Ten years is old enough...for a computer

[Professional]

If it were me, I'd spend some time researching the various options. If you want to go Mac, then things are easier but more expensive. If PC, I prefer to build my own. As such, I would check enthusiast web sites, such as Tom's Hardware (and others), and check out what they're recommending. They regularly do various builds, such as the best enthusiast system for $2000. Most of these are for gaming, and so that needs to be taken into consideration. For example, you'd want more ram and not such a bleeding edge video card. You can describe what you want in the forums and usually you get pretty good feed back, and then you could post a possible package here. Doing this research is something that you should do, even if you end up going Mac, just so you can make an informed choice. I'm happy to comment on a possible build, but I don't feel like doing the hours of research needed to do this right for you.

I am going with Mac as i am now, i never looked back at Pc since i've got a Mac computers, doesn't matter it is expensive as long i will have a powerful enough benchmark or workstation.

I have a PC for gaming even it is a bit old, but working very fine, not new processors or high ram [1-2GB], but i stopped to play games nowadays unless i may think about it again, i use PC only for MS Office work mostly with Word, because Mac Word doesn't support Arabic language at all yet, but for Photography, well, Mac is my winner anytime here.

[engl]

The resulting file exceeded Photoshop's PSD file size limit of 2 gigs, and I had to merge some layers to get the size down low enough. The resulting image is roughly 9000x18000 pixels. That's a pretty sizeable file, even by our standards.

The older PSD format only supports 2GB files, but you can use the newer PSB format which supports much larger files.

I've been looking at getting a new Win7 workstation as well. I'd probably aim for Sandy Bridge i7 (2600K 3,4Ghz, run at 4GHz), 16GB 2Ghz RAM and perhaps something like a RevoDrive X2 160GB. Those hit 700MB/s sequential read/write, which should come in handy for dealing with big files. I just put such a system together at NewEgg for 1700$, you'll be paying multiples of this if you want to get close in real-life performance with a Mac :P

[rdenney]

I had built my last computer from parts, but I had access to a gamer for advice. But looking at places like CyperPC, I still would have paid more than what this HP cost, and I would not have gotten Costco's 2-year warranty and easy return policy. This one fulfilled my requirements. A machine twice the price would be nowhere near twice the performance. I'm certainly no gamer, and what I wanted from the video card was a separate LUT for each monitor so I could calibrate and profile each (using my Gretag EyeOne2) independently.

Rick "usually happy with workaday stuff" Denney

[rdenney]

The older PSD format only supports 2GB files, but you can use the newer PSB format which supports much larger files.

I saw that somewhere else, but how do you do it? I did not see it as an option on CS4's pull-down.

Rick "who needed to flatten the photomerge layers anyway" Denney

[paulr]

...so how can i test different machines to see which can suit me or work as i want?

It would be ridiculously hard to test machines against each other in any meaningful way. That's why it's nice that others have done the work for us (and continue to do so as new hardware and software come out). The good news is often that for photoshop, the most expensive processors are not necessarily the smart choice.

The truth is, any fairly modern mac pro is such a good photoshop machine that it makes a lot of sense to buy used, or else a refurb from the previous year. The money you save can pack the thing with ram, fast drives, and hardware for a solid backup strategy.

[photobymike]

Hmmm. I see a 27" iMac which is equipped similarly to the HP I just bought, except the disk isn't quite as large and it has half the RAM. It's $2000 at the Apple Store. Then, I would have to buy Photoshop again--another many hundreds of dollars when I already own a license. The processor seems similar (it's the only quad-core iMac), the RAM is half as much. Sorry, I'm not feeling it.

Or the Mac Pro, which is $2500 for the entry model, and that doesn't include the monitors. That 8-core Mac you're dreaming of is another kilobuck above that. Dreaming is about all I'd be able to do, too.

I'm assuming it's nice stuff, but like an Ebony camera, I'm never going to know it, because I can't afford it.

Rick "who has never been shut down by a virus, or seen the BSD when using factory-supplied hardware" Denney

A MAC MINI is $700 new and is faster than most PCs and will run windows if you want.
Would you buy an new Ebony camera? CS4 cost me 300 bucks. I am just saying after years of experience and frustration on PCs, its just refreshing to not to "fiddle" with the computer. I really did spend a lot of time fixing and adjusting my kids computers until i bought MACs for them. I would not recommend a used iMAC, they have had there problems in the past. This advice comes from a local Apple repair/dealer friend. He loaned me a MAC for a month and i was convinced.

I am a retired network administrator with certification in Novel CNE5 and Microsoft MCSE. I have managed a computer store that built and sold PCs. I started with Heath Kit in 1982... remember them? I built an H1 and PCs ect... So my history with computers is long..... I really like my "Mercedes" <QUAD MAC PRO even tho its old and used it has served me well. Really if there is anybody else who has a MAC PRO 2.5 Quad ... they can verify what i am saying. Not expensive, adaptable, and really really versatile. I have a couple of my photo friends over that are local, and showed them. They both bought MAC MINIs, run Photoshop and are very very happy with the performance.

PS I used to hate "computer bigots" as i would call them who claimed there MAC was better than PC.... But the truth is; it is for some things like Photography.

its not really the computer its the operating system. Apple ties the to together ... now that i hate.... really would like to build a hackintosh. well thats my 2 cents

[Professional]

A MAC MINI is $700 new and is faster than most PCs and will run windows if you want.
Would you buy an new Ebony camera? CS4 cost me 300 bucks. I am just saying after years of experience and frustration on PCs, its just refreshing to not to "fiddle" with the computer. I really did spend a lot of time fixing and adjusting my kids computers until i bought MACs for them. I would not recommend a used iMAC, they have had there problems in the past. This advice comes from a local Apple repair/dealer friend. He loaned me a MAC for a month and i was convinced.

I am a retired network administrator with certification in Novel CNE5 and Microsoft MCSE. I have managed a computer store that built and sold PCs. I started with Heath Kit in 1982... remember them? I built an H1 and PCs ect... So my history with computers is long..... I really like my "Mercedes" <QUAD MAC PRO even tho its old and used it has served me well. Really if there is anybody else who has a MAC PRO 2.5 Quad ... they can verify what i am saying. Not expensive, adaptable, and really really versatile. I have a couple of my photo friends over that are local, and showed them. They both bought MAC MINIs, run Photoshop and are very very happy with the performance.

PS I used to hate "computer bigots" as i would call them who claimed there MAC was better than PC.... But the truth is; it is for some things like Photography.

its not really the computer its the operating system. Apple ties the to together ... now that i hate.... really would like to build a hackintosh. well thats my 2 cents

I don't want to say it, but since i bought my Mac i never look back to PC, for photography with Photoshop Mac served me and many of my friends, i saw almost 95% of my photographers friends changed to Mac over PC, and they never look back, even with new model of PC still Mac has a par over PC, i am working with Mac Mini now, even i surf the net now and typing/posting here all with my Mac Mini [late 2009] connected with a 30" Apple Cinema Display and i couldn't be happy, i open Photoshop and different applications and play with huge files just fine, yes i see some slow of the processing, but that is normal or natural as long my Mac Mini is not so powerful and i need to increase the RAM and give it a rest, but i can imagine if i work on similar specification on PC i may take longer time to do what i do on my Mac Mini, the most important thing is that i don't worry about viruses or maleware even i heard a lot Mac has those too, but comparing to PC, i am way so satisfied with it and i can never go back to PC, on the other hand, if many Pc users are happy with their machine and it works flawlessly then this is all what matter, i am not against PC as i was one user in the past and still i have 3 of it didn't get rid of, i bought a PC laptop for my wife with new Core 2 Due and 4 GB and Win7 Home edition and she is happy and didn't complaint about viruses or so, i think this is because my wife doesn't know about computers at all and she is using it for listening to music and surf the web for songs, pics and movies news only.

[engl]

A MAC MINI is $700 new and is faster than most PCs and will run windows if you want.

The 700$ Mac Mini is a 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB RAM computer. It is about on par with a 300$ PC, and way slower than a 700$ PC, even laptops. A Dell Vostro 3500 (laptop) with 2.53GHz i5 and 4GB of RAM costs 600$ and will run circles around the 700$ Mac Mini in applications like Photoshop.

About the rest of your message, I see nothing odd with those preferring OSX over Windows for various reasons. For equal performance with a Mac, you generally have to pay 2-3x though (a notable exception is the Macbook Air, it really has competitive performance for a ultralight computer in its price class).

[Marko]

The 700$ Mac Mini is a 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB RAM computer. It is about on par with a 300$ PC, and way slower than a 700$ PC, even laptops. A Dell Vostro 3500 (laptop) with 2.53GHz i5 and 4GB of RAM costs 600$ and will run circles around the 700$ Mac Mini in applications like Photoshop.

About the rest of your message, I see nothing odd with those preferring OSX over Windows for various reasons. For equal performance with a Mac, you generally have to pay 2-3x though (a notable exception is the Macbook Air, it really has competitive performance for a ultralight computer in its price class).

Uhm, no... What you get when you buy a $300 PC is a $300 Piece of Crap good for checking email and such that will last you a year or two at best. $700 gets you a fully functional Mac that can run all the applications including Photoshop and even the full version of Windows if need be, only faster and better.

I will call the same bullshit on the 2-3x cost claim as well. A similarly equipped Dell will cost you very close to any model Mac, and you'd still be limited to Windows only.

The price difference you are talking about becomes closer to real when you compare Macs with bare-bones I-slapped-it-toghether-in-my-garage-and-it-shows type of PCs - I built enough of them back in the day to know how it works, both quality- and money-wise. They were indeed cheaper initially, but they came either equal or even more expensive over even very modestly longer periods of usage.

Overall, this entire spiel is roughly the same as saying that an $10,000-Hunday (or Kia or some such) gives you "equal" performance as a $40,000 Lexus. Well, no it doesn't. You get what you pay for in every instance. How much are you willing or able to spend for a given purpose is entirely different matter, it has very little to do with performance.

[paulr]

There are rigorous cost comparisons between macs and pcs all over the web. Looking at hardware only, the general finding is that a mac pro costs the same or even a bit less than a similarly equiped brand name computer (like Dell). A similarly equiped home-made pc can be had for less. iMacs are less of a bargain. I don't know how how the minis and laptops stack up.

BUT! None of this takes into account the superior industrial design of the macs, which may or may not matter much to you. And none of it takes into account the Mac OS, which to me is worth more than the hardware. This is the goofy oversight in the comparisons. If you want the Mac OS ... and many of us do, rabidly ... you'll be willing to pay a lot more to get it.