Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 31, 2005, 10:39 AM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 117

Morning folks,

I'm a Unix Admin/Oracle DBA and work on a college campus with both PC's and Mac's. Honestly, no real difference between them any more. enough said, get the one you like to work with.

On the other hand, I just spent a fair amount of time configuring a new system for CS2. I didnt' look at Mac's, just PC's. Here's what I eventually went with and it's the fastest machine I've used without spending a ton of money...

AMD dual core 64x2 4200+
4 gig of memory, make sure you set the /3Gig switch so that photoshop can use above 1 Gig. Do a search for /3Gig switch on google. I have CS2 using 2.8gig.

I'm also using SATA drives. OS on C, Applications on D, scratch on E and F.

Don't forget about backups!!!! Often overlooked. I'm using Retrospect from Danz and have an internal 250Gig drive just for backups, another external drive via USB2 for just the photo's. And I keep burned DVD's off site just incase the house melts down. ;-)

jlacasci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2006, 4:11 PM   #32
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 64

undoutably PCs are way cheaper than a mac. you can build your own computer for about $500 and have it kick butt. but then you have to be your own IT dept. i choose not too. for as much as i like trouble shooting, trouble shooting a computer can drive you batty. i agree with¬*peripatetic¬* it's a personal preference of tools. which one better fits your needs of hardware and software. Macs are good in there own right and so are PCs. when it comes down to it... will i ever buy a PC, probably not as it doesn't fit me needs and i like the fancy box that Macs come in! :love:j:love:avascript:emoticon('',%20'images/emoticons/love3.gif')+) javascript:emoticon('',%20'images/emoticons/love3.gif')
pspeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2006, 9:32 PM   #33
Senior Member
bigboyhf's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 165

I went with two 32 g Raptor drives Raid 0 for the operating system and two 160 SATA drives mirrored for my data. The chip is an AMD 64 3500+ which I know is not the fastest, but at the time was priced right. The motherboard can accomodate much faster chip and I will be upgrading as soon as the price comes down to where I want it! There is a sweet spot in the computer market where price and performance works well. Of course if you don't care about $$$ than go for the bleeding edge! Ouch... The dual core processors are looking pretty cool as more apps will be using that.

I did just take a look at some Macs just this past weekend. I bought an iPod for my wife and the Apple store at the mall was very cool. NICE HUGE flatscreens!! I just never got into Macs even though the OS must be better than Windows. :?

H (Not technically in IT though I did take the MCSE course for fun)
bigboyhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2006, 11:26 PM   #34
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598

H (Not technically in IT though I did take the MCSE course for fun)
That's the weirdest thing I ever heard of!

If we could get all our users to take the MCSE course our life would be soooooo much easier. :lol:
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2006, 9:10 PM   #35
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 16

As an IT Tech. I'm going to go totally against popular opinion here and say don't upgrade. Spending money on a better printer, good screen, and image calibration software will do far more for your results than the few seconds you save on applying a filter on the machine you already have.

To be perfectly honest, even lowest quality JPEG images off of a 20D look better when printed on a well calibrated system than processed RAW files do from an uncalibrated one.

MagicMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2006, 7:16 AM   #36
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 81

With very little computer knowledge you can build your own PC that will beat out any Dell or namebrand computer for half the cost. http://www.newegg.com is your friend when it comes to components.

I'm a Systems Consultant for a living. If you don't want to build your own rig, e-mail me and maybe we can work something out.

My current rig:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz (equivilent to like a 5ghz intel processor)
Asus A8N-SLI w/Vantec Iceberq4 modded to fit on chipset.
nVidia 7800gt PCI-E w/Silencer (v-mods coming soon)
2gb Corsair XMS PC3200 (2x1024)
2x Western Digital "Raptor" 10k SATA RAID-0
2x WD SE 160gb HDD's RAID-1
Sound Blaster X-FI Platinum
Coolermaster ATC-200 Case w/3.5 Rheobus + Custom Side Intakes x2
PC Power & Cooling TurboCool 510 SLI
LiteOn 52x CD-RW & NEC 16x DVD+-RW
19" Dell UltraSharp LCD

Andrew LB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2006, 4:20 PM   #37
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 56


Don't be too intimidated by all this technical jargon. I've been a graphic artist for 20 years, and I don't understand much of it myself. I use a Mac, mostly because that's what I'm used to. I think it's safe to say that if you go to a compuer store and buy a modern Mac or PC, you'll be just fine for Photo Processing. Of all the things I do on my computer, photo processing is one of the least demanding in terms of computer power (unless I get into serious retouching). Just be sure you get the biggest hard drive you can afford, because, as someone pointed out, those photos can take up a lot of space over time. You'll also need a lot of Ram to run Photoshop, and a DVD burner is pretty standard on most new computers.

One thing I have found helpful is a FireWire Compact Flash Card reader. It's much faster than the USB. Of course, there may be something even faster by now; I've had it for almost two years, and that's an eternity in computer time.

Good Luck
tmilner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2006, 9:56 PM   #38
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 81

I agree that storage is a HUGE must when it comes to digital photography. I've had my Rebel XT for about 4 months now and have taken over 50gb of photos and the more I learn the camera, the more i shoot. I fill my 2gb microdrive which is what i usually carry very fast.

Remember one very important thing about storage. You MUST have redundency. In laymans terms, you must have a setup where you don't have to worry about having your one and only hard drive crapping out like they sometimes do and losing all your photographs. I run RAID-1 on my two 160gb storage drives, which means they are "mirrored". A setup where two drives are configured to read and write the exact same data on each of them. In such a configuration, two 160gb drives only give you 160gb of storage, since the data is the same on both drives at all times, the eventual hard drive failure will not cause your collection of photos, music, video, etc to disappear forever.

My personal setup also uses two 37gb Western Digital "Raptor" 10,000rpm drives in RAID-0. This is called "striping", and data is spread across both drives in a way to nearly double the read/write speed of a single drive, and when using raptor drives.... they're way faster than regular 7200rpm drives. This is excellent for working with large files, rendering video, etc. BUT!!!!!! Its not for long term storage. I run my operating system and applications on these drives, and use them for temporarily holding my most recent photos and video while i work on them. They are then moved to the backup RAID-1 storage drives for safe keeping. With RAID-0, if one drive fails, you lose ALL the data on both drives. I've ran RAID-0 on my workstation using two Raptors for roughly two years now with zero issues and my PC runs 24/7. But personally, i would not put that much faith in regular non-enterprise type drives running RAID-0.

Keeping things backed up is the most important thing of all. Most people don't need RAID-0. But for anyone with very important data like photographs, music, etc... at the very least i recommend a single drive for running the operating system and applications.... and two backup drives in RAID-1 to store everything. Hard drives of large sizes are getting so cheap these days, you'd be stupid to not properly protect your important data.

I'm probably going to be adding another pair of backup drives in RAID-1 soon. I saw a killer deal at Bestbuy recently for a 250gb Western Digital 16mb cache drive for like $79 after rebates.
Andrew LB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 6:21 AM   #39
Senior Member
memento's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 145

tmilner wrote:

...One thing I have found helpful is a FireWire Compact Flash Card reader.¬* It's much faster than the USB....
very good point! I forgot to mention that. I have been using my firewire reader for years and cringe at the thought of using USB now. At work I have to use USB with a "lesser" camera and it feels like it takes forever.
memento is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2006, 4:20 PM   #40
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 81

I've always used USB 2.0 with my Rebel XT and it downloads very fast. I see no speed difference when my father downloads photos off my camera onto his Mac using a firewire card reader.

If you guys were talking about USB 1.1, then i can see how huge of a difference between USB and a firewire reader.

Maybe i'll try the firewire reader with my PC and see how much different it is.
Andrew LB is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:58 AM.