PC or MAC for editing? [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

MacroMAn

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 21:10

Tony-S

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 21:12

Choose the software you want to use, OS you want to use, then the platform you want to use. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Moppie

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 21:17

Currently the best photo editing machine is a quad core with 4 or more GB of ram, a nice mid range video card (all it needs to do is drive your monitors) and as much HDD space as you need.

That means either get a custom built PC, or a Mac Pro.
Only your budget, OS preference and personal opinion can decide which is better.

MacroMAn

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 21:33

I heard the new 2008 Mac monitors are not very good for editing because they are glossy?

Moppie

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 21:38

I heard the new 2008 Mac monitors are not very good for editing because they are glossy?

All the Macs except the 17inch Macbook pro come with a glossy screen.

There is lots of debate over how good, or bad they are for photo work, but Apple have stated that they added the matt option to the 17inch MBP because of demand from the photo/graphics industry, which would indicate there is sometimes a problem with them.

From reading around, it would appear that as many people like them, as dis-like them.

But, remember that since you already have a nice monitor, it is not really an issue, as you can use it as the primary monitor for editing on what ever new system you get.

MacroMAn

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 22:09

Also in editing why is the quad 4 so much better?
Is an iMac 24" worth the money for video editing or does it lack in prosessor, and RAM? If so can it be easily added?
Also does anyone have a new iMac with the glossy screens and dislike it?
Has anyone heard of or built a sytem through Puget?

I just want an editing machine and have about a 2k budget. I would want to use it for professional use editing RAW mostly, but oters like TIFF and Jpeg as well.

stevo8

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 22:22

Regardless of the mac vs pc, or windows vs OS X debate. Simple fact is, is that theres a higher percent of people that are happier with their mac's then there are people with pc's. No matter what the reason is, or what excuses there are, it comes down to being satisfied with the product you have. Even if it was just marketing, if the end result is the customer being happy, well then job well done. If your thinking of switching, go for it. Worst comes to worst you coud easily just buy another pc.

Moppie

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 22:28

Core 2 Quad is just one of intels brand names for thier quad core processors.

Most photo editing programs like photoshop and lightroom etc, are able to access more than 1 core in order to do things.
So having 4 cores means 4 times as much work can be done at once.

Moppie

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 22:30

If you don't mind I have merged the 2 threads.

Regardless of the mac vs pc, or windows vs OS X debate. Simple fact is, is that theres a higher percent of people that are happier with their mac's then there are people with pc's.

Statistics are not facts, and there is nothing less reliable than customer satisfaction surveys.
If we could keep the rhetoric to a minimum it would be good thanks.

stevo8

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 22:31

If you don't mind I have merged the 2 threads.

Statistics are not facts, and there is nothing less reliable than customer satisfaction surveys.
If we could keep the rhetoric to a minimum it would be good thanks.

Yes Sir, if you say so.

kevindar

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 23:03

I dont have much experience with Mac.
1.If you build a pc, Many of your components can be recycled as you upgrade (hard drive, video card, possibly memory, dvd burner). sometimes you need to just pop in a new processor. I dont know if this is true with mac
2. There is little argument that you get more processing for a given budget with a pc if you build yourself. Heck, 6 months ago, I bought a quadcore dell, and over clocked to 3 ghz, put a video card in it, and some extra ram, a couple of extra hard drives. the entire set up with 2.25 terabytes on 3 hard drives. very decent video card, 4 gigs of ram, and quadcore processor running at 3ghz cost me less than 600.

MacroMAn

17th of January 2009 (Sat), 23:11

Thanks for merging Moppie, and your views were helpful...

Kevindar, where did you get thst for $600?

kevindar

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 00:23

the quadcore was bought for 400 dell has specials every now and then. came with 2 gigs of ram and a 500 gig hard drive. Then I bought 2 gigs of ram, and a nvidia 8800 (I think) dual dvi from new egg for 130 bucks, with 70 dollars of combined rebate, net cost 60. I bought a tb hard drive for 100, and a 750gig for 50, so final cost 610. I overcloced the processor, as the q6600 runs a native fsb of 1066, and there is a very simple pin mod to make it run at 1333, which the dell motherboard supports, ocing it to 3 ghz. Completely stable for 6 months now. The beauty of the dells also is that they throttle when you dont need processor power. so it runs at around 2ghz, except when its loaded. less heat, less noise, less power consumption. the included powersupply has been able to handle everything.

Moppie

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 00:57

I have just to remove some more rhetoric, and I will happily remove as much as needed to ensure MacroMAn gets serious answers to a genuine question :)

MacroMAn can you quantify how much processing you are doing?

For example I might import into LR 200-300 photos after each shoot and then batch process with LR and PS about 80-100 of those.
The LR library has about 50,000 photos in it.

While a dual core (PC, Dell, HP, Mac, etc etc) could handle that work load, I wouldn't be happy with it as I like to do other things on the PC wile it is processing the photos.
This is where the quad core extra RAM and multiple hard drives really comes in handy. I can set the process running then play a game like WoW or lately Far Cry 2, with out any effect on performance.

OdiN1701

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 08:48

Which platform are you more familiar with? Do you have any current PC software that you want to keep that you would have to re-purchase to use on a Mac?

I agree that the quad-core processor is the best for photo editing. With Apple this means the Mac Pro. Which means paying a lot more money than you need IMO. A PC will be a lot cheaper. Mainly because the Mac Pro uses Xeon processors which is a server-oriented processor and completely unnecessary for a photo editing desktop. AFAIK they do not offer a regular quad core desktop. The Xeons would be great if you are doing a lot of video editing, but otherwise they just add unnecessary expense.

What I recommend is that you find a good reputable PC dealer and have a system custom built, or build one yourself if you can.

What it really comes down to is which platform you would prefer. Speed wise, there is no advantage either way really. It is easier to upgrade a PC and you can get what you need easier. With Mac's right now there is no mid-range desktop available. It's either a dual core iMac (and I recommend staying away from any all-in-one, PC or Mac), or a dual quad-core Xeon Mac Pro.

flareak

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 11:06

You can buy a core i7 machine for the cost of an iMac...

Currently, the iMac is not worth the value of its performance.

Highly recommend a Core i7 machine! Triple channel RAM

form

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 11:07

I bought a dell quad core system for about $570 and it was the best computer decision I've made in a long time (I've bought mac only for about 14 years). I was used to 8-20 seconds per 100% full 40D jpg exported from RAW in lightroom, now it's 2-3 seconds per photo, and changes I make to exposure and other adjustments are virtually instantaneous. Efficiency is so important with processing large numbers of photos, and it's great to have a computer that can keep up with me.

My last was a Mac dual 800mhz G4 and changes took average 3-10 seconds to refresh in lightroom, plus exporting photos...somewhere around 15-20 seconds or more per photo. This computer is probably at least 8x faster.

Tony-S

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 12:39

My last was a Mac dual 800mhz G4...

Well, this explains much of your negative opinion of Macs.

Faolan

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 12:42

You could consider AMD's Phenom II series, it's powerful enough for most tasks and it's cheaper than a i7 rig. It's on par if not slightly better than the Core 2 series at present.

Personally I would go for it as it would give you more money for more RAM/HD space if you went the PC route.

jetboy

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 14:20

Well, this explains much of your negative opinion of Macs.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the additional 2000 bucks for a mac worth buying for image editing :lol:. It would be very easy to build a PC that will would blaze through my photo and video editing, gaming performance, ripping music/movies, and all around applications for well under $2500. And I have zero stability or virus issues with my PC (which is what most ppl try to claim Mac's elevate the bar in this department). A lot of money for an Apple logo.

Tony-S

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 14:55

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the additional 2000 bucks for a mac worth buying for image editing :lol:.

An additional $2,000 would buy you a server-grade Xeon-based 8-core Mac Pro. How much do you think it would take to build a Win PC with a pair of 2.8 ghz Xeon processors?

It would be very easy to build a PC that will would blaze through my photo and video editing, gaming performance, ripping music/movies, and all around applications for well under $2500.

Gosh, I had no idea. Thanks for enlightening me. :rolleyes:

And I have zero stability or virus issues with my PC (which is what most ppl try to claim Mac's elevate the bar in this department).

Good for you!

A lot of money for an Apple logo.

I guess you don't know much about Macs. (Hint - see the locked thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=626818) below.)

MaxxuM

18th of January 2009 (Sun), 15:20

I have read a few threads that deal with this same issue, but I thought I would try to get some advice for myself and my individual needs.
I am at a crossroad of deciding to either build a PC with specifics...
Hard Drive
A LOT of RAM
Prossesor
Video Card
ETC, ETC, ETC
OR
just buy an iMac or even a Mac Pro?

I have an IPS Dell monitor that is pretty good. I do not know what the ones for Macs use? (VA, IPS, or TN?) Does anyone out there?

Also Macs are supposed to be the bomb, but if I could build a better photo editing machine with a 640gb hard drive, ATI Radeon 1gb video card, with Vista Ultimate 64bit OS would that not be better?

I am just using it for photo editing, RAW, TIFF, JPegs...no video.

What is the best Processor, Video Card, Hard Drive, RAM if I decide to build like from Puget or just ordering from newegg.com and having it built?

What are the most important factors in the editing process ( I know RAM and Processor are very important!)

As you may have noticed, choosing an OS is a very personal decision. Both Vista and OX X can do what you want of them – PC's are typically cheaper and Mac's are typically built better. No one here can tell you what you'll enjoy more, Vista or OS X. Isn't that what it's all about, enjoying the experience? If you just want pure efficiency then just go purchase a Consumer Reports account and then buy whatever their top pick is for your class of computer.

Should I tell you which car to buy, what house to live in or who you should date? You need to sit (or stand) behind a Vista machine and an OS X machine and use them. Whichever you like best – pick that one. 'Then' worry about what will go in it. Even the cheapest desktop's can now run Photoshop CS4 very quickly and you're not going to be really pushing your computer very hard.

Now for 'my' personal opinion; I use both Mac's and PC's, I'm a network admin (IT professional) of a network with thousands of computers and I chose Apple as my personal computer. Why? Well, I like them; I like the 'feel' of the OS, I like not having to bother with tweaking my computer constantly to keep it running optimally. I just love the stability and lack of baggage that come with PCs. I like the look and I like the support. I work a lot with video and Apple's Final Cut is the industry standard. Now, not getting into statistics (which I believe are a valid decision making tool for major purchases), Apple's have a reputation for excellence and thinking like artists and I like purchasing from people that embody the qualities I try to foster in myself.

jetboy

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 10:10

An additional $2,000 would buy you a server-grade Xeon-based 8-core Mac Pro. How much do you think it would take to build a Win PC with a pair of 2.8 ghz Xeon processors?

Even for a low end iMac (listed at apple store with a whopping 1gb ram and 250gb harddrive) is 1100. My computer cost less than 2/3 that for better specs and performance.

Good for you!

Yes, I'm very pleased with my stability and security of my microsoft system.

I guess you don't know much about Macs. (Hint - see the locked thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=626818) below.)

I know and have used macs for imaging enough to know I have zero need to pay more money when the performance isn't there. A mac would not be more stable as I have already said that I have no issues with that. Performance/Price is heavily in a PC's favor. More hardware and software is produced with Windows based systems in mind (or maybe only the larger # of video card options and games is my secondary focus after my image editing gear).

Bottom line is, if you enjoy your mac and have cash to buy one then great for you. Performance and stability can be had at a lesser price tag on the Windows PC front. And most likely, when an bigger better vid card comes out, it will immediately work in my OS. Until I find a reason that a Mac will fill all my computing requirements and the price is justified, I will save that cash for the rug rat and more gear because even a Vista Pc already does that and more.

Tony-S

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 11:13

Even for a low end iMac (listed at apple store with a whopping 1gb ram and 250gb harddrive) is 1100. My computer cost less than 2/3 that for better specs and performance.

I notice how you disregarded the cost of Xeon-based PCs. Is that because you discovered they cost the same as Mac Pros?

You're not just paying for "performance" when you buy a Mac. You pay for more expensive chipsets, processors and engineering. I'm curious, though, what exactly are the complete specs of your computer? Could you list them here, hardware and OS?

I know and have used macs for imaging enough to know I have zero need to pay more money when the performance isn't there. Performance/Price is heavily in a PC's favor.

Since "performance" is a subjective term, how to you calculate it?

More hardware and software is produced with Windows based systems in mind (or maybe only the larger # of video card options and games is my secondary focus after my image editing gear).

My Mac can run any software your Windows PC can. You cannot run all of the software that I can run. ;)

Bottom line is, if you enjoy your mac and have cash to buy one then great for you. Performance and stability can be had at a lesser price tag on the Windows PC front. And most likely, when an bigger better vid card comes out, it will immediately work in my OS. Until I find a reason that a Mac will fill all my computing requirements and the price is justified, I will save that cash for the rug rat and more gear because even a Vista Pc already does that and more.

I'm curious, how much does it cost to run your Win PC every year? My 24" iMac is on 24/7 and uses about US$70 per year in electricity. My hackintosh (a Q6600/Asus P5K-E/750 gb HD/Nvidia 8600GT/500w Antec psu) gets less use and uses about $240 of electricity each year if left on 24/7.

ObiDamnKenobi

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 11:56

disregarding the mac vs PC discussion...

To the OP: I've also looked at a custom built PC and found Puget a little expensive. Checked www.cyberpowerpc.com instead which looks very good, supposed to be reputable and was cheaper. Check it out if you go with a pc..

denMAR

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 12:04

Mac vs PC......

It doesn't matter, it really doesn't. Make sure both systems can handle the specific uses that you need from them. If they can then, play with the system you're less familiar with for a little bit and see what YOU find easier to use. Base it on that. We're all going to get the same result at the end aren't we?

MaxxuM

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 12:09

Bottom line is, if you enjoy your mac and have cash to buy one then great for you. Performance and stability can be had at a lesser price tag on the Windows PC front. And most likely, when an bigger better vid card comes out, it will immediately work in my OS. Until I find a reason that a Mac will fill all my computing requirements and the price is justified, I will save that cash for the rug rat and more gear because even a Vista Pc already does that and more.

See now, that bothers me a bit when people assume that if someone pay's more for something they aren't getting their money's worth. It's like those silly street racing videos where a moded Ford Focus beats a stock Ferrari in the 1/2 mile and people then say the Ferrari is just overpriced (and no I'm not calling the Mac a Ferrari).

Is there any situation where someone should buy a Mac or is it just foolish to do so? Should we all then be PC + Vista users then and just be rid of all the others like Apple, IBM, Sony, TI and the plethora of others that use proprietary systems which all cost more than an Intel based PC?

jetboy

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 12:39

I notice how you disregarded the cost of Xeon-based PCs. Is that because you discovered they cost the same as Mac Pros?

This is because I would have no need, nor, would I pay for a server based system. The price/performance ratio isn't there for me regardless of which OS its running.

You're not just paying for "performance" when you buy a Mac. You pay for more expensive chipsets, processors and engineering. I'm curious, though, what exactly are the complete specs of your computer? Could you list them here, hardware and OS?

Expensive is the key word here. I don't judge how good a system is by the expense. My system is Vista HP x86- AMD 6000+ @ 3.2, 8gb PC2 6400 (4gb set as a ramdrive scratch disk for CS4),Powercolor Radeon HD 3870, 2x WD 320gb, WD 80gb.

Since "performance" is a subjective term, how to you calculate it?

I looked at the photoshop benchmark thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170063 and I scored 47 seconds. The macs I found to equal this performance are easily more expensive.

My Mac can run any software your Windows PC can. You cannot run all of the software that I can run. ;)

Although, my PC runs all of the software I need. I have yet to find a program that I need or even want that is Mac only. Although, I do notice how Apple addicts hate Microsoft but always list that their Mac can run Microsoft software. This is like buying Canon camera body and fitting it with a Nikon lens. By the way, whats the best video card for gaming/imaging for a Mac? the 8800 from NVidia or i think the 2600 for ATi? A little behind there. But, if it suits you thats great.

I'm curious, how much does it cost to run your Win PC every year? My 24" iMac is on 24/7 and uses about US$70 per year in electricity. My hackintosh (a Q6600/Asus P5K-E/750 gb HD/500w Antec psu) gets less use and uses about $240 of electricity each year if left on 24/7.

I have no ideo how much it costs to run. I don't leave it on all the time but do put it to sleep (around 1-2w power draw) and boot from here is only slowed by waiting for my monitor to turn on (maybe 6 seconds). If I was needing my computer on in less time, then I have horribly mismanaged my time. Although, during gaming and the power hungry processor, drives, video card, ram, and I still use a CRT monitor (until LCD's are cheap enough to make sense to purchase) and my UPS will show around 280w power draw during online gaming.

Once again, if your mac is great for you, fantastic. I'm not here to tell anyone that Mac isn't a great system or even not as good as a PC. I'm saying that I have yet to see anything that justifies the price vs a PC. And when I upgrade, I will mearly need to maybe purchase new components (and there is a higher percentage compatible with a PC system to choose from) and not an entirely new computer. Maybe this is possible with a Mac, but, I wouldn't pay the $1200 for a base computer to even start there (I don't even NEED to have the fastest computer, just one that does what I want easily). I think my last build came out to around $750.

zincozinco

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 12:50

"PC or MAC for editing?" What would you want to drive as a NYC taxi. Cadillac or Ford... :)

jetboy

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 12:51

See now, that bothers me a bit when people assume that if someone pay's more for something they aren't getting their money's worth.

I'm not assuming that Mac users aren't getting their moneys worth. I'm saying, for what I need a computer for, the price/performance isn't justified for me. I can pay less and do as much. Its like why I bought an XSi body. The 50d doesn't offer anything extra for my photography that justifies the cost. It by far does not mean that 50d owners aren't getting their moneys worth. If it does what they want and were willing to pay for it, then for them its a justifiable purchase. I don't need the additions for the extra money, which is also why I built my PC instead of a company built system with cr*p I don't need, or even want for that matter.

Tony-S

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 13:25

I'm not assuming that Mac users aren't getting their moneys worth.

So what was your intent when you said:

A lot of money for an Apple logo.

MaxxuM

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 13:27

I'm not assuming that Mac users aren't getting their moneys worth. I'm saying, for what I need a computer for, the price/performance isn't justified for me. I can pay less and do as much. Its like why I bought an XSi body. The 50d doesn't offer anything extra for my photography that justifies the cost. It by far does not mean that 50d owners aren't getting their moneys worth. If it does what they want and were willing to pay for it, then for them its a justifiable purchase. I don't need the additions for the extra money, which is also why I built my PC instead of a company built system with cr*p I don't need, or even want for that matter.

Ah, so you are looking for the lowest common denominator then; the lowest price to MHz rating to get your work done then. You should have said that and perhaps what exactly you do with your computer so the OP may better understand what your opinion was without it appearing prejudicial toward one OS.

I for instance do extremely heavy computing work with video, batch jobs with sometimes thousands of photos, rendering in Adobe After Effects and will play the occasional online game like Warcraft. My Mac Pro fits that bill excellently and I loose absolutely nothing. And all for a cost far lower than a PC.

You should do some number crunching and see what the TCO (total cost of ownership) is. You might be surprised.

Moppie

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 14:05

It's rather passionate in here today :rolleyes:

There is no need to justify your own choice of computer, using Apple or Dell, or HP etc, doesn't make you any more of less of a man (but we all know true men home build :p )

I think Jetboy is simply trying to point out, and further highlighting, the very large whole in Apples line up between the Mac Pro and the iMac.

Quite simply Apple do not offer a high end consumer level work station.

Remember that this is a photography forum, and so computer discussion should generally be aimed with photo editing in mind.
It has been pretty well established that the greatest photo editing computer would be a Mac Pro, or similar spec PC, but it also very well known that either option is VERY expensive and total and utter overkill. A bit like taking the Ferrari F50 2km down the road to the dairy, nice if you can afford it.

It has also been established that a mid range quadcore from either Intel or AMD, 4GB of ram, a nice mother board like an Asus P5K, a quality modular power supply and a decent case with at least 4 drive bays, can give you about 80% of the performance of a high end Xeon based machine, but for half the price while still offering the same levels of reliably and stability, AND being absolutely perfect for photo editing by the home user and small business.
Currently that level of spec, at any price point, is not possible in an Apple.
You either have to take a huge step up the ladder, or a big step down.

I believe there is also the small point of Apples practice of releasing new products only when they want to. This means the current series of iMacs and Mac Pro's are all running Intel based hardware that is now at least 12 months out of date. To the average consumer, and anyone doing photo work that really isn't a problem and just means you are better guaranteed to get a system that is known to work.
If, however you want the latest and greatest, it means you might have to wait a while yet, as there is no i7 based Mac, and there have a whole new family of graphics card released, non of which will work in a Mac.

Remember non of this is a good, or bad thing, it doesn't make your brand of computer better than anyone else s, and it's doesn't make you any more or less of a man (unless you built your own :p ).

It simply points some of the differences between Apples and other brands, and in the context of a photography work station, some of those differences are important.

denMAR

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 14:30

I'm just glad that this is a Canon only forum, if there were Nikon users, I don't think we'd get any discussion done outside of Canon vs Nikon & Mac vs PC debates..

Tony-S

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 14:51

I think Jetboy is simply trying to point out, and further highlighting, the very large whole in Apples line up between the Mac Pro and the iMac.

This is certainly true, otherwise I wouldn't have built a hackintosh. I don't dispute anyone who says Macs are expensive, but I do dispute anyone who says they're overpriced. The Dell T5400 vs. Mac Pro is about the perfect example that PCs and Macs built with the same components are about the same price.

René Damkot

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 15:23

if there were Nikon users
There are a few around ;)

OdiN1701

19th of January 2009 (Mon), 18:02

Tony - Macs are overpriced!

For me at least - a lot goes into what type of user. For whoever said TCO - the TCO of a PC that I own vs. a PC that someone else owns could be vastly different. Mainly because I can build it myself, etc. A lot of people can't so for them to spend the extra may be justified.

I did price out a PC with Mac Pro level components and it was cheaper but that was parts and software only. Purchasing from Dell may be about the same. It was closer than some of their other systems though I think only about a $300 difference which for a workstation at that level is not a huge difference.

I wish they would have an iMac, Mac, and Mac Pro. Give the Mac a quad core desktop processor in a desktop chassis and let the user pick their own monitor to pair with it.

Bobster

20th of January 2009 (Tue), 16:59

My Mac can run any software your Windows PC can. You cannot run all of the software that I can run. ;)
sure can ;) :p

MaxxuM

20th of January 2009 (Tue), 17:40

sure can ;) :p

Serious question; can you run the latest updates (10.5.6) or would you have to reinstall with the latest "patched" OX 10.5.6 OS image? Would an update 'break' the OS? I've toyed with the idea of running a hackintosh but there are some updates I would need to get full use of Final Cut Studio (Professional Application Update 2008-5 and a few others).

Bobster

20th of January 2009 (Tue), 17:48

im not a video editor, nor do i crave the latest and greatest OS 10.. so can't tell you..

jetboy

24th of January 2009 (Sat), 09:10

Please remember I did say, "I'm not assuming that Mac users aren't getting their moneys worth." but, as I'm not a Mac user/owner my opinion is that they ARE overpriced. Mac users may think that the system is worth the money, I don't. Again, not just expensive, overpriced. My system was a cost of around $750 and is used for gaming, dvd ripping, video editing, music rip/listen/editing, internet, and photography. It scored 47 seconds on the photoshop benchmark. I don't really know how to calculate the cost of ownership... but, show me a Mac that matches the performance of the photoshop benchmark. And now show me the price of that system. And then, make sure it can play Call of Duty 4 silky smooth. After all, I think the little Apple logo is cute too. If they could fit this bill, maybe I would use one. As long as I can open it up and upgrade the video card (and not with card that is over a year old).

MaxxuM

25th of January 2009 (Sun), 01:28