Best computer for graphics apps?

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).

I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:14:54 -0400, "Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard

You can tell him to forget it. You won't get what you need for that price or less.

usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

"Husky" wrote in message

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:14:54 -0400, "Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of
$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard

You can tell him to forget it. You won't get what you need for that price or
less.

Nevertheless, I want suggestions for what is the BEST I can get for the budget.

Roger McDoogal wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Check out these:

http://tinyurl.com/bsv66
http://tinyurl.com/9k5qm

NewEgg and TigerDirect are good companies that I've bought from for years. Don't expect a lot of pre-sales help and be sure you understand their return policies.

TigerDirect's deals come from buying their refurbished units. They can be great deals. Otherwise, NewEgg will be less expensive -- if they have it.

I put you on computers with AMD 64 processors. Those are the best graphics processors available right now and the prices are pretty good. You will want as fast a processor as you can afford.

The other key thing you want is lots of memory. Some of these start with 512 MB and some with 1 GB. Check very carefully how many memory slots the computer has and in how pieces the standard memory comes. If it only comes with one 512 MB and you only have 2 memory slots, you will need to buy another 1 GB DDR to make a total of 1.5 GB. I would think you would really want 2 GB of memory. More memory slots will give you more flexibility for the future. Buy as much memory as you can fit in the computer!!! (Well, 2 GB anyway. You have to configure XP Pro to get it to use 3 GB.)

You will probably want at least 120 GB of HD to start with. You may want more, but adding HD is pretty easy later. There really isn't much difference in the speed of the HD until you get into the expensive 10K RPM models. Save that for later.

Pay no attention to the computer brand. Computers are commodities and they all use the same parts. You don't need a fancy graphics card, but some of these come with them anyway.

Use your old monitor or spend the rest on a good, big CRT. They are way cheaper than LCDs and easier to color manage. A good LCD for Photoshop is very expensive. Although the LCD will be a lot less to ship.

http://tinyurl.com/cjhp9
http://tinyurl.com/ajxkn

Frankly, you can get a pretty darn good computer for $2,000. I built my own, but some of these deals are even cheaper than that.

Clyde

"Clyde" wrote in message

Roger McDoogal wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.
I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Check out these:

http://tinyurl.com/bsv66
http://tinyurl.com/9k5qm

NewEgg and TigerDirect are good companies that I've bought from for years. Don't expect a lot of pre-sales help and be sure you understand their return policies.

TigerDirect's deals come from buying their refurbished units. They can be great deals. Otherwise, NewEgg will be less expensive -- if they have it.
I put you on computers with AMD 64 processors. Those are the best graphics processors available right now and the prices are pretty good. You will want as fast a processor as you can afford.

The other key thing you want is lots of memory. Some of these start with 512 MB and some with 1 GB. Check very carefully how many memory slots the computer has and in how pieces the standard memory comes. If it only comes with one 512 MB and you only have 2 memory slots, you will need to buy another 1 GB DDR to make a total of 1.5 GB. I would think you would really want 2 GB of memory. More memory slots will give you more flexibility for the future. Buy as much memory as you can fit in the computer!!! (Well, 2 GB anyway. You have to configure XP Pro to get it to use 3 GB.)
You will probably want at least 120 GB of HD to start with. You may want more, but adding HD is pretty easy later. There really isn't much difference in the speed of the HD until you get into the expensive 10K RPM models. Save that for later.

Pay no attention to the computer brand. Computers are commodities and they all use the same parts. You don't need a fancy graphics card, but some of these come with them anyway.

Use your old monitor or spend the rest on a good, big CRT. They are way cheaper than LCDs and easier to color manage. A good LCD for Photoshop is very expensive. Although the LCD will be a lot less to ship.
http://tinyurl.com/cjhp9
http://tinyurl.com/ajxkn

Frankly, you can get a pretty darn good computer for $2,000. I built my own, but some of these deals are even cheaper than that.
Clyde

Thanks for the advice, Clyde. I have heard that a good graphics card is important for 3d Studio. Do you have any insight on this?

usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents

Make sure you really understand DPI and aren't making your images too large.

that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am

RAM will be everything.

The generic brand names earned, in past, a bit of a rep for being slower than machines in their class needed to be. Packard Bell of particular note. It may be worth checking around to see what users think of the "no, we make machines for artists" brands; AlienWare and Boxx come to mind. If they really make the difference.

Suspect two grand is a little low if you want the machine you want.

Research hard drives. May be worth getting the next faster rpm. Don't know.

currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

That's got to be tedious as hell. How big actually are your images?

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Rendering a two minute movie clip takes hours. Being an occasional user doesn't help there either.

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

Don't forget to look at computer manufacturer's we sites for refurbished units. I've purchased 5 Dell refurbs over the last two years and not a single hardware problem with any of them. Typically they go for about 1/3 off the full retail price. Compaq and IBM have had such sites in the past as well.

Norm

In article <tZnKe.27717$>,
"Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

Not directly related to your question, but just as an aside:

Avoid using the "Brightness/Contrast" and "Color Balance" commands. They are 'linear' commands, which degrade the quality of the image by clipping hilight and shadow detail.

Use the Curves command instead. Curves can do everything that Brightness/Contrast and Color Balance can do, but Curves is 'nonlinear' and won't degrade your image by clipping hilight and shadow detail. Curves also offers you more control--for example, you can increase contrast only in the shadow detail without affecting detail in hilights.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Get a dual core processor (or hyperthreaded), it speeds up things in multithreaded progs

R

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap

of

$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Husky wrote:

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:14:54 -0400, "Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard

You can tell him to forget it. You won't get what you need for that price or less.

This is completely ridiculous, $2000 buys you a lot of power these days. If you know how to build your own, meaning if you can click Lego blocks together, check out Mwave.com for parts. With your budget you'll end up with a sweet machine.
If you are not good at Legos buy a P.o.S. Dell, memory, the video card you need for your 3D and an external drive or two. Turn on the Dell and first thing, format the drive to get rid of the ton of junk theses "things" come loaded with and do a clean install of your OS and software. Keep it lean! Install only what you really need. Install a Firewall (not the XP built in), get Firefox and Thunderbird to replace Outlook xpress and IE to be on the safer side.

Stephan

Hmm, You might look at Boxx - they are a bit pricey though. I'm considering getting one of theirs if I can clear up some of my finances before next year.

http://www.boxxtech.com/products/Workstations.asp

Martin

Roger McDoogal wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing. Therefore new dual processors will not make a difference until or unless Adobe issues a version of PS that takes advantage of multiple processors. MAC or Wintel makes no difference. Despite what the Macaholics think no available Mac is anywhere near as fast as even an upper midrange PC at any of the tasks you describe.
Because PS responds to brute force computing the fastest Pentium IVs with 2mb of level 2 cache will yield the best results with Photoshop: no Mac can come close to these numbers and is one reason Mac is switching to Intel processors. The very fastest Athlon 64s with 1mb of L2 cache will be about as fast but not any cheaper than the fastest PIV. If you understand the issues there are specific reasons for going with Athlon64s, otherwise there is no clear advantage at the top end.
These PIVs have faster front side buses that work with newer, faster dual DDR memory. In the real world this speed bump in memory has not made much difference but it may make some. If you can get 2gbs of memory go for it. Another key to maximizing Photoshop speed (and video rendering if you set it up properly) is to have two physically separate hard drives, as opposed to one hard drive with multiple partitions. You also have to set PS to take advantage of this by placing the swap drive appropriately. The slowness you describe makes me suspect you do not have either Photoshop or your computer set up optimally.
The video card is the least important aspect: even with a high resolution monitor virtually any AGP or PCI-e card with at least 64mbs of memory is already faster and has more memory than is required to run Photoshop at high resolutions. Unless you want to play 3d games do not budget too much money on a video card.
Rendering video is highly dependent on CPU speed, memory size and speed. Again these programs are not multithreaded and respond to brute force increases in computing power, although not in as linear a fashion as PS. On some tests the fastest Athlon 64s sometimes outgun the Pentiums: some video programs may run better on Athlon64s and some on PIVs. Again the video card makes no significant difference.
A dual core processor potentially is an advantage in that you may be able to render video in the background and still use the computer for a task that demands little memory (as opposed to CPU power) like word processing or surfing the web.
If you already have an adequate monitor invest all the $ in the computer. There is far more bang for the buck from second tier vendors than companies like Dell, Gateway or HP. You can purchase a far more powerful computer for the equivalent you would spend at a first tier vendor. If you are not knowledgeable about these things I would not recommend you try to build a high octane machine on your own. Companies like Adamant, Ibuy and Monarch (among others) can produce very powerful machines for less $.

a correction.
"Rendering video is highly dependent on CPU speed, memory size and speed. Again these programs are not multithreaded "

Max is partly multithreaded and it benefits on dual core / processors. Also Premiere, Compustion etc. render faster with multithreaded systems

R

"birdman" wrote in message

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing. Therefore new dual processors will not make a difference until

or

unless Adobe issues a version of PS that takes advantage of multiple processors. MAC or Wintel makes no difference. Despite what the Macaholics think no available Mac is anywhere near as fast as even an upper midrange

PC

at any of the tasks you describe.
Because PS responds to brute force computing the fastest Pentium IVs with 2mb of level 2 cache will yield the best results with Photoshop: no Mac

can

come close to these numbers and is one reason Mac is switching to Intel processors. The very fastest Athlon 64s with 1mb of L2 cache will be about as fast but not any cheaper than the fastest PIV. If you understand the issues there are specific reasons for going with Athlon64s, otherwise

there

is no clear advantage at the top end.
These PIVs have faster front side buses that work with newer, faster dual DDR memory. In the real world this speed bump in memory has not made much difference but it may make some. If you can get 2gbs of memory go for it. Another key to maximizing Photoshop speed (and video rendering if you set

it

up properly) is to have two physically separate hard drives, as opposed to one hard drive with multiple partitions. You also have to set PS to take advantage of this by placing the swap drive appropriately. The slowness

you

describe makes me suspect you do not have either Photoshop or your

computer

set up optimally.
The video card is the least important aspect: even with a high resolution monitor virtually any AGP or PCI-e card with at least 64mbs of memory is already faster and has more memory than is required to run Photoshop at

high

resolutions. Unless you want to play 3d games do not budget too much money on a video card.
Rendering video is highly dependent on CPU speed, memory size and speed. Again these programs are not multithreaded and respond to brute force increases in computing power, although not in as linear a fashion as PS.

On

some tests the fastest Athlon 64s sometimes outgun the Pentiums: some

video

programs may run better on Athlon64s and some on PIVs. Again the video

card

makes no significant difference.
A dual core processor potentially is an advantage in that you may be able

to

render video in the background and still use the computer for a task that demands little memory (as opposed to CPU power) like word processing or surfing the web.
If you already have an adequate monitor invest all the $ in the computer. There is far more bang for the buck from second tier vendors than

companies

like Dell, Gateway or HP. You can purchase a far more powerful computer

for

the equivalent you would spend at a first tier vendor. If you are not knowledgeable about these things I would not recommend you try to build a high octane machine on your own. Companies like Adamant, Ibuy and Monarch (among others) can produce very powerful machines for less $.

Whats you location Roger
it will help if we know where you are from, IE: just your country will do, because then we can direct you to appropriate vendors and suggest decent hardware for your needs.
but as an exercise in whats good, I would start with something like this (prices are just an indication of whats available in Australia) Athlon 64 dual core ( PS isnt multi thread aware but it is probably on the cards. 3D Studio Max is dual processor aware) and the Athlon 64 X2 is still miles ahead of the cobbled together Pentium D (Athlon 64 X2 3800+ $510 ) ASUS or Gigabyte 939 Motherboard preferably with the nForce 4 chipset (ASUS A8N-E $183) ( Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9 $146)
2 gig ram Geil 3200 1 gig ($189 double it for 2 gig)
a pair of Western Digital 74 gig Raptor Hard disk drives (as fast as SCSI for half the price) and set them up in Raid 0 for performance. you can add a 300gig drive for Data if needed (2 raptors for $520)
the nVidia 6600GT will do everything you want in the way of video ( $245 ) and get a decent power supply to power it all, 500Watt as a minimum. ( Antec TruePower 2.0 True550 $166)
I know that all this is available for under $2000 in Australia ( I calculate it at about $1800) and if your in the US you could add a decent LCD screen as well
Gaz

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <tZnKe.27717$>,
"Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of
$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

Not directly related to your question, but just as an aside:
Avoid using the "Brightness/Contrast" and "Color Balance" commands. They are 'linear' commands, which degrade the quality of the image by clipping hilight and shadow detail.

Use the Curves command instead. Curves can do everything that Brightness/Contrast and Color Balance can do, but Curves is 'nonlinear' and won't degrade your image by clipping hilight and shadow detail. Curves also offers you more control--for example, you can increase contrast only in the shadow detail without affecting detail in hilights.

Yep I use curves all the time. But thanks for offering your pompous insight that was completely unrelated to my question. VERY HELPFUL!!

Good suggestions. I am from the U.S., east coast.

"Fresh_n00b" wrote in message

Whats you location Roger
it will help if we know where you are from, IE: just your country will do, because then we can direct you to appropriate vendors and suggest decent hardware for your needs.
but as an exercise in whats good, I would start with something like this (prices are just an indication of whats available in Australia) Athlon 64 dual core ( PS isnt multi thread aware but it is probably on the cards. 3D Studio Max is dual processor aware) and the Athlon 64 X2 is still miles ahead of the cobbled together Pentium D (Athlon 64 X2 3800+ $510 )
ASUS or Gigabyte 939 Motherboard preferably with the nForce 4 chipset (ASUS A8N-E $183) ( Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9 $146)
2 gig ram Geil 3200 1 gig ($189 double it for 2 gig)
a pair of Western Digital 74 gig Raptor Hard disk drives (as fast as SCSI for half the price) and set them up in Raid 0 for performance. you can add a 300gig drive for Data if needed (2 raptors for $520)
the nVidia 6600GT will do everything you want in the way of video ( $245 ) and get a decent power supply to power it all, 500Watt as a minimum. ( Antec TruePower 2.0 True550 $166)
I know that all this is available for under $2000 in Australia ( I calculate it at about $1800) and if your in the US you could add a decent LCD screen as well
Gaz

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.
I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

"howldog" wrote in message

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:09:24 GMT, "birdman"
wrote:

Despite what the Macaholics
think no available Mac is anywhere near as fast as even an upper midrange PC
at any of the tasks you describe.

wtf? sure they are. thats kind of wrong, isnt it?

I run both platforms. they're both good.

Here comes the pissing contest.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:09:24 GMT, "birdman"
wrote:

Despite what the Macaholics
think no available Mac is anywhere near as fast as even an upper midrange PC at any of the tasks you describe.

wtf? sure they are. thats kind of wrong, isnt it?

I run both platforms. they're both good.

Ripley wrote:

Get a dual core processor (or hyperthreaded), it speeds up things in multithreaded progs

R

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap

of

$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Have you price out dual core computers lately? I doubt you will get any leading edge technology for $2,000. Drop down a notch from leading edge to get the best values.

Clyde

birdman wrote:

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing. Therefore new dual processors will not make a difference until or unless Adobe issues a version of PS that takes advantage of multiple processors. MAC or Wintel makes no difference. Despite what the Macaholics

Photoshop is currently multi-threaded. It takes advantage of hyperthreading, multiple processors, and dual core. It makes a difference too.

However, dual core computers aren't likely going to be for $2,000. Well, not the whole system anyway.

Clyde

Roger McDoogal wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message

Roger McDoogal wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.
I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Check out these:

http://tinyurl.com/bsv66
http://tinyurl.com/9k5qm

NewEgg and TigerDirect are good companies that I've bought from for years. Don't expect a lot of pre-sales help and be sure you understand their return policies.

TigerDirect's deals come from buying their refurbished units. They can be great deals. Otherwise, NewEgg will be less expensive -- if they have it.
I put you on computers with AMD 64 processors. Those are the best graphics processors available right now and the prices are pretty good. You will want as fast a processor as you can afford.

The other key thing you want is lots of memory. Some of these start with 512 MB and some with 1 GB. Check very carefully how many memory slots the computer has and in how pieces the standard memory comes. If it only comes with one 512 MB and you only have 2 memory slots, you will need to buy another 1 GB DDR to make a total of 1.5 GB. I would think you would really want 2 GB of memory. More memory slots will give you more flexibility for the future. Buy as much memory as you can fit in the computer!!! (Well, 2 GB anyway. You have to configure XP Pro to get it to use 3 GB.)
You will probably want at least 120 GB of HD to start with. You may want more, but adding HD is pretty easy later. There really isn't much difference in the speed of the HD until you get into the expensive 10K RPM models. Save that for later.

Pay no attention to the computer brand. Computers are commodities and they all use the same parts. You don't need a fancy graphics card, but some of these come with them anyway.

Use your old monitor or spend the rest on a good, big CRT. They are way cheaper than LCDs and easier to color manage. A good LCD for Photoshop is very expensive. Although the LCD will be a lot less to ship.
http://tinyurl.com/cjhp9
http://tinyurl.com/ajxkn

Frankly, you can get a pretty darn good computer for $2,000. I built my own, but some of these deals are even cheaper than that.
Clyde

Thanks for the advice, Clyde. I have heard that a good graphics card is important for 3d Studio. Do you have any insight on this?

Oops, I missed that app.

Yeah, a 3D card might help that app. I've never used it though. I guess it depends on how you use it. 3D cards are very good at drawing 3D polygons, very fast and very many of them. If you are creating them rather than displaying them, you won't be using the speed of a 3D card. I could be wrong, but I bet the rendering of 3D graphics is a CPU intensive operation that doesn't use the graphics card.

Hopefully someone can tell you some real-world experience with graphics cards and 3D Studio Max.

Clyde

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing. Therefore new dual processors will not make a difference until

or

unless Adobe issues a version of PS that takes advantage of multiple

There's background process which can be nice to get out of the way. Especially if you've let your computer get hijacked and haven't cleaned it off. Or noticed that it needs done.

MAC or Wintel makes no difference

"What software do you want to run? What are its requirements?"

Despite what the Macaholics

Mmm... macahol...

think

Pah, they're Macaholics. Demonstrable that they don't think. Pah. ;-)

Again these programs are not multithreaded and respond to brute force

OP specified Max. (or VIZ). That is multithreaded.

If you already have an adequate monitor invest all the $ in the computer.

Very good point.

Roger McDoogal wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <tZnKe.27717$>,
"Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of
$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

Not directly related to your question, but just as an aside:
Avoid using the "Brightness/Contrast" and "Color Balance" commands. They are 'linear' commands, which degrade the quality of the image by clipping hilight and shadow detail.

Use the Curves command instead. Curves can do everything that Brightness/Contrast and Color Balance can do, but Curves is 'nonlinear' and won't degrade your image by clipping hilight and shadow detail. Curves also offers you more control--for example, you can increase contrast only in the shadow detail without affecting detail in hilights.

Yep I use curves all the time.

No you don't, how do you know Brightness can take up to three minutes?

But thanks for offering your pompous insight
That was not pompous insight, that was actually pretty nice of him to take time to try to educate you.

that was completely unrelated to my question.

If you would have read him better you would have noticed Tacit started by saying it was "not directly related to" your question.

VERY HELPFUL!!

Yes it was VERY HELPFUL so tone it down now

Stephan

The only pompous thing here sounds like it is you. Totally uncalled for response to someone who was trying to make a helpful suggestion.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:09:24 GMT, "birdman"
wrote:

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing.

No, it's not. It's multithreaded and multiprocessor aware and has been since at least version 7.

--

Hecate - The Real One

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

in article _jQKe.3574$, Ken Wright at
wrote on 08/11/2005 3:30 PM:

The only pompous thing here sounds like it is you. Totally uncalled for response to someone who was trying to make a helpful suggestion.

You don't get to decide what is "uncalled for" on Usenet.

Everything is allowed, even your whiney message.

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap

of

$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

dual core athlon 64

Fastest ram to fit mb, with latency 2.0
with as much ram as possible

RAID SATA system for data files.
normal hd for OS, and other things.
nice video card..,. most any of the nvidia can do dual view... even the low end ones

******
shu

"Larry Linson" wrote in message

in article _jQKe.3574$, Ken Wright at
wrote on 08/11/2005 3:30 PM:

The only pompous thing here sounds like it is you. Totally uncalled for response to someone who was trying to make a helpful suggestion.

You don't get to decide what is "uncalled for" on Usenet.
Everything is allowed, even your whiney message.

"Uncalled for" doesn't mean forbidden. It means "not justified or deserved, unwarranted" as thefreedictionary.com puts it.

Next time you decide to try and play anti net-cop, try to understand the words people write, mmmkay?

"Clyde" wrote in message

birdman wrote:

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing. Therefore new dual processors will not make a difference

until or

unless Adobe issues a version of PS that takes advantage of multiple processors. MAC or Wintel makes no difference. Despite what the

Macaholics

Photoshop is currently multi-threaded. It takes advantage of hyperthreading, multiple processors, and dual core. It makes a difference too.

However, dual core computers aren't likely going to be for $2,000. Well, not the whole system anyway.

Clyde

I can build a dual core for less then 2000

a 3 ghz intel dual core is only $329

the 2.8 is 245

athlon 64 dual core are coming down real fast too

*****
shu

"Ken Wright" wrote in message

The only pompous thing here sounds like it is you. Totally uncalled for response to someone who was trying to make a helpful suggestion.

ken,
You are correct. Stephan is a real piece of work. Always gives his advice like an asshole.

"Larry Linson" wrote in message

in article _jQKe.3574$, Ken Wright at
wrote on 08/11/2005 3:30 PM:

The only pompous thing here sounds like it is you. Totally uncalled for response to someone who was trying to make a helpful suggestion.

You don't get to decide what is "uncalled for" on Usenet.
Everything is allowed, even your whiney message.

Yes, even you get to pipe in your little pea pod 2 cents worth.

shu wrote:

dual core athlon 64

Fastest ram to fit mb, with latency 2.0
with as much ram as possible

agree with that except low latency ram is the biggest con in enthusiast PCs at the moment, in terms of price/performance. can cost more than twice as much for the same capacity, for like a 5% difference at the outside.

if money is no object then perhaps, but i'd much rather spend the extra $ on a better & bigger monitor or a nice 7800GTX :)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:09:37 -0500, "shu" wrote:

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap

of

$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

dual core athlon 64

Fastest ram to fit mb, with latency 2.0
with as much ram as possible

RAID SATA system for data files.

Why does everyone keep recommending RAID ? RAID is a backup system primarily designed for servers not home use. And It's not a very good system at that. A simple batch command line backup and replace file can do a better job than RAID. Or set things to auto save every 5 minutes. Most good programs have that designed in now.

Also one thing being overlooked since this is a NEW system presumably, since it's primary use is graphics. a PCI Express Graphics card would be the route of the future.
You need a motherboard that can handle a PCI express card.

And I'm pretty sure if I were starting new from scratch a BTX case would also figure in vs ATX.
And for my own usage I've just recently learned the hard way that even 400 watts is the bare minimum for a graphics intensive setup. So far the new 600 watt supply doesn't seem to be sweating.

this 3.2 ghz Hyper threading P4 handles PSCS and GLCS at the same time with the ATI in screen TV running without a sweat. 1 gig ram. Room for 3 gigs. No puffing so haven't even considered 2 gigs ram yet.

Drives: SATA isn't that much more than IDE and speed is better than IDE. Again motherboards need to be taken into consideration.

A customer doesn't care that it takes 3 minutes, so long as they don't have to sit there waiting for it to happen. But they probably won't take that as an excuse for failure to deliver on time.

normal hd for OS, and other things.
nice video card..,. most any of the nvidia can do dual view... even the low end ones

******
shu

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:15:09 -0400, Husky wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:09:37 -0500, "shu" wrote:

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap

of

$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Actually re-reading all the above. I'd say to see if you can't find a good old Amiga. Graphics machine of choice for Disney.

I'd still be using mine if I had a source for parts.
It did 3d design, and cartoon overlays in one window while doing whatever in any of several other windows. and windows really were windows with that machine.

And there's a ton of software FREELY available on the Amiga CD's.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

dual core athlon 64

Fastest ram to fit mb, with latency 2.0
with as much ram as possible

RAID SATA system for data files.

Why does everyone keep recommending RAID ? RAID is a backup system primarily designed for servers not home use. And It's not a very good system at that. A simple batch command line backup and replace file can do a better job than RAID. Or set things to auto save every 5 minutes. Most good programs have that designed in now.

Also one thing being overlooked since this is a NEW system presumably, since it's primary use is graphics. a PCI Express Graphics card would be the route of the future.
You need a motherboard that can handle a PCI express card.
And I'm pretty sure if I were starting new from scratch a BTX case would also figure in vs ATX.
And for my own usage I've just recently learned the hard way that even 400 watts is the bare minimum for a graphics intensive setup. So far the new 600 watt supply doesn't seem to be sweating.
this 3.2 ghz Hyper threading P4 handles PSCS and GLCS at the same time with the ATI in screen TV running without a sweat. 1 gig ram. Room for 3 gigs. No puffing so haven't even considered 2 gigs ram yet.

Drives: SATA isn't that much more than IDE and speed is better than IDE. Again motherboards need to be taken into consideration.

A customer doesn't care that it takes 3 minutes, so long as they don't have to sit there waiting for it to happen. But they probably won't take that as an excuse for failure to deliver on time.

normal hd for OS, and other things.
nice video card..,. most any of the nvidia can do dual view... even the low end ones

******
shu

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Roger:

Go with a dual-core processor for sure, as max will use it to the fullest when rendering. It is also nice when you have multiple programs open (Photoshop and max for texturing, Flash and Photoshop, etc.) and dual core helps each app run at full speed. I would however, heavily recommend as much memory as you can buy, as both apps will need the memory. Extra RAM will help when you are rendering with raytrace reflections as well. I use 2GB with max now and regularly eat into the second GB of RAM when just using max for rendering.

I configured a Dell Dimension 9100 for $1749 with everything listed below but monitors. The sound card gives you FireWire support, the graphics card is very fast with lots of on-board RAM for big textures in max, and there is a DVD burner for archiving and burning animations to DVD. Later on (with next year's budget?) I would add a second hard drive and another 1GB of RAM.

I use Dell for their support and warranties, but everyone has their favorite brands, and you should be able to get a similar rig for the same price from any PC vendor.

Hope this helps.

Joel

Dimension 9100
--------------
Pentium® D Processor 830 with Dual Core Technology (3GHz, 800FSB) Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz- 2DIMMs
Dell USB Enhanced Multimedia Keyboard
Dell® 2-button USB mouse
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™ 16x DVD+/-RW with double layer write capability
9 in 1 Media Card Reader and 3.5 in Floppy Drive
256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) nVidia GeForce 6800 Sound Blaster Audigy™2 ZS (D) Card w/Dolby 5.1, and IEEE 1394 Integrated 10/100 Ethernet

then you should be able to source most of this for about 30% less, with enough left over for a decent monitor.
a site like http://www.pricewatch.com/ should help you locate parts at the best prices for you, remember, some sites probably make more on shipping than they do on the actual goods, so be aware :-)
if your not comfortable with putting something together, ask around and find a reputable mom and pop store, they could put it all together for a small fee, that way your at least going to have a system that will run and if you asked nicely, they might even be able to provide some parts themselves :-) good hunting and good luck :-)

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Good suggestions. I am from the U.S., east coast.

"Fresh_n00b" wrote in message

Whats you location Roger
it will help if we know where you are from, IE: just your country will do, because then we can direct you to appropriate vendors and suggest decent hardware for your needs.
but as an exercise in whats good, I would start with something like this (prices are just an indication of whats available in Australia) Athlon 64 dual core ( PS isnt multi thread aware but it is probably on the cards. 3D Studio Max is dual processor aware) and the Athlon 64 X2 is still miles ahead of the cobbled together Pentium D (Athlon 64 X2 3800+ $510 )
ASUS or Gigabyte 939 Motherboard preferably with the nForce 4 chipset (ASUS A8N-E $183) ( Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9 $146)
2 gig ram Geil 3200 1 gig ($189 double it for 2 gig)
a pair of Western Digital 74 gig Raptor Hard disk drives (as fast as SCSI for half the price) and set them up in Raid 0 for performance. you can add a 300gig drive for Data if needed (2 raptors for $520) the nVidia 6600GT will do everything you want in the way of video ( $245 )
and get a decent power supply to power it all, 500Watt as a minimum. ( Antec TruePower 2.0 True550 $166)
I know that all this is available for under $2000 in Australia ( I calculate it at about $1800) and if your in the US you could add a decent LCD screen as well
Gaz

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.
I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Have you price out dual core computers lately? I doubt you will get any leading edge technology for $2,000. Drop down a notch from leading edge to get the best values.

Clyde

this is only true if you want a Dell or HP piece of bloat, if your willing to get your hands a bit dirty, you can build a decent dual core system for under $2000

RAID SATA system for data files.

Why does everyone keep recommending RAID ? RAID is a backup system primarily
designed for servers not home use. And It's not a very good system at that.
A simple batch command line backup and replace file can do a better job than
RAID. Or set things to auto save every 5 minutes. Most good programs have that
designed in now.

you obviously have little to no knowledge of modern RAID setups, do you? so here you go, a small lesson in RAID
http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Articles/Storage/RAID.shtml Please explain how a simple batch command can make information travel faster to and from the Hard Disk Drive, cuz if you have this sussed, you will make millions selling this information to IBM and Seagate etc.

"Stephan" wrote in message

Roger McDoogal wrote:

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <tZnKe.27717$>,
"Roger McDoogal" wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of
$2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am
currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.

Not directly related to your question, but just as an aside:
Avoid using the "Brightness/Contrast" and "Color Balance" commands. They are 'linear' commands, which degrade the quality of the image by clipping hilight and shadow detail.

Use the Curves command instead. Curves can do everything that Brightness/Contrast and Color Balance can do, but Curves is 'nonlinear' and won't degrade your image by clipping hilight and shadow detail. Curves also offers you more control--for example, you can increase contrast only in the shadow detail without affecting detail in hilights.

Yep I use curves all the time.

No you don't, how do you know Brightness can take up to three minutes?
But thanks for offering your pompous insight
That was not pompous insight, that was actually pretty nice of him to take time to try to educate you.

that was completely unrelated to my question.

If you would have read him better you would have noticed Tacit started by saying it was "not directly related to" your question.

VERY HELPFUL!!

Yes it was VERY HELPFUL so tone it down now

Stephan

You folks presume that everyone knows less than you or that we need to be educated, which any self-respecting artist would find tedious and insulting in such a completely unrelated thread. The fact is the progressively S shaped curve produced by the brightness/contrast filter is sometimes the only tool you need, especially when you're trying to work quickly with a bad computer. Considering that I already outlined my speed problems with a mere brightness/contrast adjustment, imagine how long it would take, on the same crap computer, to eyedropper, tweak highlight, eyedropper, tweak lowlights, eye drop, tweak midtones. Under a deadline with work that hardly calls for a master stroke, is it inconceivable that someone who understands the workings of Photoshop might opt for the brightness/contrast tool? Can all the self-described gurus in this group honestly say that they have never touched brightness/contrast since learning what curves are for? Of course I didn't supply this information because it was not pertinent to the problem I was having, I felt the brightness/contrast example was enough to illustrate the problem.

As a veteran Photoshop user, I take offense to being offered unsolicited advice that can be found in the first chapter of Photoshop for Dummies. Tacit seems ready to pounce with his arcane knowledge as soon as he senses there is an opportunity to pry it into a thread, no matter how completely unrelated it is. So yes, I consider that quality pompous, presumptuous, and rude.

shu wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message

birdman wrote:

Photoshop is a single threaded application that responds to brute force computing. Therefore new dual processors will not make a difference

until or

unless Adobe issues a version of PS that takes advantage of multiple processors. MAC or Wintel makes no difference. Despite what the

Macaholics

Photoshop is currently multi-threaded. It takes advantage of hyperthreading, multiple processors, and dual core. It makes a difference too.

However, dual core computers aren't likely going to be for $2,000. Well, not the whole system anyway.

Clyde

I can build a dual core for less then 2000

a 3 ghz intel dual core is only $329

the 2.8 is 245

athlon 64 dual core are coming down real fast too

*****
shu

I could be wrong, but I though he was trying to buy a system. If he is willing to build one, he could save some money.

Clyde

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:48:59 +1000, "Fresh_n00b" wrote:

RAID SATA system for data files.

Why does everyone keep recommending RAID ? RAID is a backup system primarily
designed for servers not home use. And It's not a very good system at that.
A simple batch command line backup and replace file can do a better job than
RAID. Or set things to auto save every 5 minutes. Most good programs have that
designed in now.

you obviously have little to no knowledge of modern RAID setups, do you? so here you go, a small lesson in RAID
http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Articles/Storage/RAID.shtml Please explain how a simple batch command can make information travel faster to and from the Hard Disk Drive, cuz if you have this sussed, you will make millions selling this information to IBM and Seagate etc.

You read it. Raid came with my new system. I've done my homework. None of the setups have any good points to them, and again it's JUST a backup system. A VERY costly, not worth the effort setup.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message > >>>

As a veteran Photoshop user, I take offense to being offered unsolicited advice that can be found in the first chapter of Photoshop for Dummies. Tacit seems ready to pounce with his arcane knowledge as soon as he senses there is an opportunity to pry it into a thread, no matter how completely unrelated it is. So yes, I consider that quality pompous, presumptuous,

and

rude.

Roger

You may be a "veteran Photoshop user", but I doubt you are a "veteran user"
of this newsgroup! If you were, I am sure you would have been aware of Tacit's invaluable help and advice to many other subscribers over the years!
I note that you have only recently taken to posting on this newsgroup! and
that prior to then, you confined your comments to alt.fan.starwars (a regular contributor) - rec.sport.prowrestling - alt.fan.howard-stern and some sort of help group for those with marriage or relationship problems!! All, no doubt, laudable newsgroups in their way, but hardly indicative of your professed interest in Photoshop!
I do hope you are able to resolve your problem with your neighbour who has
uninvitedly taken to entering your home and using your computer!! Maybe I'm
actually writing to him?

Harry

"harrylimey" wrote in message

"Roger McDoogal" wrote in message > >>>

As a veteran Photoshop user, I take offense to being offered unsolicited advice that can be found in the first chapter of Photoshop for Dummies. Tacit seems ready to pounce with his arcane knowledge as soon as he senses
there is an opportunity to pry it into a thread, no matter how completely unrelated it is. So yes, I consider that quality pompous, presumptuous,

and

rude.

Roger

You may be a "veteran Photoshop user", but I doubt you are a "veteran user"
of this newsgroup! If you were, I am sure you would have been aware of Tacit's invaluable help and advice to many other subscribers over the years!
I note that you have only recently taken to posting on this newsgroup! and
that prior to then, you confined your comments to alt.fan.starwars (a regular contributor) - rec.sport.prowrestling - alt.fan.howard-stern and some sort of help group for those with marriage or relationship problems!! All, no doubt, laudable newsgroups in their way, but hardly indicative of your professed interest in Photoshop!
I do hope you are able to resolve your problem with your neighbour who has
uninvitedly taken to entering your home and using your computer!! Maybe I'm
actually writing to him?

Harry

Your reply amused me greatly. Thanks for the laugh Harry. I can't believe you did so much research on me. Due to the amount I troll those groups, I change my name frequently. But I have been in this NG for a very long time, and am well aware of Tacit's behavior. I stand by my assessment. But thanks for the chuckle, that last line was classic! I wish i had the time to go back and give fire one your way but I got deadlines. Later bro.

Roger McDoogal wrote:

You may be a "veteran Photoshop user", but I doubt you are a "veteran user"
of this newsgroup! If you were, I am sure you would have been aware of Tacit's invaluable help and advice to many other subscribers over the years!
I note that you have only recently taken to posting on this newsgroup! and
that prior to then, you confined your comments to alt.fan.starwars (a regular contributor) - rec.sport.prowrestling - alt.fan.howard-stern and some sort of help group for those with marriage or relationship problems!! All, no doubt, laudable newsgroups in their way, but hardly indicative of your professed interest in Photoshop!
I do hope you are able to resolve your problem with your neighbour who has
uninvitedly taken to entering your home and using your computer!! Maybe I'm
actually writing to him?

Harry

Your reply amused me greatly.

Sure, I can hear you laugh from here...

Thanks for the laugh Harry. I can't believe
you did so much research on me. Due to the amount I troll those groups

You a Troll?

I change my name frequently. But I have been in this NG for a very long time, and am well aware of Tacit's behavior.

Tacit is helpful, you are a troll, enough said.

I stand by my assessment. But thanks
for the chuckle, that last line was classic!

Yeah yeah, you said that already.

I wish i had the time to go
back and give fire one your way but I got deadlines. Later bro.

Talking classic, this one is!
You hang out on numerous NGs, have time to troll but you don't have time to come up with a reply.

Stephan

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:20:56 -0400, Husky wrote:

You read it. Raid came with my new system. I've done my homework. None of the setups have any good points to them, and again it's JUST a backup system. A VERY costly, not worth the effort setup.

I have to disagree somewhat. RAID is not just about backup. RAID 0 is all about speed. And RAID isn't expansive. A couple of SATA disks will give you a RAID 0 system. Three and you can do speed + backup. Most middle priced motherboards now come with RAID built in at very little extra cost. The one I most recently looked at wpou8ld take up to 4 SATA disks and with an optional (not very expensive) card would take 8, making RAID 10 an option.

Incidentally, I've used RAID (which was built into a reasonably priced mobo, and it was *easy* to set up).

Whether you want it is, however, a matter of individual choice. Personally, I like a RAID 1 set up for 2 pairs of disks and a software back up solution going to external disks (which are way more costly than RAID).

--

Hecate - The Real One

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

"Clyde" wrote in message

Roger McDoogal wrote:

"Clyde" wrote in message

Roger McDoogal wrote:

Ok, boss man said that he is getting me a new computer, and has set a cap of $2,000 with a little wiggle room if it is important enough. My standard usage includes Photoshop mostly, sometimes 300 DPI poster size documents that run extremely slow on this year-old HP pavillion (1 gig memory) I am currently using. For instance, applying a change in brightness/contrast could take up to 3 minutes to complete.
I also use of 3ds max on occasion for product modeling. Rendering a two minute movie clip can take hours.

Other programs used: Macromedia suite, Swift 3d, illustrator, microsoft office apps, etc (none of which have posed any problems thus far).
I need recommendations for a PC (not mac) with tons of power for the graphics apps. Preferrably duel monitor if it can fit into the budget. Please no flames about how macs are better, we cannot use macs here.

Check out these:

http://tinyurl.com/bsv66
http://tinyurl.com/9k5qm

NewEgg and TigerDirect are good companies that I've bought from for years. Don't expect a lot of pre-sales help and be sure you understand their return policies.

TigerDirect's deals come from buying their refurbished units. They can be great deals. Otherwise, NewEgg will be less expensive -- if they have it.
I put you on computers with AMD 64 processors. Those are the best graphics processors available right now and the prices are pretty good. You will want as fast a processor as you can afford.

The other key thing you want is lots of memory. Some of these start with 512 MB and some with 1 GB. Check very carefully how many memory slots the computer has and in how pieces the standard memory comes. If it only comes with one 512 MB and you only have 2 memory slots, you will need to buy another 1 GB DDR to make a total of 1.5 GB. I would think you would really want 2 GB of memory. More memory slots will give you more flexibility for the future. Buy as much memory as you can fit in the computer!!! (Well, 2 GB anyway. You have to configure XP Pro to get it to use 3 GB.)
You will probably want at least 120 GB of HD to start with. You may want more, but adding HD is pretty easy later. There really isn't much difference in the speed of the HD until you get into the expensive 10K RPM models. Save that for later.

Pay no attention to the computer brand. Computers are commodities and they all use the same parts. You don't need a fancy graphics card, but some of these come with them anyway.

Use your old monitor or spend the rest on a good, big CRT. They are way cheaper than LCDs and easier to color manage. A good LCD for Photoshop is very expensive. Although the LCD will be a lot less to ship.
http://tinyurl.com/cjhp9
http://tinyurl.com/ajxkn

Frankly, you can get a pretty darn good computer for $2,000. I built my own, but some of these deals are even cheaper than that.
Clyde

Thanks for the advice, Clyde. I have heard that a good graphics card is important for 3d Studio. Do you have any insight on this?

Oops, I missed that app.

Yeah, a 3D card might help that app. I've never used it though. I guess it depends on how you use it. 3D cards are very good at drawing 3D polygons, very fast and very many of them. If you are creating them rather than displaying them, you won't be using the speed of a 3D card. I could be wrong, but I bet the rendering of 3D graphics is a CPU intensive operation that doesn't use the graphics card.

Hopefully someone can tell you some real-world experience with graphics cards and 3D Studio Max.

Clyde

You got it right. However working inside the ap you do need speed for polygons. Memory too is essential. PACK IT.

then your a fool
RAID is used by servers because they have to process vast amounts of information and get it out to lots of users in a hurry, it is not just a backup solution.
you may have done some homework but you obviously didn't listen in class.

"Husky" wrote in message

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:48:59 +1000, "Fresh_n00b" wrote:

RAID SATA system for data files.

Why does everyone keep recommending RAID ? RAID is a backup system primarily
designed for servers not home use. And It's not a very good system at that.
A simple batch command line backup and replace file can do a better job than
RAID. Or set things to auto save every 5 minutes. Most good programs have
that
designed in now.

you obviously have little to no knowledge of modern RAID setups, do you? so here you go, a small lesson in RAID
http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Articles/Storage/RAID.shtml Please explain how a simple batch command can make information travel faster
to and from the Hard Disk Drive, cuz if you have this sussed, you will make
millions selling this information to IBM and Seagate etc.

You read it. Raid came with my new system. I've done my homework. None of the
setups have any good points to them, and again it's JUST a backup system. A
VERY costly, not worth the effort setup.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

I'd suggest bumping the listed system up to two GB if possible budgetwise.

Martin

JoelH wrote:

Roger:

Go with a dual-core processor for sure, as max will use it to the fullest when rendering. It is also nice when you have multiple programs open (Photoshop and max for texturing, Flash and Photoshop, etc.) and dual core helps each app run at full speed. I would however, heavily recommend as much memory as you can buy, as both apps will need the memory. Extra RAM will help when you are rendering with raytrace reflections as well. I use 2GB with max now and regularly eat into the second GB of RAM when just using max for rendering.

I configured a Dell Dimension 9100 for $1749 with everything listed below but monitors. The sound card gives you FireWire support, the graphics card is very fast with lots of on-board RAM for big textures in max, and there is a DVD burner for archiving and burning animations to DVD. Later on (with next year's budget?) I would add a second hard drive and another 1GB of RAM.

I use Dell for their support and warranties, but everyone has their favorite brands, and you should be able to get a similar rig for the same price from any PC vendor.

Hope this helps.

Joel

Dimension 9100
--------------
Pentium® D Processor 830 with Dual Core Technology (3GHz, 800FSB) Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz- 2DIMMs
Dell USB Enhanced Multimedia Keyboard
Dell® 2-button USB mouse
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™ 16x DVD+/-RW with double layer write capability
9 in 1 Media Card Reader and 3.5 in Floppy Drive
256MB PCI Express™ x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) nVidia GeForce 6800 Sound Blaster Audigy™2 ZS (D) Card w/Dolby 5.1, and IEEE 1394 Integrated 10/100 Ethernet

"Stephan" wrote in message

Roger McDoogal wrote:

You may be a "veteran Photoshop user", but I doubt you are a "veteran user"
of this newsgroup! If you were, I am sure you would have been aware of Tacit's invaluable help and advice to many other subscribers over the years!
I note that you have only recently taken to posting on this newsgroup! and
that prior to then, you confined your comments to alt.fan.starwars (a regular contributor) - rec.sport.prowrestling - alt.fan.howard-stern and some sort of help group for those with marriage or relationship problems!! All, no doubt, laudable newsgroups in their way, but hardly indicative of your professed interest in Photoshop!
I do hope you are able to resolve your problem with your neighbour who has
uninvitedly taken to entering your home and using your computer!! Maybe I'm
actually writing to him?

Harry

Your reply amused me greatly.

Sure, I can hear you laugh from here...

Thanks for the laugh Harry. I can't believe you did so much research on me. Due to the amount I troll those groups

You a Troll?

I change my name frequently. But I have been in this NG for a very long time, and am well aware of Tacit's behavior.

Tacit is helpful, you are a troll, enough said.

I stand by my assessment. But thanks for the chuckle, that last line was classic!

Yeah yeah, you said that already.

I wish i had the time to go back and give fire one your way but I got deadlines. Later bro.

Talking classic, this one is!
You hang out on numerous NGs, have time to troll but you don't have time to come up with a reply.

Stephan

Gee thanks pal. Trolls have feelings too you know.

Hey, thanks for the curves advice, tacit. Do they behave as layers? If not, how do they retain original image data?

Avoid using the "Brightness/Contrast" and "Color Balance" commands. They are 'linear' commands, which degrade the quality of the image by clipping hilight and shadow detail.

Use the Curves command instead. Curves can do everything that Brightness/Contrast and Color Balance can do, but Curves is 'nonlinear' and won't degrade your image by clipping hilight and shadow detail. Curves also offers you more control--for example, you can increase contrast only in the shadow detail without affecting detail in hilights.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <YWl_e.6864$>,
"Tom Hatfield" wrote:

Hey, thanks for the curves advice, tacit. Do they behave as layers? If not, how do they retain original image data?

They do not behave as layers, unless you use the Curves command in an adjustment layer.

When I say that the Curves command does not degrade the image, what I mean is this:

The "brightness/contrast" and "color balance" command work by moving the histogram around. In English, any subtle detail in dark shadows or in hilights is "clipped"--dark areas become pure black, and light areas become pure white. The information in shadows and hilights is lost.

The Curves command doesn't work this way; it does not clip shadow or hilight detail (unless you explicitly move the endpoints of the curve up and down or left and right). Subtle detail in the hilights and shadows remains even after using Curves.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Okay. I've tested it and can see that only the min/max components are preserved, but you lose any intermediary data if you push the curve to the extremes; i.e., I made the whole image practically white, and it was impossible to recover the original. So I misunderstood your initial statement, that's all.

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <YWl_e.6864$>,
"Tom Hatfield" wrote:

Hey, thanks for the curves advice, tacit. Do they behave as layers? If not, how do they retain original image data?

They do not behave as layers, unless you use the Curves command in an adjustment layer.

When I say that the Curves command does not degrade the image, what I mean is this:

The "brightness/contrast" and "color balance" command work by moving the histogram around. In English, any subtle detail in dark shadows or in hilights is "clipped"--dark areas become pure black, and light areas become pure white. The information in shadows and hilights is lost.
The Curves command doesn't work this way; it does not clip shadow or hilight detail (unless you explicitly move the endpoints of the curve up and down or left and right). Subtle detail in the hilights and shadows remains even after using Curves.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tom Hatfield" wrote in message

Okay. I've tested it and can see that only the min/max components are preserved, but you lose any intermediary data if you push the curve to the extremes; i.e., I made the whole image practically white, and it was impossible to recover the original. So I misunderstood your initial statement, that's all.

"tacit" wrote in message

In article <YWl_e.6864$>,
"Tom Hatfield" wrote:

Hey, thanks for the curves advice, tacit. Do they behave as layers? If not, how do they retain original image data?

They do not behave as layers, unless you use the Curves command in an adjustment layer.

When I say that the Curves command does not degrade the image, what I mean is this:

The "brightness/contrast" and "color balance" command work by moving the histogram around. In English, any subtle detail in dark shadows or in hilights is "clipped"--dark areas become pure black, and light areas become pure white. The information in shadows and hilights is lost.
The Curves command doesn't work this way; it does not clip shadow or hilight detail (unless you explicitly move the endpoints of the curve up and down or left and right). Subtle detail in the hilights and shadows remains even after using Curves.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

I think the OP is using the image> adjustment on the actual image?

Use the curves on an adjustment layer and then it doesn't do it on your original, it just appears to when combined with the layer above it. You have the option to change the adjustment at any time in the future without messing up what is under it (the original info is still all there.)

In article <%tC_e.15881$>,
"Tom Hatfield" wrote:

Okay. I've tested it and can see that only the min/max components are preserved, but you lose any intermediary data if you push the curve to the extremes; i.e., I made the whole image practically white, and it was impossible to recover the original. So I misunderstood your initial statement, that's all.

It's possible to clip information from an image using any command which changes pixels, of course. The point is that Color Balance and Brightness/Contrast always clips data, whereas Curves can do the same kinds of image adjustment without clipping.

Now, if you make any extreme change, naturally you can destroy information--but using a linear command such as Brightness/Contrast does this unnecessarily even with small changes, and so should be avoided.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html