On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:25:50 -0800, Mike Russell
groupsRE (AT) MOVEcurvemeister (DOT) com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, André, PE1PQX wrote:

The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!

But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.

I agree Mike, there is no "one is better than the other" here.
They both have their pluses and minuses. They only difference between
a MAC and a PC are the operating systems. The ideal thing would be to
buy a PC, wipe the hard drive, and install the latest MAC OS if you
think that's better. The problem is, Apple won't allow you to do that
because if they did, no one would buy a MAC. It's a lot cheaper to
buy a PC than it is to buy a MAC. I mean, look at the laptops....you
can't buy a MAC laptop for under $1000, but you can buy a PC for $400.
If you could put the MAC OS on this laptop, you'd have a MAC laptop
for $400, and save $600.
I don't care for MACs....that's just a personal preference and is
in no way meant to put down a MAC. Over the years, I have downloaded
hundreds of small programs that I use on my PC. I have found that a
lot (not all) of these programs are not designed for the MAC. It
seems that there is a lot more software designed for the PC than there
is for the MAC. The thing is, do you need this software? Maybe not,
so if you had a MAC, it wouldn't affect you. I will add that there is
software designed just for the MAC,
It's just that I don't want to be limited in any software that I
might want, so I stick with a PC. There is just more software.
As far as the PC vs MAC wars go, there is no winner, so why argue
over which is better? If it does what you need it to do, then you
have the right computer for you.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote:

"nsbm" <fac_187 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
machines are for the purpose.


Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
a desktop LCD.

The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of
notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing
angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting
effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work,
compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ...

I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks,
such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them.
I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a
notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display.

I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important
(particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity
for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed
work that was produced before display calibration technology existed.

Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction.
One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor
calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this
group.

Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration
is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world
by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this
"color by the numbers" approach to color correction.

So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color
value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about
RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal
RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin
tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what
can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image.

It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and
to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as
landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a
central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for
critical work.

Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color
blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can
learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers.

Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook
that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at
the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core
is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of
Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of
the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the
display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop
monitor for more critical work while you are at home.

Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2,
particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for
critical work - this includes printing.

If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
wrote:
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work.

Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all
the other BS above.

Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
card?

In article<slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste"<SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
wrote:
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work.

They are marketed as such, but they are not such.

In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
wrote:
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work.

They are marketed as such, but they are not such.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
wrote:
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work.

They are marketed as such, but they are not such.

And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
powerful as the any workstation.

In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
wrote:
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work.

They are marketed as such, but they are not such.

And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
powerful as the any workstation.

Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop
wrote:

Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?

Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D

Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
powered laptop.

In article <slrnhkkr3p.sga.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop
wrote:

Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?

Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D

Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
powered laptop.

I just checked them out. I think I'll get one for work.

I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
necessarily current models).

"Fruit2O" <jz137xww (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
necessarily current models).

if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your
account, or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I
suggest you get a mac...

"Fruit2O" <jz137xww (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
necessarily current models).

if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
get a mac...

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:41:28 -0600, John Stafford in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
In article <slrnhk3p4c.ebc.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA (AT) laptop (DOT) sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
"S. Fishpaste" <SDA (AT) Deer-in-the-headlights (DOT) ca.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
wrote:
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.

This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work.

They are marketed as such, but they are not such.

And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
powerful as the any workstation.

Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?

Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D

Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
powered laptop.