Computer specs for new Photoshop box?

PP
Posted By
Paolo Pignatelli
Jun 28, 2005
Views
705
Replies
32
Status
Closed
I am about (try to) build a new box (PC) to run Photoshop CS. I use mostly RAW files from my Canon 20D, so file sizes are larg-ish. The other use is (my day job) programming in SQL Server and other programming tools (compiles, etc). I am trying to decide between Dual Core technologies and 64 bit technologies. (I will install at least 2 gigs of RAM in any case, but if 64 bit, then more ram will be addressable). The reason I am asking this forum is that it seems to me that Adobe seems most likely to be among the first to implement 64 bit technology in future editions of its imaging programs – but then I am not really familiar with Adobe product strategy. For programming development, 64 or 32 bits would not matter, because I develop on my local computer, then upload to a server. Is there a good reason for Adobe to go the 64 bit route before the dual core root? … Anyhow, any recommendations on a good box to run Photoshop CS now and in the 2 or 3 year horizon? (I never play games on my computer, I work all day with the things, and welcome a respite…)

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

C
Clyde
Jun 29, 2005
Paolo Pignatelli wrote:
I am about (try to) build a new box (PC) to run Photoshop CS. I use mostly RAW files from my Canon 20D, so file sizes are larg-ish. The other use is (my day job) programming in SQL Server and other programming tools (compiles, etc). I am trying to decide between Dual Core technologies and 64 bit technologies. (I will install at least 2 gigs of RAM in any case, but if 64 bit, then more ram will be addressable). The reason I am asking this forum is that it seems to me that Adobe seems most likely to be among the first to implement 64 bit technology in future editions of its imaging programs – but then I am not really familiar with Adobe product strategy. For programming development, 64 or 32 bits would not matter, because I develop on my local computer, then upload to a server. Is there a good reason for Adobe to go the 64 bit route before the dual core root? … Anyhow, any recommendations on a good box to run Photoshop CS now and in the 2 or 3 year horizon? (I never play games on my computer, I work all day with the things, and welcome a respite…)

Do you really need more than 2 GB of memory? I have 1 GB and only run out of memory when I open 15-20 files at the same time. Also opening a file with a whole bunch of layers will fill up memory. However, I rarely do either. I do run batches on files, but only one of them is open at a time. It is very rare that I ever have a file with 7 layers and that isn’t close to running out of memory.

So, accurately judge your memory needs and then decide. Besides, regular 32 bit Windows XP will address 3 GB of memory just fine. If 3 GB is enough, save your money and get a slightly less than top processor.

If money isn’t a problem, buy the 64 bit AMD. It might give you a tad faster speed right now. In the future it might give you more speed – when your OS and app are both 64 bit.

I doubt that it will give you huge amounts of more speed. Hey, 64 bit processing isn’t new. We’ve seen that in mid-range computers for many years. Yes, somethings run noticeably faster on 64 bit vs. 32 bit. But other things don’t. Will what you are doing run significantly faster? We don’t know. As long as it doesn’t hurt you today, why not? And it shouldn’t.

OTOH, it’s usually dangerous buying for the future in the computer business. The problem is that we don’t know the future. Dual core is a good example. By the time you need 64 bit processing, what is on the market may be several leaps ahead of what you bought today. Then you are stuck with less than what you want.

I run Photoshop on an Intel mobo with a 478 processor slot and the 3.2 GHz Prescott processor. Is this state-of-the-art? No, but it is a great value in bang-for-the-buck. It’s what serves my needs well now for a pretty good price. In 2 or 3 years I may need/want something else. Then I will rebuild my computer for that with the technology at hand.

Clyde
A
adykes
Jun 29, 2005
In article ,
Clyde wrote:
Paolo Pignatelli wrote:
I am about (try to) build a new box (PC) to run Photoshop CS. I use mostly RAW files from my Canon 20D, so file sizes are larg-ish. The other use is (my day job) programming in SQL Server and other programming tools (compiles, etc). I am trying to decide between Dual Core technologies and 64 bit technologies. (I will install at least 2 gigs of RAM in any case, but if 64 bit, then more ram will be addressable). The reason I am asking this forum is that it seems to me that Adobe seems most likely to be among the first to implement 64 bit technology in future editions of its imaging programs – but then I am not really familiar with Adobe product strategy. For programming development, 64 or 32 bits would not matter, because I develop on my local computer, then upload to a server. Is there a good reason for Adobe to go the 64 bit route before the dual core root? … Anyhow, any recommendations on a good box to run Photoshop CS now and in the 2 or 3 year horizon? (I never play games on my computer, I work all day with the things, and welcome a respite…)

Do you really need more than 2 GB of memory? I have 1 GB and only run out of memory when I open 15-20 files at the same time. Also opening a file with a whole bunch of layers will fill up memory. However, I rarely do either. I do run batches on files, but only one of them is open at a time. It is very rare that I ever have a file with 7 layers and that isn’t close to running out of memory.

So, accurately judge your memory needs and then decide. Besides, regular 32 bit Windows XP will address 3 GB of memory just fine. If 3 GB is enough, save your money and get a slightly less than top processor.
If money isn’t a problem, buy the 64 bit AMD. It might give you a tad faster speed right now. In the future it might give you more speed – when your OS and app are both 64 bit.

I doubt that it will give you huge amounts of more speed. Hey, 64 bit processing isn’t new. We’ve seen that in mid-range computers for many years. Yes, somethings run noticeably faster on 64 bit vs. 32 bit. But other things don’t. Will what you are doing run significantly faster? We don’t know. As long as it doesn’t hurt you today, why not? And it shouldn’t.
OTOH, it’s usually dangerous buying for the future in the computer business. The problem is that we don’t know the future. Dual core is a good example. By the time you need 64 bit processing, what is on the market may be several leaps ahead of what you bought today. Then you are stuck with less than what you want.

I run Photoshop on an Intel mobo with a 478 processor slot and the 3.2 GHz Prescott processor. Is this state-of-the-art? No, but it is a great value in bang-for-the-buck. It’s what serves my needs well now for a pretty good price. In 2 or 3 years I may need/want something else. Then I will rebuild my computer for that with the technology at hand.
Clyde

Spend money on fast disk I/O. 35GB 10k SATA disks are cheap. I’d build a system with 3; A system disk, a disk for work in progress and a disk for pagefile and as a PS working disk. I wouldn’t buy more than iGB ram put would plan on adding more if shown necessary (ie don;t fillup the memory slots.)

Once the system is up and running you can analyze what the bottleneck is (there is always only one bottleneck) perfmon.exe is the tool to use for this. YOu "tune" a system by identifying what the bottleneck is at the instant you wich the system were faster and then tweaking the system to eliminate that bottleneck, which exposes the next one, and so on.

If one of the disks is the bottleneck you can move pagefile, add a disk as a raid0 stripe set, add memory to page less, etc.

Add a paid of big cheap disks for archives and fast disk-disk backup.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
H
Hecate
Jun 29, 2005
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:02:17 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Do you really need more than 2 GB of memory? I have 1 GB and only run out of memory when I open 15-20 files at the same time. Also opening a file with a whole bunch of layers will fill up memory. However, I rarely do either. I do run batches on files, but only one of them is open at a time. It is very rare that I ever have a file with 7 layers and that isn’t close to running out of memory.
Clyde, that’ll depend on the size of the images. Take a 200Mb image for example, a few layers and the image will be not just larger than available memory, but larger than total memory, and you’ll be using the scratch disk and slowing things down.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Z
Zimphire
Jun 30, 2005
I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀
C
Clyde
Jun 30, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:02:17 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Do you really need more than 2 GB of memory? I have 1 GB and only run out of memory when I open 15-20 files at the same time. Also opening a file with a whole bunch of layers will fill up memory. However, I rarely do either. I do run batches on files, but only one of them is open at a time. It is very rare that I ever have a file with 7 layers and that isn’t close to running out of memory.

Clyde, that’ll depend on the size of the images. Take a 200Mb image for example, a few layers and the image will be not just larger than available memory, but larger than total memory, and you’ll be using the scratch disk and slowing things down.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

That’s exactly why I raised the question and hope he honestly evaluates his needs for his type of work. Al Dykes hit it right on the nail head too. There are a ton of ways to use Photoshop and what’s right for you may not be for many other people.

I shoot 6 MP pictures that typically get printed on 8×10 or smaller. I do hundreds at a time though. To me the workflow improvements in CS and CS2 are wonderful improvements. I use Curvemeister, Focus Magic, and Noise Ninja very heavily. That doesn’t mean they are right for you.

OTOH, Enblend is a tool that really sucks up memory. It’s the one tool that regularly could use more than 1 GB of memory. It is alway using virtual memory on my computer. If you do a ton of stitching and use Enblend, get more. I don’t know how much more than 1 GB, but use Al Dykes’ philosophy and you’ll find it.

Clyde
H
Hecate
Jun 30, 2005
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Jun 30, 2005
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:25 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Clyde, that’ll depend on the size of the images. Take a 200Mb image for example, a few layers and the image will be not just larger than available memory, but larger than total memory, and you’ll be using the scratch disk and slowing things down.

That’s exactly why I raised the question and hope he honestly evaluates his needs for his type of work. Al Dykes hit it right on the nail head too. There are a ton of ways to use Photoshop and what’s right for you may not be for many other people.

I shoot 6 MP pictures that typically get printed on 8×10 or smaller. I do hundreds at a time though. To me the workflow improvements in CS and CS2 are wonderful improvements. I use Curvemeister, Focus Magic, and Noise Ninja very heavily. That doesn’t mean they are right for you.
OTOH, Enblend is a tool that really sucks up memory. It’s the one tool that regularly could use more than 1 GB of memory. It is alway using virtual memory on my computer. If you do a ton of stitching and use Enblend, get more. I don’t know how much more than 1 GB, but use Al Dykes’ philosophy and you’ll find it.
LOL! I’m waiting till the tools I use are 64-bit. Then, I think, 16Gb or so ought to cut it 😉



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Z
Zimphire
Jul 1, 2005
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?

Because you can run ANY OS you want to natively on the same machine.

But you are right.

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀
J
James
Jul 1, 2005
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?

Because you can run ANY OS you want to natively on the same machine.
But you are right.

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀
When the Intel Mac’s come out, get yourself a virtualisation-capable CPU (Both Intel and AMD will be realising them). They allow you to run 2 or more Operating Systems simultaneously. This means you could run say, Windows, OSX and a Linux Distro at the same time without rebooting, just switching to the operatign system you need, when you need it, at any time you feel. Pretty neat I think.
DL
Donald Link
Jul 1, 2005
Quess Again.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀
A
adykes
Jul 1, 2005
In article <p21xe.62$>,
James wrote:
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?

Because you can run ANY OS you want to natively on the same machine.
But you are right.

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀
When the Intel Mac’s come out, get yourself a virtualisation-capable CPU (Both Intel and AMD will be realising them). They allow you to run 2 or more Operating Systems simultaneously. This means you could run say, Windows, OSX and a Linux Distro at the same time without rebooting, just switching to the operatign system you need, when you need it, at any time you feel. Pretty neat I think.

You can do a fair job of running multiple OSs with VMware or the MS VM product. WIth a dual processor and enough memory you might even get decent performace with PS in one of the virtual machines.

WIth an x86 uniprocessor it’s almost possible. I’d guess that with a quad Operton, multiple VMs running PS would be fine. off-the shelf but Expensive today. CompUSA two years from now.

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
Z
Zimphire
Jul 1, 2005
In article <p21xe.62$>,
James wrote:

Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?

Because you can run ANY OS you want to natively on the same machine.
But you are right.

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀
When the Intel Mac’s come out, get yourself a virtualisation-capable CPU (Both Intel and AMD will be realising them). They allow you to run 2 or more Operating Systems simultaneously. This means you could run say, Windows, OSX and a Linux Distro at the same time without rebooting, just switching to the operatign system you need, when you need it, at any time you feel. Pretty neat I think.

BZZZZZZZZZZT

You wont be able to run OS X on non-Apple hardware.

There are going to be anal about it.
Z
Zimphire
Jul 1, 2005
In article ,
Donald Link wrote:

Quess Again.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

No, I am positive I am "quessing" right.

Steve said the new machines could run XP. If someone really wanted to.

But regular PCs wont be able to run OS X.
J
James
Jul 1, 2005
Al Dykes wrote:
In article <p21xe.62$>,
James wrote:

Kevin wrote:

In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?

Because you can run ANY OS you want to natively on the same machine.
But you are right.

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀

When the Intel Mac’s come out, get yourself a virtualisation-capable CPU (Both Intel and AMD will be realising them). They allow you to run 2 or more Operating Systems simultaneously. This means you could run say, Windows, OSX and a Linux Distro at the same time without rebooting, just switching to the operatign system you need, when you need it, at any time you feel. Pretty neat I think.

You can do a fair job of running multiple OSs with VMware or the MS VM product. WIth a dual processor and enough memory you might even get decent performace with PS in one of the virtual machines.
WIth an x86 uniprocessor it’s almost possible. I’d guess that with a quad Operton, multiple VMs running PS would be fine. off-the shelf but Expensive today. CompUSA two years from now.
Yes, I know about that. But why use software, and need *extra* system resources (RAM, Faster CPU, etc.) when you can just get a CPU that allows for it. Sure, you made need better system hardware, but not as much as VMWare needs.

But hey, it’s all up to what you think’s best. Not only that, but they’re saying these Porcessors are meant to be quite good, since they’re not released I can’t be 100% certain. I’m just going off what i’ve been told.
J
James
Jul 1, 2005
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Donald Link wrote:

Quess Again.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

No, I am positive I am "quessing" right.

Steve said the new machines could run XP. If someone really wanted to.
But regular PCs wont be able to run OS X.
You can get Windows running on mac’s anyway, i’ve seen it done on a G4 Powerbook, it ran 2000, then upgraded to XP (THen downgraded again :P).
S
Stephan
Jul 1, 2005
KevinK wrote:
I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

The other way would be nicer:
Running OSX on a cheap box is what I want.
Running Windows on a Mac doesn’t make any sense but having a nice OS on a reasonably priced box would be sweet.
Even sweeter would be a box with an Athlon chip and OSX but Jobs chose Intel, why?

Stephan
S
Stephan
Jul 1, 2005
Kevin wrote:

Steve said the new machines could run XP. If someone really wanted to.
But regular PCs wont be able to run OS X.

What’s a regular PC?
A Mac with an Intel chip is as "regular" as regular can be, the only difference left is the OS.
And I agree, OS is much cleaner and nicer than Windows, but as long as you have to pay through the nose to be able to use it I’ll stick with Windoze boxes.

Stephan
A
adykes
Jul 1, 2005
In article <Hf4xe.4435$>,
Stephan wrote:
KevinK wrote:
I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

The other way would be nicer:
Running OSX on a cheap box is what I want.
Running Windows on a Mac doesn’t make any sense but having a nice OS on a reasonably priced box would be sweet.
Even sweeter would be a box with an Athlon chip and OSX but Jobs chose Intel, why?

Stephan

If Apple ports to Intel then the move to AMD later would be trivial.

As others have noted, Apple is going to lock the OS to it’s hardware.

That too can change. Given that it’s going to cost Apple Big Bucks convert they’ve got to recover their costs somehow. If the market changes they can always unlock their software later. DOn;t hold you breath.


a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don’t blame me. I voted for Gore.
C
Clyde
Jul 1, 2005
Hecate wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:25:25 -0500, Clyde wrote:

Clyde, that’ll depend on the size of the images. Take a 200Mb image for example, a few layers and the image will be not just larger than available memory, but larger than total memory, and you’ll be using the scratch disk and slowing things down.

That’s exactly why I raised the question and hope he honestly evaluates his needs for his type of work. Al Dykes hit it right on the nail head too. There are a ton of ways to use Photoshop and what’s right for you may not be for many other people.

I shoot 6 MP pictures that typically get printed on 8×10 or smaller. I do hundreds at a time though. To me the workflow improvements in CS and CS2 are wonderful improvements. I use Curvemeister, Focus Magic, and Noise Ninja very heavily. That doesn’t mean they are right for you.
OTOH, Enblend is a tool that really sucks up memory. It’s the one tool that regularly could use more than 1 GB of memory. It is alway using virtual memory on my computer. If you do a ton of stitching and use Enblend, get more. I don’t know how much more than 1 GB, but use Al Dykes’ philosophy and you’ll find it.

LOL! I’m waiting till the tools I use are 64-bit. Then, I think, 16Gb or so ought to cut it 😉



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

At first I laughed. Then it occurred to me that it might not be that far off. I’m sure there are people that could use 16 GB. You would probably want a 64 bit CPU about twice as fast as today’s.

Clyde
C
Clyde
Jul 1, 2005
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

And that makes a difference because?

Because you can run ANY OS you want to natively on the same machine.
But you are right.

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀

Applications that only run on XP. That’s the big reason I switched from OS X to XP. Then again, I’m not much of an OS bigot anyway. OSs are just for running apps to get something done.

Clyde
H
Hecate
Jul 1, 2005
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:31:59 +1000, James
wrote:

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀
When the Intel Mac’s come out, get yourself a virtualisation-capable CPU (Both Intel and AMD will be realising them). They allow you to run 2 or more Operating Systems simultaneously. This means you could run say, Windows, OSX and a Linux Distro at the same time without rebooting, just switching to the operatign system you need, when you need it, at any time you feel. Pretty neat I think.

and you missed the point. Why on earth would I want to do that?



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Jul 1, 2005
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:11:03 GMT, Stephan wrote:

KevinK wrote:
I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

The other way would be nicer:
Running OSX on a cheap box is what I want.
Running Windows on a Mac doesn’t make any sense but having a nice OS on a reasonably priced box would be sweet.
Even sweeter would be a box with an Athlon chip and OSX but Jobs chose Intel, why?
MY guess: The Intel chips (the new dual processor chips) have DRM embedded in them. That means you can make sure that only what you want to allow to run on them will run on them, and you can charge the earth for doing so (while at the same time allowing them to "call home" and tell them what you’re software you’re running).



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
H
Hecate
Jul 1, 2005
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:24:01 -0500, Clyde wrote:

LOL! I’m waiting till the tools I use are 64-bit. Then, I think, 16Gb or so ought to cut it 😉

At first I laughed. Then it occurred to me that it might not be that far off. I’m sure there are people that could use 16 GB. You would probably want a 64 bit CPU about twice as fast as today’s.
Yep, I was only half joking. I could probably use 8Gb on occasion right now if I had the processor to match it.



Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…
Z
Zimphire
Jul 1, 2005
In article <TQ3xe.172$>,
James wrote:

Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Donald Link wrote:

Quess Again.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:15:01 -0400, KevinK wrote:

I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

No, I am positive I am "quessing" right.

Steve said the new machines could run XP. If someone really wanted to.
But regular PCs wont be able to run OS X.
You can get Windows running on mac’s anyway, i’ve seen it done on a G4 Powerbook, it ran 2000, then upgraded to XP (THen downgraded again :P).

Maybe VIA Virtual PC. Not natively.
Z
Zimphire
Jul 1, 2005
In article <Hf4xe.4435$>,
Stephan wrote:

KevinK wrote:
I don’t know about you guys, but I am waiting for those Intel Macs to come out.

You can run XP and OS X on them natively. 😀

The other way would be nicer:
Running OSX on a cheap box is what I want.
Running Windows on a Mac doesn’t make any sense but having a nice OS on a reasonably priced box would be sweet.

Yes but Apple is a hardware company as well. They get most of their money from hardware.

I think EVENTUALLY Steve might license it out.
Even sweeter would be a box with an Athlon chip and OSX but Jobs chose Intel, why?

Probably because they have a better rep.
Z
Zimphire
Jul 2, 2005
In article <vk4xe.5809$>,
Stephan wrote:

Kevin wrote:

Steve said the new machines could run XP. If someone really wanted to.
But regular PCs wont be able to run OS X.

What’s a regular PC?
A Mac with an Intel chip is as "regular" as regular can be, the only difference left is the OS.

Actually if these are anything like Macs now, they will indeed be different.

And I agree, OS is much cleaner and nicer than Windows, but as long as you have to pay through the nose to be able to use it I’ll stick with Windoze boxes.

You can get a decent one for cheap now.

And the switch to Intel will give them even cheaper boxes.

Those G5 chips weren’t cheap.
Z
Zimphire
Jul 2, 2005
In article ,
Clyde wrote:

Applications that only run on XP. That’s the big reason I switched from OS X to XP.

Well in the field I work, there are no XP apps out there that only run on XP for what I need

Then again, I’m not much of an OS bigot anyway. OSs are just for running apps to get something done.

Clyde

I have both Macs and PCs at home.

I like them both for different things.

But for design, OS X all the way.
Z
Zimphire
Jul 2, 2005
In article ,
Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:31:59 +1000, James
wrote:

If you can run OS X, why would you want to run XP?

😀
When the Intel Mac’s come out, get yourself a virtualisation-capable CPU (Both Intel and AMD will be realising them). They allow you to run 2 or more Operating Systems simultaneously. This means you could run say, Windows, OSX and a Linux Distro at the same time without rebooting, just switching to the operatign system you need, when you need it, at any time you feel. Pretty neat I think.

and you missed the point. Why on earth would I want to do that?

I know a lot of Mac users that would LOVE to buy ONE machine.

Use OS X for design, and Windows for gaming.
C
Clyde
Jul 2, 2005
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Clyde wrote:

Applications that only run on XP. That’s the big reason I switched from OS X to XP.

Well in the field I work, there are no XP apps out there that only run on XP for what I need

Then again, I’m not much of an OS bigot anyway. OSs are just for running apps to get something done.

Clyde

I have both Macs and PCs at home.

I like them both for different things.

But for design, OS X all the way.

What do you use for design? I only use Photoshop and it works exactly the same on XP as it does on OS X.

I do have apps that only run on Windows. Not graphics ones, but for my other job.

The number of choices in any particular category of applications is also much broader. You can almost always get a Mac app to do what you need, but you may not get any (or many) choices. One of the things I like about my XP machine is the choices, particularly in Freeware.

I think the same can be said about the hardware. A Mac is a much more difficult computer to upgrade the hardware on. Some of them you can’t upgrade at all. I built my Intel box and can easily upgrade any of the hardware with a lot of choices.

That is one reason I’m not too excited about Apple using Intel. Their history shows that they will probably do what they can to restrict flexibility. That is one of the great things about Macs; their restriction means that it’s more reliable and you have a better shot at it working. I don’t need that or want to be trapped by that lack of flexibility.

Clyde
Z
Zimphire
Jul 2, 2005
In article ,
Clyde wrote:

Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Clyde wrote:

Applications that only run on XP. That’s the big reason I switched from OS X to XP.

Well in the field I work, there are no XP apps out there that only run on XP for what I need

Then again, I’m not much of an OS bigot anyway. OSs are just for running apps to get something done.

Clyde

I have both Macs and PCs at home.

I like them both for different things.

But for design, OS X all the way.

What do you use for design? I only use Photoshop and it works exactly the same on XP as it does on OS X.

No no it doesn’t.
There is no shell around the Photoshop for OS X. meaning I can grab stuff off the desktop and drop it into a Window. What true drag and drop is supposed to be like.

Windows for Photoshop also doesn’t have Colorsync support like the Mac does.

I couldn’t live without colorsync.

Now, this might not matter to you. And that is cool, but I prefer my Mac.

The number of choices in any particular category of applications is also much broader. You can almost always get a Mac app to do what you need, but you may not get any (or many) choices. One of the things I like about my XP machine is the choices, particularly in Freeware.

Yes, but as you and I both know, 75% of those choices windows gives you are crap.

There hasn’t been anything I can do on my Windows box that I can’t on my Mac.

I think the same can be said about the hardware. A Mac is a much more difficult computer to upgrade the hardware on. Some of them you can’t upgrade at all. I built my Intel box and can easily upgrade any of the hardware with a lot of choices.

No, no it’s not hard. Esp if you have a tower. Anything can be upgraded.

That may have been true about the Mac in the 90s. But not now.

That is one reason I’m not too excited about Apple using Intel. Their history shows that they will probably do what they can to restrict flexibility. That is one of the great things about Macs; their restriction means that it’s more reliable and you have a better shot at it working. I don’t need that or want to be trapped by that lack of flexibility.

For Example?
C
Clyde
Jul 3, 2005
Kevin wrote:
In article ,
Clyde wrote:

Kevin wrote:

In article ,
Clyde wrote:

Applications that only run on XP. That’s the big reason I switched from OS X to XP.

Well in the field I work, there are no XP apps out there that only run on XP for what I need

Then again, I’m not much of an OS bigot anyway. OSs are just for running apps to get something done.

Clyde

I have both Macs and PCs at home.

I like them both for different things.

But for design, OS X all the way.

What do you use for design? I only use Photoshop and it works exactly the same on XP as it does on OS X.

No no it doesn’t.
There is no shell around the Photoshop for OS X. meaning I can grab stuff off the desktop and drop it into a Window. What true drag and drop is supposed to be like.
I can drag and drop from XP to Photoshop. I’m not sure what you are talking about. It works for me.

Windows for Photoshop also doesn’t have Colorsync support like the Mac does.

I couldn’t live without colorsync.

Now, this might not matter to you. And that is cool, but I prefer my Mac.
You are correct, Windows XP does not have ColorSync. However, it has exactly the same color management functionality built in. It’s just not called "ColorSync". It works just as well and it works just as easily.

Almost all professional graphic shops have and run both Mac and XP. They run Photoshop on both. They certainly wouldn’t touch XP if color management wasn’t there.

The number of choices in any particular category of applications is also much broader. You can almost always get a Mac app to do what you need, but you may not get any (or many) choices. One of the things I like about my XP machine is the choices, particularly in Freeware.

Yes, but as you and I both know, 75% of those choices windows gives you are crap.

There hasn’t been anything I can do on my Windows box that I can’t on my Mac.
75% of everything is crap; no, make that 90%. The Internet certainly proves that. However, you prove my point. 75% crap out of 10 choices still leaves you choices. 75% crap out of 2 choices, may or may not leave you any choice at all.

In my Mac using days (which I loved) I did have a few times where I couldn’t find a working solution. Some of those I never got around. Others I had to wait until something was developed.

Mac developer aren’t any better than Windows developers. The percentage of crap is about the same. The only slight advantage (very slight) is that Apple insists on a more rigid development standard than does Microsoft. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the developer has to follow it, just that they won’t get certified by Apple. That can also be a disadvantage, in that way fewer developer want to bother with Apple’s rule to feed such a small market.

I think the same can be said about the hardware. A Mac is a much more difficult computer to upgrade the hardware on. Some of them you can’t upgrade at all. I built my Intel box and can easily upgrade any of the hardware with a lot of choices.

No, no it’s not hard. Esp if you have a tower. Anything can be upgraded.
That may have been true about the Mac in the 90s. But not now.
Have you ever tried to upgrade the hardware in an iMac, or a Mini, or a Cube, etc.? There are plenty of Apple products that don’t have hardware upgrades. I had an iMac once like that. It wasn’t so much that Apple built it to be a huge pain to get into, but that no one made any upgrade parts for it. I would have loved to put a faster CPU in it, but it wasn’t possible. The only thing I could easily do was memory – and I only had two slots.

Yes, the towers are nice to upgrade, but you still have to watch what hardware will actually work. Then again, those really are only the high end models. Why should I pay that premium to have hardware flexibility when an Intel box is more flexible and costs less?

That is one reason I’m not too excited about Apple using Intel. Their history shows that they will probably do what they can to restrict flexibility. That is one of the great things about Macs; their restriction means that it’s more reliable and you have a better shot at it working. I don’t need that or want to be trapped by that lack of flexibility.

For Example?

See the iMac example above.

Look, I’m not anti-Mac or Apple. I’ve used Apple products since the Apple ][. I’ve used Mac products since a pre-production of the very first Mac. I think that OS X is a great OS.

I have also used Microsoft since DOS 1 and Windows 2.0. I’ve used a few versions of Linux and several of the UNIX flavors. Operating systems are tools for applications to use hardware. If a particular set of hardware/OS/app works for you, use it.

I would say that a 3% (or less) market share has shown that most people have found that Mac is less flexibly and/or useful than Windows. Part of that is Apple’s mixed policy of holding much tighter reins over the hardware and software development.

As much as I love OS X, the lack of hardware and application flexibility finally got too much for me. I also think that OS X is only very slightly better than XP Pro. If those aren’t an issue for you, great.

Over and out,
Clyde
S
Stephan
Jul 4, 2005
Kevin wrote:
snip
No no it doesn’t.
There is no shell around the Photoshop for OS X. meaning I can grab stuff off the desktop and drop it into a Window. What true drag and drop is supposed to be like.

I love the shell! That is one reason I could not use PS on the Mac: I want a clean background to work on my images, not my messy desktop and its colorful icons!

Windows for Photoshop also doesn’t have Colorsync support like the Mac does.
That was an argument last century, color management works all the same in Windows.

I couldn’t live without colorsync.

Now, this might not matter to you. And that is cool, but I prefer my Mac.

I hope you do considering how much it cost you 😉

There hasn’t been anything I can do on my Windows box that I can’t on my Mac.
You obviously are not a gamer, not that I am but Macs suck for gaming

I think the same can be said about the hardware. A Mac is a much more difficult computer to upgrade the hardware on. Some of them you can’t upgrade at all. I built my Intel box and can easily upgrade any of the hardware with a lot of choices.

No, no it’s not hard. Esp if you have a tower. Anything can be upgraded.
That may have been true about the Mac in the 90s. But not now.
That is true they are as easy to upgrade, probably even easier because the case design of the G5 is very smart, (other Macs are just impossible to fiddle around with) the only thing is that the Mac hardware cost the same than the PC hardware in its 24 carat gold plated with inserted diamonds version

Anyway, give me a Mac and I’ll be happy to use it all the same and I agree that OSX is much cleaner and functional than XP.

Stephan

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections