Ideal laptop for Photoshop
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
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).
  |
  |
> 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).
I doubt you'll see USB 3 in wide adoption before 2nd quarter, 2010,
possibly later. Intel are certainly not charging hard at it (perhaps
because of LightPeak?).
A laptop is a compromise where photoshop is concerned. Get a large
screen laptop (17") with at least 1080x1920 resolution. The graphics
card should not matter to you as much as the display itself. To that
end, fluorescent has an uneven colour and LED backlight can have small
inconsistencies in backlight density (though not really enough to notice).
Photoshop manipulates large files - there is a lot of memory fetching:
get the fastest memory available (2 to 4 GB of DDR3 1333 or 1600 MT/s) -
this is -the- bottleneck where PS is concerned when working on large files.
SATA drive. You can get 2.0 and possibly 3.0 in a laptop.
There are laptops with the i7. I'm not sure CS3/4 will take enough
advantage of that... but later updates might.
Consider a Macbook Pro as well - very nice displays - though CS4 still
runs as 32 bits under Snow Leopard - will catch up by CS5 (we expect).
Printer: to print what, how large, how often, how durable ...
Scanner: to scan what (film, paper), how large, how often, for what
purpose (archive, artwork) ....
| |
|
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:48:46 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 09-12-27 18:34 , Fruit2O wrote:
>> 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).
>
>I doubt you'll see USB 3 in wide adoption before 2nd quarter, 2010,
>possibly later. Intel are certainly not charging hard at it (perhaps
>because of LightPeak?).
>
>A laptop is a compromise where photoshop is concerned. Get a large
>screen laptop (17") with at least 1080x1920 resolution. The graphics
>card should not matter to you as much as the display itself. To that
>end, fluorescent has an uneven colour and LED backlight can have small
>inconsistencies in backlight density (though not really enough to notice).
>
>Photoshop manipulates large files - there is a lot of memory fetching:
>get the fastest memory available (2 to 4 GB of DDR3 1333 or 1600 MT/s) -
>this is -the- bottleneck where PS is concerned when working on large files.
>
>SATA drive. You can get 2.0 and possibly 3.0 in a laptop.
>
>There are laptops with the i7. I'm not sure CS3/4 will take enough
>advantage of that... but later updates might.
>
>Consider a Macbook Pro as well - very nice displays - though CS4 still
>runs as 32 bits under Snow Leopard - will catch up by CS5 (we expect).
>
>Printer: to print what, how large, how often, how durable ...
>
>Scanner: to scan what (film, paper), how large, how often, for what
>purpose (archive, artwork) ....
Thanks for the reply. I'll try to answer your questions tomorrow. I'm
definitely going with Windows 7 on a PC - just been using Windows for
too many years to change now. Will photoshop work with 64bit? I've
heard that eSATA is faster than SATA - have I heard right? Will more
memory than you recommend help me? I usually have a number of apps
running in the background. Do you have a particular display type you
recommend? Why? Also, what is the compromise between a laptop and a
desktop? I'll have to look up LightPeak - haven't heard of it. Since
I travel (two houses), would a separate unattached screen at each
location work? I realize I'd probably have to calibrate them
separately. Hopefully I will think of more tomorrow. Thanks for your
help.
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 09-12-27 18:34 , Fruit2O wrote:
>> 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).
>
>I doubt you'll see USB 3 in wide adoption before 2nd quarter, 2010,
>possibly later. Intel are certainly not charging hard at it (perhaps
>because of LightPeak?).
>
>A laptop is a compromise where photoshop is concerned. Get a large
>screen laptop (17") with at least 1080x1920 resolution. The graphics
>card should not matter to you as much as the display itself. To that
>end, fluorescent has an uneven colour and LED backlight can have small
>inconsistencies in backlight density (though not really enough to notice).
>
>Photoshop manipulates large files - there is a lot of memory fetching:
>get the fastest memory available (2 to 4 GB of DDR3 1333 or 1600 MT/s) -
>this is -the- bottleneck where PS is concerned when working on large files.
>
>SATA drive. You can get 2.0 and possibly 3.0 in a laptop.
>
>There are laptops with the i7. I'm not sure CS3/4 will take enough
>advantage of that... but later updates might.
>
>Consider a Macbook Pro as well - very nice displays - though CS4 still
>runs as 32 bits under Snow Leopard - will catch up by CS5 (we expect).
>
>Printer: to print what, how large, how often, how durable ...
>
>Scanner: to scan what (film, paper), how large, how often, for what
>purpose (archive, artwork) ....
Thanks for the reply. I'll try to answer your questions tomorrow. I'm
definitely going with Windows 7 on a PC - just been using Windows for
too many years to change now. Will photoshop work with 64bit? I've
heard that eSATA is faster than SATA - have I heard right? Will more
memory than you recommend help me? I usually have a number of apps
running in the background. Do you have a particular display type you
recommend? Why? Also, what is the compromise between a laptop and a
desktop? I'll have to look up LightPeak - haven't heard of it. Since
I travel (two houses), would a separate unattached screen at each
location work? I realize I'd probably have to calibrate them
separately. Hopefully I will think of more tomorrow. Thanks for your
help.
| |
|
"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).
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).
GET A MAC!
| |
|
In article <ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com>,
Fruit2O <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote:
> 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).
Adobe has a lot of information on this.
Begin with their Photoshop Support page.
This was interesting to me:
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html
I found that my Mac Pro's graphics card has an issue that led Adobe to
disable two features. :(
Fruit2O <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote:
> 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).
Adobe has a lot of information on this.
Begin with their Photoshop Support page.
This was interesting to me:
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html
I found that my Mac Pro's graphics card has an issue that led Adobe to
disable two features. :(
| |
|
Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
> "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).
>
> GET A MAC!
BULLSHIT!!!
> "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).
>
> GET A MAC!
BULLSHIT!!!
| |
|
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.
Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS. The key thing is to get the
most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
I would look into vendors like Sager and its ilk. You can get a machine with
top grade parts at a reasonable price.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
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.
Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS. The key thing is to get the
most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
I would look into vendors like Sager and its ilk. You can get a machine with
top grade parts at a reasonable price.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
| |
|
NO!
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:14:54 -0500, "krp" <krp21@tampabay.rr.com>
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).
>
>GET A MAC!
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:14:54 -0500, "krp" <krp21@tampabay.rr.com>
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).
>
>GET A MAC!
| |
|
Thanks - I'll look it up.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:41:03 -0600, John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net>
wrote:
>In article <ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com>,
> Fruit2O <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>Adobe has a lot of information on this.
>Begin with their Photoshop Support page.
>
>This was interesting to me:
>http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html
>
>I found that my Mac Pro's graphics card has an issue that led Adobe to
>disable two features. :(
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:41:03 -0600, John Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net>
wrote:
>In article <ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j@4ax.com>,
> Fruit2O <jz137xww@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>Adobe has a lot of information on this.
>Begin with their Photoshop Support page.
>
>This was interesting to me:
>http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html
>
>I found that my Mac Pro's graphics card has an issue that led Adobe to
>disable two features. :(
| |
|
Thanks - this is a great reply. Would you please list some other
suppliers like Sager? I'm not familiar with Sager - and I DO want to
get the best. BTW, why do you say the quad core is not worth it
(besides the reasons you gave)? I would think the speed would be a
great advantage.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:33:29 -0800, "nsbm" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>
>Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
>weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
>4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS. The key thing is to get the
>most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
>will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
>whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
>state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
>
>I would look into vendors like Sager and its ilk. You can get a machine with
>top grade parts at a reasonable price.
>
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
suppliers like Sager? I'm not familiar with Sager - and I DO want to
get the best. BTW, why do you say the quad core is not worth it
(besides the reasons you gave)? I would think the speed would be a
great advantage.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:33:29 -0800, "nsbm" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>
>Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
>weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
>4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS. The key thing is to get the
>most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
>will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
>whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
>state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
>
>I would look into vendors like Sager and its ilk. You can get a machine with
>top grade parts at a reasonable price.
>
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
| |
|
Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
use only one regardless of how many there are.
use only one regardless of how many there are.
| |
|
"nsbm" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhatlr$q00$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
> machines are for the purpose.
>
Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
a desktop LCD.
news:hhatlr$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.
| |
|
"André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>> "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).
>>
>> GET A MAC!
>
> BULLSHIT!!!
WHATEVER!
news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>> "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).
>>
>> GET A MAC!
>
> BULLSHIT!!!
WHATEVER!
| |
|
On 09-12-27 21:55 , Fruit2O wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:48:46 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 09-12-27 18:34 , Fruit2O wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> I doubt you'll see USB 3 in wide adoption before 2nd quarter, 2010,
>> possibly later. Intel are certainly not charging hard at it (perhaps
>> because of LightPeak?).
>>
>> A laptop is a compromise where photoshop is concerned. Get a large
>> screen laptop (17") with at least 1080x1920 resolution. The graphics
>> card should not matter to you as much as the display itself. To that
>> end, fluorescent has an uneven colour and LED backlight can have small
>> inconsistencies in backlight density (though not really enough to notice).
>>
>> Photoshop manipulates large files - there is a lot of memory fetching:
>> get the fastest memory available (2 to 4 GB of DDR3 1333 or 1600 MT/s) -
>> this is -the- bottleneck where PS is concerned when working on large files.
>>
>> SATA drive. You can get 2.0 and possibly 3.0 in a laptop.
>>
>> There are laptops with the i7. I'm not sure CS3/4 will take enough
>> advantage of that... but later updates might.
>>
>> Consider a Macbook Pro as well - very nice displays - though CS4 still
>> runs as 32 bits under Snow Leopard - will catch up by CS5 (we expect).
>>
>> Printer: to print what, how large, how often, how durable ...
>>
>> Scanner: to scan what (film, paper), how large, how often, for what
>> purpose (archive, artwork) ....
>
> Thanks for the reply. I'll try to answer your questions tomorrow. I'm
> definitely going with Windows 7 on a PC - just been using Windows for
> too many years to change now. Will photoshop work with 64bit? I've
> heard that eSATA is faster than SATA - have I heard right?
I have no idea. eSATA is for external drives. SATA for internal.
Frankly, I've given you some guidelines, others have as well. That
should be enough to get you going in the right direction.
Will more
> memory than you recommend help me? I usually have a number of apps
> running in the background. Do you have a particular display type you
> recommend? Why? Also, what is the compromise between a laptop and a
> desktop? I'll have to look up LightPeak - haven't heard of it. Since
> I travel (two houses), would a separate unattached screen at each
> location work? I realize I'd probably have to calibrate them
> separately. Hopefully I will think of more tomorrow. Thanks for your
> help.
Help yourself.
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:48:46 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 09-12-27 18:34 , Fruit2O wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>> I doubt you'll see USB 3 in wide adoption before 2nd quarter, 2010,
>> possibly later. Intel are certainly not charging hard at it (perhaps
>> because of LightPeak?).
>>
>> A laptop is a compromise where photoshop is concerned. Get a large
>> screen laptop (17") with at least 1080x1920 resolution. The graphics
>> card should not matter to you as much as the display itself. To that
>> end, fluorescent has an uneven colour and LED backlight can have small
>> inconsistencies in backlight density (though not really enough to notice).
>>
>> Photoshop manipulates large files - there is a lot of memory fetching:
>> get the fastest memory available (2 to 4 GB of DDR3 1333 or 1600 MT/s) -
>> this is -the- bottleneck where PS is concerned when working on large files.
>>
>> SATA drive. You can get 2.0 and possibly 3.0 in a laptop.
>>
>> There are laptops with the i7. I'm not sure CS3/4 will take enough
>> advantage of that... but later updates might.
>>
>> Consider a Macbook Pro as well - very nice displays - though CS4 still
>> runs as 32 bits under Snow Leopard - will catch up by CS5 (we expect).
>>
>> Printer: to print what, how large, how often, how durable ...
>>
>> Scanner: to scan what (film, paper), how large, how often, for what
>> purpose (archive, artwork) ....
>
> Thanks for the reply. I'll try to answer your questions tomorrow. I'm
> definitely going with Windows 7 on a PC - just been using Windows for
> too many years to change now. Will photoshop work with 64bit? I've
> heard that eSATA is faster than SATA - have I heard right?
I have no idea. eSATA is for external drives. SATA for internal.
Frankly, I've given you some guidelines, others have as well. That
should be enough to get you going in the right direction.
Will more
> memory than you recommend help me? I usually have a number of apps
> running in the background. Do you have a particular display type you
> recommend? Why? Also, what is the compromise between a laptop and a
> desktop? I'll have to look up LightPeak - haven't heard of it. Since
> I travel (two houses), would a separate unattached screen at each
> location work? I realize I'd probably have to calibrate them
> separately. Hopefully I will think of more tomorrow. Thanks for your
> help.
Help yourself.
| |
|
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.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
> "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.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
In article <hhatlr$q00$1@adenine.netfront.net>, nsbm
<fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
> critical printing.
nonsense.
> If printing is your goal you will need an external
> monitor.
external monitors are generally better but not required.
> 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.
nonsense.
> Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
> weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
> 4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS.
mac laptops are not limited to 4 gig, and there's no need for a 64 bit
os with 4 gig.
> The key thing is to get the
> most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
> will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
> whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
> state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
usb3 isn't out yet.
<fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
> critical printing.
nonsense.
> If printing is your goal you will need an external
> monitor.
external monitors are generally better but not required.
> 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.
nonsense.
> Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
> weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
> 4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS.
mac laptops are not limited to 4 gig, and there's no need for a 64 bit
os with 4 gig.
> The key thing is to get the
> most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
> will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
> whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
> state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
usb3 isn't out yet.
| |
|
In article <nhoj-09C28C.13444628122009@news.supernews.com>, John
Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> wrote:
> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
> use only one regardless of how many there are.
and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> wrote:
> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
> use only one regardless of how many there are.
and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
| |
|
nospam schrieb:
>> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
>> use only one regardless of how many there are.
> and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
> cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
Read more carefully, John talked about the GPU, not the CPU.
>> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
>> use only one regardless of how many there are.
> and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
> cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
Read more carefully, John talked about the GPU, not the CPU.
| |
|
nsbm schrieb:
> Most laptops are limited to 4gbs of ram,
Macs are not.
> which is plenty for a 64 bit OS.
This is just bullshit. While a 64 bit OS may have a minor speed
advantage, its main purpose is it's possibility to address more than 4
GB of RAM. So if you have a computer which is limited to 4 GB of RAM,
then a 64 bit OS (or a 64 bit application for that matter) has
absolutely no advantage over a 32 bit one. If however you have a
computer with more RAM, then you maust install a 64 bit OS to use it.
And depending on how "serious" you work with photoshop, 4 GB may or may
not be enough for effective work.
> The key thing is to get
> the most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as
> only that will allow for any GPU accelerated processing
Which is of little concern for most photoshop tasks.
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.
> Most laptops are limited to 4gbs of ram,
Macs are not.
> which is plenty for a 64 bit OS.
This is just bullshit. While a 64 bit OS may have a minor speed
advantage, its main purpose is it's possibility to address more than 4
GB of RAM. So if you have a computer which is limited to 4 GB of RAM,
then a 64 bit OS (or a 64 bit application for that matter) has
absolutely no advantage over a 32 bit one. If however you have a
computer with more RAM, then you maust install a 64 bit OS to use it.
And depending on how "serious" you work with photoshop, 4 GB may or may
not be enough for effective work.
> The key thing is to get
> the most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as
> only that will allow for any GPU accelerated processing
Which is of little concern for most photoshop tasks.
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.
| |
|
In article <291220090104382905%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nhoj-09C28C.13444628122009@news.supernews.com>, John
> Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> wrote:
>
> > Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
> > use only one regardless of how many there are.
>
> and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
> cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
I wrote 'GPU'.
See: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html
"To maximize Photoshop's OpenGL features, consider a card with a fast
single GPU. Photoshop will not work with more than one GPU."
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nhoj-09C28C.13444628122009@news.supernews.com>, John
> Stafford <nhoj@droffats.net> wrote:
>
> > Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
> > use only one regardless of how many there are.
>
> and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
> cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
I wrote 'GPU'.
See: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html
"To maximize Photoshop's OpenGL features, consider a card with a fast
single GPU. Photoshop will not work with more than one GPU."
| |
|
Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>> "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).
>>>
>>> GET A MAC!
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!!
>
> WHATEVER!
With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>> "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).
>>>
>>> GET A MAC!
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!!
>
> WHATEVER!
With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
| |
|
"André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>>> "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).
>>>>
>>>> GET A MAC!
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>
>> WHATEVER!
>
> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the
headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>>> "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).
>>>>
>>>> GET A MAC!
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>
>> WHATEVER!
>
> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the
headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
| |
|
krp drukte met precisie uit :
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>>
>>> WHATEVER!
>>
>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>
> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things better
> AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am using a PC.
> I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the headaches
> that I do, especially in converting formats.
What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>>
>>> WHATEVER!
>>
>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>
> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things better
> AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am using a PC.
> I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the headaches
> that I do, especially in converting formats.
What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
| |
|
In article <7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net>,
André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
| |
|
In article <4b3a1faf$0$4950$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
"krp" <krp21@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the
> headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
There is one subtle difference between the Mac and WinDoze version: on
the Mac you can show/hide the Application Frame so that Adobe products
are more Apple-Like in visual presentation. I find it a bit confusing so
I leave it off.
My wife is a pre-press expert (and designer) and they use Macs
exclusively only because they _started_ with Macs so long ago. Her
printer uses PCs. They get along just fine. (It's all color by the
numbers for them.)
"krp" <krp21@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the
> headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
There is one subtle difference between the Mac and WinDoze version: on
the Mac you can show/hide the Application Frame so that Adobe products
are more Apple-Like in visual presentation. I find it a bit confusing so
I leave it off.
My wife is a pre-press expert (and designer) and they use Macs
exclusively only because they _started_ with Macs so long ago. Her
printer uses PCs. They get along just fine. (It's all color by the
numbers for them.)
| |
|
John Stafford beweerde :
> In article <7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net>,
> André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
>
>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>
> I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
> fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
> scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
That's exactly what I mean... It does not matter if you use MAC or
windblows, just personal preference.
> In article <7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net>,
> André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
>
>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>
> I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
> fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
> scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
That's exactly what I mean... It does not matter if you use MAC or
windblows, just personal preference.
| |
|
In article <7punusFo28U1@mid.individual.net>,
André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> John Stafford beweerde :
> > In article <7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> >> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> >> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
> >
> > I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
> > fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
> > scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
>
> That's exactly what I mean... It does not matter if you use MAC or
> windblows, just personal preference.
Yes, and the freedom to choose is wonderful.
(Sometimes I wish Chris Cox would drop in here with his characteristic
smashing replies and advice.)
André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> John Stafford beweerde :
> > In article <7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > André, PE1PQX <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> >> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> >> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
> >
> > I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
> > fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
> > scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
>
> That's exactly what I mean... It does not matter if you use MAC or
> windblows, just personal preference.
Yes, and the freedom to choose is wonderful.
(Sometimes I wish Chris Cox would drop in here with his characteristic
smashing replies and advice.)
| |
|
One more difference between PC and Mac for PS, and it has to do with the
OS - In Windows/PC you can open an image using a url. Not so on the Mac.
Try it in Photoshop Windows. In the open dialog, type:
http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp.jpg
No big deal.
One can also use the command line in Windows/PC to execute a droplet
with arguments (the file path,filename), although I don't do that
anymore.
OS - In Windows/PC you can open an image using a url. Not so on the Mac.
Try it in Photoshop Windows. In the open dialog, type:
http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp.jpg
No big deal.
One can also use the command line in Windows/PC to execute a droplet
with arguments (the file path,filename), although I don't do that
anymore.
| |
|
"John Stafford" <nhoj@droffats.net> wrote in message
news:nhoj-B26130.11192329122009@news.supernews.com...
>
> One more difference between PC and Mac for PS, and it has to do with the
> OS - In Windows/PC you can open an image using a url. Not so on the Mac.
>
> Try it in Photoshop Windows. In the open dialog, type:
> http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp.jpg
>
> No big deal.
>
> One can also use the command line in Windows/PC to execute a droplet
> with arguments (the file path,filename), although I don't do that
> anymore.
That works in the system dialog----YES!! (not the Adobe dialog)
never knew that b4 ---------thanks
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
news:nhoj-B26130.11192329122009@news.supernews.com...
>
> One more difference between PC and Mac for PS, and it has to do with the
> OS - In Windows/PC you can open an image using a url. Not so on the Mac.
>
> Try it in Photoshop Windows. In the open dialog, type:
> http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp.jpg
>
> No big deal.
>
> One can also use the command line in Windows/PC to execute a droplet
> with arguments (the file path,filename), although I don't do that
> anymore.
That works in the system dialog----YES!! (not the Adobe dialog)
never knew that b4 ---------thanks
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
| |
|
"André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
news:7pultpFcj4U1@mid.individual.net...
> krp drukte met precisie uit :
>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>> news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>>> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>>>
>>>> WHATEVER!
>>>
>>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>>
>> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
>> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
>> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
>> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of
>> the headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
>
> What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
And do HALF ASSED.
news:7pultpFcj4U1@mid.individual.net...
> krp drukte met precisie uit :
>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>> news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>>> news:7ps7daFnlmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>>>
>>>> WHATEVER!
>>>
>>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>>
>> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
>> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
>> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
>> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of
>> the headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
>
> What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
And do HALF ASSED.
| |
|
krp heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7pultpFcj4U1@mid.individual.net...
>> krp drukte met precisie uit :
>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>>>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>>>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>>>
>>> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
>>> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
>>> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
>>> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of
>>> the headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
>>
>> What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
>
> And do HALF ASSED.
Ow, please SHUT UP!!
The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7pultpFcj4U1@mid.individual.net...
>> krp drukte met precisie uit :
>>> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7pujmmFvr1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>>>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>>>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>>>
>>> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
>>> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
>>> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
>>> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of
>>> the headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
>>
>> What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
>
> And do HALF ASSED.
Ow, please SHUT UP!!
The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
| |
|
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.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
> 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.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
"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:
>
>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
Oh yes - VISTA is such a GREAT SUCCESS!
news:17ekoxg9wxyil.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:
>
>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
Oh yes - VISTA is such a GREAT SUCCESS!
| |
|
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:
>>
>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>
> 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.
Again: KRP: SHUT UP!
> "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:
>>
>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>
> 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.
Again: KRP: SHUT UP!
| |
|
"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:
>>>
>>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>>
>> 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.
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:
>>>
>>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>>
>> 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.
| |
|
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)
> "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)
| |
|
Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
interesting to discuss.
Happy new year.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
interesting to discuss.
Happy new year.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
| |
|
In article <mkbwmegxlml0.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com>,
Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
> Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
> interesting to discuss.
>
> Happy new year.
The same to you, Saint Mike. Thanks for being here for the rest of us
for all these years.
--
John in the Tropics of MinneSnowta
Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
> Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
> interesting to discuss.
>
> Happy new year.
The same to you, Saint Mike. Thanks for being here for the rest of us
for all these years.
--
John in the Tropics of MinneSnowta
| |
|
"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!
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!
| |
|
Na rijp beraad schreef Mike Russell :
> Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
> interesting to discuss.
>
> Happy new year.
Same to you: best wishes for 2010
I think I'll killfile 'krp'... he's an idiot.
> Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
> interesting to discuss.
>
> Happy new year.
Same to you: best wishes for 2010
I think I'll killfile 'krp'... he's an idiot.
| Pages (2): [1 2 › »] | |
| Previous Topic: | PS CS3 puzzler - non-linear behaviour in gradients |
| Next Topic: | Laptop specs for using PS |
Discuss everything about Adobe Photoshop. Advanced techniques and helpful tricks.