Computer question

[Donald Miller]

I am just about convinced to upgrade my computer capability because of the increased demands of some of the new techniques. I presently have a Compaq with a 2.1 Ghz single core AMD processor and maxed out at 2GB of ram. This is going to really make the thing stress when I start to stitch a lot of images.

I would love to have a Mac Pro but at over $7,000 plus for a dual quad core and a decent amount of ram it makes me stop and consider it a bit.

I do have another option to have a friend build a dual quad core (8 cores) 2.33 Ghz Intel processors mounted on a server motherboard holding 12 gigs of ECC ram and upgradeable to 32 gigs of ram. It would have 2 - 500 gig HDs configured in raid one. It would have an 8800 video card, blue ray/dvd/cd internal player and burner. Complete with wireless keyboard and a Creative speakers. The cost for the home built will be around $4500 including Vista Ultimate 64 bit. The motherboard and processors would be covered by a two year warranty. All other componants would be warranted for one year.

My question is am I wise in looking at a home built?...I am tired of buying a new computer every couple of years because applications require increasing amounts of processor and ram to effectively run.

Thanks for sharing your opinions on this.

[Ron Marshall]

New Macpro, quad core, with 4 gig of RAM is $2800.

If you need more RAM there are vendors that sell Apple approved RAM for much less than what Apple charges. For example, you can add another 4 gig for $220, for a total of 8 gig. Quad core with 8 gig for $3000:

http://www.datamemorysystems.com/_ap...emory_1495.asp

[Peter De Smidt]

You will want to look into how much ram Photoshop can use. (You still might want more, as the operating system and other programs could probably use more memory.) Also, you'll want to check about their future plans. As of know it's my understanding that the next Photoshop version will be 64 bit, or at least have a 64 bit version, for windows but not mac.

[Kuzano]

Perhaps someone on the board can elucidate on this, but I have started an exploration to understand the 3 Gb RAM limit I have been hearing about on Windows OS based systems, no matter how much physical RAM you have on the machine. I think the two questions that rise to the forefront for me would be:

1) How does the machine have to be configured to report and fully utilize 8 GB of RAM?

2) How much RAM is verifiably usable by Photoshop?

What I have been hearing is reports of 4 GB machines where the RAM is reported as installed, but the core O/S can only see and utilize 3 Gb?

Here is just one hit on the internet on a simple search in Google ... 3Gb RAM limit ...

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm\

This appears to be resolved by 64 bit..... BUT I truly wonder???

I would definitely apply both of these questions equally to the Apple Platform?

Anyone?

I will continue to explore this on my own as well. I have worked with various computers and O/S systems over the years, and am not surprised by these discoveries, and would not be surprised to see this to be factual with certain combinations of hardware, O/S and software.

I definitely do not want to spend big dollars for a powerhouse machine to find out the actual performance is hindered by these kinds of gross incompatabilities, Which ARE NOT NEW.

[Greg Lockrey]

I bought a MacBook Pro with all the whistles and bells through a local (Mac) vendor and he put in the necessary bits and pieces for about 1/2 the price of the same machine found on the Mac site with a better guarantee too. Don't know how they can do it since I'm not a computer geek either. You might want to try a local vendor and see what he can do for you.

[Donald Miller]

Regarding the limit on ram utilization from what I understand this is resolved, at least in Windows, by the Vista Ultimate program which is 64 bit and can utilize more than this computer can have installed (32 gig). I understand that the next version of PS will be 64 bit too.

I priced the Mac Pro (not Macbook) online and with 16 gigs of ram, dual quadcore not single quadcore, and otherwise equipped the same as the locally built and it comes in at over $8000...so I don't know how this apparent Mac price discrepancy occurs...because the local Apple people are inline with the online pricing.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

[Richard Wall]

As for custom built computers, I have been building my own PC's for about 10 or 12 years. The only headache I have ever encountered was installing Win XP 64bit. The problem was poor driver availability. I eventually downgraded to XP 32bit because of unsupported hardware. If you have any old hardware (scanners, software dongles, printers etc...) that you plan to use on the new system, make sure that they have Vista 64bit drivers.

I also have a MacBook Pro (2.33GHz Dual Core, 2GB Ram) and have been stitching large files with it without any problems. In fact I just finished one as I am typing this. While I like the Mac a lot, Apple charges too much, IMHO, for RAM and other options. It's a very easy thing to add RAM to the MAC Pro towers. IF you want the Mac, take a look at Other World Computing

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory

They offer 32GB of RAM for the Mac Pro for $1900.00, while Apple wants $9100.00 for the same RAM.

Richard

[Frank Petronio]

Apple RAM is a huge rip-off but they must get enough lazy government, wealthy swells, and corporate buyers that they can maintain their 2-4X margins. Simply buy good RAM elsewhere.

As to whether a loaded top-of-the-line Mac tower will be as fast as a loaded state-of-the-art Windows workstation -- who knows? Unless you are the type of user who buys a new system every 12-18 months it really doesn't matter as long as you can be productive with it, because no matter what you get, by next year it will no longer be state-of-the-art.

I see people still being productive with 5 year old "obsolete" Macs because productivity depends more than on sheer bandwidth... the OS makes a huge difference in productivity and "experience", enough so that I would gladly take a slower Mac over a faster PC. However if you really know your way around a PC, then that will probably work out better for you.

[Joanna Carter]

Perhaps someone on the board can elucidate on this, but I have started an exploration to understand the 3 Gb RAM limit I have been hearing about on Windows OS based systems, no matter how much physical RAM you have on the machine. I think the two questions that rise to the forefront for me would be:

1) How does the machine have to be configured to report and fully utilize 8 GB of RAM?

The only way to utilize anything more than 3GB is to install a 64bit version of Windows. The problem with XP64 is that drivers are somewhat difficult to obtain for certain hardware. I gather that some versions of Vista are 64bit but, once again, the issue of compatible or old hardware comes into the equation. Also Vista is a massive memory and performance hog; a lot of the advantage of a bigger machine gets swallowed up by the OS, before the applications get a lookin.

2) How much RAM is verifiably usable by Photoshop?

If I look at the Performance settings in CS3, on my Mac Pro equipped with 10GB memory, I get a figure of 3072MB (3GB). But don't forget, in any calculation of how much memory to install, that it's not just the memory required byt this program or that program, you also have to allow memory for the OS itself and for other programs that might be running at the same time.

What I have been hearing is reports of 4 GB machines where the RAM is reported as installed, but the core O/S can only see and utilize 3 Gb?

Here is just one hit on the internet on a simple search in Google ... 3Gb RAM limit ...

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm\

This appears to be resolved by 64 bit..... BUT I truly wonder???

That is one heck of a good article on why you would not choose Windows, whatever the version of the OS. MS effectively control how much memory you can use by how much you are willing to spend on the OS!!! In addition, on some motherboards, you can get even less than 3GB, mine was 2.4GB, simply due to the memory layout.

I had never used a Mac until about a year ago, having worked with Windows since v3.1 and developing applications for the past 15 years. Wow, what a difference!

I would definitely apply both of these questions equally to the Apple Platform?

Well, from the POV of someone who has given up on Windows (except for using it via Parallels for my consulting work), I can say that the difference between Apple's handling of memory to that of MS is marked.

With Windows, as you found in the article that you cited, there are a myriad problems waiting for the unsuspecting power user.

With OS X, you no longer have to make the choice between 32 and 64 bit OS; all machines are 64 bit. But the difference from Windows is that you can use 32bit legacy drivers and software, even though the OS is 64bit.

As to memory usage, I have found that, with 10GB, I can run Windows XP under Parallels using 3GB, Photoshop CS3 maxed out to 3GB, the OS itself and several other applications, all at the same time without ever needing to use the disk swap file. All my "old" hardware, even the stuff bought for Windows, still works perfectly and drivers were either already provided or easy to find.

I definitely do not want to spend big dollars for a powerhouse machine to find out the actual performance is hindered by these kinds of gross incompatabilities, Which ARE NOT NEW.

I bought my Mac Pro, complete with the extra (3rd party) memory, for around £2000 ($4000), opting to buy a 24" Samsung widescreen instead of the Apple display which, I gather, use Samsung panels.

If you are building a "power machine", then you will not spend much less getting it "not quite right" with a Windows machine than you would getting a Mac Pro which, as the ads say, "just works".

And, no, I do not get commission from Apple for promoting their products

[Joanna Carter]

I would love to have a Mac Pro but at over $7,000 plus for a dual quad core and a decent amount of ram it makes me stop and consider it a bit.

As others have said, and especially if you are considering building your own, get a Mac Pro with minimum memory and disk space and upgrade it yourself. Apple memory and disks are horrendously overpriced and nothing special, just expensive standard components.

See my other post for some of the pitfalls of Windows.