I need a computer geek!!!

[lally0724]

Hi, I don't mean to offend anyone, but I really need some help. And to be honest, I pretty much worship the ground you guys walk on, I am so not computer literate. I know this isn't really about wedding photography, but I'm a wedding photographer, so I thought someone here might help.

My computer crashed on me last night, for the second time. It's kind of getting old, and I knew it was time to upgrade, and now it is definitely time to upgrade. My question is what should I get for memory/speed, all the technical things that I should know so that I can get a good computer. I'm a PC girl, not a mac if that makes any difference. I shoot with a Canon 20D and 30D. Hoping to upgrade to a 5D in the next year or two. I don't need it for playing games or anything like that, and this one will not be hooked up to the internet. It is basically for downloading and working on my photos. I'm thinking about getting an external hard drive for storing photos as well. Currently things are backed up on DVD's. Any advice anyone could offer would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Heather

[gheesom]

As big a processor as possible. Min 1GB of RAM, Dual Channel memory storing photos elsewhere then the Hard Drive won't be too much of a problem but 80Gb is pretty standard and should be ok for most things you're running.
You don't say how much you want to spend. or where you are - as someone may point you to a really good supplier.

[a521]

If you know anyone that could salvage parts from your computer, like your hard drive..you could save a little money. But you can get some good deals online. You don't necessarily need the newest processor, I would skimp there and spend more money to try to get 2 gigs of ram and a couple of big hard drives. Assuming you don't need a new monitor, you could easily get a great computer for under $500. Check out pricewatch.com for some pricing.

[gheesom]

good point, I just meant tht it needs to be a good size, don't go for a small processor just to save money.

[picturecrazy]

A $500 isn't that great for major photo editing. This is an area where you can actually USE raw computing horsepower. Especially when working with RAW, and running complex actions.

I would suggest:
-Intel Core 2 Duo processor 2Ghz or faster.
-Minimum 2GB RAM
-Minimum two hard drives, might as well get two 300GB drives since they're cheap now. This way you can separate your OS from your data, and put photoshop scratch spaces on different drives.
-External HD to make backups. Only turn it on when you are doing the backups.
-Forget Vista for now, use XP
-If using XP, video card doesn't really matter

Coming from P4 3Ghz machine... I was waiting up to 7 minutes for certain actions to complete. It was stupid. My Core2 duo machine does the same action in 45 seconds. Spend the extra and reduce your processing wait times.

[a521]

If you MUST have an Intel Core 2 Duo, there are plenty of online shops that will configure one for around $500. I use an Athlon XP 2.18ghz w/ 1gig of Ram and have no problems with CS2. Assuming she just needs a core computer, not a monitor, keyboard and can use her existing drives...she can get a core 2 duo, 2 gigs ram 300 gig HD for $542 at ascendtech.us.

[Time Thief]

Get fast RPM hard drives, 7200(they may even be higher now), not the 4800 or 5400, this will help the processor. You can have a super fast processor and a slow hard drive and they will work against each other. At least thats the way I understand it. If the processor can handle it but the HD can't deliver it fast enough it does you no good.

[dragnfly1996]

No Doubt, use xp. no vista. If you are getting a new pc try to get 2GB of Ram (no less than 1GB). I prefer an AMD processor but they are not as common in prebuilt machines like Dell, so the Duo Core Intel is a pretty efficient processor for what you are looking at doing. If you skimp on anything, skimp on the Hard drive. You can always add another internal HD later or upgrade your external HD. an 80GB will be enough to run your programs and save several thousand images while your working on them and just back up on your external and archive images on your external and DVD when you're finished. Good luck, you'll see a huge difference in your editing work flow when you upgrade.

[Village_Idiot]

the c2d is better than the current AMDs.

I agree with most of Picturecrazy's reccomendation.

[bobbywang]

i will thid Picturecrazy's recommendations.

[GertS]

I second Picturecrazy's recommendations and want to add some things too.

- Windows XP can't support 4 GB Ram, unless it's the 64 bit version. Of this about 1,7 GB is maximal available for one application running. If you have 4 GB Ram, XP tells you 2 GB available, at least with my ASUS 5PB De Luxe. If I leave the hole for the PCI slots, I have 3 GB available. However, XP tells in the system info that there are 4 GB RAM. :confused:
- all 64 bit version of XP / Vista have problems with getting drivers for hardware, if you use special hardware, you might have a problem.
- a Core 2 Duo processors generates less heat than the older Pentium 4 processors, so less cooling and less noise and parts live longer.
- a RAID 0 is fast but has no security, a RAID 1 gives you security in case of a hard drive crash, RAID 5 is better, but slower than RAID 1, you need at least 3 identical drives.
- hard drives love cool air
- use SATA drives and SATA CD / DVD writer, the second allows you burning CDs / DVDs with hardly any use of the CPU. SATA-II is better than SATA, however, hardly any HD supports the maximum speed of SATA, unless it's in the HD cache.

I built my computer myself, ok, that was about $US 2500.- equivalent (without displays), but my laser printer is louder than my computer as I spent extra money for 3 top noiseless ventilators (PAPST).
Then I have 1,5 TB HD in 5 drives which is very nice beside the external backup drives.

It's no comparison in speed with my former Athlon 3.2 GHz, 1 GB RAM. Photoshop loads now 10 Tiff files of the 5D (74 MB each) faster than selecting 1 same size file with the open function before.

[tim]

A $500 isn't that great for major photo editing. This is an area where you can actually USE raw computing horsepower. Especially when working with RAW, and running complex actions.

I would suggest:
-Intel Core 2 Duo processor 2Ghz or faster.
-Minimum 2GB RAM
-Minimum two hard drives, might as well get two 300GB drives since they're cheap now. This way you can separate your OS from your data, and put photoshop scratch spaces on different drives.
-External HD to make backups. Only turn it on when you are doing the backups.
-Forget Vista for now, use XP
-If using XP, video card doesn't really matter

Coming from P4 3Ghz machine... I was waiting up to 7 minutes for certain actions to complete. It was stupid. My Core2 duo machine does the same action in 45 seconds. Spend the extra and reduce your processing wait times.

What Lloyd said, except i'd say keep the backup hard drive offsite. 2GB RAM is enough for XP. I don't buy the absolute fastest processor, I buy a notch or two down, much cheaper and almost as fast.

Buy a Dell. They just work.

[Mario.]

As previous have said here, go with an Intel Duo Core 2 setup, at least 2GHz. 2GB of RAM or more is preferable. Use a WD 36GB Raptor HD for your OS and programs, and then get a 300/500GB for your data. Spend the $200-$250 and get a nice video card. Get a WD external drive for backups. GO WITH Vista, don't listen to people about going with Windows XP. I've been beta testing Vista for almost a year now, and I have a lot of experience with it on several machines - it's a solid OS and has way less hiccups than XP.

You don't want to sketch on your computer - get solid components, good name brands, spend the extra money and do it right. :)

[Mario.]

And I second what Tim said - if you aren't sure what to get, just get a Dell - they do work, and they aren't that much more expensive in comparison to building your own setup. :) It sounds like it's more headache for you to figure out components-wise what to get.

[GertS]

GO WITH Vista, don't listen to people about going with Windows XP. I've been beta testing Vista for almost a year now, and I have a lot of experience with it on several machines - it's a solid OS and has way less hiccups than XP.

Mario,
Vista is stable, that's true, but the problems are the applications. Even MS own development tools don't work properly on Vista.

No chance to run AutoCAD, not even version 2008.

Just see the "March 2007 Windows Vista Application Compatibility Update"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246/en-us
You will find quite a number of MS products there for the so called best tested operating system.

The company I'm working with, they are beta testers too, but most returned to XP due to heaps of problems, especially with the 64bit version, due to not running applications and drivers. It's a waste of resources that they need a VM on Vista that they can run several applications.

I asked the chief software developper for his personal opinion and his only comment was to wait as several applications I need don't work with Vista.

I remember one reason for XP SP 1: the DVD SnowWhite and the 7 dwarfs didn't play. :lol::lol::lol:

Vista can be ok for quite a number of users, but there is no general recommendation due to still to many problems.

Gert
software engineer

[gheesom]

I'd rather use a local supplier over dell, its the paying for all the little extras- it can really bump the cost up. Plus you need to have a good idea whether you need the thing in there in the first place; and for the same spec our local guys beat dell every time!