Need a new computer -- right specs?

[cliff_gallup]

Now that I am shooting with a Nikon D200 and thinking about taking baby steps

into the world of the digital darkroom, I think I need to replace my vintage,

virus-ridden Dell. I have been considering a new 20" Apple iMac with 2GB of

RAM. Do you think this will be adequate to run the programs I will need (like

Nikon Capture and one of Lightroom, PS, Aperture etc.) at a reasonable speed,

or will I need even more RAM? Moving up to 3GB is rather expensive.

 

Thanks.

[digitmstr]

Processor & bus architecture determine computational speed, including the L2 RAM. System RAM is certainly important but, not so much for raw computational power. 2gb are certainly enough.

 

If you want a laptop the one you mentioned is fine and there are many more around equally suited, both in the Mac and PC world.

 

My personal favorites in the PC world are the AMD 64 X2 and Opteron (dual core) chips. I have two custom-built machines with those chips and they literally fly.

[a._t.2]

RAM is certainly as important as the other specs. When system resources (RAM) run out, and the swap file begins winding up, it's a severe hit in performance. 2GB is what I would (do)run-- both on my powerbook, and my PCs-- not too much, and not too little. I regularly see 1.92GB used when running Illustrator, Photoshop, Bridge, & acrobat (I layout catalogs, so Indesign may be open as well).

 

He wasn't asking about a laptop, but a desktop (imac).

[a._t.2]

add many image files open to the above list...

[Stock-Photos]

Consider reading this page

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Hu6g

[luminous world]

Having been in the computer industry for 20 years I should pass on two truisms:

 

1. Hard drives eventually fail. Period. So have an external backup and use it religiously.

 

2. Whatever amount of storage (hard disk space) you think you need, it won't be enough 2 years from now.

 

Also, get a good monitor and a color management program like Spyder.

[stephen_bay]

<p>I shoot with a d200 and recently made the move from pc (dell) to mac so I've gone through the experience you are considering and I've played around with all the software you mentioned (except for PS on a mac). So here are some of my observations based on a macbook pro with 2gb ram and dual cpu pentium (2.5gb ram). I think the macbook pro should be similar in speed to the iMac.

 

<ul>

<li> Nikon capture is extremely slow on the Mac. So slow as to be unusable for me. It takes probably about 10 seconds to load an image into NC and be ready to edit. On my PC it takes closer to 2 seconds. Given that I already have 2gb ram, I don't think more ram is going to help.

<li> Lightroom runs at reasonable speed but it is only okay and not really great at anything. Aperture is better at editing/sorting and Nikon capture is better at rendering the raw in most situations. But lightroom is still in beta and I would not rely on a beta program for my workflow needs.

<li> Aperture is fantastic for editing a shoot and it's more than fast enough. But it has one serious drawback -- it requires it's own database and will not work with an existing file structure. Aperture's raw conversion quality in 1.1 is much improved but it will take some getting used to as it uses different controls from adobe camera raw and Nikon capture.

</ul>

 

<p>

My workflow is now a big mix of different programs: I use aperture (mac) to edit a shoot, I use nikon capture (PC) to render the image, and Photoshop (PC) to perform final touch-ups like spotting. Once NC and PS go native, I'll probably move to the mac versions.

 

<p>

So the bottom line is that 2GB ram should be more than enough except for Nikon Capture which will be slow until it comes out in universal format.

 

<p>

It may be possible to run Nikon Capture in parallels much faster than under rosetta but I haven't tested that possibility.

[frank_oddsocks]

Congratulations, you have discovered why software professionals dislike proprietary

formats like NEF.

 

I would leave the memory if you can. There are stories of shortages and modules going for

ridiculous money. As to whether you will need it in the next Photoshop - if Adobe want it

to remain an "industry standard" they ought to be answering that question for their

registered users.

[david_jones16]

If out and out performance is your main concern, then I'd wait until all the Apps you listed

(or at least the ones you plan on using most heavily) are Universal. Until then the spec of

the actual computer is going to be somewhat academic, since the software interpolation of

PPC code to Intel instruction set is going to be your biggest bottleneck and will probably

disappoint you.

 

So far I think only Aperture (excluding Light-room which is only in beta) is available as an

Universal binary from the apps you listed above. Photoshop will not be Universal until the

next major release sometime towards the middle of next year, so if you can hold off until

then you will probably get the 3rd (faster) or 4th (faster still) generation Intel iMac or even

an end of line 1st generation Mac Pro for the same money as the spec of the iMac you

mention. If all the apps were Universal today I would say that the Imac you mention, along

with the graphics card update would do the trick. Since Aperture is rather resource hungry

you might want to see it in action at an Apple store before you make a final decision if that

is an option open to you.

 

That being said, having just finished watching all the Aperture movies on Apple's web-site

(and placing an order for Aperture!). I'm reasonably confident that it will replace all my

existing tools (I'm a Canon user and their software is not much better than Nikon for

performance judging by some of the previous posts), if you can use Aperture for 90% of

your workflow, only dipping in PS for occasional retouching before you print, then maybe

you will not suffer to much from Rosetta. If you plan to use Aperture heaviliy then it is

worth comparing the spec of whatever machine you decide upon against the

recommended specs on Apple's website. If you are set on the iMac route then maybe the

24" would be better since you have the option of upgrading the graphics card to a higher

spec.

 

Good luck!