Mac or windows based PC??? Hardware in particular.

[ashdavid]

Ok, I have windows vista at the moment and I am looking to upgrade from my current PC. I am not really that concerned with the idosyncracies of each OS , although I know it plays a big part in performace.

I want to know if the mac hardware is is inferior to the windows based hardware? I believe that gamers usually choose windows based products , but I am no gamer and I will be maily be looking at the new PC for Photoshop and watching some blue-ray movies ect.

I was thinking about getting the new 8 core for mac with 32g of memory.

Cheers.

[HyperYagami]

for Photoshop and watching some blue-ray movies ect.

I was thinking about getting the new 8 core for mac with 32g of memory.

you don't need 32GB RAM to photoshop nor 8 cores for movies no matter which platform.

[Moppie]

Ok, I have windows vista at the moment and I am looking to upgrade from my current PC. I am not really that concerned with the idosyncracies of each OS , although I know it plays a big part in performace.

I want to know if the mac hardware is is inferior to the windows based hardware? I believe that gamers usually choose windows based products , but I am no gamer and I will be maily be looking at the new PC for Photoshop and watching some blue-ray movies ect.

I was thinking about getting the new 8 core for mac with 32g of memory.

Cheers.


What spec is your current PC?

Macs and Windows based PC all use the same basic hardware platform.
However, there is a limited choice of configirations with the Macs, but an unlimited one with the Windows based PC's.


Knowing what spec your current PC is, what it could do better, and some more detail about what you want to do with a new one, will help us give you advice.
For your photography work, do you shoot RAW? process lots of photos at once? Do you use the camera once a month, once a day? Shoot hundreds of frames each time, or only 1 or 2?

[ashdavid]

you don't need 32GB RAM to photoshop nor 8 cores for movies no matter which platform.
I have 4 gig of memory and a quad core at the moment and it can take a few mins in some cases to carry some functions in PS. Basically PS performs horribly when you have hundreds of layers with various tasks performed on them. Well that is my experience.

I forgot to say I use excell extensively and at the moment some files can take up to a minute or more to open, on top of that when performing simple tasks it can take a while to procces the info. I am trying to streamline the way I set up my books by cutting away unneccessary formulas. So will excell work fine on mac?

And I also forgot to ask whether I can switch my windows photoshop to mac?

[ashdavid]

What spec is your current PC?

Macs and Windows based PC all use the same basic hardware platform.
However, there is a limited choice of configirations with the Macs, but an unlimited one with the Windows based PC's.


Knowing what spec your current PC is, what it could do better, and some more detail about what you want to do with a new one, will help us give you advice.
For your photography work, do you shoot RAW? process lots of photos at once? Do you use the camera once a month, once a day? Shoot hundreds of frames each time, or only 1 or 2?

I usually don't batch proccess , but I can have 200-300 layers in some files at times. I take hundreds of pics in one shoot quite regulary. At the moment the performace of the PC is terrible. I can have PS proccess a command and it literally take 5 mins.

The cpu is a Intel® Core™2 Extreme quad-core processor btw.

[Moppie]

Working with hundreds of layers will slow down any computer, even a new dual xeon Mac Pro.

And you must be working with some very large excel spreadsheets.

You can transfer the lisence for photoshop, and you can get MS Office for a Mac.
However, I have had some problems in the past using Excel on OS-X. Mostly with very large spreadsheets and pivot tables created under windows not displaying properly. I don't know if this is a problem with using the different platforms, or if it was a problem with the Mac.


I would look at making some changes to your current system first. Double the ram, and use 64bit Vista with 64bit CS4. This will make a huge improvment to how photoshop works, as it will be able to use a lot more RAM. CS4 does not support 64bit on OS-X, so even with huge amounts of RAM in a Mac Pro, it is limited to how much can actually be used.

Might be an idea to check processor useage etc, while idle. It is possible there are things running that shouldn't be. Although I've never had a problem with this.


If that fails, then a Mac Pro, or requivilant spec i7 based computer running Vista 64bit would be an improvment. But, you need to be running a proper 64bit operating system to see the difference.

[tim]

I'd like to know why you're using hundreds of layers, and see the image you made with it. That's an exceptional case, i'm surprised it works at all. But Excel taking a minute to open a file really suggests that something else is wrong with your machine. What's in the spreadsheet?

[ashdavid]

Working with hundreds of layers will slow down any computer, even a new dual xeon Mac Pro.

And you must be working with some very large excel spreadsheets.

You can transfer the lisence for photoshop, and you can get MS Office for a Mac.
However, I have had some problems in the past using Excel on OS-X. Mostly with very large spreadsheets and pivot tables created under windows not displaying properly. I don't know if this is a problem with using the different platforms, or if it was a problem with the Mac.


I would look at making some changes to your current system first. Double the ram, and use 64bit Vista with 64bit CS4. This will make a huge improvment to how photoshop works, as it will be able to use a lot more RAM. CS4 does not support 64bit on OS-X, so even with huge amounts of RAM in a Mac Pro, it is limited to how much can actually be used.

Might be an idea to check processor useage etc, while idle. It is possible there are things running that shouldn't be. Although I've never had a problem with this.


If that fails, then a Mac Pro, or requivilant spec i7 based computer running Vista 64bit would be an improvment. But, you need to be running a proper 64bit operating system to see the difference.
I know I should be using 64bit in windows, but I have been waiting for windows 7 to come out before I go and buy the 64 bit platform. There is nothing running that shouldn't be and I make sure of that before I start PS or excell. My thoughts were the new i7 and windows 7 64bit with 16gig of ram (that seems to be the max that windows based MOBO's going around) or go the mac route. A friend of mine swears by Mac and has been trying to convince me for years that it is better for what I am doing. Esspecially the graphics of the Mac is better than windows based products... That is a shame about PS not supporting 64 bit on OS X, but I guess CS5 should be ok. I was also going to upgrade PS from CS3 to CS4 with the new PC. Sigh, I really don't know what I should do????

[Aweitzel]

Have you told Photoshop you utilized all your RAM? it took me a while to dig threw and find that option i have 2 gigs of ram, and i found out PS was only asking for 512mb. I was wondering why it was slow, once i gave it more ram it ran smoother.
Im not a computer buff, i so im not sure if im using the correct terms.,,

[tim]

I know I should be using 64bit in windows, but I have been waiting for windows 7 to come out before I go and buy the 64 bit platform. There is nothing running that shouldn't be and I make sure of that before I start PS or excell. My thoughts were the new i7 and windows 7 64bit with 16gig of ram (that seems to be the max that windows based MOBO's going around) or go the mac route. A friend of mine swears by Mac and has been trying to convince me for years that it is better for what I am doing. Esspecially the graphics of the Mac is better than windows based products... That is a shame about PS not supporting 64 bit on OS X, but I guess CS5 should be ok. I was also going to upgrade PS from CS3 to CS4 with the new PC. Sigh, I really don't know what I should do????

Why do you think Graphics are better on the mac? That may have been true 20 years ago. There's an Asus i7 board that supports 24GB RAM - remember multiples of 3GB for i7 (ie 3/6/12/24) not the usual 2/4/8/16. Asus P6T Deluxe V2.

[ashdavid]

I'd like to know why you're using hundreds of layers, and see the image you made with it. That's an exceptional case, i'm surprised it works at all. But Excel taking a minute to open a file really suggests that something else is wrong with your machine. What's in the spreadsheet?
Why do you think Graphics are better on the mac? That may have been true 20 years ago. There's an Asus i7 board that supports 24GB RAM - remember multiples of 3GB for i7 (ie 3/6/12/24) not the usual 2/4/8/16. Asus P6T Deluxe V2.
I am not useing excell the most efficient way, but I have hundreds of sheets with hundreds of complex formulas , graphs and tables. When opening a new book or one with only a few formulas ect, it usually only takes a few seconds. I have the PC serviced every month( it is my business PC and I have an IT guy take care of that aspect.) so there is nothing wrong with the PC, the formulas ect just bog it down, like I said before I need to streamline them and not multible formulas where use a single bigger forumla can be substituted.

I use hundreds of layers when I am trying to make a digital photo from scratch, I know illistrator could be better in some cases but I am having fun learning some of the more difficult tasks in PS. I only do this as a hobby, but that doesn't mean I can waste time waiting for the PC to carry out tasks. My business and family take preference so I want it to move as quick as it can. Cost of the PC means nothing to me.

As for graphics on Macs, I always have been under the impression that this is where Macs really shine, maybe I am wrong? I didn't know that i7 has memory in multibles of three and thanks for the info on the Asus board, I will look into it.

Have you told Photoshop you utilized all your RAM? it took me a while to dig threw and find that option i have 2 gigs of ram, and i found out PS was only asking for 512mb. I was wondering why it was slow, once i gave it more ram it ran smoother.
Im not a computer buff, i so im not sure if im using the correct terms.,,Yes, I have also allocated 2 gigs. Thanks for the help though.

[nphsbuckeye]

I was thinking about getting the new 8 core for mac with 32g of memory.
Sha-zam!

[MaxxuM]

I am not useing excell the most efficient way, but I have hundreds of sheets with hundreds of complex formulas , graphs and tables. When opening a new book or one with only a few formulas ect, it usually only takes a few seconds. I have the PC serviced every month( it is my business PC and I have an IT guy take care of that aspect.) so there is nothing wrong with the PC, the formulas ect just bog it down, like I said before I need to streamline them and not multible formulas where use a single bigger forumla can be substituted.

I use hundreds of layers when I am trying to make a digital photo from scratch, I know illistrator could be better in some cases but I am having fun learning some of the more difficult tasks in PS. I only do this as a hobby, but that doesn't mean I can waste time waiting for the PC to carry out tasks. My business and family take preference so I want it to move as quick as it can. Cost of the PC means nothing to me.

As for graphics on Macs, I always have been under the impression that this is where Macs really shine, maybe I am wrong? I didn't know that i7 has memory in multibles of three and thanks for the info on the Asus board, I will look into it.

Yes, I have also allocated 2 gigs. Thanks for the help though.

You sound like a prime candidate for a workstation. Dell & Apple would be what I would recommend. The cost is about the same for workstations so it would come down to which platform you like best.

Yes, Mac's do have a good standing with artists and photographers because of Apple's overall reputation. With diversity comes complexity, it's just a fact of modern physics. PC's can be daunting to non-techie's. My mother hates computers yet, loves the Mac I gave her. She said that it was a joy to work with. If you're not a techie and just want to concentrate on work then Apple's computer model (simple) is typically a good one. If you like computers for computers sake, then PC's would be better for you because there is an edless array of 'tweaking' that can be done. Most artists I know don't care about the PC vs Mac battle, they just want a tool that can serve them and once they start hearing about anti-virus software, firewalls, maleware... they just opt for an Apple and that's the last time they think about it.

That said, PC's can do just about anything Mac's can (on the surface anyway) but the one thing the cannot (legally) is run OS X. So, if you like Mac OS then go buy a Mac Pro base model with an ATI 4870 and 6GB of RAM then go buy a few 1TB hard drives and get to work :)

[tim]

If price isn't important get a dual xeon processor, the one based on the Neelham architecture. 8 real cores, 16 virtual cores, 24GB RAM, Windows 7. That'd be one of the fastest workstations available, but it won't be cheap. Even a single i7 processor would fly.

[Moppie]

As for graphics on Macs, I always have been under the impression that this is where Macs really shine, maybe I am wrong?


As Tim said, there was some truth to this 20 years ago, when early Macs used dedicated graphics chips.
Now the latest and greatest video cards will only run under windows. But you only need them if your a gaming fanatic, or doing some serious 3D work.


The Mac Pro can handle lots of RAM because it is essentially a server cramed into a desktop box. It's why it is so powerful, and also so expensive.
However, if you have a good PC guy who looks after your current system, there is no reason he can't build you a similar server based workstation that will take even more RAM than the Mac Pro. I believe the current limit for Vista Ultimate is 128GB of ram. I have harddisks smaller than that.


I would either double the RAM in your current system and get Vista 64bit, which you can then upgrade in October to Windows 7 if you really feel the need.

Or, buy the Mac Pro dual xeon, ultra mega cool monster, and run Vista 64bit with CS4 on it so you can make the most of the RAM.

[nphsbuckeye]

I believe the current limit for Vista Ultimate is 128GB of ram. I have harddisks smaller than that.
The amazing thing is I've heard that 64 bit can allow for up to 16 ectobytes. But of course, we're no where near there, but still pretty cool.

[ashdavid]

You sound like a prime candidate for a workstation. Dell & Apple would be what I would recommend. The cost is about the same for workstations so it would come down to which platform you like best.

Yes, Mac's do have a good standing with artists and photographers because of Apple's overall reputation. With diversity comes complexity, it's just a fact of modern physics. PC's can be daunting to non-techie's. My mother hates computers yet, loves the Mac I gave her. She said that it was a joy to work with. If you're not a techie and just want to concentrate on work then Apple's computer model (simple) is typically a good one. If you like computers for computers sake, then PC's would be better for you because there is an edless array of 'tweaking' that can be done. Most artists I know don't care about the PC vs Mac battle, they just want a tool that can serve them and once they start hearing about anti-virus software, firewalls, maleware... they just opt for an Apple and that's the last time they think about it.

That said, PC's can do just about anything Mac's can (on the surface anyway) but the one thing the cannot (legally) is run OS X. So, if you like Mac OS then go buy a Mac Pro base model with an ATI 4870 and 6GB of RAM then go buy a few 1TB hard drives and get to work :)

Thanks for the advise. I was looking at 4TB hard disks and setting up a RAID config to get the most out of them. I still don't understand why Mac is good for virus's, is it b/c all the malware is mainly dirrected at PC's?

If price isn't important get a dual xeon processor, the one based on the Neelham architecture. 8 real cores, 16 virtual cores, 24GB RAM, Windows 7. That'd be one of the fastest workstations available, but it won't be cheap. Even a single i7 processor would fly.
No price is not a consideration. I have built all my PC's over the last 5 years, but to put a workstation together I may need to do a bit more research. Got any info the Neelham architecture, I have never heard of that?

As Tim said, there was some truth to this 20 years ago, when early Macs used dedicated graphics chips.
Now the latest and greatest video cards will only run under windows. But you only need them if your a gaming fanatic, or doing some serious 3D work.


The Mac Pro can handle lots of RAM because it is essentially a server cramed into a desktop box. It's why it is so powerful, and also so expensive.
However, if you have a good PC guy who looks after your current system, there is no reason he can't build you a similar server based workstation that will take even more RAM than the Mac Pro. I believe the current limit for Vista Ultimate is 128GB of ram. I have harddisks smaller than that.


I would either double the RAM in your current system and get Vista 64bit, which you can then upgrade in October to Windows 7 if you really feel the need.

Or, buy the Mac Pro dual xeon, ultra mega cool monster, and run Vista 64bit with CS4 on it so you can make the most of the RAM.I have had it with my current system, I am going to give it to one of my staff. I want to build a complete new one. I heard that you can now run mac and windows on the same computer? And I know the new top graphic cards only support windows, I was looking at getting something in the $1000 price range if I was to go with a PC.

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about workstations, what exactly is it?

[Moppie]

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about workstations, what exactly is it?



Simply a desktop computer set up and designed for specific work using high end, high quality parts.


Apple used to use different hardware, developed by themselves or IBM.
A couple of years ago they started using Intel and nvidia as major hardware chip supplier, including using the same processors as used on windows based computers.
This means you can instal Windows on the new Intel based Macs and have it run perfectly. It won't care what the hardware is.
You can instal OS-X on some non Mac, intel based computers. But, OS-X only supports a very limited number of hardware configurations.

I'm sure you aware that there is a huge range of different configerations and options available.

A Mac Pro provides an easy way to get very high quality, high end hardware in a simple, complete package.

But, there is no reason you can't get a similar spec machine from Dell, or HP, or have one built for you by an expert.

[ashdavid]

Simply a desktop computer set up and designed for specific work using high end, high quality parts.


Apple used to use different hardware, developed by themselves or IBM.
A couple of years ago they started using Intel and nvidia as major hardware chip supplier, including using the same processors as used on windows based computers.
This means you can instal Windows on the new Intel based Macs and have it run perfectly. It won't care what the hardware is.
You can instal OS-X on some non Mac, intel based computers. But, OS-X only supports a very limited number of hardware configurations.

I'm sure you aware that there is a huge range of different configerations and options available.

A Mac Pro provides an easy way to get very high quality, high end hardware in a simple, complete package.

But, there is no reason you can't get a similar spec machine from Dell, or HP, or have one built for you by an expert.
Thanks for the help it is very much appreciated,I will look into a work station for sure.

[tim]

No price is not a consideration. I have built all my PC's over the last 5 years, but to put a workstation together I may need to do a bit more research. Got any info the Neelham architecture, I have never heard of that?

Google it, or "i7". Xeon is the workstation version, which just means it's a bit faster and can work with multiple processors more easily. The i7 920 is the most popular processor, as it's cheap and easily overclockable. There's HEAPS on the net about it :)

[In2Photos]

T
...I was looking at getting something in the $1000 price range if I was to go with a PC.


For $1000, you won't get much more than a standard i7 desktop. By the time you buy a case, PSU, mobo, CPU, RAM, HDD, and DVD drive you are at or near that $1000. You mentioned having 4TB drives. That alone would be about $400. Why would you be willing to shell out a minimum of $3300 for a MAC but only $1000 for a PC?

[tim]

"Price is not an object" indicates a $3000-5000 workstation, not a $1000 PC.

[Yogesh Sarkar]

If price isn't important get a dual xeon processor, the one based on the Neelham architecture. 8 real cores, 16 virtual cores, 24GB RAM, Windows 7. That'd be one of the fastest workstations available, but it won't be cheap. Even a single i7 processor would fly.
Actually one can get upto 96GB of RAM with motherboards like these, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182186

[HyperYagami]

I have 4 gig of memory and a quad core at the moment and it can take a few mins in some cases to carry some functions in PS. Basically PS performs horribly when you have hundreds of layers with various tasks performed on them. Well that is my experience.

I forgot to say I use excell extensively and at the moment some files can take up to a minute or more to open, on top of that when performing simple tasks it can take a while to procces the info. I am trying to streamline the way I set up my books by cutting away unneccessary formulas. So will excell work fine on mac?

And I also forgot to ask whether I can switch my windows photoshop to mac?

Hum, ok...but now I actually wonder what's your real bottleneck in that case, RAM or CPU.

How much virtual memory are PS and Excel using right now?

[ashdavid]

For $1000, you won't get much more than a standard i7 desktop. By the time you buy a case, PSU, mobo, CPU, RAM, HDD, and DVD drive you are at or near that $1000. You mentioned having 4TB drives. That alone would be about $400. Why would you be willing to shell out a minimum of $3300 for a MAC but only $1000 for a PC?I was thinking of $1000K for the graphic card alone if I went with a windows setup, maybe that sentence was not clear enough. This is what I said below, And I know the new top graphic cards only support windows, I was looking at getting something in the $1000 price range if I was to go with a PC.


"Price is not an object" indicates a $3000-5000 workstation, not a $1000 PC. I was guessing a good work station could probably be built for around $10-15K , $3000-$5000 is a steal!


Hum, ok...but now I actually wonder what's your real bottleneck in that case, RAM or CPU.

How much virtual memory are PS and Excel using right now?
PS is using 1208MB of 1689MB available, as for excel I don't know.

[tim]

You don't need a $1000 graphics card or a $10K PC. You'd be hard pressed to spend $5000. Remember then little bit of performance adds a lot of the cost - shoot for very fast, not insanely fast, and save thousands of dollars. Even if you have thousands to waste give it to charity and feed hundreds of people rather than waiting for ten seconds less for a batch job to finish.

Get a solid state boot disk, and a solid state disk for the images you're working on at the time. Use a spinning disk for things that you're not working on right now. Windows 7 is meant to be much better with solid state disks than XP or Vista.

[MaxxuM]

Thanks for the advise. I was looking at 4TB hard disks and setting up a RAID config to get the most out of them. I still don't understand why Mac is good for virus's, is it b/c all the malware is mainly dirrected at PC's?


Put simply, yes. There's no money in hacking Mac's at the moment. The chances of you getting a virus on a Mac is slim to none.

[ashdavid]

You don't need a $1000 graphics card or a $10K PC. You'd be hard pressed to spend $5000. Remember then little bit of performance adds a lot of the cost - shoot for very fast, not insanely fast, and save thousands of dollars. Even if you have thousands to waste give it to charity and feed hundreds of people rather than waiting for ten seconds less for a batch job to finish.

Get a solid state boot disk, and a solid state disk for the images you're working on at the time. Use a spinning disk for things that you're not working on right now. Windows 7 is meant to be much better with solid state disks than XP or Vista.
Good sound advise, I will talk to my IT guy and see what he can come up with.

[nicksan]

I used to be a Mac guy way back when.
I'm strictly PC at this point. I have a QuadCore, 8GB RAM, ATI Video, bunch of hard drives...perfectly fine.

There's really nothing inherent in Mac hardware that makes them a better solution. I mean, yeah, the MacPro 8 core Towers look SWEET...but I don't need it...especially for that price.

I am using the same case I've been using forever. Looks real outdated. Fugly beige to boot. Every so often I would replace Mobo/CPU/RAM. I replace video cards only when the new mobo has different type slots like PCI->PCI Express, etc. Same with Power Supply. If I need more power, I buy a new one. My hard drives are old and new. I buy them as needed.

Typically I would use the old hardware to upgrade even older PC's that are in different areas of my house, like the guest room for instance. My wife's PC is my old Digital Audio Workstation PC back when I used to have a home music studio. P4 2.8Ghz Hyper-threading.

[slappy sam]

The system I am about to build (in the mail, arrives tomorrow) cost me $800 (I didn't need to buy a hd, but this included psu, case, etc.)and includes an i7 proc and 6gb of 1866mhz ram (wicked fast). I could have gotten another 6gb of the same ram for only $40.

You don't need to spend thousands, and if you do you are getting marginally better performance for seriously increased price.

If you really want a nice system I'd get a similar build to mine with

i7 2.66ghz processor (the higher end i7s havent shown too much of a difference from what I read)

p6t v2 deluxe (I've got the regular p6t but you don't seem to be short on cash)

12gb 1866mhz ocz platinum ram - really cheap from zipzoomfly, or you could go with the 1600mhz from newegg

gpu - not totally sure, if you could use the video memory I'd suggest getting a nice card or cards, like 2x9800gtx

hd - raid0 three SSDs

Since it sounds like you really have cash to burn, maybe go with the top of the line i7 processor.

[Craze]

I am a pc repair guy during the day, I only use mac for myself for a couple of different reasons. 1) I find it just works, turn it on and it works, no fixing little issues to make it work. 2) in order to get any windows machine passed the 3.25gb brick wall of seeing ram you have to then switch to a 64 bit os, to this day there is still software that will not run on a 64bit platform. 3) we all go online, proof is you came here, with a Mac I have no worries of spyware, adware, malware or virus', I can be a carrier but it is almost impossible to get a virus that will affect my os x. 4) if I really want to punish myself I can load Windows using a number of different ways, some are virtual machines that run windows in a window like an application or I can use bootcamp and make a windows partition (plus the virtual machines can also access that partition if you don't want to boot into it).
The cool thing is I can have windows on one monitor and leopard on the other and drag files from one to the other and work on that file in both operating systems.
I haven't seen a computer come close to doing what mine does, my mac amazes me every week with something. Since I went this route I have cut down on swearing too!
Snow Leopard is going to be a true 64bit os, with no option of a 32, Winblows 7 is going to have the same crap as Vista with the 10,000 versions, both 32bit and 64bit. Can you see the trend happening?
Also there is a limited selection of hardware for the mac but thats what makes it work, OS X knows whats its dealing with and works, Windows has to be everything to everybody and thats its major fault.

BTW I'm running the 8core with just 4gbs of ram and the HD2600 video card, not a days goes by that I regret buying it.

[wyofizz]

I'd try the Intel I7 series processor with at least 12GB Ram. Buy good Ram such as OCZ Reaper and Crucial Ballistic.
Put your cache files on a SSD (not M, use E) drive and OS and apps on something like a Western Digital Velociraptor. Your drives are probably too slow, Ram and drives are creating your slow performance. Lose 7200 drives.
The MAC won't improve performance over the above.

Dave

[wyofizz]

The more I think about it, since money doesn't seem to be an object.
Call AlienWare.com and have them put together a system for you. Their one of the top gaming computer manufacturers in the world.
I almost pulled the trigger on one yesterday but my wallet pinched me. :mad:
Dave

[crossmax03]

Even though this conversation is about 2.5 months since the last reply, I still want to reply anyway. :-P

So anyway, ashDavid, did you ever build/buy your computer? What did you decide to do?

I've thought about getting a mac for quite some time now (years), and one of my main decisions was that I couldn't run Windows software on the mac. Now that it's PC hardware, I can. I run solid modeling software (Solidworks).

So next up is the fact I don't have really enough money to afford mac and I believe the price of them is more for the cost of the software - ie: less viruses, only supports certain hardware, etc ... it's basically security through obscurity i guess, and apparently mac can raise the prices for that.

I thought about the whole RAID thing - What's your goal in raid ? High speed, or security in the event of disk failure ? or both?
Raid 0 (striping) gives high speed because of more drives can read the data at the same time. but if one fails, you're screwed.
Raid 1 (mirror) is a 1:1 back up, all the time. (yep, it will copy virsuses over to the other drive so you're not completely safe)
Raid 5 is striping with parity, but you pay for an extra disk that you're not gaining the extra space of. the extra disk is used for backup.

So that's my take. For now, I remain with my P4 2.8, 3gb ram, and approx 300gb of disk space. I figure it this way: the longer I can hold out, the faster the systems become in the future when I can afford. Besides, I picked up a 5D2 so I'm happy for a while :)