Laptop Suggestions for Photography Major?

[Groucho]

One thing that was mentioned but not stressed is the graphics card. I would like to stress that point because so many laptops come with bottom of the barrel graphics cards that are not sufficient for anything above the basics. Also be careful when reading specs, some will say 512MB Video Card (or other value) but it is shared memory and not dedicated.

Well, the OP was talking about photography. The video card makes just about zero difference for photography. It's been many years since buying a nicer video card got you anything other than better 3D performance, mainly good for gaming. Though Vista does have user interface options that run worse (or not at all) with lower-line video cards. 2D performance, like that used in Photoshop, etc, is not going to be improved by a high-end gaming card. (And this is another area where laptops really fall down - they make terrible gaming systems due to their slower video cards, necessary for space and heat reasons. To get anything remotely worthwhile will cost a lot of money.)

You are right that "shared" memory may be a drawback though, just because there's less for the system; but with memory prices what they are, there's no excuse for not getting at least two gigs and the shared memory is a pretty tiny percentage of that.

Regarding memory - it may often be cheapest to buy a one-gig laptop and buy extra memory yourself. This is really easy if your laptop has only 1g stick of memory in it; if it has two 512 meg ones, you'll have to replace both sticks.

Dell has went down considerably in the last couple of years. Also consider that if your husband works for a large company, the computers they buy are not the same Dell an individual will buy. They are more expensive and have better components in addition the OS and all drivers are installed by the companies IT department per their standards, not by Dell.

Also keep in mind that when I say they are not as good as others doesn't mean that buying one you are gauranteed to have problems. They are still decent machines and you would more than likely be happy with it.

My main Dell laptop experience has been with the Latitudes, which are a corporate line. Their older C-series (CP/CPi/C640/etc) were absolute rubbish and the majority of them had hardware failures, like screens or motherboards. The D-series were better but were a long ways from the quality of the Thinkpads. I haven't used the latest as (fortunately) at my current employer, we usually sell Thinkpads (though I'm still using a lowly Toshiba ).

Dell also has (for consumers) some of the worst tech support... Like I said, I personally wouldn't give them a penny of my own money.

 

[SueInBoston]

(though I'm still using a lowly Toshiba ).

Groucho, (or anyone)

Are you happy with your lowly Toshiba? My BIL had one and claimed it was awful, but I think it was mostly user's error. BestBuy has one this week for $699, 3gb RAM, and 250GB HD.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...shiba&lp=9&type=product&cp=1&id=1203815723003

This will be a general all purpose laptop for the family to do homework, surf web, some photo stuff, what do you think?

Thanks,

Sue

 

[Groucho]

Groucho, (or anyone)

Are you happy with your lowly Toshiba? My BIL had one and claimed it was awful, but I think it was mostly user's error. BestBuy has one this week for $699, 3gb RAM, and 250GB HD.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...shiba&lp=9&type=product&cp=1&id=1203815723003

This will be a general all purpose laptop for the family to do homework, surf web, some photo stuff, what do you think?

Thanks,

Sue

Spec-wise, that one sounds pretty good, with a good processor, lots of memory and hard drive space, etc. My Toshiba is holding up fine, it's just a little aged, and does feel a little bit "cheap" but no worse than similar-spec HP/Compaqs, etc. If you're concerned, you may want to consider the extended warranty - laptops are the only thing I'd consider buying that for.

 

[frugal_mar]

I have been really happy with my Sony VAIO. I purchased it at Costco. At work, we use the higher-end Dells. I have have seen heat-issues with some HPs. I also believe that you can't really go wrong with and Apple. You really should see what feels good in your hands too. Get lots of memory too. It really helps. I would also recommend an external drive to backup and store all the photos and date. You can quickly burn through space on a laptop.

You may also want to consider an external monitor, having the second monitor is a must for photo editing. The graphics guy where I work uses 2 monitors. In the past he has used 4, but we got him larger flat panels.

And for any monitor, you should consider a color calibration system. They help and make a big difference.

Good luck.

 

[SueInBoston]

Spec-wise, that one sounds pretty good, with a good processor, lots of memory and hard drive space, etc. My Toshiba is holding up fine, it's just a little aged, and does feel a little bit "cheap" but no worse than similar-spec HP/Compaqs, etc. If you're concerned, you may want to consider the extended warranty - laptops are the only thing I'd consider buying that for.

Thanks! I picked it up this afternoon but hasn't broken the seal on the box yet I found some encouraging user reviews on the web as well, think I'll bite the bullet and open the box tomorrow.

 

[YesDear]

OP's son is correct. The Mac is the best for a photographer. I have a 17 in G4.
Everyone in my family has Macs and get the most ram. They are designed for grahics.

I also agree about the second hard drive as a scratch drive. Our home is networked to a wireless TB harddrive. We each have a secondary hard drive for local storage.

 

[Groucho]

Macs aren't really designed for photography, they're marketed towards photographers (and other "artsy" folks.) That's a big difference. There's nothing inherently better about the design and the default system still has a one-button mouse, which is ludicrous in today's world. Heck, nowadays, the basic hardware in a Mac is exactly the same as in a PC (only more expensive and not as upgradeable) - except for graphics. The Macs are always a bit behind in video card options - for example, both nVidia and ATI's top Mac video cards are several revisions behind their top PC cards (one of the reasons why they've never been successful as a gaming platform.)

Anyway, there really is no "best" system just as there's no "best" camera. It all depends on people's priorities.

 

[cmwade77]

Ok, first off the compatibility of software is no longer an issue, Macs can run Windows based Software natively, you just need to get a copy of windows and install it with Parallels (normally purchased separately).

For her needs it will fit much better than a PC based on what you said.

Try Macmall.com for the best deals right now, you get a rebate, Paralles for free, a photo printer for free and free shipping.

Macs are inherently better for Photography (not from a hardware standpoint though, as pointed out, it is pretty much the same these days and you can upgrade it, I certainly have, with non-apple branded parts)
The Operating System crashes less
Takes fewer system resources to run
The computer has quite a bit of built in tools for photography and video

 

[Groucho]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I maintain Macs are a poor choice for many reasons, and I definitely don't buy the "inherently better for photography" line - that's just, well... it just doesn't make any sense. That's Apple marketing speaking.

As for "built in tools", those are the kind of things that usually get the government breathing down your throat. Macs sort of get a free pass because that have such a tiny market share, but MS gets scrutinized very closely, and has lost several court cases because of "built in tools" with the OS. (Usually they just get a slap on the wrist, but Europe is imposing some serious penalties now.)

As for the OP's needs, I think price was a factor - and they got one with a 15.4" screen, 3g of memory, and a 250g drive for $700. You're looking at at least double that for a Mac laptop with comparable hardware and a smaller screen, and almost 3x that for one with a 15" screen. Plus the cost of a Windows license if you want to run Windows programs, so there's another ~$200. And running "virtual" Windows is certainly slower - not unusably so, but you're not getting maximum performance.

BTW, if you want to run virtual OSs under Windows itself (like unix or older versions of Windows), Microsoft offers their Virtual PC software as a completely free download. And while it won't run "out of the box" Mac OS, many people have successfully hacked Mac OS to run on regular PC systems, either via virtualization or natively.

 

[Anewman]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I maintain Macs are a poor choice for many reasons, and I definitely don't buy the "inherently better for photography" line - that's just, well... it just doesn't make any sense. That's Apple marketing speaking..

And I will have to agree with you...

Are Macs nice? of course some of them are very nice.
Are they better? Looking maybe.


If you run ADOBE CS3 or Lightroom on a MAC it does not all of a sudden become better software.