Laptop Advice Please?

[Loose Canon]

While I realize that using a laptop for photo editing is not necessarily the preferred choice, I am on the “road” a lot (6 months a year) and find that I need to do a lot, if not a majority, of editing and computing on one.

I kind of messed myself up a couple of years ago. Long story shortened, I own a Mac, but eventually decided I wanted a laptop to haul around with me. At the time, I wasn’t really into photography so instead of staying with the OSX platform (and paying a huge premium) I went with Windows and a much less expensive laptop. Got into photography after this purchase, and wound up with CS5-Windows on my laptop.

In a couple of months or so I want to upgrade my laptop to something quite a bit better than what I am using now. I would definitely consider Apple, but if I do I am looking at a big expenditure on top of their premium pricing for putting a Mac version of CS5 on it. Not to mention a couple of plug-ins I have, and some other non photography apps that are either Windows or Mac, but not both without an additional copy. I may decide this is cost prohibitive due to the fact that I’m probably going to be maxing the budget on a machine. And I will surely max out (and probably then some) if I go with a Macbook and a new copy of Photoshop and other software.

So since my Lovely and Charming’s computer is going to need an upgrade soon also, and she is strictly Windows, I am thinking seriously about sticking with the Windows platform for my laptop purchase. I’ll get her a killer Windows based workstation that I can horn in on to run PS and with a nice monitor!

Now to the point. Would anyone have any suggestions, advice, recommendations, warnings, etc. about various laptops and their suitability for photo editing? Particularly regarding display quality as pertains to photo editing? I realize laptop displays aren’t the best option, but I need to have something! So I’m just going to have to do the best I can with the situation I have and that means mobility!

The most intensive use will be running Photoshop (but sometimes with very large and multiple composite files). My other uses are relatively tame, but I will have it connected to the internet, and sometimes like to have 3-4 tabs open in IE and 2-3 applications (Word, maybe some mapping software, things like that) going. So some multitasking will be happening. No gaming at all.

Any thoughts?

[mythlady]

I'm delighted to respond to this thread. About a year and a half ago, I was looking for my first laptop, and my list of criteria included 1) Windows OS (sorry, I've never been a Mac person, though I have many friends who are . . . ); 2) good multimedia capabilities, because I am a teacher and wanted to be able to show films in class; and 3) enough oomph to be able to run PS, Lightroom, etc. And like you, I am often seriously multitasking and have many windows and programs open at the same time. I was not particularly concerned about battery life, because I wasn't anticipating being often in situations where I'd be unable to plug it in for an extended period of time, and that has turned out to be the case. I was not also looking for something that was particularly small or especially portable -- I move it around in a wheeled case that would serve as carry-on luggage, if necessary. The graphics/multimedia capability was my top priority.

So, with my little list in hand (I also had some specifics about the RAM and graphics speed and so on that at this point I've forgotten), I started looking, talked with the people at several computer places about my needs and so on, and I wound up with a Toshiba Satellite A505, which 18 months down the road, I'm still thrilled with. I'm sure that my exact model has been superseded at this point, but the series is still going strong. I have a 16" screen and enhanced graphics capability. I think the one I got was around $800, and it does everything I dreamed of and more. I looked at more expensive ones, with more power and so on, but the guy at Best Buy steered me away from those, because he felt it would be overkill in terms of what I wanted, and they would be even bigger and heavier. I looked at HPs and other brands at a different store, but when I showed the salesman there the list of what I wanted and the model the BB guy had suggested, the salesman was honest enough to tell me that his laptops wouldn't meet my needs as well as the Toshiba Satellite would.

The disadvantages, which really I do not see as such, are 1) the size and weight; and 2) the battery life. I think I have about an hour and a half of battery life, but I've never had to use it "in the field" to the point where the battery went dead. Despite all the power it has, it does not run particularly hot (I've heard of laptops scorching people's legs ), and it has only actually overheated exactly once in a year-and-a-half of daily use, and while I can't remember exactly what the situation was, I do recall that there was something unusual in it. If I'm not at a desk, I typically use it with a lap desk that I really like.

It runs PS and LR like a champ, and is very fast at doing it. As far as photography goes, the only problem is that as a laptop, the color can't be calibrated in the way that a desktop can, so I do use my desktop for printing. At the same time, though, I do know at this point the ways in which the laptop is off (it oversaturates, for one thing), and I can usually compensate for that pretty well. It's also very aesthetically pleasing, and it has a keyboard that lights up (a very nice feature) and a side keypad/number pad, which I wanted, too. If you don't want that feature, I think you can get one that's somewhat smaller.

That's my review -- overall, I have not had a single complaint about this laptop; on the contrary, it has exceeded my expectations in a number of ways. I highly recommend it, if you decide to go the Windows route.

Edited to add that I think that this one is very close to what I got. I also want to add that there were issues at first with the touch pad being exceedingly sensitive, but once I got it adjusted correctly, it hasn't been a problem. I also have a small Logitech laptop mouse that I use most of the time. And I don't know whether you use it for making presentations and so on, but it works very well with a presentation remote in Powerpoint.

[Hansm]

Hi Terry,

I understand the extra investment you have to do to move to Mac. I did the same a few years ago without regrets.
Not that Windows PC are bad. I think Windows 7 is very stable at this moment.
But since I use Mac I never figured any issues like sudden blue screens, crashes or what so ever. It simply does what it has to do.
One other point to consider is the rest value. If you buy a PC op Windows laptop the price drop after 1/2 a year is huge. Mac's have a much higher value that makes it easier in the future to upgrade to a faster and newer model.
Also the Colour management is very simple on the Mac. You can calibrate the screen of the Macbook very easy and accurate.
If you decide to move to Mac I advise you not to take the glossy screen.

B.t.w. when I upgraded to Mac Adobe provided me a so called cross platform license. It's not for free but you don't have to pay the full amount for a Mac version. I paid around 200 euro for the license PS CS3. Lightroom does not need a cross license. It's valid for both platforms. Maybe something to check with Adobe in the US.

[Wirefox]

My wife has a MacBook Pro with a 17" screen. I have used many windows laptops through work (some very high spec indeed) but none of them come near to the Pro for sheer ease of use and screen quality. If you really must use Windows...just make it dual bootable. It will only cost you the price of Windows 7.

[purplehaze]

Hi Terry,

I would echo Steve. I switched back to Mac a year ago, but because I had expensive design- and work-related software that I didn't want to replace, I simply made my Pro laptop dual-bootable and switch back and forth as I need to. I love the screen; it is super sharp, easy to calibrate and renders colours beautifully.

[jeffmoll]

As far as the product incompatibilities... I do know that Adobe will give you a transfer for free if you get a used copy. Say you go on ebay and get a used copy of CS5 for your mac only to find out that it was windows software Adobe will transfer for free. I don't know about your situation, they might charge a little, but I doubt it would be much. As far as OS... Mac is by far the best choice for all things graphic related because it is a much more stable system and graphics take a lot of stability and resources. I can get so many things going that windows bogs down and then crashes. I can get Mac so bogged down that it almost halts but it doesn't take more than a little bit to regain it's performance and virtually never crashes. I often run Windows on VM inside of mac OSX and windows will totally lock up Mac will still be running just beautifully even though I have almost three quarters of the resources allocated to the Virtual Windows machine. Other benefits are no need for anti-virus software which really saps the system resources, and the ability to calibrate you screen being built in as well.

[Colin Southern]

Mac is by far the best choice for all things graphic related because it is a much more stable system and graphics take a lot of stability and resources. I can get so many things going that windows bogs down and then crashes. I can get Mac so bogged down that it almost halts but it doesn't take more than a little bit to regain it's performance and virtually never crashes. I often run Windows on VM inside of mac OSX and windows will totally lock up Mac will still be running just beautifully even though I have almost three quarters of the resources allocated to the Virtual Windows machine.

Which version of Windows are you referring to Jeff?

Other benefits are no need for anti-virus software which really saps the system

"Security by obscurity" is a pretty risky strategy Jeff. In statistics that I've seen, Mac operating systems tend to have more vulnerabilities identified each month than Windows Vista or Windows 7, and on average, it takes Apple longer to patch them. And with the most common method of attack probably being via infected websites, Macs are more vulnerable than ever.

Also the Colour management is very simple on the Mac. You can calibrate the screen of the Macbook very easy and accurate.

Colour management on a PC is very simple too. A colorimeter creates the profile and then the profile is set to be the default. Job done.

[inkista]

Since nobody's addressed this:

...I would definitely consider Apple, but if I do I am looking at a big expenditure on top of their premium pricing for putting a Mac version of CS5 on it. Not to mention a couple of plug-ins I have, and some other non photography apps that are either Windows or Mac, but not both without an additional copy. ...

While this probably won't help with the plugins and the other apps, Adobe does offer free crossgrading. Call up Adobe, but moving your license from Windows to OSX should be free. You can also upgrade freely across platforms (i.e., going from CS4 Win to CS5 OSX), but you're already at CS5.

You DO NOT need a used copy.

[Sonic4Spuds]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834146996
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834146999
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834146986
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220840
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220866
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220954

These are six that I think would fit the bill for you. I don't own any of them so I couldn't tell you how the screens are, but all of them have 4 GB of ram which should be enough for CS5. Any with the i5 or i3 processors should work (the same processors used in apple machines).

-Sonic

[jeffmoll]

Which version of Windows are you referring to Jeff?

I personally run XP pro on VM as I find it's permformance FAR superior to that of Vista. Vista was Microsoft's attempt to make their OS more aesthetically pleasing and in the process they made it so huge and clumsy that it was totally full of problems. I can't stand it, and when trying to do administrative tasks and really digging into the file system it's way more complicated than XP. Besides the fact that it takes a v16 900 horsepower Bentley engine to run the OS alone so you don't have any system resources left for your apps. I haven't personally used Windows 7 much but a little. I do know that it was a major step in the right direction from Vista although I do have several friends that use it and they have more lockups than I do. My mother-in-law's went into total lock down and had to be taken to be resetup. But I have no intention of starting a Mac/PC debate as those are as futile as the Canon/Nikon debate. I just like how light weight and stable the unix kernel is. I'd personally use linux as it's even more stable than OSX but there just isn't the software available to use on it, although that is slowly changing. Just waiting for the day that Adobe releases a linux version of the Creative Suit and Lightroom.

"Security by obscurity" is a pretty risky strategy Jeff. In statistics that I've seen, Mac operating systems tend to have more vulnerabilities identified each month than Windows Vista or Windows 7, and on average, it takes Apple longer to patch them. And with the most common method of attack probably being via infected websites, Macs are more vulnerable than ever.

All machines are equally vulnerable to hacking, but as far as actual viruses are concerned anything built on the unix kernel is way more secure because no script can self-execute as in the case of Windows. Now in the case of someone not knowing much about computer systems they might authorize an infected script and then you've got problems, but if you know much about computer systems then you can easily see what's going on and what scripts are asking for authorization to execute and you've nothing to worry about as nothing can execute without your specific permission.

As far as infected websites, I've run across a few infected one's that really make me laugh when I follow a link that's been hijacked and this message show's up that AVG has discovered 142 viruses on my C: drive and is going to run this application to fix it, then the browser automatically starts to download an EXE file

I know that mac viruses do exist although the number of mac viruses is literally thousands of times less than those written for Windows, the reason being that it's a much easier system to break as you have unlimited, unchecked access to all system files and directories.

I do however have many mac user friends and don't personally know anyone that has ever managed to get a virus.
It is also interesting to note that in the year of 2010 mac was the top seller of computers in North America. A first in history. This I will qualify by saying that Mac has a following that is almost a religion all it's own that is unrealistic in the extreme in their prejudice, which is mostly due to Mac's unbelievably cunning advertising.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a die-hard mac fan. I have managed to crash my mac a time or two. One particular thing that mac machines have a harder time with is port related lockups. If I pull a usb cord at the wrong time without first telling the machine to eject it then it'll grey screen and you have to do a hard-reset, which is really a pain. But after years of using Windows and doing imagery on both it didn't take more than a few hours to figure out that the unix system is far more stable and certainly much lighter weight than the Microsoft system, which is why the majority of graphic designers, recording studios, and now photographers are switching to mac and a lot of super advanced autocad users doing things like running full scale 3D models of engines running in real time use Linux, and also many online servers are running different linux systems as well. It's really not a Mac/Windows issue, it's an issue of the foundation on which each system is built.

[Colin Southern]

I personally run XP pro on VM as I find it's permformance FAR superior to that of Vista. Vista was Microsoft's attempt to make their OS more aesthetically pleasing and in the process they made it so huge and clumsy that it was totally full of problems. I can't stand it

Every new generation of operating system consumes more resources than the ones that preceed it, and thus, the older the generation of software one runs on modern hardware, the better the performance will be (try running Windows 95 on modern hardware and you'll practically pass out from the G-Forces). Having just said that however, Vista was - without a doubt - very demanding of resources; generally when a new operating system is released, it runs well if one gives it roughly twice the memory than it's predecessor needed to run efficiently. At the time Vista was released, WinXP ran "OK" on 512MB, but better on 1GB (with usually not much benefit in going much above this) - so we assumed that Vista would run "OK" on a 1GB system, and run well on a system with 2GB ... but it didn't; in reality, 4GB was a good starting point (for the 64 bit version; the 32 bit version usually didn't see much over about 3.3GB due to system memory map limitations in a 32 bit address space), and 8GB was even better. That caught a lot of people by surprise, but also caused some technical problems ... although RAM is now cheap enough, (a) at the time many laptops were architectually limited to 2GB RAM, and many programs wouldn't run in a 64 bit environment ... so in reality, it was somewhat of a turbulent launch. Performance issues weren't related to "Microsoft's attempt to make their OS more aesthetically pleasing" - and it wasn't even so much "huge and clumsy"; it just needed "room to move", which many people didn't or couldn't give it.

In terms of it being "totally full of problems", again, not really. They certainly introduced some architecture changes, and to be honest, when we started to deploy it to end users I was starting to worry about being familiar with it enough to give end users support, but as it turns out, my fears were groundless, as it actually turned out to require a LOT less support than WinXP did.

Besides the fact that it takes a v16 900 horsepower Bentley engine to run the OS alone so you don't have any system resources left for your apps. I haven't personally used Windows 7 much but a little. I do know that it was a major step in the right direction from Vista although I do have several friends that use it and they have more lockups than I do

As mentioned above, it basically needed 2GB for the OS - anything after that was available to apps. Some people seemed "shocked" at the thought of PCs needing 4 to 8GB RAM, but it's something folks just need to get used to -- RAM doesn't cost $850 for 8MB anymore (I should have had that invoice from my suppliers framed!). Check the CPU useage of a sufficiently resourced WinVista or Win7 PC that's not running any apps and you'll find it sits between about 0 and 1%.

Architectually, Windows 7 isn't that different to Vista (including for the most part the same driver model) - but for sure, they improved the efficiency of the OS when running on limited resources (I've had client "retire" a WinVista laptop with 2GB RAM for being too slow) (PC was about 5 years old) - I've reloaded it with Windows 7 - and it's like a new one - runs just fine. In all fairness it's probably correct to say that Win7 is the OS that WinVista should have been, but that's water under the bridge now.

In terms of reliability, I think it's true to say that Apple have now caught up to the reliability that NT based PCs have enjoyed for years (Win NT, Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, Win7); many years ago I used to sub-let office space from the local Apple dealers to run my business from and friendly rivalry aside, back in those days it was quite normal for them to have to reboot their PCs about once a DAY on average, due to crashes. These days both camps have stable OSes; Personally, I'm running 3 Win7 PCs - one has a hardware fault and does crash from time to time (not the fault of the OS - it's actually temperature related), and the other two hardly ever miss a beat (and the "beats" they do miss are related to a problem with the RAID firmware, so again not the OS). I have - at a guess - probably 50 clients out in the field running Win 7, and I can't recall any having issues with blue screens (and believe me - they're an impatient and demanding lot - if the PCs were faulting, they'd be calling any hour of the day or night). What WILL cause instability is faulty hardware -- and that can take down any operating system. Apple maintain that their hardware is of a more consistent standard because they control it; they may well be right, but at the end of the day, to the best of my knowledge, it's made in China just like most PC components -- and I might also mention that the very first Apple product I bought (an iPhone 3GS) was on it's way back to Apple within about 3 days of me receiving it, with a hardware fault. So as far as I'm concerned, it's something that can happen to anyone.

My mother-in-law's went into total lock down and had to be taken to be resetup.

These days it's pretty rare not to be able to recover a PC by less drastic means, as there are now many other recovery options available (including self-healing - "internal" restore (from multiple restore points) - "external" restore (from system disc images written to external media) - to a recovery mode built into the installation DVD. Off memory, I think I've only ever had to start again from scratch just the once.

But I have no intention of starting a Mac/PC debate as those are as futile as the Canon/Nikon debate.

I don't want to start one either - I own & love several Apple products, and I'm sure I'd be happy owning an Mac as well, but I do "feel the need" to try and introduce a little balance into "Apple evangelism" that I come across from time to time.

All machines are equally vulnerable to hacking but as far as actual viruses are concerned anything built on the unix kernel is way more secure because no script can self-execute as in the case of Windows. Now in the case of someone not knowing much about computer systems they might authorize an infected script and then you've got problems, but if you know much about computer systems then you can easily see what's going on and what scripts are asking for authorization to execute and you've nothing to worry about as nothing can execute without your specific permission.

Well no, not really. You might like to take a look at http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/22/s...afari-said-to/ - clearly showing Apple as leading the way (for over 4 years now) in terms of vulnerabilities (with Microsoft in 3rd place). Starting with Vista (and continued on in Win 7), Microsoft introduced User Account Control to address the scripts (and other) issues.

I know that mac viruses do exist although the number of mac viruses is literally thousands of times less than those written for Windows, the reason being that it's a much easier system to break as you have unlimited, unchecked access to all system files and directories.

No - as pointed out above, there are actually MORE vulterabilities to exploit in Apple OSes and apps; the reason thay're not target more is more likely that the malicious code writers want the best possible "return on their investment"; if you're going to write malicious code, are you going to target a 90% market or a 10% market? It's a bit like saying "I don't need to lock my doors and windows because I live in the country" - personally I'm not a great believer in "security by obscurity" being best practice.

I do however have many mac user friends and don't personally know anyone that has ever managed to get a virus.

For me and my clients, viruses really aren't anything we spend a lot of time on to be honest. Often viruses are attacking vulnerabilities that have long since been patched - so keeping systems patched is always the first line of defence. Anti-virus programs generally do a good job (generally they have minimal effect on system performance; they only have to scan files as they're accessed, and as the file data is cached at that point, it's not a particular bottleneck) (with sufficient RAM, it's HDD performance that slows most general-purpose systems). The BEST way to avoid any of this though is simply to stay away from sites of "ill repute". Reputable sites will have sensible security in place, and won't be seeking to exploit known vulnerabilities. With sex sites and other bad-taste sites, you can almost guarantee that you'll be exploited very quickly. On a side note it always makes me laugh when I hear "I'm always being attacked by viruses" (guess where they've been hanging out!).

It is also interesting to note that in the year of 2010 mac was the top seller of computers in North America. A first in history. This I will qualify by saying that Mac has a following that is almost a religion all it's own that is unrealistic in the extreme in their prejudice, which is mostly due to Mac's unbelievably cunning advertising.

As a manufacturer, but it's operating systems that we're talking about. Buy Apple hardware, and by and large, it's Apple OS that you'll be running (I don't think many would be buying Apple hardware to run Microsoft Windows), whereas with Microsoft operating systems they could be running on HP, IBM, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, or any one of hundreds of hardware manufacturers. So as a hardware manufacturer they appear to be doing great - but by and large, it's fundamentally a software platform that people primarily go with (ie Windows or an Apple OS) ... and if people choose a windows platorm (regardless of the hardware manufacturer) then Apple will be in trouble (which is why they're started to introduce windows compatability options -- it's a survival mechanism to ensure the "survival of the species"). World-wide, I suspect their market share is probably 5 to 10% (5.5% last time I checked, but that was a while ago).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a die-hard mac fan. I have managed to crash my mac a time or two. One particular thing that mac machines have a harder time with is port related lockups. If I pull a usb cord at the wrong time without first telling the machine to eject it then it'll grey screen and you have to do a hard-reset, which is really a pain. But after years of using Windows and doing imagery on both it didn't take more than a few hours to figure out that the unix system is far more stable and certainly much lighter weight than the Microsoft system, which is why the majority of graphic designers, recording studios, and now photographers are switching to mac and a lot of super advanced autocad users doing things like running full scale 3D models of engines running in real time use Linux, and also many online servers are running different linux systems as well. It's really not a Mac/Windows issue, it's an issue of the foundation on which each system is built.

This is the bit that always brings a smile to my face ... pickup just about any book on Photoshop and the authors will often say something along the lines of "with apologies to Windows users, we've been using Macs for over 20 years so we've picked the one we know and run with it. Almost without exception though, the command key on the mac is the same as the control key on a PC - and the option key on a mac is the same as the alt key on a PC. Apart from these two small differences, THE PROGRAM RUNS IDENTICALLY ON EITHER PLATFORM" ...

... to which the mac user will respond: "yes, but it just works better on a mac!" Well sorry, but this is just hogwash. I'm sure I'd be quite happy using either platform - because the program works the same! Open a file on a mac or a PC and the file opens ... adjust the white balance on the file on either platform and it adjusts! Rinse and repeat.

All in all, I'm not saying "don't buy a mac" - I just think it's important for people to realise that Apple are the masters of marketing and self-promotion. It's not that the products are bad (to the contrary, I think what they've done with iPhone and iPod are amazing), but as a computer platform - for the most part - they cost more, but don't perform any differently to any (quality) PC offering.

[mythlady]

I've been running Windows 7 on my laptop and have had almost no problems in a year and a half -- only a couple of crashes, not related to the OS, I'm sure. I've had occasional slowdowns that I can usually pinpoint as coming from some new thing I've installed, or whatever. I also try to keep it pretty clean, periodically going through and clearing out stuff I'm not using and so on. I've been very, very happy with it.

[Loose Canon]

Thank you all for your responses.

I know I can always count on getting the best of advice when I come here to ask and this is certainly no exception. I know it took some time to get those links up and I appreciate you guys taking the time to give me these detailed and excellent insights/reviews. Very thought provoking.

I was unaware of the “crossgrading” option from Adobe, Kathy. I really haven’t gotten that far yet in my “due diligence”. I’ve tagged your link for that and to remind myself to deactivate before uninstalling. That will prove to be a very useful site to me. Last I talked to Adobe, they didn’t mention this. They told me it’s an “either/or” scenario and I didn’t inquire any further. I’ll have to contact them for sure either way.

[Hansm]

It surpriced me to read that cros grading is without charge in the US.
Here in the Netheralands I paid about 200 euro to get it done for CS3.
I also had to do some minor administration to get it. I had to show them the receipt that I really did buy the Sw from a dealer. But this is just fair enough to ask.

[crisscross]

in case you are still looking, just another plug for macBook Pro. I first got a 15"G4 powerbook as it was smaller to take to building sites than a mass of paper, but expected the 21" monitor at home to remain in use for the serious stuff (Microstation 3D CAD). In fact the desktop stuff went off to an E Africa charity and I have used 15" macs ever since.

IMO it is worth getting the Pro, not i version as it is based on today's state-of-art instead of last years. You can usually get a serious reduction on factory warranty fixed stuff 'as new'. I actually got mine 3 months old a bit cheaper still. You need at least 4GB RAM, I see upto 8GB now and with quad processor (note to self: no the old one is fine for another 5 years, after all the G4 is still running)

As far as monitor calibration is concerned, because it is internal, you can have several to flip between for different light conditions. Also, less obviously that some ambient light sources have colour too far from day-light to correct, unfortunately including 22w energy savers.

[Chesil]

It's like the old Canon vs Nikon argument. Ask 20 people whether they prefer Canon or Nikon and you'll get 20 people with a very positive view even though they have never really used the other system.

Reality is that there are great Windows laptops and great MacBooks.

Windows 7 is very stable. I have never had a crash using Photoshop or any other software. I'd be very reluctant to trust to not needing security software and if I was buying a MacBook I'd buy some. I think you could find a fine laptop from either system and that the choice then might be how invested you are in all the software you need and not just Photoshop in the system you use currently.

Yep, I've used both pretty extensively. They are tools and not worth getting heated about.

[Dave Humphries]

~ Reality is that there are great Windows laptops and great MacBooks. ~

Don't get me wrong, I've never owned, rarely even touched a Mac, but from what I know of Windows laptops ...

Yes, there are some good ones Paul, but equally there are some really quite naff ones too - but you just don't seem to get that with Macs, because they're all made by the same firm who go to lengths to keep quality high. Whichever model/size you choose, I suspect you won't be disappointed. If only the same could be said for Windows ...

Cheers,

[Colin Southern]

Don't get me wrong, I've never owned, rarely even touched a Mac, but from what I know of Windows laptops ...

Yes, there are some good ones Paul, but equally there are some really quite naff ones too - but you just don't seem to get that with Macs, because they're all made by the same firm who go to lengths to keep quality high. Whichever model/size you choose, I suspect you won't be disappointed. If only the same could be said for Windows ...

Vista aside (which is essentially obsolete anyway), I don't think it's as big a problem now as it was when some manufacturers were releasing Vista on machines with only 1GB RAM. Possibly Apple has a higher minimum spec; so I'd be inclined to think so long as folks get a Windows 7 PC (preferably 64 bit), along with a sensible amount of RAM (2GB absolute minimum, pref 4GB) they should be OK.

[crisscross]

Don't get me wrong, I've never owned, rarely even touched a Mac, but from what I know of Windows laptops ...

Yes, there are some good ones Paul, but equally there are some really quite naff ones too - but you just don't seem to get that with Macs, because they're all made by the same firm who go to lengths to keep quality high. Whichever model/size you choose, I suspect you won't be disappointed. If only the same could be said for Windows ...

Cheers,

Unfortunately you do now have to watch the spec on macBook pro as there are a few silly options like lesser res/glossy screen and no doubt the 8GB RAM capacity will be needed soon

I haven't looked for a while, but not all software houses have gone to 64bit and if running 32bit progs, its better to be on OS10.5.8 than 10.6; and you would need to initiate it with 10.5.8 as going back there from 10.6 is difficult and loses some files.

If, as Colin says, PC laptops have now caught up and are less lumpy, it will be nice to have a fallback in case mac go sillier still.

[Blazing fire]

This is the bit that always brings a smile to my face ... pickup just about any book on Photoshop and the authors will often say something along the lines of "with apologies to Windows users, we've been using Macs for over 20 years so we've picked the one we know and run with it. Almost without exception though, the command key on the mac is the same as the control key on a PC - and the option key on a mac is the same as the alt key on a PC. Apart from these two small differences, THE PROGRAM RUNS IDENTICALLY ON EITHER PLATFORM" ...