Laptop replacement - any thoughts ?

RoryW

With my laptop 4 years old or so and beginning to give me problems especially with Photoshop and light room, I think the time is coming for a new laptop :-)

Just curious as to what size laptop you use and any regrets ?

Looking at probably 13 or 15 inch

Considering going over to the dark side and getting a mac this time and see new models released in last few days. For those mac users amongst you any recommendations of which model to get ? ( for using ps, lr, and regular stuff like word, excel and internet)

Thanks

woody_2000

Whatever you decide on, make sure it has either nVidia or ATI/AMD graphics - for accelerating certain Photoshop/Lightroom functions - and better usability...

Fajitas!

Just curious as to what size laptop you use and any regrets ?

Currently using a 13in Macbook Pro, down from a 15in and a 17in before that. I like having something so light to throw in my bag. The 17's are back killers, the 15's are alright, but I'd rather spend the 2in's of screen space on a better spec. I have an iMac too so I'm not too worried about the size of the screen.

Regrets? Not using Mac's from the start - I changed over about 4 years ago, never looked back.

OctavarIan

woody_2000 wrote: »

Whatever you decide on, make sure it has either nVidia or ATI/AMD graphics - for accelerating certain Photoshop/Lightroom functions - and better usability...

Photographers will see little to no difference in Photoshop performance, and none in Lightroom. CPU and RAM are what they use for photographic purposes.

OP if you do a lot of 3D work or play video games then get a laptop with a graphics card, otherwise the new Intel Sandy Bridge chips will cover all your needs easily.

The new Macbook Pros are all excellent for photographers, personally instead of the 15" I'd go for the 13" and get an external screen for home use. For the price of the 15" you could get a 13" and have around €500 left to spend on a decent monitor, external hard drive, whatever. Point being you'd have an excellent laptop and then a nice big screen to use with it when you're at home/office. Of course it depends on where/how you work.

pete4130

Macbook or Macbook Pro. been using old white macbook for 3.5 years now. no issues. Upgraded HDD to 500GB for €50 and from 1GB RAM to GB RAM (3.3 useable even though spec says 2GB RAM is max possible) and its flying still. Will never and can't ever use a Microsoft based computer again. Less issues, less crashes, less chance if virus, faster, more intuitive (Windows Vista and 7 are pretty much copying Mac OS at this stage) and it simply works.

Macbook of some description.

woody_2000

OctavarIan wrote: »

Photographers will see little to no difference in Photoshop performance, and none in Lightroom. CPU and RAM are what they use for photographic purposes.

It's widely documented that the latest versions of Photoshop/Lightroom can utilise/leverage some of the latest graphics cards for accelerating certain functions - for improved usability...

Of course CPU and RAM would be a first consideration, then GPU, etc...

A compatible GPU is becoming increasingly important for overall usability...

http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe_photoshop.html

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/04/12/bringing-adobe-creative-suite-5-to-life-with-amd-technology/

dakar

I know the shiny new MBP's are out, but the mac refurb store might be worth a look. A lot more bang for your buck (relatively, of course, we're still talking apple prices here!)

http://store.apple.com/ie/product/FB991B/A?mco=MTA4MzI0OTE

5uspect

I use a windows desktop and 13" MBP. Apple do make good solid machines. Now that the new 13" has a dual core i5 sandybridge with Intel graphics I'd be looking at some benchmarks first. The CPU is a big improvement but the gpu is a concern.

FoxT

SandyBridge CPU definitely seems to be the way to go. Other than that, mac or PC would both be good, Id say. Macs look expensive, though.

5uspect

They are bloody expensive. If you're teaching or a student there are educational discounts.

challengemaster

FoxT wrote: »

SandyBridge CPU definitely seems to be the way to go. Other than that, mac or PC would both be good, Id say. Macs look expensive, though.

With macs its not the hardware you pay extra for, it's the operating system really. You can spec up a dell for easily a few hundred less, but OS X is a dream to use. If you get the chance, in any store selling apple stuff (PC world?) play with them for a while and see what you think.

Also upgrade discs for major releases (Leopard to Snow Leopard) are only ~€30, compare that to a windows one...

If you're going 13", save yourself a few hundred and dont go for a macbook pro - there's very few differences that you can find out here.

I use my macbook as my daily laptop around college, I've a main windows PC for editing because I haven't the money for an iMac yet.

5uspect

That's not actually the case anymore. The plastic mac is still running a Core2Duo and not Sandybridge.

OS X is a nice OS alright but so are Win7 and Ubuntu. One advantage of OS X is that you get the benefits of UNIX and a closed system like Windows. So you can run M$ Office as well as a POSIX shell.

OctavarIan

woody_2000 wrote:

It's widely documented that the latest versions of Photoshop/Lightroom can utilise/leverage some of the latest graphics cards for accelerating certain functions - for improved usability...

Accelerating certain functions is right. Yes you can now zoom even faster to obscure and impractical levels! Go from 1% to 1000% in a flash, rotate your image like a spinning wheel, interactive juggling coming in Creative Suite 6, juggle your images while you process them with our new keyboard controls made possible by Nvidia!

There are virtually no practical gains to be had for photographic purposes, let alone any that warrant being named as killer features. Maybe next year with CS6, but not now.

challengemaster wrote: »

Also upgrade discs for major releases (Leopard to Snow Leopard) are only ~€30, compare that to a windows one...

If you're going 13", save yourself a few hundred and dont go for a macbook pro - there's very few differences that you can find out here.

Leopard to Snow Leopard was cheap because it wasn't a major upgrade. Usually Apple charge €129. Still a bargain for what you get though, OSX Lion looks great.

Also don't buy the ordinary white Macbook, the new Macbook Pros leave them in the dust. For a couple hundred euro more you're getting a 75-80% performance upgrade, and that's on top of the better design, durability, resale value (and an SD slot :pac:). The difference in graphics is marginal and you wouldn't notice it unless you were playing games.

challengemaster

OctavarIan wrote: »

Also don't buy the ordinary white Macbook, the new Macbook Pros leave them in the dust. For a couple hundred euro more you're getting a 75-80% performance upgrade, and that's on top of the better design, durability, resale value (and an SD slot :pac:). The difference in graphics is marginal and you wouldn't notice it unless you were playing games.

White one? Pff, I've a unibody Macbook. Identical design to a MBP. Also 75-80% performance upgrade is complete BS. Theres little to no difference in performance.

5uspect

You'll need to fire up TimeMachine to buy one of those.

challengemaster

5uspect wrote: »

You'll need to fire up TimeMachine to buy one of those.

refurb store, smartarse

5uspect

Nope, they're not there either... Stop living in the past!

Hugh_C

Just echoing what a previous poster said about the refurb store. Excellent value and the difference in price might go towards an ext display. I bought a refurb 17" + 24" LCD display for final cut, Photoshop and light room work. Not the easiest laptop to tote, but just about portable at a push. The ext display makes it a dream for the office.

melekalikimaka

lightroom does not use gfx cards, only ps and performance isnt anything to get excited over

woody_2000

OctavarIan wrote: »

Accelerating certain functions is right. Yes you can now zoom even faster to obscure and impractical levels! Go from 1% to 1000% in a flash, rotate your image like a spinning wheel, interactive juggling coming in Creative Suite 6, juggle your images while you process them with our new keyboard controls made possible by Nvidia!

There are virtually no practical gains to be had for photographic purposes, let alone any that warrant being named as killer features. Maybe next year with CS6, but not now.

Ok, it's basically a matter of deciding if a machine with such graphics is a consideration or not then... Maybe it is, maybe it's not... Personally, if I was considering a new machine, that's one of the things I would watch out for - after CPU/RAM... It gives your machine that extra dimension of flexibility/usability (you never know what you might want to run on it, or what the future might hold -- future proofing, I guess). GPGPU computing is something that's apparently becoming increasingly prominent... IMHO, if I was just using office applications, etc., then it would not matter as much...

At least it's something to be aware of, when making a decision...

Then again, ultimately, I guess, you're buying the hole - not the drill bit... And not the other way around...

EDIT: If one was going for a more portable ultrathin notebook then it is possible that the CPU might be a less powerful power efficient model, and the GPU may become more of a factor in a situation like this for Photoshop and such... Some of the most recent ultrathin notebooks use both integrated graphics and switchable discreet GPU -- e.g. a low power Intel Core i3 CPU with integrated Intel graphics for power saving, and a switchable nVidia discreet GPU when particular performance is needed (i.e. nVidia Optimus switching).

woody_2000

Edited previous post(s) to reflect afterthought.

Lightroom doesn't appear to utilise the GPU in the way that Photoshop does - but there could be some GPU assistance going on there... Future releases of Lightroom might be different, though... The GPU is something that's possibly going to become more commonplace/necessary for more broader computing tasks into the future... Again, just something to keep in mind... Best of luck!

melekalikimaka

a decent macbook, a 13inch macbook pro, and possibly if funds can stretch( macbook pros are reasonably priced for a 13inch given the spec, maybe a decent screen (whole other thread:)) a decent mouse and keyboard and you have a excellent mobile editing laptop and a amazing home set up

cnocbui

challengemaster wrote: »

White one? Pff, I've a unibody Macbook. Identical design to a MBP. Also 75-80% performance upgrade is complete BS. Theres little to no difference in performance.

I have a Unibody too. The new 13" MBPs wipe the floor with the unibody and white Macbooks. There's BS about, but it's not in the post you were quoting. While not quite 75%, the difference is more than a 'little'.

Even the lowliest of the new MBPs have more performance than a 2008 Mac Pro!, let alone a white Macbook.



One of these would be ideal for the OP or anyone wanting a laptop able to run photo processing software.

RoryW

thanks to everyone for their comments.

I came across this which people might enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4

Freddie59

5uspect wrote: »

That's not actually the case anymore. The plastic mac is still running a Core2Duo and not Sandybridge.

OS X is a nice OS alright but so are Win7 and Ubuntu. One advantage of OS X is that you get the benefits of UNIX and a closed system like Windows. So you can run M$ Office as well as a POSIX shell.

I'm running OSX and W7 on an iMac. There's no comparison between the two. OSX is lightning fast in comparison.

5uspect

I never said Windows was faster, I just said Win7 was a good OS.
Win7 apparently feels much quicker than Vista due to the GDI redesign even though it's not actually any faster in benchmarks. It just feels more responsive due to better window rendering. Something OS X does very well.

Windows is certainly much better with 3D gaming, but that'll improve in time as Valve help Apple sort out their system bottlenecks and image quality issues. Typically tho OS X is quicker in a lot of day to day activities.

OS X also has vastly superior battery life. Windows seems to eat juice for some reason.

Ultimately you pay a lot for the Apple experience and this makes Windows 7 still a very good option for those on a budget. Ubuntu even more so.