Laptop for photo editing and editing?

[microcosm]

one other factor to look into is portability...which takes into account the size of the screen, battery life and laptop weight, and other add ons like external harddrive, as important factors...no point getting something so heavy you don't want to bring it around...

4GB RAM...you gotta be kidding...cause 4GB of laptop RAM (2 pieces of 2GB) is gonna take up most of the budget...you end up with like $500 to purchase the laptop ;p

firewire 800? might as well have eSATA...much faster and lower processor overhead...

ultimately, Apple is not necessarily better...don't believe the propaganda...people who use Windows and Mac intensively for work can tell you neither has any real advantage...believe it or not, under work stress, both will crash as willingly...and the parts that go into a Mac are just like those in a Win system...fitting your budget and requirments, and not brand attractiveness, should be your priority...

try the Dell XPS M1210

dedicated graphics memory, can take up to 4GB of RAM, 1280x800 12" screen, excellent screen, and faster than the MacBook Pro my boss has...

Quote from Dell website : Graphic Card
Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950™ up to 224MB of shared system memory

That can be FASTER THAN the 256MB RAM X1600 ATI graphics? I really really would like to see...

Seriously my friend, your friend or your boss or your MacBook Pro needs to go back to Apple because there is something really wrong with it. Have you ever used any FW800 peripheral before? I really question that.

As for the RAM, well, the buyer can upgrade and add more RAM if there is ever a need in the future. There is no need to rush into buying 4GB but good to know that if the day comes when they need more RAM to run RAM hungry applications, then the laptop can have the option of upgrade/add-on.

QUOTE : ultimately, Apple is not necessarily better...don't believe the propaganda...people who use Windows and Mac intensively for work can tell you neither has any real advantage...

Really? Not to my knowledge. What kind of apps, and so called intensively? I am really curious, please don't take offense. I run pretty intensive video/audio applications for work, and I see a BIG advantage on the Apple platform. Really. And when it comes to multitasking, Apple eats Windoze for lunch.

But I am curious about your Mac experience and are you using the latest generation of Macs? Or you are referring to the older G4/G5 processors?

Personally, I am using a Vaio typing this. But I am curious...

 

[glennyong]

i must say not only mac eats windows for lunch, it eats windows every single meal.

windows is not very effective in terms of rams useage and etc.

but of course in terms of performance, i can tell u, mac is way better den windows reason being.

MacPro takes about 5sec to open a 100MB Vector file.
and windows take about 4minutes to open the file after hanging there for like 2 minutes plus.

and the chance of windows hanging for this kinda files is really high.

my 2cents. (no 7% gst required)

 

[theRBK]

Quote from Dell website : Graphic Card
Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950™ up to 224MB of shared system memory

That can be FASTER THAN the 256MB RAM X1600 ATI graphics? I really really would like to see...

firstly there is an option for dedicated graphics. Secondly, the graphics processor itself does not affect the speed of photoshop.

Seriously my friend, your friend or your boss or your MacBook Pro needs to go back to Apple because there is something really wrong with it. Have you ever used any FW800 peripheral before? I really question that.

I do have a Maxtor FW800 external harddrive around...but I think if I were to really gonna use an external disk for scratch, I'll rather get a eSATA express card as that would have even less overhead than FW ;p

As for the RAM, well, the buyer can upgrade and add more RAM if there is ever a need in the future. There is no need to rush into buying 4GB but good to know that if the day comes when they need more RAM to run RAM hungry applications, then the laptop can have the option of upgrade/add-on.

true, can upgrade the RAM later...I was just pointing out that it can accept 4GB...cause some laptop motherboards can only accept 2 or 3GB.

QUOTE : ultimately, Apple is not necessarily better...don't believe the propaganda...people who use Windows and Mac intensively for work can tell you neither has any real advantage...

Really? Not to my knowledge. What kind of apps, and so called intensively? I am really curious, please don't take offense. I run pretty intensive video/audio applications for work, and I see a BIG advantage on the Apple platform. Really. And when it comes to multitasking, Apple eats Windoze for lunch.

But I am curious about your Mac experience and are you using the latest generation of Macs? Or you are referring to the older G4/G5 processors?

Personally, I am using a Vaio typing this. But I am curious...

just 1GB-plus sized PSD files in Photoshop...oh I have only used the last edition of G5 and MacBook Pro 17"...not alot of experience I guess

but you should try multiprocessor workstation running windows...thinking of building a oct core one what with Vista coming :lovegrin:

but coming back to the TS's question, price/performance with respect to the TS's requirement, I would recommend the Dell comp rather the MacBook Pro...agreeing to disagree on performance aside, it does come at a much lower price as well...

 

[VR Man]

er.. technically photoshop can only use 2gb, but the more the merrier because there'll be other applications that use up ram, and when ps writes to scratch disc, it goes via RAM and whichever will stay in the RAM in case u need to access it.

2GB used to be true until I stumbled over this article from Adobe 2 nights ago.

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html

Time to buy more RAM! Ouch!

 

[yyD70S]

Sorry for digging up an old thread ...

My 1st-Gen Acer Centrino (May 2003) died on Friday.

Am thinking of replacing it with a Dell Inspiron(TM) 1420 Notebook.

If photo-editing is my no. 1 priority and gaming is my lowest priority, could I make do with...

(a) Intel® Centrino® Duo Processor Technology - Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T7250 (2GHz/ 800 FSB/ 2MB Cache)

(b) 2GB DDR2 SDRAM

(c) Intel® Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator; ie, non-dedicated graphics card

...

Basically, I'm trying to bring it to below S$2,000/-

...

I know RAM is important, the more the merrier. Am just not sure/certain if it's true that I don't need a dedicated ATI or nVidia graphics card if gaming & 3D-rendering stuff are not my cup of tea.

Thank you.

 

[Hitz]

I know RAM is important, the more the merrier. Am just not sure/certain if it's true that I don't need a dedicated ATI or nVidia graphics card if gaming & 3D-rendering stuff are not my cup of tea.

Thank you.

You don't need dedicated graphics card for Photoshop. Intel GMA would be fine.

 

[yyD70S]

Great!

Thank you for the info. Appreciate.

 

[ExplorerZ]

a dedicated GFX would mean no ram taken up by GFX. ;p
anyway I thought dell 1420 came with 8400M GS?

 

[Hitz]

a dedicated GFX would mean no ram taken up by GFX. ;p
anyway I thought dell 1420 came with 8400M GS?

That's true. Intel GMA has no dedicated video memory and it dynamically allocates system memory where it is needed. Meaning you will loose few Megabytes, unless of course you are concurrently running some software that needs extensive 3D rendering, in which case you can loose up-to several hundred MB.

Still Intel GMA is very workable solution, especially if you are on budget, and in typical situation, when you don't play HL2 concurrently with editing in Photoshop, the impact of few missing MB would be minimal. If someone is concerned about photo editing in PS, he should not be looking for a laptop at the first place, anyway.

 

[Visuals]

What about the new intel Macbooks with 2G of RAM?

Do you think those new glossy screens may lead to inaccurate calibration results when using Spyder or Eye One II?

In short, is the new Macbook (non-pro) suitable as a poor man's laptop for photo editing? bsmilie:

 

[Hitz]

What about the new intel Macbooks with 2G of RAM?

Do you think those new glossy screens may lead to inaccurate calibration results when using Spyder or Eye One II?

In short, is the new Macbook (non-pro) suitable as a poor man's laptop for photo editing? bsmilie:

Well, custom built desktop and a good LCD is still a poor man's photo editing solution.

For price of Macbook you can get multicore workstation, with 3GB RAM, dedicated scratch disk on SATA RAID-0, and still spare some cash for solid S-IPS panel. :bsmilie:

 

[Hein]

Mac is the best, chip in a bit more get a 15" macbook pro if u can,
if not a 13" macbook,

1. Mac is faster then windows based Lappie/PC anytime
2. I have 1GB on my Ibook and i edit photo with ease, its faster then my 2.8GHZ HT 1.5GB-DDR PC at home.
3. The LCD resolution is also better, at 12" its sporting a 1024x768, which Laptop LCD can spot this kinda resolutions? most 15" sports 1024x768 if im not wrong.
4. Its accurate in color, seems ok on my ibook and the prints are always more vibrant

im both windows and mac user... I 100% stand by my mac.. other then gaming

Few months ago, I would have said that this statement is BS.... However, I have a PC setup with the latest 2.8GHz C2D at home, and I can say that my little MacBook runs easily on par with my expensive PC... For the last 1-2 months, I have not even powered up my PC, except for games. The Mac OS is really a beauty to use(first time user), and I would also recommend a Mac if you are not into gaming.. Anyway, I heard that the MacBook Pros are quite good for gaming too, but comes at a price...

 

[Andy Ang]

Gosh, this thread is so tained with Fanboys. By specs alone, how can the MacBook supercede the Desktop PC within the same price range?

 

[Hein]

Gosh, this thread is so tained with Fanboys. By specs alone, how can the MacBook supercede the Desktop PC within the same price range?

Well, don't check paper specs.... Check the real life performance of the MacBook and a $2k laptop, and you will see for yourself...

 

[Hitz]

Well, don't check paper specs.... Check the real life performance of the MacBook and a $2k laptop, and you will see for yourself...

$1,822 will buy you a Macbook with a tiny 1280x800 screen barely suitable for photo editing, single and sloooow 5600 rpm hard disk, and 1 GB RAM. What's so exciting about that?

You can get the same crap (crippled Centrino Duo T7200 processor, i945 chipset, slow 677 MHz FSB, Intel GMA 950 graphics adapter, thin and inaccurate 1280 x 800 display of unknown origin, slow 5600 rpm disk) from DELL for 60% of that price, not in black/while colours though. :bsmilie:

 

[Andy Ang]

$1,822 will buy you a Macbook with a tiny 1280x800 screen barely suitable for photo editing, single and sloooow 5600 rpm hard disk, and 1 GB RAM. What's so exciting about that?

You can get the same crap (crippled Centrino Duo T7200 processor, i945 chipset, slow 677 MHz FSB, Intel GMA 950 graphics adapter, thin and inaccurate 1280 x 800 display of unknown origin, slow 5600 rpm disk) from DELL for 60% of that price, not in black/while colours though. :bsmilie:

Yeah! Gimme a 5 man! :bsmilie:

 

[untitled-ego]

$1,822 will buy you a Macbook with a tiny 1280x800 screen barely suitable for photo editing, single and sloooow 5600 rpm hard disk, and 1 GB RAM. What's so exciting about that?

You can get the same crap (crippled Centrino Duo T7200 processor, i945 chipset, slow 677 MHz FSB, Intel GMA 950 graphics adapter, thin and inaccurate 1280 x 800 display of unknown origin, slow 5600 rpm disk) from DELL for 60% of that price, not in black/while colours though. :bsmilie:

well, i think he was referring to a macbook pro. even a macbook beef to 2G ram will do fine for basic editting as compared to a normal lappie say sony. come on we dun have to go down this path.

Anyway i owe a macbook but personally i prefer to hook it up to a bigger 22in monitor to do my editting because on a laptop it is really hard to do editing

 

[Hitz]

well, i think he was referring to a macbook pro.

I thought the author was comparing $2K laptops:

Well, don't check paper specs.... Check the real life performance of the MacBook and a $2k laptop, and you will see for yourself...

Sure, for 3.5K you can get the same Centrino Duo, i945 chipset, 677 MHz FSB, thin inaccurate 900-lines display, and did I mention slow 5600 rpm disk?

The same amount of cash will buy you a desktop with a dedicated physical scratch disk, a solid Eizo or NEC panel and you'll still have some cash for the latest and greatest DSLR.

 

[Andy Ang]

Ya loor. Obviously he's not saying the Macbook Pro loor.

 

[untitled-ego]

Ya loor. Obviously he's not saying the Macbook Pro loor.

there there 2k laptop can do it decently lah.. of cos you cant compare any laptop to a desktop.. its a no brainer.. macbook is decent for simpel photoshop stuffs.. not fab. if budget is an issue, get a desktop for half the price of the lappie