Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New computer for Lightroom.  (Read 13047 times)
ToddT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: July 12, 2007, 08:48:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
Logged
larkvi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2007, 11:14:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Post edited--

The point of my previous post (which was lost in rambling) was that one should really look at buying a computer for high-end applications in terms of a recurring expense, rather than saying how much one has to spend at the moment. Lightroom/Photoshop/et al. are really designed for the cutting edge, so plan on a replacement cycle of 2-3 years barring accidents.

And consider investing in better fans/case/cooling for whatever you get, as high-end machines tend to be very noisy unless you take care.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 04:39:23 PM by larkvi » Logged

ranjans
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2007, 11:46:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just build a machine for a friend where installed LR under vista, this machine is over clocked & the speed is amazing, 2 sec file conversion time.

motherboard-Asus P5b- dlx wifi
CPU-E6400 4mb L2 cache
RAM- 1x4gb ddr-2 800 mhz ram (higher choices are available too)
7600GT dual dvi display card
He already had 24inch dell wide screen
antec cabinet with 550 watt power supply
cpu cooler- thermaltake ulta-120
2x320 gb segate hdd 7200 rpm

This machine is running over clocked at 3.4Ghz & it has amazing speed  to do multi tasking.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2007, 08:19:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm about to order a configuration this weekend.  I debated for a long time about going with a high performance notebook, but in the end I can get a great desktop and an OK notebook for almost the same price as a top line notebook.  I already have a NEC 2690 monitor - which is great...   I'm not into overclocking.

Files are 1d2, raw, with CS3 and LR as the basic applications.

Intel core 2 duo 2.13, 1066 mhz 4mb l2 cache
4x1gig corasir matched PC6400 DDR2-800 memory
Asus P5W motherboard
video - not really important, but I will run Vista Home premium, so Radeon x800xl 256mb
3 x Seagate Barracuda 7200 sata 320gb,  2 mounted internally - one for programs etc and one for data and scratch disk, and one with an e-sata box for backup of the second internal.

With case, assembly, dvd this comes in at well under 2K (canadian) including taxes.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 08:20:08 AM by Tim Gray » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2007, 05:24:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if the new set of iMacs are good enough to a workable speed in Lightroom, or if one should aim higher, at a Mac Pro...
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
kinserfr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2007, 05:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I switched to Mac about 4 years ago and could not be happier. IMO, I think an iMac would serve you well. You can build a PC cheaper but you get more done with a Mac. I have been a programmer for 25+ years and I switched to Linux in the late 90's and switched to Mac when I need to do a lot more graphics (digital photography) and I gained my life back with Mac (the ultimate Linux box). I currently have a MacBook Pro 17" and I just got a NEC LCD2690wuxi-sv.

PC's are okay, but they are high maintenance in terms of keeping the OS healthy, virus free and running smooth in general. I have little faith in MS's ability to deliver a truly good OS, especially after what I have seen from Vista so far. Their problem is that they do not have a good foundation for their OS and they failed miserably with Vista.

That last paragraph should get some folks thoroughly aroused!
Logged
ToddT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2007, 09:14:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I went into the Apple Store in Chicago last week and asked one of the employees to tell me why I should buy a Mac over a PC for use with Creative Suite and Lightroom and his response was something like “ So you could be like all the Cool people that use Mac’s” or something like that. I told him “ That is one reason not to buy one! What else do you have?” He had nothing! So I left. Since I was going to upgrade my Creative Suite and get Lightroom I was thinking this would be a good time to switch to a Mac.

I can build much more computer for less with a PC that a Mac, and if I get a Mac my kids will want them too ( can’t afford that), and the last thing is I keep the PCs running at my church and a few other places so I should keep with a PC, unless someone could give me a few good reasons to change. The guy at the Apple store couldn’t.
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2007, 09:48:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Buy a Mac Pro, forget the rest.

From a former owner of  3 PCs, all replaced this year by a Mac Pro 8-core and MacBook Pro 15" laptop.

LR screams on the MacPro and with the new OSX Leopard around the corner, it will be even faster as all of the OS will be running at 64 bit.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
« Last Edit: July 15, 2007, 09:48:47 PM by budjames » Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1004


« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2007, 12:44:01 AM »
ReplyReply

The nice thing about a Mac is not only the better working operating system. It's also that all the parts have been put together for reliable performance.

What I have heard of PC owners, there is always some card or other part that doesn't play well with the rest. This is the downside of the incredible number of PC suppliers (its upside being the price).

I also have the impression that PC owners tend to upgrade more often than Mac owners (geeks aside), which would take the price advantage away.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
terence_patrick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2007, 01:04:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I went into the Apple Store in Chicago last week and asked one of the employees to tell me why I should buy a Mac over a PC for use with Creative Suite and Lightroom and his response was something like “ So you could be like all the Cool people that use Mac’s” or something like that. I told him “ That is one reason not to buy one! What else do you have?” He had nothing! So I left. Since I was going to upgrade my Creative Suite and get Lightroom I was thinking this would be a good time to switch to a Mac.

I can build much more computer for less with a PC that a Mac, and if I get a Mac my kids will want them too ( can’t afford that), and the last thing is I keep the PCs running at my church and a few other places so I should keep with a PC, unless someone could give me a few good reasons to change. The guy at the Apple store couldn’t.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no more compelling of a reason to buy a Mac other than you like to work on one.  I was a diehard Windows guy (was MCSE certified for 5 years) prior to using a Mac at a studio I worked for.  From that point, I was hooked on the simplicity and intuitiveness of the OS and most software available that I use.  From time to time I help friends who need tech support on Windows machines and I find it incredible how complicated XP and especially Vista has become, especially when installing new hardware.  Of course, to each their own and if you're considering a Mac, you should probably spend some time using one before making the plunge.  Just beware, Macs are not the magic computing bullet, but just a different way of completing the same task.
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2007, 01:14:51 AM »
ReplyReply

You certainly want to look into getting a Mac.  I have a very humble Mac, a 1.67GHz G4 with a gig of Ram.  I have been reading on the Lightroom forum all year about people with high spec PCs having speed issues with Lightroom.  When they give figures for an action, I copy it and time my system and usually find my little Mac an order of magnitude quicker.  Alternatively, if I do some photo editing on a late spec PC, I am amazed at how slow it is.  I don't know why this should be but presume the way the operating system handles graphics files is much more direct on a Mac (there must be a lot of computer savvy people on this forum who could explain).  Presumably the intel Macs will absolutely smoke by comparison.  Don't forget, you can run all your Windows programmes on an intel Mac, so no need to get your kids something different to match.

The best thing would be to try to find someone local running CS3 or Lightroom on a new Mac and just try it.  It's got to be easier than plugging a whole lot of bits together and hoping it's enough.

Don.
Logged

Don
kinserfr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2007, 02:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I went into the Apple Store in Chicago last week and asked one of the employees to tell me why I should buy a Mac over a PC for use with Creative Suite and Lightroom and his response was something like “ So you could be like all the Cool people that use Mac’s” or something like that. I told him “ That is one reason not to buy one! What else do you have?” He had nothing! So I left. Since I was going to upgrade my Creative Suite and get Lightroom I was thinking this would be a good time to switch to a Mac.

I can build much more computer for less with a PC that a Mac, and if I get a Mac my kids will want them too ( can’t afford that), and the last thing is I keep the PCs running at my church and a few other places so I should keep with a PC, unless someone could give me a few good reasons to change. The guy at the Apple store couldn’t.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, there are people out there that own Mac's for the cool factor. That's not why I own one. It you want a tremendously stable OS, don't want to hassle with viruses and don't want to have to dink round with hardware / driver issues, but a Mac. If you want to be productive and get things done, then buy a Mac. If work is more important than working on a PC then buy a Mac.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2007, 11:01:44 AM »
ReplyReply

If you know very little about computers, how they work, and just like to propagate old myths to make yourself feel better...buy a mac

If you want to save money, work faster, have access to 100x+ more apps and hardware...buy a PC

IF you are one of the VERY RARE (percentage wise) users that NEED the benefits of a mac, such as very large memory installations, use of specialized production mac-only apps, etc...by all means buy and enjoy a mac.

Just don't try and convince yourself macs don't crash, don't have spyware and viruses or hardware/driver issues too.  They do.  It's just not a big deal, like it hasn't been a big deal on PCs for YEARS.  XP and Vista are every bit as stable, OS speaking, as OSX (nothing special, just a linux dirivative called FreeBSD that also runs on a PC).  In fact there is nothing special about most 'macs' whatsoever.  It's 99% the same hardware as a PC, and you can (illegally) run OSX on many PCs (so my friend tells me  ).  The only difference between a PC and a small percentage of upper level macs, is the ability to install 2x the amount of physical ram on the motherboard, as a desktop PC.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 11:03:44 AM by kaelaria » Logged

bduke
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2007, 02:36:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe in having one computer for everything, so i can pickup and go when needed.  So, I went the other direction, I purchased a new notebook:
-  Dell D630
-  2 GHz processor (can be upgrade if needed)
-  2 GB memory (room for 2 GB more if needed)
-  7200 rpm drive
-  Vista Ultimate
-  LR 1.1
-  and all the standard business apps and such
plus a new 22" flat panel display.

All running very well.
Logged
kinserfr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2007, 05:15:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you know very little about computers, how they work, and just like to propagate old myths to make yourself feel better...buy a mac

If you want to save money, work faster, have access to 100x+ more apps and hardware...buy a PC

IF you are one of the VERY RARE (percentage wise) users that NEED the benefits of a mac, such as very large memory installations, use of specialized production mac-only apps, etc...by all means buy and enjoy a mac.

Just don't try and convince yourself macs don't crash, don't have spyware and viruses or hardware/driver issues too.  They do.  It's just not a big deal, like it hasn't been a big deal on PCs for YEARS.  XP and Vista are every bit as stable, OS speaking, as OSX (nothing special, just a linux dirivative called FreeBSD that also runs on a PC).  In fact there is nothing special about most 'macs' whatsoever.  It's 99% the same hardware as a PC, and you can (illegally) run OSX on many PCs (so my friend tells me  ).  The only difference between a PC and a small percentage of upper level macs, is the ability to install 2x the amount of physical ram on the motherboard, as a desktop PC.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the fours years I have had a Mac at home I have had zero viruses, zero spyware, only one hardware issue and I have only had the OS crash on me twice. I would have to emphatically and categorically disagree with this post. After 25+ years as a professional programmer in the desktop environment  my preference is with the Mac.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2007, 06:30:52 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, well in the last 4 years, I have had zero viruses, zero spyware, zero hardware issues (and I've built 3 complete systems since that time) and not had the OS (Windows XP and most recently Vista) crash a single time.  The last blue screen of death I saw was running Windows ME, over 6 years ago.  I use several systems for 16+ hours a day for all kinds of uses.  I serve and maintain 40+ workstations (all Windows XP) daily and have not had a single OS crash in the 6+ years they have been deployed.  Every single crash, unexpected reboot, etc. has been due to events beyond human control and irrespective of the platform - lighting strike, power outage, network failure, buggy application, and by FAR THE #1 CAUSE OF PROBLEMS - USER ERROR.  Stupid users will cause grief on whatever system you give them.

Shows you how irrelavent such testimonials are, doesn't it (mine is 100% true BTW)?  You and I both know that 'how many viruses' and 'how much spyware' one gets is 100% due to the operator - NOTHING to do with the computer or OS.  You hear about Macs having less infections for two simple reasons:

1 - there are hardly any Mac users compared to Windows.
2 - there are far fewer viruses and spyware written for a Mac, because of fact #1.

It's simply odds, not by virtue of the platform.

By the flawed logic shown by many mac-fan-boys, the Timex Sinclair has the Best OS, because it has never crashed, and has never had a virus or spyware effect it.   LOL
« Last Edit: July 16, 2007, 06:32:32 PM by kaelaria » Logged

X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2007, 01:55:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Shows you how irrelavent such testimonials are, doesn't it (mine is 100% true BTW)?  You and I both know that 'how many viruses' and 'how much spyware' one gets is 100% due to the operator - NOTHING to do with the computer or OS.

     This is simply not fact. There have been (and theoretically still are) holes in each OS out there (including Unixes, etc) that allow a perpetrator to load in an intrusive program of some sort without the user requiring anything to allow it. In many cases, this occurs through a system service of some form, and it is not intuitively obvious (even to a skilled systems expert) that the service might be a bad thing to be running. Further, if a fix is not available from the vendor, it may not be possible to correct the situation.

     Proper networking of the system obviously helps, etc - but there are still situations where a competent user can get into trouble. Luckily, the technology available today makes those situations rare...

Quote
  You hear about Macs having less infections for two simple reasons:

1 - there are hardly any Mac users compared to Windows.
2 - there are far fewer viruses and spyware written for a Mac, because of fact #1.

     I wouldn't go so far as to say "hardly any". There's a significant enough Mac user community that viruses and spyware are on the rise for those platforms. But, in general, you are correct - the Windows platform is more widely available. It also would appear to have been more porous at the outset of XP - and been tightened up fairly significantly following the "CNN moments" that Microsoft had with security.


      I use LR and CS3 on a Windows platform running XP. I have experienced two BSoD that were driver related issues, and fixed by patches. Eventually, I will run a Mac platform, but for reasons other than stability (certainly, MacOS has had its issues, if you dig into it enough). The simple answer is - there is not a perfect platform out there. Use what works. Stop throwing stones at others for using something different.
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2007, 02:20:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, OK, fine - call it what you will.  Personally, I call single digit percentages of the market share 'hardly any, relatively speaking'.  If you want to church it up, be my guest.

So please, do tell (one example will do) of what 'invasive' program will cause an unstable OS 'without the user requiring anything to allow it.'  Remember, that means it's 100% the OS' fault - that's what we are talking about.  So no browser or other internet app, no user loading of anything...just a computer sitting there being 'invaded' all by itself.

Or perhaps you want to revise your claim...

Congrats on your BSod.  I never said it doesn't happen.  I said it happens on both platforms and it's no big deal - you proved my point.

Read my posts again, I'm not throwing a single stone - I'm stating FAIR statements, to counter fan-boy ramblings.  I would do the same if someone was claiming the PC to be the 'best'.

They both have their place - but it pays to be informed and not default to one or the other based on BS and myths, especcially those repeated daily on the internet by uninformed users.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 02:21:29 PM by kaelaria » Logged

bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2007, 04:43:48 PM »
ReplyReply

HEY TODD - Aren't you glad you asked?

The people that are willing to purchase a platform that has a tiny market share (check this out: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/ma...hare/index.php) are by their nature going to be defensive and zealous.  Hey, it's a free world.  Whatever floats your boat.

One thing I would throw in is to evaluate what you plan to build vs what you can buy say through Dell.  I have built quite a few computers.  The last time was about 4 years ago. I built two machines, pretty high end stuff (all bought at Fry's).

About a week later I figured out I could have done slightly better at Dell.  I would have had something more reliable, and could have spent the weekend shooting pictures or some other worthwhile time investment instead of futzing with electronics.

If it is a hobby you enjoy, then by all means build.  If not, you might be able to do as well or better in terms of time and money.

Both of those computers are dead now, and essentially not repairable (shuttles).

Bob

ps: But I agree it is hilarious to visit a mac store!
Logged

Hermie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 207


« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2007, 05:14:31 PM »
ReplyReply

How would you 'techies' rate a workstation like this. The basic configuration costs EUR 2.650. I would need some additional memory and hard drives though.

See http://www.maqina.nl/product/formconfig.as...uctID=760933631
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad