Suggestions for studio PC

[bikerman]

I am asking for some suggestions regarding a powerful, fast, reliable, and affordable PC for our studio. We are using a run of the mill HP from Best Buys. Time to get more serious as business has picked up. Can ya give some specs, costs, etc.... Just trying to get an idea before I am bombarded by the sales folks!

[SkipD]

What do you want to accomplish with the PC?

If you just want to use it to display images for customers, virtually anything will do.

If you want to do heavy-duty photo manipulation and run a business database at the same time plus store tens of thousands of images and network with other machines, then you need to consider the details.

In other words, before you can get any valid recommendations you need to define the needs.

[bikerman]

We are using our present PC for all of the above.... Lightroom/CS3, viewing, business and storage.

So, we need storage space (lots) which we have addressed using extrnal drives, speed for processing and editing and some power.

[SkipD]

My suggestion would be to build your own computer (or have someone do it) so that you can select the motherboard, memory, etc., for performance and select the enclosure that can support several hard drives. You would then select a monitor that provides the best performance for photographs (you need a monitor that you can calibrate, doesn't change color, contrast, or brightness as the viewer moves around, etc.).

My main computer (which I built) has ten drive bays in the case, for example.

You are not going to find a "reasonably priced" name-brand computer (Dell, HP, or whatever) that is really expandable for the future. Often, they use proprietary mother boards rather than a standard form-factor board that can be replaced if you need to bump the performance while keeping the case, drives, etc.

If you don't have the experience to build your own computer, look for a vendor (or vendors) in your area who builds computers for businesses.

Personally, I would stay far away from Microsoft Vista.

[neilwood32]

I would agree with Skip on most points.

Avoid the Dell,HP etc brands and go to an on line (or local) system manufacturer. As its for business (and tax deductible presumably), theres no point in building it yourself especially as you will want a warranty.

Processor - go for multi core Intel (the more cores and higher clock speed the better)
Memory - 3GB of ram (more isnt really worth it as XP wont recognise it)
Disk drives - go for as many HDD bays as possible. They are far quicker than external. Possibly go for a smaller, fast drive for your system drive (10,000 rpm WD raptor 76GB) with other storage at lower speed (7,200 rpm, capacity as required). Also look at having RAID (so your data is mirrored to a seperate drive for backup)
Motherboard - Dont go for the most expensive, they will have features you wont need.
Monitor - High quality, as large as possible if you are using the PC for editing.

Speak to a few firms, tell them exactly what you want/need, compare quotatons/specifications and then decide.

Oh and as Skip said - AVOID MICROSOFT VISTA!! XP may be older but its way more reliable!

[bikerman]

Thanks Skip and Neil!

I think you have provided me with a great starting point.

[PhotosGuy]

Personally, I would stay far away from Microsoft Vista. I've bought a XP install CD, just for the reason that I don't ever want to be forced to use Vista. Hopefully, someday they'll get it right the first time.

[neil_g]

here we go with the vista bashing again..

installed on the correct spec (performance and compaitibility wise) there isnt any reason why it shouldnt work.

[bacchanal]

Personally, I would stay far away from Microsoft Vista.
AVOID MICROSOFT VISTA!! XP may be older but its way more reliable!

While I agree with everything else that has been said, I'm going to have to dissent on this one.

If you want to use over 3gbs of RAM, you need to go with Vista 64. You may have some problems if you have older software and hardware, but the vast majority of 32 bit software works flawlessly. In my experience Vista is not any more or any less reliable or stable than XP. The early adopters may have had some issues, but the transition has been extremely smooth for me.
Vista64 is an excellent platform for Lightroom/CS3 in my experience.

[bacchanal]

I'd also add, that you may want to buy a monitor yourself if you decide to have a custom machine built locally...or at least, you need to know what you're getting. It's worth doing some research on monitors if you have specific needs.

[conkeroo]

While I agree with everything else that has been said, I'm going to have to dissent on this one.

If you want to use over 3gbs of RAM, you need to go with Vista 64. You may have some problems if you have older software and hardware, but the vast majority of 32 bit software works flawlessly. In my experience Vista is not any more or any less reliable or stable than XP. The early adopters may have had some issues, but the transition has been extremely smooth for me.
Vista64 is an excellent platform for Lightroom/CS3 in my experience.

The problem I had with vista was it chewed up hdd space with the undeleteable winsysx86 folders. That and the fact my laptop now runs quicker using xp!! :D

[bikerman]

Ok, I get the Vista message loud and clear. I use Vista on other machines to run another business. It is OK for those applications. But, given the choice, I'll choose XP everytime. Thanks for the input.

But, I need good advise concerning the guts of the PC.... And so far, I've received good stuff from several of the guys.

[conkeroo]

Ok, I get the Vista message loud and clear. I use Vista on other machines to run another business. It is OK for those applications. But, given the choice, I'll choose XP everytime. Thanks for the input.

But, I need good advise concerning the guts of the PC.... And so far, I've received good stuff from several of the guys.

Well pretty much what Neilwood said would be the best way to go. And I dont think people are just slating vista for the sake of it, using vista directly affects your storage, ram usage etc.

EDIT: And 3gb of ram for even heavy PP would be plenty.

I would agree with Skip on most points.

Avoid the Dell,HP etc brands and go to an on line (or local) system manufacturer. As its for business (and tax deductible presumably), theres no point in building it yourself especially as you will want a warranty.

Processor - go for multi core Intel (the more cores and higher clock speed the better)
Memory - 3GB of ram (more isnt really worth it as XP wont recognise it)
Disk drives - go for as many HDD bays as possible. They are far quicker than external. Possibly go for a smaller, fast drive for your system drive (10,000 rpm WD raptor 76GB) with other storage at lower speed (7,200 rpm, capacity as required). Also look at having RAID (so your data is mirrored to a seperate drive for backup)
Motherboard - Dont go for the most expensive, they will have features you wont need.
Monitor - High quality, as large as possible if you are using the PC for editing.

Speak to a few firms, tell them exactly what you want/need, compare quotatons/specifications and then decide.

Oh and as Skip said - AVOID MICROSOFT VISTA!! XP may be older but its way more reliable!

[griptape]

A good site for semi-custom PC's: http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

[KarlosDaJackal]

RAID is not a back solution, especially not software based raid that comes with most machines. Sure it helps but Its a band-aid solution, its job is to keep you going for the short time it will take you to replace the bad disk (good luck if you replace the wrong one, you'll be screwed)

Get a workstation, like a Dell Precision (avoid the dimesions and optiplexes) make sure you get the next business day warranty, so that if it does break, you will have someone come out to you to fix it next day. But all the warranty in the world will not protect your data, just the hardware.

Get a proper backup solution (think tape drive, on and off-site storage of backups) because its a fact of life that most businesses that loose all their data go out of business within 3 months of their data loss.

A tape drive can cost as much as the PC but its much cheaper than you business is probably worth.

[bacchanal]

RAID is not a back solution, especially not software based raid that comes with most machines. Sure it helps but Its a band-aid solution, its job is to keep you going for the short time it will take you to replace the bad disk (good luck if you replace the wrong one, you'll be screwed)

Get a proper backup solution (think tape drive, on and off-site storage of backups) because its a fact of life that most businesses that loose all their data go out of business within 3 months of their data loss.

A tape drive can cost as much as the PC but its much cheaper than you business is probably worth.

This is a great point. As a business, you really need an off site backup in addition to RAID, which basically just protects against drive failures.
A tape drive is probably the most secure solution, but some type of regular off site backup would be a very good idea.

[jasonleehl]

Hard Disk and Backups are important. I had friends laughing over me saying that I bought 2 X 1TB Hard Disk for what? Nowadays, it's not expensive. And I do a one for one backup. Guess what, my hard disk had some problems last week, and the backup came in handy. If u have 500GB of data, buy 1 TB of backup. Like what Dell say 'Just In Time', this is 'Just In Case'.

My laptop does dual boot Win XP and Vista. If you ask me, Win XP fits my cup of tea; and there is no XP on my desktop. Just feel it hogs memory and I see no point to spend $$$ to upgrade my desktop. If I got the extra cash, I splash for a 26" LCD. Easier to do up PP =) But that's a wish.

[neilwood32]

I wasnt berating Vista for the sake of it.

Comparing XP and Vista side by side, i cant see an advantage of vista. Its slower, hogs more memory, has more incompatabiltiy problems.I also have dealings with a number of IT techs who, without exception, all refuse to install Vista on machines they are responsible for (or thier own machines for that matter).

3GB is more than plenty of memory unless you are in the habit of processing many images at once.

Oh and i would agree on the back up issue - my suggestion was simply to allow him to work on in the event of a HDD failure.

[eeeksNYC]

MacPro towers anyone? Or even the Macbook Pro laptops?

[tonylong]

Here's some input!

Processor: get at least a dual core, but you might consider a motherboard that will support a quad core CPU. I've heard quad core users say that they get significant performance boosts when using Photoshop CS3.

Hard drives: I second the suggestion of a separate, smaller hard drive for system stuff. Get a very large data/program drive (or, say, two 500GB drives RAIDed together). Things like Photoshop scratch files work more efficiently if on a separate drive.

Graphics: You don't need a gamer card for photography. In fact, if you're a Photoshop user I've heard that PS doesn't use the graphics memory at all. Good card, but not "state of the art" card, will do.

Memory: Definitely 3 gig, and get a motherboard/memory that is as fast as you can get! Both fast memory and fast bus speeds help.

Get a motherboard with plenty of USB 2.0 and firewire ports, or you'll quickly need to add extra cards. Peripherally, pick up USB 2.0 powered hubs so your system won't be dragged down by USB 1 devices (the powered hubs will handle both USB 1 and USB 2 devices without "hobbling" the USB 2 speed. Additionally, make sure your card reader(s) is USB 2.0.

OS: I use Vista with Lightroom and CS3 on my laptop without any issues, but when I built my workstation I installed XP, just to be safe. If you don't currently use Vista, you might stick with XP but get Vista compatible hardware.

Don't slouch on your media readers/writers. I have a high-speed DVD reader in one slot, a high-speed DVD reader/writer in another. I've had bad results from ones that come built in to packages and have quickly replaced them, so when I built my own I didn't fudge to save money and have great performance, especially when burning. This counts when you get around to archiving photos (or any comprehensive burning job) -- the cheap burners just fail too often.

[golfecho]

While I agree with everything else that has been said, I'm going to have to dissent on this one.

If you want to use over 3gbs of RAM, you need to go with Vista 64. You may have some problems if you have older software and hardware, but the vast majority of 32 bit software works flawlessly. In my experience Vista is not any more or any less reliable or stable than XP. The early adopters may have had some issues, but the transition has been extremely smooth for me.
Vista64 is an excellent platform for Lightroom/CS3 in my experience.

OK folks, I just acquired a new computer, with Vista. I agree that with enough horsepower (I have a quad core 3GHZ chip, 4 Meg of Ram, and big HD,etc), Vista has worked OK so far. I have seen no big reason to switch to it (ie-no killer aps), but one BIG caveat. A significant amount of legacy hardware won't work with Vista. My scanner, for example, won't install, and a visit to the manufacturer's web site (UMax) confirms that no drivers are available for Vista (and the company has "abandoned" support for my scanner model). My advice is to check your hardware such as scanners and printers, etc to make sure they will operate with Vista, and/or the manufacturer will provide Vista drivers.

[bacchanal]

Comparing XP and Vista side by side, i cant see an advantage of vista. Its slower, hogs more memory, has more incompatabiltiy problems.I also have dealings with a number of IT techs who, without exception, all refuse to install Vista on machines they are responsible for (or thier own machines for that matter).

Fwiw, I serve as the in house IT tech for my company, though it isn't my primary responsibility. We run XP/Server2003 at work, but I use Vista, XP and Suse at home. If you like XP great, it ain't broke, but the paranoia surrounding Vista is somewhat overblown. I wouldn't hesitate to put Vista on a new machine for home/small office use.

Back to the original topic...

[tonylong]

One additional note:

I have a dual monitor setup: a 21" widescreen for tasks and browsing and a 24" widescreen mostly for photo work. One of the most important things that I look for in a monitor is a good solid wide viewing angle. Go to a store like Best Buy and wander down the display aisle and you'll see quite a difference when you look at an angle. To me, this makes a big difference in the quality of my photo displays. The same goes for laptop displays.

I'd get a graphics card with dual HD Digital outputs, and make sure your monitor has digital inputs as well.

When I built this machine a couple years ago, the parts cost ~2k (excluding the monitors) and it's been worth the price compared to the price/performance of the budget packages. The same goes for my portable: ~2k gives me a high-quality 17" widescreen display, good graphics, memory and hard drive space, high power processor, so that I can take my work with me and not be hobbled by a cheap laptop.

[conkeroo]

Fwiw, I serve as the in house IT tech for my company, though it isn't my primary responsibility. We run XP/Server2003 at work, but I use Vista, XP and Suse at home. If you like XP great, it ain't broke, but the paranoia surrounding Vista is somewhat overblown. I wouldn't hesitate to put Vista on a new machine for home/small office use.

Back to the original topic...

Its not paranoia, its a simple fact. Vista uses more resources. Harddrive, RAM, etc. If the OP is choosing what machine to buy or build, they need to take this into consideration as it MAY have an effect, depending on the spec of the pc. (Not to mention all that secret spying stuff Microsoft has put into Vista ;))

[Colorblinded]

I wasnt berating Vista for the sake of it.

Comparing XP and Vista side by side, i cant see an advantage of vista. Its slower, hogs more memory, has more incompatabiltiy problems.I also have dealings with a number of IT techs who, without exception, all refuse to install Vista on machines they are responsible for (or thier own machines for that matter).

3GB is more than plenty of memory unless you are in the habit of processing many images at once.

Oh and i would agree on the back up issue - my suggestion was simply to allow him to work on in the event of a HDD failure.
Vista has a higher cost of entry in terms of what specs you ought to run it on, but when you have a system set up with adequate hardware there are advantages to Vista. The memory caching system works well, shadowcopy has saved my but in a quick and painless manner, and multitasking on a whole is improved over any comparable XP system I've used. Other improvements include a much better search system and some interface tweaks.

I'd also suggest at least a dual core. Depending on your usage you may benefit from quad core. RAM is so cheap these days that I'd suggest just going straight to 4 GB as well. One thing to consider is the Intel chips are generally less power hungry and cooler than the current AMD chips, so if power consumption, heat output and noise are a concern, Intel is a better choice.

Yeah it has its quirks and there are some changes that not everyone likes (like the rearrangements to Windows Explorer which I do like). There are also some software and driver compatibility issues, mostly with Vista 64, but even then I haven't had any major problems there that prevent me from using the things and the software I need.

Vista is fine and if you're going for a higher end system may be worth it for those changes above, but it does require a bit of an adjustment and that may or may not be worth it to you. Also if you want more than 4GB RAM you can do that with XP, but you'll need XP 64.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Vista is fine on a modern machine. SP1 for vista has brought its performance in line with XP SP3, you do have more compatibility issues with older stuff, but the trade off is you will have less issues with new stuff. (glass half full/glass half empty), also on a boot it sucks up about 800mb of ram, but thats because it preloads your favourite apps so that they will open very quick when you want them. If you have 4 gigs of ram the 800mb is not significant

Almost all the canon software has been updated to work with vista, but Vista x64 is still a bit borderline, but workable. Another advantage of it on is that with the higher versions of it you can encrypt the hard disk, so should your computers get stolen your less likely have all your/clients data stolen.

Quick points

Buy a branded machine with business class warranty+support, not a standard desktop pc
make sure you have a workable backup system as well
if you go for vista (and you might not have a choice) do a quick google search for any old hardware/software you might want to use and check they work with vista first.

[bacchanal]

Vista uses more resources. Harddrive, RAM, etc. If the OP is choosing what machine to buy or build, they need to take this into consideration as it MAY have an effect, depending on the spec of the pc. (Not to mention all that secret spying stuff Microsoft has put into Vista ;))

I don't disagree with that at all (esp the spying part :rolleyes:). I wouldn't put Vista on a 5 year old Dell for a user that relies on a dinosaur scanner from a company that is too lazy to update their drivers. But I don't see much reason not to run Vista on a new workstation with decent hardware (by today's standards)...assuming any peripheral hardware is compatible. The resource hit is there...will the operator notice it? I don't.

[bikerman]

To all the responders who gave me hardware info, I thank you.... For the responders who turned this blog into a battle of wits over VISTA, you can rest now. You all WIN!

[bacchanal]

To all the responders who gave me hardware info, I thank you.... For the responders who turned this blog into a battle of wits over VISTA, you can rest now. You all WIN!

Lol, sorry...(get a quad core intel, some RAM, and a rack full of hard disks)! :D

[conkeroo]

To all the responders who gave me hardware info, I thank you.... For the responders who turned this blog into a battle of wits over VISTA, you can rest now. You all WIN!
Apologies here too. (But not sorry for the "microsoft spying stuff" bombshell!) ;)

[Colorblinded]

I'd also suggest at least a dual core. And depending on your usage, a quad may be worth it. I upgraded from a dual with 4gb ram that I had for a little over a year to a quad with 8gb RAM. I did so primarily because of how much multitasking I did and how often I'd run out of RAM on 4GB when doing so. A particular problem was working with a lot of images in Photoshop or doing panoramas in other programs.

RAM is so cheap now I'd suggest jumping straight to 4GB as well.

As far as processor choice, I am using an Intel chip and if you're concerned about power consumption or heat output Intels are generally a better chip to choose right now. Also because of the lower heat output, you may have to deal with less fan noise coming from the CPU fan.

[bikerman]

This is great information. I have three PC builders working on quotes now using the data you have provided. I tend to think V Photography will have a great machine that is more than capable of assisting with the work flow! Thanks again you guys!!!