help me purchase a new PC

[hayward]

<p>Somebody had to say it: 'Get a MacBook."</p>

<p>I've had 12-15 PCs at home and work over the last 20 years and my wife got me a MacBook about a year ago. It never crashes, everything works when you plug it in, and it downloads and processes photos dramatically faster. My old PC crashed all the time when trying to upload photos from my camera. I've also lost three computers to viruses in the last three years (my kids on facebook and youtube...), even with protection programs. Not a problem with Mac.</p>

<p>The downside is the cost and the fact that there are still a couple of websites and applications that require a PC.</p>

[peteraitch]

<p>There are various virtual machines you can set up yourself (e.g. Sun, VMWare) on Win 7 but they require a separate licensed copy of another OS (e.g. WinXP) . I use several of these for various purposes on my main machine, but then again I build my own systems and like to play!</p>

<p>I got Win7 Pro for my main machine because I wanted to run my old scanner software (Minolta) under VirtualXP and for once I'm impressed by Microsoft's efforts. After initial installation, it runs seamlessly on the desktop, although I have to use a USB connection for the scanner since it does not seem to detect the FireWire one. The performance hit is unnoticeable (I use a quad-core processor with Harware Virtualisation support, but it's slightly less high-end than the i5 or i7 processors being sold now). 4GB of RAM is plenty for me - but I do also have a Solid State Drive, which is perhaps only for enthusiasts at this stage.</p>

<p>Oh, and get 64-bit - but be prepared to ditch your older peripherals for lack of driver support under Win7. I've had to replace my WebCam and my FaxModem card (I sometimes still send faxes).</p>

<p>Dell are pretty good - we've got a Dell laptop (I don't build those!) and I specced up a Dell desktop for my elderly Dad (no time to build his!) which has been excellent and very good value for money.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>1) Check spec sheets and info at retailers, go for what your budget can handle. Hyperthreading on some procs. allow for even more speed through parallel processing. I think i3's are dual core, i5's quad core, and i7's are 4-6 cores with hyperthreading (8-12 logical cores). There may be some dual-core with hyperthreading options.</p>

<p>2) If you don't need virtualization, some advanced networking features and a few other features that are useless to most home users, Home Premium would be fine.</p>

[william-porter]

<blockquote>

Somebody had to say it: 'Get a MacBook."

</blockquote>

Nobody <em>had</em> to say it. But I suppose it is inevitable that somebody <em>would. </em>:-)

 

I do appreciate the concern for my happiness, but let me stipulate: I have been using Macs since 1985. I've owned over 40 of 'em. I have been writing for Macworld for about a decade. I am aware of the Mac option. The question I asked stated that I needed a PC that runs Windows 7. I am aware that I can run Windows 7 on an Intel Mac. I just don't want to. I have my own reasons for wanting to have more than one computer.

 

(I could say more, but I don't want to hijack my own thread.)

 

Will

[phule]

<p>William,</p>

<p>The i7 family is Intel's top-of-the-line consumer CPU. The i7-860 that's included with the XPS 8100 has 4 cores each running at 2.8GHz. </p>

<p> </p>

[william-porter]

<p>Thanks for Brad and Rob for clarification re "quad core." Looks like it might be a good idea to get at least an i5. </p>

<p>I'm definitely NOT a gamer so I don't need that kind of power. Editing my raw files in Lightroom is about the most demanding thing I do on my computer. (I deal with databases a lot too in my other job but I've never had a problem there.) I want the speed mainly because right now it may take me a couple of seconds simply to load and view a raw file in Lightroom. When editing hundreds of files from a shoot, those seconds start to add up! It would make a world of difference to me if I could move from image to image a bit more efficiently.</p>

<p>I'm just about decided on the Dell Studio XPS 8100. I may go with the base machine, which has an Intel Core i5-650 processor. In order to keep the cost down now, I think I'll get 4 GB of RAM to start with, and stick with the basic video card (an NVIDIA card with 512Mb of video memory). I do have to add a wireless card, and for a mere $50 I think I'll upgrade to a 640 GB internal drive (rather than the base 500 GB drive).</p>

<p>Think I'm going to place that order and then think about the monitor separately. As far as I can tell there's no price break for buying the monitor at the same time. I am leaning to the 21.5" Dell monitor (1940x1080px) which sounds nice and isn't too expensive ($200). But I might be able to get a good monitor for less.</p>

<p>The big question for me right now is, do I really need Win 7 Pro? I've just about talked myself out of it. </p>

<p>Will </p>

[daniel_farina]

<p>BUY A MAC</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>Brad Smith - thanks for the link and good to know. I just hit the incompatibility a couple of weeks ago so I'm going to get that box all updated and try again!<br>

Will, you should be fine without Win7 Pro, but get the 64 bit OS for your future ram expansion options when today's technology will be cheaper. I don't think Windows Home versions have XP mode but if you need it you can always use something like Virtual Box on Windows Home. 4 GB should get you by. I have a AMD dual core CPU and 4 GB and I wouldn't mind a little more speed for batch processing but it's very usable for the majority of what I do.<br>

It sounds like you are on a good track. I typically use AMD chips for lower prices, but the Intel chips are very nice too. They are not interchangeable so once you go with one of the other you cannot change to the other without changing your motherboard too.<br>

I just got one of <a href="http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-0921&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=CJ&cid=24471&lid=566643&acd=10550055-404255-133954">these Dell 21.5" monitors</a> for myself and it seems nice enough. Definitely for the price. I could see a slightly bigger one being better but it's by no means small IMO. I had to dial down the brightness to get a good picture. Working with landscape images is great, but portrait orientation make me wish it was a little taller. It's still much nicer than what it replaced for less money, so I'm happy.</p>

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>There's a new option for "laptops" now, the small, ten inch net or mini laptops that sell for under $400. If you want portability and power for photographs, then get the desktop everyone's talking about above and then later get one of the 2-3 pound mini laptops to take with you on trips to download backup copies from your camera. Best of both worlds and the small laptops have a small screen but good enough to review images for deletion and saving, etc. </p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>RAM is easy to upgrade, and it gets cheaper by the day.<br>

So I'd go for the most powerful processor you can get, even if it means installing less RAM at first (not less than 4 gig however). <br>

It seems to me that would ensure the longest possible service life for the system.</p>

 

[KenPapai]

<p>TWO WEEKS AGO -- I had a quadcore i5 750 CPU built, with 8GB RAM, 1TB on 2 internal drives, plenty of USB ports, esp. the essential eSATA (for FAST external hard drives), CD/DVD for $995. (the Motherboard is an MSI P55-GD65 -- Intel® P55 chipset, i5-750 CPU.)</p>

<p ></p>

<p>I installed Windows 7 (Ultimate / 64-bit) myself. That was awesome because no 3rd party crap whatsoever, so very, very CLEAN.<br>

Then I moved my PS CS4 download install to this new box. Photoshop in 64-bit SCREAMS. Bridge is still 32-bit. CS5 should fix all of that!</p>

[paul_scharf_]

<p>If you want to run Lightroom and run it fast, you'll want to get the i7 (quad core processor), along with 8 gig of memory, 2 hard drives in a Raid 0 configuration (for faster I/O) and then you'll need a good monitor. One that you can calibrate, if you plan to edit your images and not trust it to the lab to get the colors right. If so, then you'll need a good one. There aren't too many good calibrateable flat screen monitors out there. Check Shootsmarter.com for their recommendations or any other professional photography web site that you can trust or ask a pro lab for their recommendations. Or, you can just buy a 21" / 27" iMac, which comes with a high quality, calibrateable flat screen monitor and load Windows 7 in dual boot mode so you can have the best of the two worlds.</p>

[ervinbacik]

<p>Why don't you make your own configuration? For 1000$ you can have a monster PC. Pick one quad core processor (Intel), 8-10 GB of memory (Kingston), two fast 1 TB hard drives (Seagate), a good monitor, a middle level graphic card (NVidia) and a middle level motherboard (Gigabyte). Everything else isn't important. After 48 hours of testing in the shop, your PC will fly like the wind.<br>

I got just a duo core, just 4 GB of memory, just a 500 GB hard drive and i didn't have any problems since i got it (2 years). </p>

[william-porter]

<p>Not gonna build my own PC. That's fine for some folks. I'd simply lose money doing it—for me, time is money, and there's no way I could do something like that without wasting an enormous amount of time. </p>

<p>I was all ready to pull the trigger on the Dell Studio XPS 8100, and then I saw this HP Pavilion Elite HPE-150t. Similar or same processor as the Dell, but 6 GB of RAM and 640 GB storage (as opposed to 4 GB and 500 GB storage in the Dell). I've never owned an HP. Anybody have a recommendation? The price difference isn't great and I'm comfortable with Dell, so it's not a big deal. <br>

<br /></p>

[danielsimionescu]

<p>We are in the same boat (looking for computers), only that I'm sure about desktop (like most of the people in this topic, too).<br>

<br /> About configuration, I will very likely go for the i7 with 2.8GHz. I asked an IT guy - friend, not salesman :) - and he told me that when is about processors, it's not all about speed anymore. For example an i7 with 2.8Ghz is more stronger than an i5 with 3.2GHz. You can see the exact configuration at<br /> <br /> http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/compare-result.aspx?ProductIds=%2C10137261%2C10137276&returnPath=%257e%252fcatalog%252fcategory.aspx%253fpath%253df7ffd2127ffffbc6eac9332fe93123f3en01%2526category%253d10607%2526lang%253den<br>

<br /> About RAM, keep in mind that the 64-bit Windows 7 eats around 2GHz of RAM, so do the math and check how much you need. I'll go for 8 gigs.<br>

<br /> By the way, here's how my toy looks so far<br /> HP Pavilion Elite Intel Core i7-860<br />Processor Speed 2.8GHz<br />RAM 8 GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM (Exp. To 16 GB)<br />Hard Drive Speed/Capacity 1 TB SATA<br />Optical Drives Super Multi LightScribe DVD Burner<br />Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT230<br />Pre-loaded Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit<br />Video Memory 1.5 GB<br />Price 1300CAD<br>

<br /> Theese are my suggestions, but I'm wide open if there's anything I should know...<br>

<br /> Good luck (to both of us:),<br />Daniel.</p>

[garrison_k.]

If time is money, then Dell and HP are your worst choices. Going home-built, or getting the local PC builder on the corner of Main St, is the way to go in terms of longevity and reliability.

 

Whatever you get today, make sure the mobo has the new 6gb/s sata and not yesterdays 3gb/s sata. This will be crucial for hard drive speed. New USB3 is out as well. Be cautious you're not buying old stock.

[nathancraver]

<p>MAC</p>

[philip_roberts1]

<p>As a mac user can I say to all who have contributed the 'get a mac' answers - the man is already a mac user - read the thread!<br>

For PC's I use Dell, they are not perfect but consistent results and good customer service (in UK anyway) in my experience.<br>

For image editing - get as much RAM & Video RAM as you can hold, don't fret about graphics cards or processors, they are mostly all adequate (unless you deliberately buy the stripped down budget model).<br>

If you want portability or space saving - Laptop<br>

Bang for buck - Desktop</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I agree with Paul. RAID 0 drives stripes half of each file on the system to two drives. I use RAID 0 and EVERYTHNG is FAST !</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong> Get a desktop with RAID 0 drives for super speed.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree the glossy displays are to be avoided. Unless you <strong>absolutely </strong>need the portability... Get a desktop, a better performer, dollar for dollar.</p>

<p> </p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"MAC"</p>

<p>Problems with reading comprehension? The OP clearly stated that he's looking for a Win 7 PC.</p>

[garrison_k.]

Yes, I agree. I feel todays bottleneck is hard drives. I've been RIAD O on everything for donkey's ages. I've never had a problem with it and suggest it to everyone. My only concern is that it can be tricky doing system back-up's and restores. Acronis seems to be the worst one for RAID systems but that's just my experience. At the moment I use Ghost v15. I can not express how important I feel doing a system clone is. It is your cheapest form of insurance and virus protection.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Very simple. . . . . Buy . . . . . . a . . . . . . MAC. . . . . . . You never going to regret it.</p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p><em>Buy a MAC...you'll never regret it.</em></p>

<p>NONESENSE. Our household has two PCs and two Macs, one a MacPro and one an iMac. They are just as much a pain the ass as the PCs. The are all electronic and mechanical devices, they all break or need service at one time or another. And quite frankly, unless you live in a large city (which I don't), getting your MAC serviced can be a major effort.</p>

<p>MACs come with their own set of irritants, just as PCs.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I've been a fulltime PC professional since 1982, and yes, I've been around Macs since 1985 or so (thin and fat Macs) to this day. I see zero advantage in changing stripes and going to a Mac.</p>

<p>None. Especially considering Windows 7. With Windows Vista you Mac proponents had an edge briefly.</p>

[mneace]

I has an i7 920 with 6gb ram, and I also use lightroom 3 beta. Have a nice video card too, and my machine takes some

time to render raw photos in Lightroom, unless I render 1 to 1 first. That takes about 1 hour per 1,000 raw images so I just

run it overnight.

 

So, if you think an i7 will solve your rendering problem, it won't.