laptops versus desktops (also monitor Q)

Laptops are generally biased towards mobility, you lose power in an inverse to size and weight generally. You also increase price as you increase power and get smaller. so of course I compromise and use both. Id have my laptop with me 24/7 for work anyway. But banging through files at like 5x the speed on my desktop at home is quite nice as well.

adam8080 wrote in post #5732499
No way a laptop could handle storing and processing all my images from a wedding. Desktop is so much easier. I have enough cards to use until I'm able to get home.

Funny. Mine's the opposite. My desktop makes that process painful but my laptop makes it quick and easy. Of course my desktop is an older Compaq single core and my laptop is a newer Dell dual core.

I guess it all depends on which computer is faster/has more storage for you! That and if you need the portability.

Both my laptop and desktop have the same chips in it. Both the same memory. I loaded the SAME pictures on both machines and did a batch process of 227 photos and the desktop finished roughly 4 seconds faster... There isn't that much more power difference between the two. Actually, my desktop sits in the closet since moving. I have my epson 1800 attached wirelessly along with my backup NAS and all my storage is on external drives also so Im not worried about storage.

The latest high-end laptops are nothing to sneeze at... My MBP has a 2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (dual core) CPU w/4GBs RAM. A couple years ago you might've laughed at the notion of a multi-core laptop or even one that can accept 4GB of RAM. It runs Photoshop and even other OSes in virtualization plenty quick. IMO, they're finally reaching the point where they truly can replace desktops for all but the most hardcore uses.

But it's true, if you've got hundreds of photos to batch process... A quad-core desktop is hard to beat. The other thing that really helps desktops are the hard drives. Laptop drives have come a long way and can reach 7,200rpm - but won't be a match for 10k or 15k drives (not that your average desktop has these however) especially in a striped RAID set.

Double Negative wrote in post #5733067
...A quad-core desktop is hard to beat...

So true, I love mine! The main reason I do most of the work on one is that I prefer to have a large mouse, large LCD screen and Quad!

Laptops for some things, desktops for some things...

OK, so if I am going to go and have a computer built - what do I tell them I have to have on it?

thank you so much everyone, I am learning a lot today!

Oh yeah, a quad core is the way to go!! Im not at that level yet to need one lol

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5733131
OK, so if I am going to go and have a computer built - what do I tell them I have to have on it?

thank you so much everyone, I am learning a lot today!

4 gigs of ram for 32 bit system and 8 would be ideal if going with a 64 bit system. And I would want at least 2 500 or 750 hdd in a raid 1. If money was short you could pick up an AMD 3.0 dual core pretty cheap. My last request would be 2 CF card readers. So I can download 2 at a time, and do something else without having to wait and swap them.

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5733131
OK, so if I am going to go and have a computer built - what do I tell them I have to have on it?

I like to maximize my dollars... have a computer built to these spec's will only cost you a $1,000 or less and give great computing power... (you can always spend more...)

Intel Q6600
Asus P5K-E
Crucial 4GB or more $$$
XP Pro x64 or Vista 64 (don't put 4GB in a 32bit OS, only 3GB)
7200 RPM hard drive or faster $$$
Any nVidia 8800 chip, a 8600GT is fine for photos really... get dvi output and 256 RAM
Antec P182 quiet case

pcunite wrote in post #5733254
(don't put 4GB in a 32bit OS, only 3GB)

You can put more in. I've seen 32 bit systems with 16gb and the rest was used as a scratch disk. not sure how that is set up though.

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5733131
OK, so if I am going to go and have a computer built - what do I tell them I have to have on it?

thank you so much everyone, I am learning a lot today!

Say, "I want a Mac."

How about the iMac 24 inch. Is that any good?

skywalkerbeth wrote in post #5732071
Not sure if this is the best forum for this question...

Do most of you use desktops for your photography? Or are laptops just fine for what you do?

I have a nice laptop that is three years old. It is nearly full - but it also occurred to me that a three year old laptop is going to be slow compared to what is out there. It has 100 gigs on the HD.

I just bought a cheapie laptop solely for traveling. It uses Vista. Alas, it's almost full too! It has an 80 gig hard drive, that I didn't expect to use/store, but of course since it is my TRAVELING laptop, all my photos go there first and I rarely move them over to the main one afterwards. It's almost half full.

At any rate, a friend of mine just had a desktop built and bought a really razz monitor. See the monitor below. Her desktop holds something like 500 gigs.

When I bought my laptop, the big reason was to reduce clutter in my office/on my desk. I hated having a big desktop (AND UGLY MONITOR) taking up space. But these new ones are so sleek.

Thoughts? I'd especially like to know if the below monitor is high quality or not. It would be so nice to really see the photos, up large and personal!

http://www.costco.com …partial&Nty=1&t​opnav=&s=1

i only use my laptop when i'm out of town and the screen isn't good enough to do serious editing.

my home monitor is excellent (s-ips) and calibrated. i don't store anything on either computer. i run two external hard drives.

ed rader

Moon-Crickets wrote in post #5734676
How about the iMac 24 inch. Is that any good?

What is the model number?