greece. Not even my godmother, who's rich. Of
course, a Canon 1Ds MkIII is better than my P&S, but I save my money to pay
my insurance/pension plan, and to get new tools, and it would be highly
unlikely even if I could afford a DSLR (and it would be a Canon digital
rebel, aka 1000D, so I'd rather have a good P&S than a crappy dSLR), and
then what purpose would it serve? Taking photos every weekend of my niece
(getting 2 at 9/2 that's ninth of February).
Just my 2 cents....
Stefan Patric
>>> Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth,
>>> wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
>>> monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.
>>
>>Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
>>microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.
>
> And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.
That's possible. Buy a Mac and install Vista under VirtualBox
(www.virtualbox.org) on it. Both OSes run simultaneously on the same
machine. Unfortunately, don't think it can be done--yet--the other way
around, that is, running OS X in VirtualBox on a non-Mac host.
Stef
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>>> Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth,
>>>> wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
>>>> monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
>>>microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.
>>
>> And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.
>
>That's possible. Buy a Mac and install Vista under VirtualBox
>(www.virtualbox.org) on it.
I use Fusion.
> Both OSes run simultaneously on the same
>machine.
Too bad that the best video performance requires booting into Vista.
> Unfortunately, don't think it can be done--yet--the other way
>around, that is, running OS X in VirtualBox on a non-Mac host.
Not yet and not likely ever.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
Google "OSX cracks" and "OSX vmware".
Apple doesn't want anybody running OSX on non-Apple hardware and have
made it just as obnoxious in its own way as Microsoft's "Vista phone
home" protection system.
Chris H
<n...@thisaddress.com> writes
>
>> If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
>
>Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
>serious image processing and such.
The GOOD NEWS is that many "serious" MAC users are changing over to the
new Intel MACS. You can pick up a PPC G5 MAC for very little these are
very easy to add hard discs and memory to. They are a real bargain.
Also you may be able to pick up some Sw as part of the deal.
The good news is that MS Office for Mac is better than on the PC :-)
I run with 2 GB RAM a primary drive of 260GB, a Secondary drive of 500GB
and an external high speed fire ware 1TB Drive. They work with any
decent PC screen. I use a 22inch wide screen,
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/