Thanks for the clarification.

I thought someone recommended buying from OSW if I'm going to get a MBP and upgrade it like Sam suggested. Now I can't find their post. Deleted? I halucinated? What is OSW? I searched and didn't find anything under OSW where they sell MacBooks.

fungke wrote:
i am in the same boat.
not sure if i should get a last gen refurb, current MB or MBP.
would the new MBP's video card be that much help for processing?

NO. The MB's now have vid cards. And the vid cards in the NEW MB are more powerful than the vid cards in the LAST pro's.

Matt Khoury wrote:
fungke wrote:
i am in the same boat.
not sure if i should get a last gen refurb, current MB or MBP.
would the new MBP's video card be that much help for processing?

NO. The MB's now have vid cards. And the vid cards in the NEW MB are more powerful than the vid cards in the LAST pro's.

so is it safe to assume that the current Macbook (2.4Ghz, 4GB, fast HD) is on par if not out perform the previous generation Macbook Pro (2.6GHz, 4GB, fast HD) when it comes to processing raw images and editing photos in photoshop?

I am looking at this to be my main editing system which will be tethered to an external monitor.

high end Lenovo + x86 OSX =P gg.

All seriousness though, MBP are nice.

Can you make a direct comparison between MBP's and PC's regarding processor ghz, ram, front end bus and all that?

You can't exactly make a direct comparison because the Mac OSX software is far more advanced than Vista and XP put together. But if you wanted to make a comparison, you technically could as Macs now run on Intel processors. But really, GHZ is not as important as the operating system itself. Any previous generation MBP is just as fast as the new ones.



If I switch from PC to MBP, can I upgrade from PS-CS2 PC software to PS-CS4 for Mac or will I have to start over and buy the full priced version for the Mac?

You can't use PC software made for PC on a Mac. You CAN use PC software made for Mac on a Mac. However, if you wanted to use PC software on a Mac, you could either run a $79 program called "parallels" which allows you to install Windows XP/Vista and any windows software. It's like using a PC and a Mac simultaneously, without owning an actual PC. However, I don't recommend using powerful software such as Adobe because you'd require more than 2GB on that PC alone and more powerful graphics which I believe Parallels won't support.



Regarding PC's - in the past, I heard that some brands, like Dell, are better quality than others. Who are the best manufacturers these days? Also, the whole Intel Centrino vs AMD vs all the other kinds of processors - does the type matter much, or just the ghz?

This could bring up a lot of heat and really, it is a matter of opinion because to me PCs are all the same. But when it comes to brand, Toshiba, Acer and probably HP are known to be reliable for laptops and clone (personalized) PCs for desktop. I personally think Dell is plastic, Compaq should go to hell and Sony should focus on making TVs. Sony Vaios are probably the worst computers ever built in history.


Also, would images from the MBP show well on my Dell monitor or would I need to get an Apple monitor for editing at home on a larger display?

Sure, depends on the model of the display, resolution, glossy/matte and screen size. With MBP, you can connect a DVI monitor and a beautifully large display to extend the screen of your work. Of course, I fully recommend getting an Apple cinema display. I personally have the older version in 23" that cost me $2k and it is just wonderfully perfect. But now I also have a $250 Acer 22" and it's just as good.



BTW, am I the only one here who's frustrated that the only kind of displays you can get now days are widescreen? Seems like a ridiculous waste of screen space for photo editing. The reduced size on images in portrait orientation and not having a choice on display formats really bugs me.

That's why you have to buy a decently large screen. Minimum of 22" I'd say. There's a huge benefit in widescreen and it's that you can place more objects horizontally. For example, I can place two large protraits and compare each one from another. If I had a 30", you could make that 3 easily. There's absolutely no disadvantage in widescreen so I'd disagree with you.

In conclusion, whatever you do, buy a Mac. Even an used one. Don't go for PC, just start off the right way. TRUST me, I've been a mac user since 1997 and I have a few macs at home and just 1 PC for the heck of it. The PC is a custom built one, cost me less than $380 bucks. If you can't afford MBP, get an iMac. They're even faster than MBP and somewhat less expensive.

sboerup wrote:
Graphics card is going to help little to none on any photo editing work. Better graphics cards are for running large 30" screens, playing games or video work, not for photo. Having a great or fast graphics card wont really help you out.

Faster processor, more ram, fast HD and a better front side bus will help leaps and bounds more than a graphics card.

The thing that I have found when working on my MBP, Lightroom and Photoshop run so much faster, and the specs aren't near where my PC is. Running windows on my MBP isn't very fast, but when using LR on a Mac, it's way faster. Like, incredibly faster.

Spencer, Aperture at least offloads a lot of the image processing to the graphics card. As such a better graphics card in this situation really would help. That's Aperture though, I'm not sure as to what lightroom or photoshop do.

Alex

I don't know if it's the best or not, but I have had a MBP since they first came out. Almost 3 years later....no complaints. I would really like to know who else has a laptop they've had for 3 years with no upgrades, no problems and it still works just like the day you took it out of the box.

I had my first MBP 17" for 4 years. Changed it only to upgrade to Intel. Never purchased an Apple care program.

WOOT!

I just purchased an old (feb. 2008) MBP from Amazon in November. I LOVE it. No complaints. It's super fast, has a really nice matte screen, and I upgraded the ram for something less than $70. Plus you save a lot of money getting the older generation (and no glossy screen). I guess my only complaint is that I have to buy a new version of photoshop since I last the disc for my last one (and it was something like PS7). Here's the link to my computer:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013FLTNS

MBP is very nice. I have the last generation model. I am planning on using it for awhile. Typically better resale value, too. I used my old Power Mac desktop for over 5 years with no problems, besides beginning to struggle through large batches in Adobe Bridge (single processor G5), which I sold last year for $500. I have practically had to pay people to take old PCs away from me (and those much less than three years old).

Ben and Gillyohan, I've had my Dell Inspiron 5100 since May, '03 and it was my only computer until earlier this year. Works as good as the day I got it, just too slow for the processing software and the size image files I'm processing. Also, the display screen is too contrasty and the viewing angle effects the image too much for accurate editing and retouching. The color isn't as good as my Dell desktop display, either. It's been very adequate in respect to reliability and performing at the speed it was created to perform. No complaints about that, but it has 1 GB ram and a better screen would be nice when I'm traveling or showing clients their photos on location.

Italo, Thank you for taking the time to respond to all those questions. Parallels doesn't sound like something I'd want. thanks for the warning on that. Toshiba, Acer and HP. Acer and HP used to be considered the cheap, lower quality brands. Good to know they've improved. If an Acer display is just as good, why would I get an Apple cinema display? If your MBP works on an Acer though, I guess the Dell display will work, too. iMac? Nobody has mentioned those up to now, have they? If the iMac is just as fast and costs less, why hasn't anyone else recommended it? Smaller screen size? Thanks for the info, Italo.

ai3x, Spencer said that PS and LR don't use the graphics card much.

Deb, Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Since I posted this, I've seen another thread where they said if you call Adobe, you can switch when you upgrade. Regarding the lost disk, they have your registration ID and they can help you activate an upgrade without having the disk. They did for me for CS2. Not sure if you can upgrade from PS7 to CS4. Worth finding out, though.

With all these recommendations for MBP and the fact that 2 friends who've used PC's for years recently switched and love their Mac whatevers, I am giving it serious consideration. I've been satisfied with my PC's and I like the lower price for what looks like the same processing power and display screens, but I have to say, hearing all the people who switched to Mac, I haven't heard of anyone who switched back from Mac to PC. That says a lot.

Brian Lingle wrote:
I've been satisfied with my PC's and I like the lower price for what looks like the same processing power and display screens, but I have to say, .... That says a lot.


When we were buying my mom a laptop - my cheap as hell engineering firm brother suggested a pc notebook of one form or other. I told him to get a MacBook and if he thought it a mistake I would send him a check for the full cost. On opening and using the thing he was so impressed I have not had to go good on my offer.

Macs are great if you simply want to do the tack at hand - day in and day out - no worries.

Brian Lingle wrote:
Deb, Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Since I posted this, I've seen another thread where they said if you call Adobe, you can switch when you upgrade. Regarding the lost disk, they have your registration ID and they can help you activate an upgrade without having the disk. They did for me for CS2. Not sure if you can upgrade from PS7 to CS4. Worth finding out, though.


Yeah, I called a few weeks ago -- apparently they can't upgrade you from PS 7 -- it has to be at least from CS. Oh well. I bought it used off a friend, so I didn't lose much money. On to bigger and better things!

Seriously check on Mac. Of course I know a lot of PC users who swear by them, but my husband now wants a mac and he was pretty anti-mac for a while. It's a great computer. I'd sell you my old one, but that wouldn't be fair to you!

MacBook Pro running either Aperture or Lightroom (I perfered Aperture)
i take it every shoot I go, i can shoot tether via USB or Wireless right into Aperture.
I can even run slideshows during the reception via Aperture

Canon Wireless Transmitter and shoot tether directly into Aperture, set Aperture to display image full screen. It's amazing to see your pictures on big screen while you snap pictures.

Deb, Sorry to hear they won't upgrade from PS 7. Get a student or teacher to buy CS4 for you. That'll save you a little $.

eggy, You're right, shooting tethered is a gas. I've done it some using Nikon Capture. I don't do it much because of the limitations with the setup required, but the wireless solution sounds great.

After reading about the RGB gamut on the Lenovo Thinkpad linked above, I'm wondering about the specs on all these laptop screens. Someone in another thread wrote about a MBP that comes with either IPS based panel or a different, less desirable, one and said that there's no way of knowing or controlling which one you're going to get when you order it new. I remember, a few years ago, reading an article about IPS vs the other types of screens. Now that you guys have clarified the info on what makes a computer faster, I think the display quality would be the next thing to consider. So what do you look for in the specs on a laptop display? Sounds like they vary, even on the MBP's.

I have multiple Lenovo laptops at work and they suck.
MBP with matte screen if you can find one (check apple for rerurbished macs)
I'd recommend 512mb video if you want to use it with Aperture 2.1

Looking at the range of ghz in the processors for MBP's, I'm sure fastest is best, but is there a point where the price jumps up? Should I be looking for a certain amount of ghz that's plenty fast and a better bang for the buck?

I was thinking about Sam's great suggestion and I'm wondering: Won't a MBP with lesser Ram and smaller HD also have lower ghz, meaning - even when you upgrade to 4GB ram you'll still have the slower processor?

I have two older dell laptops (700M and M1210) that I have souped up and run at home with a dell 2007WFP monitor. I like that the 700m is about the size of a National Geographic but limited in that it cant take SATA hard drives and maxes out RAM at 2gb (and seems happier with 1.25gb). I also prefer to run XP even though as a MS contractor I get all the Vista I dont want.

If I move along its going to be to a dual boot Macbook, souped up as well. I'd like to find one with an owner who loaded it up with Adobe and in a fit of ADHD moved on to the newer and better whatever that is...

For me its more about RAM and screen and mondo hard drive vs processor. I'm not gaming or doing 3D rendering etc

geeeez.... love how there are so many opinions.

bottom line.

any MBPro will more than suffice.
and NEW MB will more than suffice (i'm using a new MB (not pro) and it's rockin)

mike, You're saying, then, that the processor speed isn't as critical for photo processing. That the speed comes more from the RAM and hard drive speed. Right?

Hi Brian:

I am a self-admitted business person first, photographer second. Your question, fortunately/unfortunately, begs for more "opinion" than fact. Everyone will have theirs. I'm no exception. But, here are some facts--

1- PC will be less expensive than Macs for the same performance...period
2- Macs will perform faster, with less hardware because Mac virus software simply isn't required as much as it is on a PC. I cannot tell you how much both Norton and McAfee slow down a system.
3-Those who use Macs, love them. Those that know PCs, use them because they know them.

Both systems are very good. But, in my opinion, you simply won't get the editing capability in a laptop that you will in a desktop. Spending more money on a laptop can get you a better one, but still won't get you what a good desktop will. Point being, don't waste money chasing something you won't get.

I've used Dell for years. I still use [daily] an Inspiron 8100 which has to be more than 6 years old...with 256 RAM. It still runs the MS Office suite and Outlook. I've had HP and Compaq...all died. Not a single Dell computer purchased in 8 years has died. We're up to 6. Most recent an Optiplex 755 with high color 24" monitor. At this point, they are a "brainless" purchase, which is a welcome feature as there is so much more to spend time upon.

You can pick up new, brilliant Dell laptops for well under $1000 that will provide 95% of what you can expect from any laptop system. The question becomes how much are you willing to spend to get the last few percent?

Best of luck and Happy New Year!

>rw

Brian,

I am saying that RAM and other things play a larger role than the difference between say 1.8ghz and 2.0ghz.

....wow inspiron 8100....my old inspiron was a 8200...large dual rear cooling fans

anyway great deals on dell's outlet...always send friends there

I remember hearing Ballmer on stage talking about how Macs dont have viruses because with relatively few users compared to PC's...there is little notoriety to be gained writing Mac viruses...