Seeking recommendation for Laptop (Windows) suitable for photography

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:40:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

A knowledgeable tech should be able to install MS on it for you if
that's what you really want.

You don't need a knowledgeable tech or any tech at all. All Macs can
run Windows. Just buy the Windows of your choice and follow the
instructions to use Bootcamp. That requires you reboot the computer
whenever you change from Mac OS to Windows. If you want less hassle,
buy Parallels or similar. It's not a "simulation" the way older Macs
ran Windows. Macs use the same Intel processors that Windows boxes
use, and run it natively. You just have to pay extra for it and
install it according to instructions. I use Windows XP on my iMac
when I have to link to my office, whose software is proprietary and
runs only on Windows, so I have about a 10 gig partition for that,
set it up under Bootcamp, and just restart in Windows whenever I need
to use it.

Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on
the MAC computer.

why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular) is
reputed to be 'the best'.


Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.

your loss.

No, my gain.

In article , ray
wrote:

Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS on
the MAC computer.

why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular) is
reputed to be 'the best'.

windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.

your loss.

No, my gain.

there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:18:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
on the MAC computer.

why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
is reputed to be 'the best'.

windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

Again, I'm only making the point that you're not locked into the OS that
comes with the machine - I don't understand why you have such a problem
with that.


Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.

your loss.

No, my gain.

there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

There is a lot to gain when the software I have available for free does
all that I need.

In article , ray
wrote:

Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
on the MAC computer.

why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
is reputed to be 'the best'.

windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

Again, I'm only making the point that you're not locked into the OS that
comes with the machine - I don't understand why you have such a problem
with that.

nobody said anyone was locked into the os that came with the machine.

the main reason someone buys a mac is to use os x, not to install
windows or linux, but they might install either or both *in addition*
to os x.

you seem to have a problem that people buy a mac and want to use os x.

Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.

your loss.

No, my gain.

there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

There is a lot to gain when the software I have available for free does
all that I need.

then you have simple needs.

On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Wally wrote:
Am retiring the old ThinkPad and looking for a replacement.



The new PC laptop should be fast enough to run Lightroom v4. And the

display should be suitable for photography -- wide screen NOT

preferred but may be OK as long as it has approx 1050 pixels or more

vertically. (The old display was 1400x1050).



It would be nice if the new computer was not too heavy, not too

expensive, decent battery life, big HD, etc... but the most important

requirements seems to me are speed for the software, and the display.



Wally

Get one with a SSD, upgrade the HDD to an SSD or have a secondary SSD drive. And check the SSD speed is fast, around 400 MB/s.

ATM I am looking at replacing my HDD with an SSD and keeping the bulk of data on a NAS HDD.


DanP

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:24:27 -0700, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:18:37 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article , ray

wrote:



Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
on

the MAC computer.



why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?



In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
is

reputed to be 'the best'.



windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so

buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

I'd agree with that,





Personally, I don't use MAC or MS.



your loss.



No, my gain.



there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

Agreed again, and on Macs you can run Mac OS X, windows and linux you
can even have windows and Mac OS X running at the same time using the
same processor. With a PC you can't, with a PC you can't run Mac OS X
only linux and windows.

I'll be sure to tell that to my friend who DOES that (run MAC OS/X on an
MS machine).


For me that makes Macs a better choice for those that might want to,
whereas my brother only wants to run a tiger woods golf gamne so I'm
advising him to buy almost any PC.

If 'more restrictive' licensing is your criteria, then I guess that fits.

In article , ray
wrote:

there is no gain in cutting off significant amounts of useful software.

Agreed again, and on Macs you can run Mac OS X, windows and linux you
can even have windows and Mac OS X running at the same time using the
same processor. With a PC you can't, with a PC you can't run Mac OS X
only linux and windows.

I'll be sure to tell that to my friend who DOES that (run MAC OS/X on an
MS machine).

he had to spend quite a bit of time to get it to work, time that could
be better spent doing useful work. worse, he has to continue to spend
time maintaining it, since updates frequently break the mods needed to
get it to work in the first place.

also, be sure to tell him he's in violation of the eula.

and by the way, microsoft doesn't make machines, they only make an
operating system.

For me that makes Macs a better choice for those that might want to,
whereas my brother only wants to run a tiger woods golf gamne so I'm
advising him to buy almost any PC.

If 'more restrictive' licensing is your criteria, then I guess that fits.

maybe his criteria is using software that does what he wants, and that
the 'more restrictive' licensing is not an issue.

what are these restrictions that you find to be a problem?

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:31:13 PM UTC+1, DanP wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Wally wrote:

Am retiring the old ThinkPad and looking for a replacement.
The new PC laptop should be fast enough to run Lightroom v4. And the
display should be suitable for photography -- wide screen NOT
preferred but may be OK as long as it has approx 1050 pixels or more
vertically. (The old display was 1400x1050).

It would be nice if the new computer was not too heavy, not too
expensive, decent battery life, big HD, etc... but the most important
requirements seems to me are speed for the software, and the display.

Wally

Get one with a SSD, upgrade the HDD to an SSD or have a secondary SSD drive. And check the SSD speed is fast, around 400 MB/s.

well personally I still think they are too expensive if you have to buy another HDD due to lack of capacity just aren't worth it unless the time you save starting up is that important. Beware of teh cheap SSD they aren't much faster and won't save much on power either.

ATM I am looking at replacing my HDD with an SSD and keeping the bulk of data on a NAS HDD.

Nice idea I hopew your NAS drive is backed up too.

OK, I'm the OP, and here is a summary of what I think I've learned.

- The best display by far is the Retina, which only comes on a
MacBook.

- This computer is very expensive.

- The MacBook runs OS X, but it is possible to also run Windows on it.
So I could run my familiar and already-bought PC software on it.

- But only select software currently supports the Retina display. So
running old PC S/W probably isn't going to work well.

- PC laptops will probably be coming out with a Retina competitor
soon.

- I suppose the S/W support issue will also resolve over the next
while... maybe.

So it seems to me that I should wait a few months or maybe a year...
It might then be possible to buy a PC laptop with a great display at a
lower price (or a MacBook with the Retina at a higher price, which
will run Windows if I want...).

Wally

In article , Wally
wrote:

OK, I'm the OP, and here is a summary of what I think I've learned.

- The best display by far is the Retina, which only comes on a
MacBook.

- This computer is very expensive.

not compared to similar products, it isn't.

the main reason it costs as much as it does is the retina display and
ssd. most pcs (and even other macbooks) lack both of those.

pc laptops don't have a retina display, but they do have ssd. go price
out a 15" pc laptop with ssd and you'll see that the macbook really
isn't as expensive as you think it is.

however, if you want a less capable display and slower hard drive, then
you can find a less expensive laptop, but that's because you have lower
specs.

- The MacBook runs OS X, but it is possible to also run Windows on it.
So I could run my familiar and already-bought PC software on it.

- But only select software currently supports the Retina display. So
running old PC S/W probably isn't going to work well.

- PC laptops will probably be coming out with a Retina competitor
soon.

not that soon. it will be a while until pc makers catch up and even
longer for windows to support it. plus, apple is pretty much buying the
entire production of the displays. it's going to be a while until
retina displays are mainstream.

- I suppose the S/W support issue will also resolve over the next
while... maybe.

So it seems to me that I should wait a few months or maybe a year...

the longer you wait the better the machine will be, but at some point,
you have to buy something.

It might then be possible to buy a PC laptop with a great display at a
lower price (or a MacBook with the Retina at a higher price, which
will run Windows if I want...).

if you want a retina display, you are going to have to pay extra for
it, no matter who makes the computer.

you aren't going to get the same specs at a lower price by buying a pc.
once again, comparable spec machines cost roughly the same price. if
you don't want a retina display (or an ssd), then you can get something
less expensive. no surprise there.

and the rumour is that apple will be coming out with another macbook
with retina display, possibly as soon as next week.

On 10/9/12 5:08 PM, in article , "ray"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:18:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

Yeah, whatever. The point is that you don't have to run the MAC OS
on the MAC computer.

why buy a mac, if not to run mac os?

In this particular case, because the hardware (monitor in particular)
is reputed to be 'the best'.

windows apps aren't going to take advantage of the retina display, so
buying a macbook retina solely to install windows is actually stupid.

Again, I'm only making the point that you're not locked into the OS that
comes with the machine - I don't understand why you have such a problem
with that.

Because M$ Windoze SUCKS?!?