The "ideal" Photoshop system ?!

[sinatra_y2k]

Hey gang,

I've been working with various versions of Photoshop over the years at school, and now I'm looking to buy a new computer system and seriously start designing. I've read the system requirements for 5.5, but I was wondering if anybody had any advice about building/configuring a system that will really fly with Photoshop.

I'm not a hardware guy at ALL, so what should I be looking for.. lots of RAM for sure, but what about MHZ, and processors and chipsets (its all latin to me). I'm probably going to lay most of my available credit on this system - so I want it to be what I need, and I'd like it not to be obsolete in ten minutes.

Any advice would be much appreciated... Thanks!

Mike sinatra_y2k@hotmail.com

[sinatra_y2k]

Hey gang,

I've been working with various versions of Photoshop over the years at school, and now I'm looking to buy a new computer system and seriously start designing. I've read the system requirements for 5.5, but I was wondering if anybody had any advice about building/configuring a system that will really fly with Photoshop.

I'm not a hardware guy at ALL, so what should I be looking for.. lots of RAM for sure, but what about MHZ, and processors and chipsets (its all latin to me). I'm probably going to lay most of my available credit on this system - so I want it to be what I need, and I'd like it not to be obsolete in ten minutes.

Any advice would be much appreciated... Thanks!

Mike sinatra_y2k@hotmail.com

[Peter Clifton]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gee. I logged on to this forum expecting to find good advice about using PS and find a nest of PC vipers. Do we have to do this here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we reading the same messages

Somebody posts a request about building / configuring a photoshop system and a few people answer with some reasonable advice.

Speaking as one of the 'vipers' please tell me how we can provide an answer to such a question without incurring the wrath of users such as yourself

To the best of my knowledge it is not possible to go out and build a Macintosh compatible computer so it was reasonably assumed that the person wished to configure a 'wintel' system to use Photoshop.

It was even mentioned that the user may wish to consider looking at the latest Macintosh computer.

I have studied each message in this thread in context and can find no reason for a statement such as yours.


Peter.

Me, I'd like to consider myself non-venomous

[DarleenMB]

Gee. I logged on to this forum expecting to find good advice about using PS and find a nest of PC vipers. Do we have to do this here?

Everyone has a preference. Mine is Mac. If the rest of you want to fiddle with and torture yourself with wintel boxes, be my guest. I won't try to convert any of you if you all will not make disparaging comments about my choices. OK? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Darleen

[SandDancr]

I just had to stop and throw in my 2 cents here... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I am not impressed with the flat panel screens, particularly for graphics....so don't even waste the money. I do agree with the Trinitrons...and the more RAM the better. Try to spring for at least 256K...you won't be sorry!

Check out the Dell refurshished computers at Dell You will find that you can probably get a configuration closer to what you want for the price you want to pay.

If you can afford the speed go for it....you won't be unhappy when you hit a graphic intense site and it takes an hour to load....like mine. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] (Gotta do something about that...soon).

The Matrox graphics card is super...but the GEForce is no wimp either, so you can't go too far wrong with either.

And for you Mac haters...tsk, tsk, tsk! Be fair guys...both computers have their place. I use both and my MAC SE is still going strong after 15 years....never ever been in the shop for repairs...knock on wood! I am dying to get the Cube....but I also want an Athlon 850...anyone want a used HP PIII 400 mhz?

Good luck!

SandDancr Studios

The sandcastles of our lives are nothing when compared to the tides of our destinies.

[Peter Clifton]

Mike

First, you really need to decide if your going for an 'off the shelf' system or a 'build it your self' system.

Building it yourself will definitely cost more, but you will be able to tailor it to your exact requirements, using the best of components.

Buying an 'off the shelf system' will usually involve some compromises.


Building it yourself
About all this interface stuff UDMA 33 / 66 /100 vs SCSI, AGPx4 AGPx2, 100mHz frontside bus V 133 mHz frontside bus.

In basic 2D work like Photoshop there is unlikely to be any visible or externally tangible difference assuming you use a good quality graphics card and fast hard disk (SCSI or IDE).

As for the difference in performance between VIA and Intel motherboard chipsets, on a fully optimised system I would hope the difference is between 3 and 5 percent in favour of Intel, all other things being equal.

A good place to start looking for benchmark results and most other hardware related info is

Tom's Hardware

As for the oomph of a system. Definitely get as much RAM as you can afford first and then go for the fastest processor you can get.

Now I don't actually use Photoshop but all the information I've supplied so far is IMHO valid for any type of 2D image editing computer. The following bit of information is based on my experiences with Corel Photopaint, but I reckon in terms of usage of system resources the packages are similar.

The size of the image file you generally work with will determine how much RAM you need, if you regularly work with 20MB plus images involving layers and such then I reckon 256MB of RAM or more would be appropriate. The less time your computer spends accessing the hard disk the faster your job will get done. If you work with smaller images then 128MB should be adequate.

The faster processor will come into it's own with the filters, if you do a lot of filter effects work then a faster processor will be beneficial.

I'm going out on a limb here but a 500 mHz Pentium III or Athlon type processor should be enough but it really depends on the type of work you intend to do.

Buying Off the Shelf systems
These days the king of graphics cards supplied with good off the shelf computers is based on the NVidia GEFORCE 256 processor (or GEFORCE2 256). It's 3D performance in the price range is unsurpassed, it's 2D is no slouch either. As for 2D image quality and speed compared to Matrox, I guess that is really subjective, however general opinion (read newsgroup / forum posts) probably has the Matrox G400 series still out in front.

I feel the monitor is still very important. With an off the shelf system this is usually the component that gets short changed to get all the other specifications up to snuff. Some people are not bothered by this, but if possible I urge you to look at a good quality Diamondtron (or Trinitron equivalent) screen compared to a 'bundled' monitor.

I don't know what makes of monitor are on sale in Toronto but in the UK the Diamondtron iiyama series are getting good reviews in the computer press.

Hope the information is useful.

Peter

PS If it's any help this is what I just built 3 Weeks ago with my own money and I'm very happy with it.

Motherboard - ASUS CUSL2 (815E Solano chipset)
RAM - 256 MB of PC133 CAS2 (2 x 128)
Harddisks - IBM Deskstar 75GXP (15GB System Drive 30 GB data drive)
Processor - PentiumIII 667EB Coppermine processor
Monitor - iiyama Diamontron 410 PRO
Case - Midi Tower with 300W Power Supply

I'm actually using the onboard video (present on all 815E Solano motherboards) at the moment, its 2D quality and speed is actually OK, but forget about 3D. I'm planning to put a Matrox card in it when finances allow as it is part of a Video editing system which is the next 'pet' project I want to get into.

[This message was edited by Peter Clifton on August 11, 2000 at 11:33 AM.]

[imallforgod]

While Flat screens are beautiful, if you're working wiht graphics the screen resolution and dpi is very poor. I would not recommend getting a flat screen unless you can afford one with the dpi and resolution of a regular monitor. Flat screens tend to distort color and be more blurry than regular monitors.
And I'm a fellow mac hater too *LOL* Unfortunately, I work with 4 mac lovers...I used to be one...until I got my first PC [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Check it out::
http://projectsalvation.com

[Sally_9339]

I am learning [very slowly it seems] to use some 3-D packages. When I phoned about a computer, the nice lady asked if I would require G-L-I-D-E, and lacking insight, I asked what it was, and she suddenly knew nothing [hhhmmmm?], so I still know nothing about Glide. I believe it is for CAD/CAM.

I am an IBM lover, and I guess they will not be loading Win2000 [here I am in a minority again], but I do want to use the system for 3-D and for Macromedia, and for Camcorder work [30 Gig drive = 15 minutes of time [pre-layer collapse], if you are using After Effects, [so I have been told]. The fellow had 3 - 30 gig drives to put his work on, before final copy, & export to Apple QT.

I have also heard of systems which use a boot drive [IDE], and a working drive [SCSI]... does anyone have any further info on that? I would like to work SCSI, for obvious reasons, but having the boot/OS sector separate might be a good idea, too...

TIA
anoa0sally@uswest.net

[RCH Creative]

Ok, without slamming PC's, lets discuss the facts.
PC's do not have an adequate color management system for pre-press. So if your work is going on press, go with a Mac. If your work is going on the web a PC will do the job although not as well.

As for Ma c Systems, a 400 to 500 MHZ G3 or G4 with 256 Meg of Ram, Rage Pro 16meg Graphics Card, and some sort of portable drive for transfering your files to a service bureau (Zip seems to be the way to go).

In recent tests running Photoshop 5.5 the Macintosh G4 500Mh z was clocked at almost twice the speed of a Pentium 750Mhz. Don't be confused by the way Apple under rates their systems.

As for hard drives stick with SCSI they are faster. End of Story. Monitors - Don't Scrimp a cheap monitor is exactly that. So ny, Mitsubishi
or Apple is all I would use, unless you have lots and lots of cash then go with a Barco Prepress calibrated monitor (Big Bucks)

If your work is going on press stick with the Mac platform, Service bureau's prefer it. Most use Mac because of color consistency, and font accuracy.¿

[This message was edited by Robin on September 19, 2000 at 04:38 PM.]

[gwpriester]

I have to admit that I do not do a lot of heavy duty work in Photoshop, so maybe I am not the best person to ask. However,

I have a Dell Pentium II 450 with 128 MB RAM and a STB nVIDIA TNT video card with 16 MB video RAM, and I get around in Photoshop 5.5 quite well.

I think more RAM is always a good idea. I noticed that COSTCO has 128 MB RAM modules for about $1.00 a MB. I'm not sure how fast the RAM is but the price is a real eye opener.

I have always been a Mac hater, mostly because Macs have always been over prices and I cannot stand the holier than thou attitude a lot of Mac users seem to have.

That said, the new G4 Cube blows me away. No fan so the thing is soundless. The cube is not only extremely handsome, it's very petit as well.

The base price for a decent unit (only 64 MB of RAM but you can add that) is $1700. A standard 17" matching monitor is around $400. The sides of the monitor like the cube are transparent.

A flat 15" LCD screen is about $800 and the 22" Cinema screen is $3999.

I am sorely tempted.

Gar [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

Be It Every So Humble...