Ideal laptop for Photoshop

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 1080×1920 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
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 1080×1920 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.

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. 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).

The best scanner is the Epson 750. You may be able to get it at a good price if they have a refurb. That is how I got mine. It comes with Silverfast, but you will need to get an upgrade to get the full version.
I have the Epson 3800. Big, heavy. Very good results. I know there are some new Epson printers so you may want to look at them.

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

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 ,
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).

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" wrote in message

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.

— —

I had an Epson 1280 – but the head would clog constantly. I thought it was a great printer except for that proble. But that problem cost me a lot of money in ink. I have the Epson 3200 Pro and I suspect that it is similar to your 3800.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:48:34 -0500, Ira Solomon
wrote:

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. 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).

The best scanner is the Epson 750. You may be able to get it at a good price if they have a refurb. That is how I got mine. It comes with Silverfast, but you will need to get an upgrade to get the full version.
I have the Epson 3800. Big, heavy. Very good results. I know there are some new Epson printers so you may want to look at them.

NO!

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:14:54 -0500, "krp"
wrote:

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

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
wrote:

In article ,
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).

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" 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.

— —

Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will use only one regardless of how many there are.

"nsbm" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

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
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 1080×1920 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" wrote in message

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$q00$>, nsbm
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 , John
Stafford 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.

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.

In article <291220090104382905%>,
nospam wrote:

In article , John
Stafford 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" wrote in message

Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

Het is zò dat krp formuleerde :

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

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 ,
Andr

In article <4b3a1faf$0$4950$>,
"krp" 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 ,
André, PE1PQX 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 ,
Andr

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.

"John Stafford" wrote in message

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

— —

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

krp drukte met precisie uit :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

krp drukte met precisie uit :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

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

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

krp stelde dit idée voor :

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

krp stelde dit idée voor :

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

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

In article ,
Mike Russell 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" wrote in message

krp schreef op 30-12-2009 :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

krp stelde dit idée voor :

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

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.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:19:48 -0500, "krp"
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.

On 09-12-31 5:19 , krp wrote:

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

krp schreef op 30-12-2009 :

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message

krp stelde dit idée voor :

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

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

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:25:50 -0800, Mike Russell
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" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:25:50 -0800, Mike Russell
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
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote:

"nsbm" wrote in message

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.

In article ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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

On 10-01-02 20:18 , John Stafford wrote:

In article,
"S. Fishpaste" 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
scribbled:

In article ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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 ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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 ,
"S. Fishpaste" wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

In article ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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 ,
"S. Fishpaste" wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

In article ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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 ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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 ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

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" wrote in message

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" wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:

In article ,
"S. Fishpaste" wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

In article ,
"S. Fishpaste" 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…….