Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: ToddT on July 12, 2007, 09:48:46 PM

Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: ToddT on July 12, 2007, 09:48:46 PM
I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: larkvi on July 13, 2007, 12:14:34 AM
Post edited--

The point of my previous post (which was lost in rambling) was that one should really look at buying a computer for high-end applications in terms of a recurring expense, rather than saying how much one has to spend at the moment. Lightroom/Photoshop/et al. are really designed for the cutting edge, so plan on a replacement cycle of 2-3 years barring accidents.

And consider investing in better fans/case/cooling for whatever you get, as high-end machines tend to be very noisy unless you take care.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: ranjans on July 13, 2007, 12:46:29 AM
Quote
I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just build a machine for a friend where installed LR under vista, this machine is over clocked & the speed is amazing, 2 sec file conversion time.

motherboard-Asus P5b- dlx wifi
CPU-E6400 4mb L2 cache
RAM- 1x4gb ddr-2 800 mhz ram (higher choices are available too)
7600GT dual dvi display card
He already had 24inch dell wide screen
antec cabinet with 550 watt power supply
cpu cooler- thermaltake ulta-120
2x320 gb segate hdd 7200 rpm

This machine is running over clocked at 3.4Ghz & it has amazing speed  to do multi tasking.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: Tim Gray on July 13, 2007, 09:19:20 AM
I'm about to order a configuration this weekend.  I debated for a long time about going with a high performance notebook, but in the end I can get a great desktop and an OK notebook for almost the same price as a top line notebook.  I already have a NEC 2690 monitor - which is great...   I'm not into overclocking.

Files are 1d2, raw, with CS3 and LR as the basic applications.

Intel core 2 duo 2.13, 1066 mhz 4mb l2 cache
4x1gig corasir matched PC6400 DDR2-800 memory
Asus P5W motherboard
video - not really important, but I will run Vista Home premium, so Radeon x800xl 256mb
3 x Seagate Barracuda 7200 sata 320gb,  2 mounted internally - one for programs etc and one for data and scratch disk, and one with an e-sata box for backup of the second internal.

With case, assembly, dvd this comes in at well under 2K (canadian) including taxes.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: The View on July 15, 2007, 06:24:48 PM
I wonder if the new set of iMacs are good enough to a workable speed in Lightroom, or if one should aim higher, at a Mac Pro...
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kinserfr on July 15, 2007, 06:53:27 PM
Quote
I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I switched to Mac about 4 years ago and could not be happier. IMO, I think an iMac would serve you well. You can build a PC cheaper but you get more done with a Mac. I have been a programmer for 25+ years and I switched to Linux in the late 90's and switched to Mac when I need to do a lot more graphics (digital photography) and I gained my life back with Mac (the ultimate Linux box). I currently have a MacBook Pro 17" and I just got a NEC LCD2690wuxi-sv.

PC's are okay, but they are high maintenance in terms of keeping the OS healthy, virus free and running smooth in general. I have little faith in MS's ability to deliver a truly good OS, especially after what I have seen from Vista so far. Their problem is that they do not have a good foundation for their OS and they failed miserably with Vista.

That last paragraph should get some folks thoroughly aroused!
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: ToddT on July 15, 2007, 10:14:55 PM
I went into the Apple Store in Chicago last week and asked one of the employees to tell me why I should buy a Mac over a PC for use with Creative Suite and Lightroom and his response was something like ď So you could be like all the Cool people that use MacísĒ or something like that. I told him ď That is one reason not to buy one! What else do you have?Ē He had nothing! So I left. Since I was going to upgrade my Creative Suite and get Lightroom I was thinking this would be a good time to switch to a Mac.

I can build much more computer for less with a PC that a Mac, and if I get a Mac my kids will want them too ( canít afford that), and the last thing is I keep the PCs running at my church and a few other places so I should keep with a PC, unless someone could give me a few good reasons to change. The guy at the Apple store couldnít.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: budjames on July 15, 2007, 10:48:03 PM
Buy a Mac Pro, forget the rest.

From a former owner of  3 PCs, all replaced this year by a Mac Pro 8-core and MacBook Pro 15" laptop.

LR screams on the MacPro and with the new OSX Leopard around the corner, it will be even faster as all of the OS will be running at 64 bit.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: The View on July 16, 2007, 01:44:01 AM
The nice thing about a Mac is not only the better working operating system. It's also that all the parts have been put together for reliable performance.

What I have heard of PC owners, there is always some card or other part that doesn't play well with the rest. This is the downside of the incredible number of PC suppliers (its upside being the price).

I also have the impression that PC owners tend to upgrade more often than Mac owners (geeks aside), which would take the price advantage away.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: terence_patrick on July 16, 2007, 02:04:35 AM
Quote
I went into the Apple Store in Chicago last week and asked one of the employees to tell me why I should buy a Mac over a PC for use with Creative Suite and Lightroom and his response was something like ď So you could be like all the Cool people that use MacísĒ or something like that. I told him ď That is one reason not to buy one! What else do you have?Ē He had nothing! So I left. Since I was going to upgrade my Creative Suite and get Lightroom I was thinking this would be a good time to switch to a Mac.

I can build much more computer for less with a PC that a Mac, and if I get a Mac my kids will want them too ( canít afford that), and the last thing is I keep the PCs running at my church and a few other places so I should keep with a PC, unless someone could give me a few good reasons to change. The guy at the Apple store couldnít.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no more compelling of a reason to buy a Mac other than you like to work on one.  I was a diehard Windows guy (was MCSE certified for 5 years) prior to using a Mac at a studio I worked for.  From that point, I was hooked on the simplicity and intuitiveness of the OS and most software available that I use.  From time to time I help friends who need tech support on Windows machines and I find it incredible how complicated XP and especially Vista has become, especially when installing new hardware.  Of course, to each their own and if you're considering a Mac, you should probably spend some time using one before making the plunge.  Just beware, Macs are not the magic computing bullet, but just a different way of completing the same task.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: Deep on July 16, 2007, 02:14:51 AM
You certainly want to look into getting a Mac.  I have a very humble Mac, a 1.67GHz G4 with a gig of Ram.  I have been reading on the Lightroom forum all year about people with high spec PCs having speed issues with Lightroom.  When they give figures for an action, I copy it and time my system and usually find my little Mac an order of magnitude quicker.  Alternatively, if I do some photo editing on a late spec PC, I am amazed at how slow it is.  I don't know why this should be but presume the way the operating system handles graphics files is much more direct on a Mac (there must be a lot of computer savvy people on this forum who could explain).  Presumably the intel Macs will absolutely smoke by comparison.  Don't forget, you can run all your Windows programmes on an intel Mac, so no need to get your kids something different to match.

The best thing would be to try to find someone local running CS3 or Lightroom on a new Mac and just try it.  It's got to be easier than plugging a whole lot of bits together and hoping it's enough.

Don.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kinserfr on July 16, 2007, 03:12:13 AM
Quote
I went into the Apple Store in Chicago last week and asked one of the employees to tell me why I should buy a Mac over a PC for use with Creative Suite and Lightroom and his response was something like ď So you could be like all the Cool people that use MacísĒ or something like that. I told him ď That is one reason not to buy one! What else do you have?Ē He had nothing! So I left. Since I was going to upgrade my Creative Suite and get Lightroom I was thinking this would be a good time to switch to a Mac.

I can build much more computer for less with a PC that a Mac, and if I get a Mac my kids will want them too ( canít afford that), and the last thing is I keep the PCs running at my church and a few other places so I should keep with a PC, unless someone could give me a few good reasons to change. The guy at the Apple store couldnít.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128361\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, there are people out there that own Mac's for the cool factor. That's not why I own one. It you want a tremendously stable OS, don't want to hassle with viruses and don't want to have to dink round with hardware / driver issues, but a Mac. If you want to be productive and get things done, then buy a Mac. If work is more important than working on a PC then buy a Mac.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kaelaria on July 16, 2007, 12:01:44 PM
If you know very little about computers, how they work, and just like to propagate old myths to make yourself feel better...buy a mac

If you want to save money, work faster, have access to 100x+ more apps and hardware...buy a PC

IF you are one of the VERY RARE (percentage wise) users that NEED the benefits of a mac, such as very large memory installations, use of specialized production mac-only apps, etc...by all means buy and enjoy a mac.

Just don't try and convince yourself macs don't crash, don't have spyware and viruses or hardware/driver issues too.  They do.  It's just not a big deal, like it hasn't been a big deal on PCs for YEARS.  XP and Vista are every bit as stable, OS speaking, as OSX (nothing special, just a linux dirivative called FreeBSD that also runs on a PC).  In fact there is nothing special about most 'macs' whatsoever.  It's 99% the same hardware as a PC, and you can (illegally) run OSX on many PCs (so my friend tells me  ).  The only difference between a PC and a small percentage of upper level macs, is the ability to install 2x the amount of physical ram on the motherboard, as a desktop PC.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: bduke on July 16, 2007, 03:36:19 PM
I believe in having one computer for everything, so i can pickup and go when needed.  So, I went the other direction, I purchased a new notebook:
-  Dell D630
-  2 GHz processor (can be upgrade if needed)
-  2 GB memory (room for 2 GB more if needed)
-  7200 rpm drive
-  Vista Ultimate
-  LR 1.1
-  and all the standard business apps and such
plus a new 22" flat panel display.

All running very well.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kinserfr on July 16, 2007, 06:15:52 PM
Quote
If you know very little about computers, how they work, and just like to propagate old myths to make yourself feel better...buy a mac

If you want to save money, work faster, have access to 100x+ more apps and hardware...buy a PC

IF you are one of the VERY RARE (percentage wise) users that NEED the benefits of a mac, such as very large memory installations, use of specialized production mac-only apps, etc...by all means buy and enjoy a mac.

Just don't try and convince yourself macs don't crash, don't have spyware and viruses or hardware/driver issues too.  They do.  It's just not a big deal, like it hasn't been a big deal on PCs for YEARS.  XP and Vista are every bit as stable, OS speaking, as OSX (nothing special, just a linux dirivative called FreeBSD that also runs on a PC).  In fact there is nothing special about most 'macs' whatsoever.  It's 99% the same hardware as a PC, and you can (illegally) run OSX on many PCs (so my friend tells me  ).  The only difference between a PC and a small percentage of upper level macs, is the ability to install 2x the amount of physical ram on the motherboard, as a desktop PC.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the fours years I have had a Mac at home I have had zero viruses, zero spyware, only one hardware issue and I have only had the OS crash on me twice. I would have to emphatically and categorically disagree with this post. After 25+ years as a professional programmer in the desktop environment  my preference is with the Mac.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kaelaria on July 16, 2007, 07:30:52 PM
OK, well in the last 4 years, I have had zero viruses, zero spyware, zero hardware issues (and I've built 3 complete systems since that time) and not had the OS (Windows XP and most recently Vista) crash a single time.  The last blue screen of death I saw was running Windows ME, over 6 years ago.  I use several systems for 16+ hours a day for all kinds of uses.  I serve and maintain 40+ workstations (all Windows XP) daily and have not had a single OS crash in the 6+ years they have been deployed.  Every single crash, unexpected reboot, etc. has been due to events beyond human control and irrespective of the platform - lighting strike, power outage, network failure, buggy application, and by FAR THE #1 CAUSE OF PROBLEMS - USER ERROR.  Stupid users will cause grief on whatever system you give them.

Shows you how irrelavent such testimonials are, doesn't it (mine is 100% true BTW)?  You and I both know that 'how many viruses' and 'how much spyware' one gets is 100% due to the operator - NOTHING to do with the computer or OS.  You hear about Macs having less infections for two simple reasons:

1 - there are hardly any Mac users compared to Windows.
2 - there are far fewer viruses and spyware written for a Mac, because of fact #1.

It's simply odds, not by virtue of the platform.

By the flawed logic shown by many mac-fan-boys, the Timex Sinclair has the Best OS, because it has never crashed, and has never had a virus or spyware effect it.   LOL
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: X-Re on July 17, 2007, 02:55:36 PM
Quote
Shows you how irrelavent such testimonials are, doesn't it (mine is 100% true BTW)?  You and I both know that 'how many viruses' and 'how much spyware' one gets is 100% due to the operator - NOTHING to do with the computer or OS.

     This is simply not fact. There have been (and theoretically still are) holes in each OS out there (including Unixes, etc) that allow a perpetrator to load in an intrusive program of some sort without the user requiring anything to allow it. In many cases, this occurs through a system service of some form, and it is not intuitively obvious (even to a skilled systems expert) that the service might be a bad thing to be running. Further, if a fix is not available from the vendor, it may not be possible to correct the situation.

     Proper networking of the system obviously helps, etc - but there are still situations where a competent user can get into trouble. Luckily, the technology available today makes those situations rare...

Quote
  You hear about Macs having less infections for two simple reasons:

1 - there are hardly any Mac users compared to Windows.
2 - there are far fewer viruses and spyware written for a Mac, because of fact #1.

     I wouldn't go so far as to say "hardly any". There's a significant enough Mac user community that viruses and spyware are on the rise for those platforms. But, in general, you are correct - the Windows platform is more widely available. It also would appear to have been more porous at the outset of XP - and been tightened up fairly significantly following the "CNN moments" that Microsoft had with security.


      I use LR and CS3 on a Windows platform running XP. I have experienced two BSoD that were driver related issues, and fixed by patches. Eventually, I will run a Mac platform, but for reasons other than stability (certainly, MacOS has had its issues, if you dig into it enough). The simple answer is - there is not a perfect platform out there. Use what works. Stop throwing stones at others for using something different.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kaelaria on July 17, 2007, 03:20:25 PM
Oh, OK, fine - call it what you will.  Personally, I call single digit percentages of the market share 'hardly any, relatively speaking'.  If you want to church it up, be my guest.

So please, do tell (one example will do) of what 'invasive' program will cause an unstable OS 'without the user requiring anything to allow it.'  Remember, that means it's 100% the OS' fault - that's what we are talking about.  So no browser or other internet app, no user loading of anything...just a computer sitting there being 'invaded' all by itself.

Or perhaps you want to revise your claim...

Congrats on your BSod.  I never said it doesn't happen.  I said it happens on both platforms and it's no big deal - you proved my point.

Read my posts again, I'm not throwing a single stone - I'm stating FAIR statements, to counter fan-boy ramblings.  I would do the same if someone was claiming the PC to be the 'best'.

They both have their place - but it pays to be informed and not default to one or the other based on BS and myths, especcially those repeated daily on the internet by uninformed users.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: bobtowery on July 17, 2007, 05:43:48 PM
HEY TODD - Aren't you glad you asked?

The people that are willing to purchase a platform that has a tiny market share (check this out: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/ma...hare/index.php) (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php)) are by their nature going to be defensive and zealous.  Hey, it's a free world.  Whatever floats your boat.

One thing I would throw in is to evaluate what you plan to build vs what you can buy say through Dell.  I have built quite a few computers.  The last time was about 4 years ago. I built two machines, pretty high end stuff (all bought at Fry's).

About a week later I figured out I could have done slightly better at Dell.  I would have had something more reliable, and could have spent the weekend shooting pictures or some other worthwhile time investment instead of futzing with electronics.

If it is a hobby you enjoy, then by all means build.  If not, you might be able to do as well or better in terms of time and money.

Both of those computers are dead now, and essentially not repairable (shuttles).

Bob

ps: But I agree it is hilarious to visit a mac store!
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: Hermie on July 17, 2007, 06:14:31 PM
How would you 'techies' rate a workstation like this. The basic configuration costs EUR 2.650. I would need some additional memory and hard drives though.

See http://www.maqina.nl/product/formconfig.as...uctID=760933631 (http://www.maqina.nl/product/formconfig.asp?ProductID=760933631)
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: X-Re on July 17, 2007, 08:26:52 PM
Quote
So please, do tell (one example will do) of what 'invasive' program will cause an unstable OS 'without the user requiring anything to allow it.'  Remember, that means it's 100% the OS' fault - that's what we are talking about.  So no browser or other internet app, no user loading of anything...just a computer sitting there being 'invaded' all by itself.

     The first easy Microsoft example that jumps to mind - because of all the stir it created when it occured - is right here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/MS01-033.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-033.mspx)

     IIS was turned on - on every Win 2K machine - by default. You install the OS and you're vulnerable.

Quote
Or perhaps you want to revise your claim...

     Or perhaps you want to change your snotty tone and go educate yourself on things like buffer overruns and other common hacking holes that occur without the user being involved.... Or STHU about things you truly don't understand.

     You might also explain to everyone why it is that cable/DSL routers with built in firewalls became so popular in the early part of the decade... and why they're actually necessary, if there's no way to attack a system without a stupid user doing something....

Quote
Congrats on your BSod.  I never said it doesn't happen.  I said it happens on both platforms and it's no big deal - you proved my point.

     Never said you didn't. I did, however, point out that my experience has been different than yours. But... apparently that offends you, all knowing and all mightly Windows self-proclaimed expert, sir.

Quote
I'm stating FAIR statements, to counter fan-boy ramblings.

     I'm wondering who's really the fan-boy....

Quote
They both have their place - but it pays to be informed and not default to one or the other based on BS and myths, especcially those repeated daily on the internet by uninformed users.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     I don't disagree - I do disagree with the absolute-ist statements made in your previous posts, and your tone throughout, though... You're being less than helpful, and your snide comments to opinions that differ even slightly from yours just appear to indicate that you have an axe to grind, and not that you have useful information to share...

     At least you seem to be a solid photographer...
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kaelaria on July 17, 2007, 08:50:14 PM
LOL try again!  A problem that was fixed 6 years ago on the OS 2 generations ago (Windows 2000)  is all you can come up with?  Try to keep up with the conversation

Buffer overruns...oooh hey throw out some more tech terms to try and baffle everyone (else) with BS!  I said no browser or loading remember...we are talking about the OS, not the user or apps.  Buffer overrun attacks required user input to execute the bad program or code, remember   Programs don't run themselves

The loser of a debate is always the first one to call names and curse...sad, but predicted  

Is your dad going to beat up my dad now?  LOL
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: X-Re on July 17, 2007, 09:07:49 PM
Quote
LOL try again!  A problem that was fixed 6 years ago on the OS 2 generations ago (Windows 2000)  is all you can come up with?

     You wanted an example. You got one. The fact that its 6 years old does not at all change the fact that its an example of the very thing that you say doesn't ever exist. It also happens to be the starting point of a revelationary period where Microsoft realized that their flagship OS leaked like a sieve, and where all the whizbang stuff in place in XP and Vista now got their start. That's not exactly a "small" example.

Quote
Buffer overruns...oooh hey throw out some more tech terms to try and baffle everyone (else) with BS!  I said no browser or loading remember...we are talking about the OS, not the user or apps.  Buffer overrun attacks required user input to execute the bad program or code, remember   Programs don't run themselves

     Sigh... I guess if you count turning on the power to the system as a stupid user move, then I have to concede... Otherwise.... programs most definitely "run themselves", and buffer overruns are quite useful things to exploit in attacking services/daemons that run on the system simply as part of starting the OS up. Now... to anyone that knows squat about how operating systems work, you've proven that you don't. To folks that don't, well... they're not reading this conversation anyhow.

     Didn't see you even take a pass at explaining firewalled routers being so common (and necessary). Or perhaps you can't? Or won't (since the answer is the very thing you're arguing against). You state a ways back:

Quote
If you know very little about computers, how they work, and just like to propagate old myths to make yourself feel better...buy a mac wink.gif

     And yet you don't understand why we have firewalled cable/DSL routers, now, and have happily explained to us that you don't understand common mechanisms that worms propagate themselves. You only have a partial understanding of how things truly work - and seeing as you're living in a glass house, perhaps you ought not throw stones at others, accusing them of the same things....

Quote
The loser of a debate is always the first one to call names and curse...sad, but predicted  

     Did I call a name?? Or did I just reuse a term that you've already used (making you the first to use it, BTW...)
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: John.Murray on July 17, 2007, 11:20:54 PM
Quote
I am going to build myself a new computer to use for Lightroom and Adobe Creative Suite (I'll be getting CS3), plus general use.

What sould I be looking for in a CPU, RAM, Video, Scrach Disk, Hard Drive, Motherboard? Any other thought?

I have ideas of what I want to go with but wanted to see what other people would do. My plan was double monitors but after playing with LR I think a widescreen would be best, 26" or larger. Is that right?

I have about 2K to spend without monitor.

Any ideas? I'll wait untill the July 22 prive drop from Intel, but would like to start getting the other parts soon.

Thanks
Todd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Todd:  You've probably noticed that current CPU's tend to have more cores as opposed to higher clock-speeds.  I'm runming LR and CS2 on a (fairly) new Dual Core Intel 955 Chipset mainboard.  Although the clockspeed is significantly less than my main P4-3Ghz (prescott) - it runs LR more efficiently.  I believe this is mainly due to 2 factors:

The 955 Chipset support the faster DDR2-667 Memory (1033 Front Side Bus Speed).  The P4 supports DDR-400.

Lightroom definately takes advantage of the additional cores.

Finally, the power equirements of the newer Dual Core Procs are significantly less, resulting in a cooler running, quieter machine.  Once you work without the steady drone of noisy cooling fans you'll never look back . . .

Don't worry too much about the video subsystem - ATI seems to be a bit ahead of NVidea for Vista driver support - 256MB seems to be a nice cost/value point -personally I favor nVidea

I'm running a 27" Dell - thanks to some input on this forum, It's no longer too bright - in fact, I love it!

Don't forget to budget $200-300 for some form of display color management.  Note that Vista's UAC (user account control) will nail any loaded display profile, forcing you to reload it.  There *are* alternatives to disabling UAC.

I'd recommend a 64-bit O/S XP or Vista *only* if you are *sure* your peripherals have WHCL (hardware compatibility lab) or "signed" driver support - in fact if you choose Vista, it's required.  I personally have *never* accepted anything less than signed drivers for years now, and as a result have never had a "blue screen".

You'll probably be budgeting an office application as well - I'd strongly recommend MS-Office 2007 basic; it's E-Mail client no longer relies on the system bowser to render HTML - reducing probably the single most exploited inroad to system security; email and it's ever-present spam / malicious attachments / bogus website links.

Finally - security / bug fixes for *all* operating systems is a continuing process, not an end achievement - keep it patched and updated!

2K is a nice budget!  Have fun!

-John
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kaelaria on July 18, 2007, 09:01:09 AM
Dave, Dave, Dave...you *still* don't get it.  We are in 2007 now, Dave.  We aren't talking about what was a problem in 'the early part of the decade'.  You can rant about past problems, old versions of windows, attacks that have been thwarted years ago...irrelavent - no point even bringing it up.  If you want to go that way, let's be fair and talk about all the old bugs in the past versions of MacOS...hmmmmm?  Didn't think so.

You still have'nt given one example of a *current* problem as you described.  Is the sky falling on all us PC users yet Dave?  

Looking forward to your next blowup session, Dave
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: X-Re on July 18, 2007, 09:10:02 AM
Quote
Dave, Dave, Dave...you *still* don't get it.

     You're funny, man  Typical tactics of the man proven wrong - dodge and reflect...


Quote
We aren't talking about what was a problem in 'the early part of the decade'. 

      You seem to miss the point - or you can't handle being proven wrong. Either way, doesn't matter. You wanted an example of a way that a machine could be infected with a virus that didn't involve user action - because you claimed it couldn't happen. I showed you one. You lose. Sorry your ego can't handle that  You can't beat facts, bub. Simple fact - programmers writing sucky code leaves holes that can be exploited - and with no action of the user, other than turning the machine on and connecting it to a network.

Quote
If you want to go that way, let's be fair and talk about all the old bugs in the past versions of MacOS...hmmmmm?  Didn't think so.

     Please do, if you feel the need. Like I said before, I don't run MacOS, so its irrelevant to me. In fact, why don't you show us where a Mac has been infected without user action. Surely you're expert enough to dredge that sort of info up, huh? I mean, now that I've proven to you that it can happen and all...

Quote
You still have'nt given one example of a *current* problem as you described.

     And I won't. Until you answer the questions in my previous posts, you're not worth the effort  Your avoidance shows you don't know, and you're afraid you're wrong. Like I said, you're funny. Are you truly an expert, or just another "I thump my chest on Internet forums and shout down people who disagree" bully? Come on, man, prove it  Or can't you?

Quote
Looking forward to your next blowup session, Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     I'm totally ROTFLMAO... you haven't even raised my blood pressure one bit. In return, I'm looking forward to your next weaseling away from the issue you brought up in the first place. I need a good laugh!

     ETA: I'm tired of polluting this thread, going nowhere. If you decided you'd like to actually respond, instead of dodge, and show that you do know about that which you speak, I might listen. Otherwise, I'm done talking to a brick wall  
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: kaelaria on July 18, 2007, 09:18:02 AM
Whatever you say Dave - you win!  Your internet schlong is bigger than mine!  LOL

I'll leave you to tout how you are right, I'm wrong, the sky is falling and PCs all around the world are crashing from just sitting there, because the OS is soooo full of holes, and everyone should buy a Mac

Noooooot!
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: X-Re on July 18, 2007, 09:34:33 AM
This was far easier than I thought it might be - simple Google search turns this up. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms06-040.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms06-040.mspx) - from August last year, vulnerability in RPC, affects any running system at the time. Their workaround was to disable RPC ports on the firewall (which kaelaria doesn't understand - I guess that word's too big for him) until a fix was available. Its a good bet that more of these are hiding in the code. Its also a good bet that there are several of these vulnerabilities in MacOS X.

Suffice it to say, holes have existed, and will still exist, that can be exploited with no user action. Its the nature of software development.

For comparison's sake, Secunia tracks vulnerabilities for just about anything out there. Windows XP has 185 vulnerabilities tracked against it  - http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories (http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories) (17 reported this year). MacOS X has 104 vulnerabilities reported against it - http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories (http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=advisories) (also 17 against it this year). I'd say they both have their issues, and are under a roughly equal amount of pressure from hackers. If anything, that disproves your point about MacOS X not being adopted enough to raise the interest of hackers...

And, I am right, and its just killing you....  
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: ToddT on July 20, 2007, 08:52:58 PM
Thanks for all the in put.

I looked more into the Macs and I donít think it is for me. I like the Mac Pros but canít justify the money. I donít get the IMac. I can see the Mini for an all in one, but $2400 for an IMac? What do you do if you need to upgrade/replace the monitor? How about adding another hard drive? The guy at the Apple store said you can add as many USB drives you want, like I want my hard drives running at USB speeds. Some one said that PC people tend to upgrade their computers more than Mac people, and I can see why. Because they can!

I think I am going to stick with the PC and go with Vista 64. I am waiting to see what the new prices from Intel will be (lower prices around the 22nd I hear) and maybe go with a quad core.

Thanks again.

PS Someone said that I might be able to get a Dell for less than I can build and in a lot of cases that is true. But when there a things that you know you want like fast hard drives (10K RPM) for the OS and a large drive for data, more memory, certain video card, things like that and you can save a lot of money to build. And I like doing it too.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: John.Murray on July 20, 2007, 09:03:15 PM
Todd:

If you're "rolling your own", check out Antec's Sonata enclosure:

Large Diameter Cooling Fan
Shock Mounted Drive Cage and Mounts
Piano Black Finish
Front Panel Audio / USB / Firewire Access

http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=15138 (http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=15138)

Have Fun
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: allan67 on July 20, 2007, 10:15:23 PM
Hello,

There was a series of articles on Tom's Hardware site about building different configuration systems: from low to high end. And then they overclocked the high and low end system.
The builds were mostly games oriented, but some good ideas on the best price/perfomance components.

Tom's Hardware Build Marathon (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/10/system_builder_marathon/)

Tom's Hardware Overclocking Marathon (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/20/overclocking_marathon_day_4/)

Hope this will help.

Allan
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: wtlloyd on July 21, 2007, 08:20:14 PM
Jeez, 2007 and fan-boy flame wars are still going strong...some people never catch on.

Hey, there's a pretty darn good thread over at DPreview, of all places, regarding current configurations and hardware for photo use machines -

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=23680115 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=23680115)

My two cents - I don't think Vista is ready to play nice entirely - YMMV. I would not look at 64 bit OS at this time, my preference (I'm building a new system next month) will be to stay with the fully mature WinXP - I use BreezeBrowser, which doesn't run on Apple (don't talk to me about BootCamp) and other such misc photo programs. You can get 3GB to run on a WinXP platform, that and a speedy cache drive are really very, very adequate.

Good luck, and remember - the sweet spot is one step below the current ultimate high end technology.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 23, 2007, 01:16:45 AM
Hi!

I don't know if this helps but it seems that Lightroom does not use multiple CPU:s very efficiently. It can use multiple CPUs for background tasks, like generating slide shows. The foreground task seems not utilizing multiple CPUs. For instance it doesn't seem to create more than one preview at a time. Having more than 3 GByte of memory may be helpful.

To me it seems that Lightroom is quite fast, once it has generated all it's previews. To me it seems considerably more stable and responsive on my iMac than om my Windows box. The Windows machine is on Athlon (dual core) while the iMac is Intel Core dual. The AMD is a bit faster, both in benchmarks and on real applications. I have seen that most times Lightroom is sluggish it depends  on lack of free memory and swapping.

That said I have seen very few programs that actually are using both cores of a dual CPU.

Best regards

Erik

Quote
I wonder if the new set of iMacs are good enough to a workable speed in Lightroom, or if one should aim higher, at a Mac Pro...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: ToddT on July 23, 2007, 06:29:50 PM
Quote
Hey, there's a pretty darn good thread over at DPreview, of all places, regarding current configurations and hardware for photo use machines -

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=23680115 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=23680115)

My two cents - I don't think Vista is ready to play nice entirely - YMMV. I would not look at 64 bit OS at this time, my preference (I'm building a new system next month) will be to stay with the fully mature WinXP - I use BreezeBrowser, which doesn't run on Apple (don't talk to me about BootCamp) and other such misc photo programs. You can get 3GB to run on a WinXP platform, that and a speedy cache drive are really very, very adequate.

Good luck, and remember - the sweet spot is one step below the current ultimate high end technology.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is a good thread at DPR. The computer that is being talked about is very close to what I was planning on building. I think I'll go with XP Pro and 3gigs of RAM, and the same drive setup.

Thanks again
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: theophilus on July 28, 2007, 08:23:52 PM
Todd,

I suggest not asking how to build a computer in photography forums, I would venture over to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/index.ars).

They put together a great system building guide every 3 months or so:
Ars Technica system building guide (http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/guide-200706.ars)

There are also many people in their forums who use photoshop and lightroom to process RAW images.

Some of the greatest speed gains that you will see are based on proper partitioning and usage of your hard drives.  It's especially important to get the Windows and Photoshop scratch disks onto separate hard drives, with all of your photos onto a 3rd drive.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: budjames on August 05, 2007, 07:46:40 AM
Buy a Mac so that you can spend time using your computer instead of tinkering with it to get the OS to behave and play nice with your hardware.
Title: New computer for Lightroom.
Post by: EarlyMan on August 11, 2007, 09:50:28 AM
Hi -
I just finished building a core2 duo machine. It has 2G of DDR2 800mhz ram, a 10,000k raptor SATA HD for the OS (XP 2nd edition), CS3, and LR, and 2 - 7200k SATA HD's (one for images, one for scratch drive. It also has a Geforce 8800 GTS video card (completely over the top for photo editing, but essential for relaxing with your favorite 1st person shooter game   )

Lightroom loads in about 4 seconds, CS3 in about 9 seconds. Filters that used to take MINUTES to apply in Photoshop, now take less than 30 seconds. I haven't had a single lock up, BSOD or any other problem whatsoever.

I couldn't be happier with this setup; there were zero software compatibility issues when installing all my print drivers, Photoshop plug ins, monitor profiling software, and Colorbyte RIP software - mainly because I chose to avoid VISTA.  Maybe after a service pack or two, I'll switch operating systems, but for now XP is a mature product and I know my way around it.

With the exception of the video card, the system cost about $1300; add a more reasonable video card (ATI radeon PCI express, for example), and you're looking at $1650 or so. Well within the $2000 budget of the original poster.

Check out www.newegg.com They supplied me with most of my parts.

-E