Ideal laptop for Photoshop
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
scribbled:
> Well I agree, the MAC lacks something that sets the PC's apart. LOTS of
>BLUE SCREENS!
Seriously, this Apple vs PC whinge-fest was a fucking old and decayed
corpse a decade ago. Grow the fuck up, rent a life, do something other
than pretend your life has value based on the computer you jack off to
porn on.
  |
  |
>
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7q27ckFihU1@mid.individual.net...
>> krp schreef op 30-12-2009 :
>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7q1ig3FbrnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> krp stelde dit idée voor :
>>>>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:17ekoxg9wxyil.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes - VISTA is such a GREAT SUCCESS!
>>>>
>>>> You think VISTA means 'Virus Inside, Switch To Apple'?
>>>>
>>>> VISTA was (and is) in the same direction as Win ME. Win 7 is much
>>>> better than Vista.
>>>
>>> Oh bullshit, Widows 7 has its own set of fatal errors. Its main
>>> advantage over Vista is that it just gets to the CRASH sooner! Not to
>>> mention the MANY MANY MANY problems with upgrading. You ARE aware of
>>> the FATAL ERROR at 65% aren't you? If not warned and prepared with
>>> entering a secret code, you CRASH and lose ALL your data and
>>> software, or did you ignore the instructions to "BACK UP EVERYTHING
>>> BEFORE STARTING THE UPGRADE?" It's TYPICAL Bill Gates BULLSHIT, and
>>> has a host of NEW compatibility problems.
>>>
>>> I have PC's - I stay with PC's because I have NO choice at this late
>>> date. I' too invested after almost 20 years on PC's. I wish I had
>>> gone with Apple. BUT way back then Apple had few business
>>> applications. They didn't have a good word processor. Nothing like
>>> Word Perfect. The MAC word processor that was decent came along
>>> later. But for images Apple had it WAY over the PC.
>>
>> Yup.. you said it: HAD... (last sentence)
>
> Well I agree, the MAC lacks something that sets the PC's apart. LOTS of
> BLUE SCREENS!
I haven't seen a blue screen in home use since WinXP - and I use my
machine pretty hard. At work (a h/w & s/w engineering environment) blue
screens do happen, but that is usually due to the application work in
process.
My Mac on occasion goes into a funk where everything seems to run like
molasses or the beach ball reigns supreme. I don't reboot often, for
that matter it's usually forced by OS or apps patches from Apple, but
when the Mac gets slow it needs a clean reboot.
While I believe the Mac OS X is a more solid and properly designed and
evolved platform than Windblows, in practical use, I don't see very much
difference other than I re-boot less often to freshen up the system.
Where OS X _may_ begin to really distance itself from Windohs is when
applications are written to take advantage of both GCD and OpenCL. On
machines with 4 and more cores and 2 (or more) GPU's, this could really
make apps perform at screaming rates. More of interest perhaps to the
HD video crowd than plain image work. But the apps have to catch up to
the OS. I don't know where MS are with OpenCL or OS controlled
poly-threaded task dispatching.
| |
|
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:34:53 -0500, Fruit2O wrote:
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> used primarily for Photoshop.
Interesting reading here re displays:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9320-9 876
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> used primarily for Photoshop.
Interesting reading here re displays:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9320-9 876
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:25:50 -0800, Mike Russell
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:
>
>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>
>But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
>monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.
I agree Mike, there is no "one is better than the other" here.
They both have their pluses and minuses. They only difference between
a MAC and a PC are the operating systems. The ideal thing would be to
buy a PC, wipe the hard drive, and install the latest MAC OS if you
think that's better. The problem is, Apple won't allow you to do that
because if they did, no one would buy a MAC. It's a lot cheaper to
buy a PC than it is to buy a MAC. I mean, look at the laptops....you
can't buy a MAC laptop for under $1000, but you can buy a PC for $400.
If you could put the MAC OS on this laptop, you'd have a MAC laptop
for $400, and save $600.
I don't care for MACs....that's just a personal preference and is
in no way meant to put down a MAC. Over the years, I have downloaded
hundreds of small programs that I use on my PC. I have found that a
lot (not all) of these programs are not designed for the MAC. It
seems that there is a lot more software designed for the PC than there
is for the MAC. The thing is, do you need this software? Maybe not,
so if you had a MAC, it wouldn't affect you. I will add that there is
software designed just for the MAC,
It's just that I don't want to be limited in any software that I
might want, so I stick with a PC. There is just more software.
As far as the PC vs MAC wars go, there is no winner, so why argue
over which is better? If it does what you need it to do, then you
have the right computer for you.
Talker
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:
>
>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>
>But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
>monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.
I agree Mike, there is no "one is better than the other" here.
They both have their pluses and minuses. They only difference between
a MAC and a PC are the operating systems. The ideal thing would be to
buy a PC, wipe the hard drive, and install the latest MAC OS if you
think that's better. The problem is, Apple won't allow you to do that
because if they did, no one would buy a MAC. It's a lot cheaper to
buy a PC than it is to buy a MAC. I mean, look at the laptops....you
can't buy a MAC laptop for under $1000, but you can buy a PC for $400.
If you could put the MAC OS on this laptop, you'd have a MAC laptop
for $400, and save $600.
I don't care for MACs....that's just a personal preference and is
in no way meant to put down a MAC. Over the years, I have downloaded
hundreds of small programs that I use on my PC. I have found that a
lot (not all) of these programs are not designed for the MAC. It
seems that there is a lot more software designed for the PC than there
is for the MAC. The thing is, do you need this software? Maybe not,
so if you had a MAC, it wouldn't affect you. I will add that there is
software designed just for the MAC,
It's just that I don't want to be limited in any software that I
might want, so I stick with a PC. There is just more software.
As far as the PC vs MAC wars go, there is no winner, so why argue
over which is better? If it does what you need it to do, then you
have the right computer for you.
Talker
| |
|
"Talker" <Talker@thegood.com> wrote in message
news:7phrj5h83ed832j8ifjh8f2g68hqpip1fp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:25:50 -0800, Mike Russell
> <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:
>>
>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>>
>>But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
>>monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.
>
> I agree Mike, there is no "one is better than the other" here.
> They both have their pluses and minuses. They only difference between
> a MAC and a PC are the operating systems. The ideal thing would be to
> buy a PC, wipe the hard drive, and install the latest MAC OS if you
> think that's better. The problem is, Apple won't allow you to do that
> because if they did, no one would buy a MAC. It's a lot cheaper to
> buy a PC than it is to buy a MAC. I mean, look at the laptops....you
> can't buy a MAC laptop for under $1000, but you can buy a PC for $400.
> If you could put the MAC OS on this laptop, you'd have a MAC laptop
> for $400, and save $600.
> I don't care for MACs....that's just a personal preference and is
> in no way meant to put down a MAC. Over the years, I have downloaded
> hundreds of small programs that I use on my PC. I have found that a
> lot (not all) of these programs are not designed for the MAC. It
> seems that there is a lot more software designed for the PC than there
> is for the MAC. The thing is, do you need this software? Maybe not,
> so if you had a MAC, it wouldn't affect you. I will add that there is
> software designed just for the MAC,
> It's just that I don't want to be limited in any software that I
> might want, so I stick with a PC. There is just more software.
> As far as the PC vs MAC wars go, there is no winner, so why argue
> over which is better? If it does what you need it to do, then you
> have the right computer for you.
Agreed, besides, neither of those can hold a candle to the Amiga's Deluxe Paint
and its animated brushes!
--
dvus
news:7phrj5h83ed832j8ifjh8f2g68hqpip1fp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:25:50 -0800, Mike Russell
> <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:
>>
>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>>
>>But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
>>monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.
>
> I agree Mike, there is no "one is better than the other" here.
> They both have their pluses and minuses. They only difference between
> a MAC and a PC are the operating systems. The ideal thing would be to
> buy a PC, wipe the hard drive, and install the latest MAC OS if you
> think that's better. The problem is, Apple won't allow you to do that
> because if they did, no one would buy a MAC. It's a lot cheaper to
> buy a PC than it is to buy a MAC. I mean, look at the laptops....you
> can't buy a MAC laptop for under $1000, but you can buy a PC for $400.
> If you could put the MAC OS on this laptop, you'd have a MAC laptop
> for $400, and save $600.
> I don't care for MACs....that's just a personal preference and is
> in no way meant to put down a MAC. Over the years, I have downloaded
> hundreds of small programs that I use on my PC. I have found that a
> lot (not all) of these programs are not designed for the MAC. It
> seems that there is a lot more software designed for the PC than there
> is for the MAC. The thing is, do you need this software? Maybe not,
> so if you had a MAC, it wouldn't affect you. I will add that there is
> software designed just for the MAC,
> It's just that I don't want to be limited in any software that I
> might want, so I stick with a PC. There is just more software.
> As far as the PC vs MAC wars go, there is no winner, so why argue
> over which is better? If it does what you need it to do, then you
> have the right computer for you.
Agreed, besides, neither of those can hold a candle to the Amiga's Deluxe Paint
and its animated brushes!
--
dvus
| |
|
Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all
the other BS above. Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
card?
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:38:40 -0800, Mike Russell
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote:
>
>> "nsbm" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhatlr$q00$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>>> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
>>> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
>>> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
>>> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
>>> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
>>> machines are for the purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
>> a desktop LCD.
>
>The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of
>notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing
>angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting
>effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work,
>compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ...
>
>I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks,
>such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them.
>I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a
>notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display.
>
>I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important
>(particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity
>for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed
>work that was produced before display calibration technology existed.
>
>Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction.
>One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor
>calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this
>group.
>
>Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration
>is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world
>by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this
>"color by the numbers" approach to color correction.
>
>So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color
>value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about
>RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal
>RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin
>tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what
>can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image.
>
>It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and
>to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as
>landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a
>central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for
>critical work.
>
>Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color
>blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can
>learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers.
>
>Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook
>that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at
>the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core
>is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of
>Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of
>the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the
>display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop
>monitor for more critical work while you are at home.
>
>Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2,
>particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for
>critical work - this includes printing.
the other BS above. Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
card?
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:38:40 -0800, Mike Russell
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote:
>
>> "nsbm" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhatlr$q00$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>>> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
>>> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
>>> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
>>> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
>>> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
>>> machines are for the purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
>> a desktop LCD.
>
>The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of
>notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing
>angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting
>effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work,
>compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ...
>
>I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks,
>such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them.
>I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a
>notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display.
>
>I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important
>(particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity
>for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed
>work that was produced before display calibration technology existed.
>
>Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction.
>One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor
>calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this
>group.
>
>Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration
>is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world
>by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this
>"color by the numbers" approach to color correction.
>
>So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color
>value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about
>RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal
>RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin
>tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what
>can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image.
>
>It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and
>to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as
>landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a
>central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for
>critical work.
>
>Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color
>blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can
>learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers.
>
>Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook
>that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at
>the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core
>is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of
>Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of
>the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the
>display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop
>monitor for more critical work while you are at home.
>
>Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2,
>particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for
>critical work - this includes printing.
| |
|
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
> If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> are inherently slower than desktop machines.
This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work. Laptops at the high end are just as
powerful as desktop PCs these days. The downside is expandability. The
LCDs on these high end laptops are very good.
> If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> are inherently slower than desktop machines.
This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work. Laptops at the high end are just as
powerful as desktop PCs these days. The downside is expandability. The
LCDs on these high end laptops are very good.
| |
|
In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> wrote:
> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>
> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> wrote:
> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>
> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
| |
|
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:21:14 -0500, Fruit2O wrote:
> Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all
> the other BS above.
Hey, everything comes to he who waits, LOL.
> Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
> card?
Graphics card performance is not really an issue if you will be doing
normal 2D image work. If you will be using the 3D features of Photoshop
Extended, that might be a different story, but even so, Photoshop is not a
gaming app where you need to render images at 60 fps or more.
Depending on your budget, I'd go with a 64 bit system that will take at
least 8 gigs of memory - this will allow you to handle larger images such
as panoramas and mosaics, and use the raw converter more efficiently.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
> Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all
> the other BS above.
Hey, everything comes to he who waits, LOL.
> Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
> card?
Graphics card performance is not really an issue if you will be doing
normal 2D image work. If you will be using the 3D features of Photoshop
Extended, that might be a different story, but even so, Photoshop is not a
gaming app where you need to render images at 60 fps or more.
Depending on your budget, I'd go with a 64 bit system that will take at
least 8 gigs of memory - this will allow you to handle larger images such
as panoramas and mosaics, and use the raw converter more efficiently.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
On 10-01-02 20:18 , John Stafford wrote:
> In article<slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste"<SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>>> If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>>> are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
> They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
Our mech engineer does most of his work on a laptop, and this includes
3D prep for manufacturing work and the usual assortment of mechanical
engineering drawing packages. Generates renderings from the drawings as
a BG task while he works on other parts or other projects. This way he
can go visit suppliers and parts makers and work with them on his actual
project. All he has to do is backup the work overnight.
Are there desktops that are more powerful? Sure. Would such allow him
to work faster? I doubt it very much.
> In article<slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste"<SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>>> If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>>> are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
> They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
Our mech engineer does most of his work on a laptop, and this includes
3D prep for manufacturing work and the usual assortment of mechanical
engineering drawing packages. Generates renderings from the drawings as
a BG task while he works on other parts or other projects. This way he
can go visit suppliers and parts makers and work with them on his actual
project. All he has to do is backup the work overnight.
Are there desktops that are more powerful? Sure. Would such allow him
to work faster? I doubt it very much.
| |
|
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.ten>
scribbled:
>In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
>They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
If you're going to make ludicrous bullshit claims could you at least
pull some ludicrous bullshit facts out of your ass for everyone to laugh
at? Thanks.
scribbled:
>In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
>They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
If you're going to make ludicrous bullshit claims could you at least
pull some ludicrous bullshit facts out of your ass for everyone to laugh
at? Thanks.
| |
|
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
> In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
> They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
powerful as the any workstation. The only drawback is expandability
and the only reason to use a workstation these days.
> In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> wrote:
>> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>
>> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>
> They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
powerful as the any workstation. The only drawback is expandability
and the only reason to use a workstation these days.
| |
|
In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
> > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> >> wrote:
> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
> >>
> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
> >
> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>
> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
> powerful as the any workstation.
Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
> > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> >> wrote:
> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
> >>
> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
> >
> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>
> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
> powerful as the any workstation.
Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
| |
|
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
> In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
>> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>> > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
>> > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>> >>
>> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>> >
>> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>>
>> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
>> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
>> powerful as the any workstation.
>
> Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
> true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
powered laptop.
> In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
>> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>> > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
>> > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>> >>
>> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>> >
>> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>>
>> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
>> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
>> powerful as the any workstation.
>
> Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
> true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
powered laptop.
| |
|
In article <slrnhkkr3p.sga.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
> > true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>
> Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>
> Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
> video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
> powered laptop.
I just checked them out. I think I'll get one for work.
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
> > true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>
> Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>
> Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
> video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
> powered laptop.
I just checked them out. I think I'll get one for work.
| |
|
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:13:41 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
> In article <slrnhkkr3p.sga.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop
>> wrote:
>
>> > Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
>> > true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>>
>> Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>>
>> Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>> video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>> powered laptop.
>
> I just checked them out. I think I'll get one for work.
Just for the record this isn't the principal workstation that I use;
It's for meeting with clients outside. We needed a powerhouse portable
for that.
> In article <slrnhkkr3p.sga.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop
>> wrote:
>
>> > Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
>> > true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>>
>> Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>>
>> Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>> video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>> powered laptop.
>
> I just checked them out. I think I'll get one for work.
Just for the record this isn't the principal workstation that I use;
It's for meeting with clients outside. We needed a powerhouse portable
for that.
| |
|
"Fruit2O" <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com...
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
> necessarily current models).
if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
get a mac...
news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com...
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
> necessarily current models).
if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
get a mac...
| |
|
On 10-01-24 17:05 , the_niner_nation wrote:
>
> "Fruit2O" <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com...
>> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
>> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
>> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
>> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
>> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
>> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
>> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
>> necessarily current models).
>
> if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your
> account, or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I
> suggest you get a mac...
BS. For a recent trip I bought a cheap WinXP Netbook with 1 GB ram and
a single core intel atom @1.6 GHz. With 24.6 Mpixel raws, it would load
a DNG into PS Elements/raw import in about 10-15 seconds and thence into
PS in another 10 or 15 seconds.
24.6 Megapixels per raw, mind you ... It also processed all the raws
into DNG's at a rate of about 4 per minute using DNG converter.
Sold the netbook on return for about the same price I paid for it, minus
sales tax... pretty good rental rate.
Myths about Windows just show you to be a brainless Mac fanboi.
>
> "Fruit2O" <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com...
>> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
>> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
>> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
>> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
>> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
>> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
>> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
>> necessarily current models).
>
> if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your
> account, or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I
> suggest you get a mac...
BS. For a recent trip I bought a cheap WinXP Netbook with 1 GB ram and
a single core intel atom @1.6 GHz. With 24.6 Mpixel raws, it would load
a DNG into PS Elements/raw import in about 10-15 seconds and thence into
PS in another 10 or 15 seconds.
24.6 Megapixels per raw, mind you ... It also processed all the raws
into DNG's at a rate of about 4 per minute using DNG converter.
Sold the netbook on return for about the same price I paid for it, minus
sales tax... pretty good rental rate.
Myths about Windows just show you to be a brainless Mac fanboi.
| |
|
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:05:08 -0000, the_niner_nation wrote:
> "Fruit2O" <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com...
>> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
>> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
>> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
>> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
>> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
>> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
>> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
>> necessarily current models).
>
> if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
> or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
> get a mac...
There are many good reasons to get a Mac. It is not necessary to exaggerate
to do so.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
> "Fruit2O" <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com...
>> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
>> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
>> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
>> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
>> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
>> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
>> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
>> necessarily current models).
>
> if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
> or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
> get a mac...
There are many good reasons to get a Mac. It is not necessary to exaggerate
to do so.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:14:21 -0500, "S. Fishpaste"
<SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
>> In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
>> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
>>> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>>> > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
>>> > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>>> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>>> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>>> >
>>> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>>>
>>> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
>>> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
>>> powerful as the any workstation.
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
>> true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>
>Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>
>Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>powered laptop.
If you're still following this thread, perhaps you could tell me a little
more about your W700 Thinkpad. I want to purchase a high end notebook
such as this one. One thing I noticed in the options is that the drives
only go to 320GB. I was hoping for 500GB. Also, the type of RAID is not
mentioned. Do you know if they are RAID 1 or RAID 0 - or is there an
option? Another thing that's not clear is: does this model have two or
three hard drives? Are there any disappointments or wishes you have? How
do I find out what will change in the W700's successor? Thanks.......
<SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
>> In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
>> "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
>>> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
>>> > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
>>> > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
>>> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
>>> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
>>> >
>>> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>>>
>>> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
>>> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
>>> powerful as the any workstation.
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
>> true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
>
>Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
>
>Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>powered laptop.
If you're still following this thread, perhaps you could tell me a little
more about your W700 Thinkpad. I want to purchase a high end notebook
such as this one. One thing I noticed in the options is that the drives
only go to 320GB. I was hoping for 500GB. Also, the type of RAID is not
mentioned. Do you know if they are RAID 1 or RAID 0 - or is there an
option? Another thing that's not clear is: does this model have two or
three hard drives? Are there any disappointments or wishes you have? How
do I find out what will change in the W700's successor? Thanks.......
| |
|
| Pages (2): [ « ‹ 1 2] | |
| Previous Topic: | PS CS3 puzzler - non-linear behaviour in gradients |
| Next Topic: | Divide grey levels by constant |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions