Computer advice needed............

[PhotoMom]

Hello All!

Haven't posted in a camel's age here!!! Would NEVER forget my PhotoCamel people! You guys are all so helpful,and I've learned a TON from everyone here!

I have a question: I am considering switching from a PC to a MAC. I use Photoshop CS3 for editing (which I just recently upgraded from CS2) on my pc and I need to know if there is a MAC that I should consider as an "beginner". I've had SOME experience on a MAC a few years back, but eventually my employer switched everyone over to PC's. I was wondering if the IMAC will be enough computer to handle my CS3 and other editing programs.

Also, has anyone had any experience with Adobe in having them switch over their registration from a pc to a MAC platform?

I was browing in Best Buy and came across the iMac, with the 24" screen and was drooling over how beautiful it was, but need to know if it's "enough" of a MAC to handle the job.

It has a 3.0 dual core processor, 3mg ram, and 250 gb hard drive space.

I was looking at some reviews on the various Macs, and saw one that listed the G5 desktop was considered "over the hill" so apparently Apple must be getting to introduce an upgrade. Anyone have any advice on that?

PhotoMom

[Gna]

Originally Posted by PhotoMom

Hello All!

Haven't posted in a camel's age here!!! Would NEVER forget my PhotoCamel people! You guys are all so helpful,and I've learned a TON from everyone here!

I have a question: I am considering switching from a PC to a MAC. I use Photoshop CS3 for editing (which I just recently upgraded from CS2) on my pc and I need to know if there is a MAC that I should consider as an "beginner".

If you don't need portable, you need an iMac.

I've had SOME experience on a MAC a few years back, but eventually my employer switched everyone over to PC's. I was wondering if the IMAC will be enough computer to handle my CS3 and other editing programs.

Also, has anyone had any experience with Adobe in having them switch over their registration from a pc to a MAC platform?

No, but I understand from plenty switchers that it works.

I was browing in Best Buy and came across the iMac, with the 24" screen and was drooling over how beautiful it was, but need to know if it's "enough" of a MAC to handle the job.

It has a 3.0 dual core processor, 3mg ram, and 250 gb hard drive space.

I was looking at some reviews on the various Macs, and saw one that listed the G5 desktop was considered "over the hill" so apparently Apple must be getting to introduce an upgrade. Anyone have any advice on that?

The 24" iMac is gorgeous, and ideal for general computing and especially for photo and video editing. But last year's iMac 'crop' was rejuvenated last Tuesday: the 20" and 24" models were replaced by 21,5" and 27" models. Even better than their progenitors of course. That also means that stores that still have brandnew 20" and 24" models in stock will RIGHT NOW sell them at great clearance discounts (or they wouldn't sell 'm at all anymore, because everybody wants the newest model, of course!). So that's a great opportunity for you! But they'll be gone fast, so you'll have to be very quick. TODAY!

[TonyK]

Only problem with an iMac is the glossy screen. Because PhotoMom is moving from a PC to a Mac maybe she has a monitor, keyboard and mouse. In that case the Mac Mini with 4GB of memory and 320GB of drive space for $800 could be a good starter system.

Also, 18 months ago I switched from a Windows based system to Mac and Adobe allowed me to transfer/upgrade. It does cost some $$$ but usually not too un-reasonable. Look for a thread from Athena and you can find my links to the Adobe stuff.

There is nothing wrong with an iMac. I just never cared for an all-in-one solution and in this case I think a Mac Mini would work just fine.

UPDATE:

Athena's thread: Mac Question - Nehalem processor and CS3

Adobe Links:

Adobe Cross Platform Upgrade How To | Tyler Nichols Weblog

Changing Platforms for Adobe Photoshop and Creative Suite - Windows and Mac Cross-Grade



Take care,

[Gna]

Originally Posted by TonyK

Only problem with an iMac is the glossy screen.

The glossy screen is not a 'problem' at all: it is an asset! The vast majority of users wouldn't want it any different: the glossy screens are gorgeously brilliant, high contrast, and high-resolution, and run rings around the matte screens!

[TonyK]

Glossy vs Matt is a user preference. People I know who do graphics work do not want the glossy screen because it is more difficult to calibrate correctly.

Aside from that, the difference between an iMac and a Mac Mini is small save for the screen attached to the iMac. If PhotoMom has a screen she likes, a keyboard she is comfortable with, why switch those?

Take care,

[TonyK]

If PhotoMom goes for the iMac with a glossy screen, here is a DPR link that discusses calibrating the iMac monitor:

24 iMac: Do I need to Calibrate Display for proper Printing? [Page 1]: Printers and Printing Forum: Digital Photography Review

It looks useful though I've not read the entire thread.

Take care,

[Gna]

Originally Posted by TonyK

People I know who do graphics work do not want the glossy screen because it is more difficult to calibrate correctly.

I've spent the last 32 years in the graphics industry and all graphics pros I know (hundreds by now) – including myself – overwhelmingly prefer glossy screens. It may be more difficult to calibrate correctly but that is a small price to pay for the pleasure of working with them all day every day.

Yes, it is a user preference of course. But all pro users in my experience prefer glossy screens. None excepted.
Just like many different casual/amateur users like to use many different photo editing applications. But all pro users use CS/Photoshop.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Gna

I've spent the last 32 years in the graphics industry and all graphics pros I know (hundreds by now) – including myself – overwhelmingly prefer glossy screens. It may be more difficult to calibrate correctly but that is a small price to pay for the pleasure of working with them all day every day.

Yes, it is a user preference of course. But all pro users in my experience prefer glossy screens. None excepted.
Just like many different casual/amateur users like to use many different photo editing applications. But all pro users use CS/Photoshop.

Neither LaCie nor Eizo has a glossy model in stock from what I can see with searching their sites. Yet both make what are commonly accepted as the highest standards in monitors.

Why is that?

I like a glossy screen but your bias and lack of credentials leaves your "definitive" declaration somewhat lacking here.

[mujana]

Coincidence maybe, but I'm also looking for a new computer and after asking on DPR I'm not quite sure what to buy...PC or iMac. I use Lightroom. Maybe Photoshop in the future as an extra (Lightroom works great so far). Lots of pics/RAW/lots of Tifs on my computer. I do not want to wait on any pic to load into Lightroom anymore (Development mode), and I want to be prepared for more and "heavier" programs running on my computer in the future.
Thinking about the 27inch Quad Core iMac...but...for that kind of money I could buy a very fast PC as well (and ow...I never had any virusproblems in the last couple of years with my PC).
I still have to do a lot of reading and thinking...and then...I'll make my decision.
Good luck!

[Gna]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Neither LaCie nor Eizo has a glossy model in stock from what I can see with searching their sites. Yet both make what are commonly accepted as the highest standards in monitors.

Why is that?

You're comparing apples and pears: LaCie and Eizo monitors are in a different class altogether. Comparable (...) say 30" models are at least TWICE as expensive as Apple's 30" Cinema Display!
Comparing Apple's Cinema Displays with LaCie and Eizo monitors is like comparing BMW 530s with Ferrari Enzos...

[PhotoMom]

Even though, it has brought up some disagreement in certain areas, your input has been so great!

I'm just about convinced to go with the iMac, but am still a bit aprehensive, so I don't think I'm going to get rid of the PC, AT LEAST NOT JUST YET!!!!!

Gonna go back and give out come Camel Karma!!!!

Again, thanks to all who contributed!

Photomom

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Gna

You're comparing apples and pears: LaCie and Eizo monitors are in a different class altogether. Comparable (...) say 30" models are at least TWICE as expensive as Apple's 30" Cinema Display!
Comparing Apple's Cinema Displays with LaCie and Eizo monitors is like comparing BMW 530s with Ferrari Enzos...

This makes no sense then. You're saying ALL of your hundreds of graphic artist colleagues use glossy screens when clearly something more superior is available. So NONE of them are using Eizo or LaCie monitors? None at all?

That's weird. Because I only know about 3-4 graphic artists and two of them use Eizos. The other two use Apple Cinema displays...and would LOVE an Eizo or LaCie (I asked). They didn't care if it was glossy or matte, btw.

Oh well. You're the expert. You OBVIOUSLY know better...'cause you said so. That's enough for me.

[Gna]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

This makes no sense then. You're saying ALL of your hundreds of graphic artist colleagues use glossy screens when clearly something more superior is available. So NONE of them are using Eizo or LaCie monitors? None at all?

Sure: more than half of them, the ones whose employers (!!!) can afford to spend US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor, use LaCies and Eizos (90% glossy; the ones that didn't get a glossy regret it). The rest, the ones that cannot afford to spend US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor (one man/woman shops), use glossy Apple Cinema Displays.
I'll bet 90% of pros frequenting this board are in the latter category: they cannot afford to spend US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor. That is completely outside of the realm of realistic possibilities.

Spending US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor may not a problem for you (ladida), but it is totally impossible for most. Less than half of that is already a considerable problem! So comparing these two vastly different monitor classes is ridiculous.

[cadmium]

Originally Posted by Gna

Stuff.

It's perfectly fine to have and opinion, but it's dubious to present it as fact.

Most graphics "pros" don't have glossy screens if only because most "pro" monitors are matte. The most popular monitor (by far) for graphics pros is the Apple Cinema Display, which has only recently introduced a glossy screen, which is primarily being marketed as a plug and play monitor for macbooks, not professional workstations.

The problem with glossy screens is they reflect everything, making them terrible for design work, unless you have complete control over the lighting in the room, which is not the case for most work environments. Manufacturers like them because they look great in the store, with higher apparent contrast and color saturation (they draw more attention), but matte is going to work better in the vast majority of real world lighting situations.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Gna

Sure: more than half of them, the ones whose employers (!!!) can afford to spend US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor, use LaCies and Eizos (90% glossy; the ones that didn't get a glossy regret it). The rest, the ones that cannot afford to spend US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor (one man/woman shops), use glossy Apple Cinema Displays.

Uh...okay. So your early comment was incorrect? Not ALL of the pros you know use glossy screens. And I still can't find a LaCie or Eizo glossy model that would be considered "pro". Can you provide a link?

I'll bet 90% of pros frequenting this board are in the latter category: they cannot afford to spend US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor. That is completely outside of the realm of realistic possibilities.

Well, the 4 that I know are all contractors working out of their homes. I think they are using mid-range models from what I gathered. About $3,000 per monitor. One uses only that monitor while another has a multi-monitor setup, with another brand for his tools and the Eizo for the art.

Spending US$ 4,000 to US$ 10,000 on a monitor may not a problem for you (ladida), but it is totally impossible for most. Less than half of that is already a considerable problem! So comparing these two vastly different monitor classes is ridiculous.

Uh...you're the one who brought up the definitive "glossy rules" statement. I was just trying to clarify why "pros" aren't using high end monitors. You keep changing your story. It's just another nail in that coffin your credibility is getting buried in, as usual.

That's okay. You can start over again soon. You're about due to screw up and get yourself banned for the umpteenth time.