|
|
Posted by doc on 10/24/97 11:45
Mac is doing everythign they can to look like, act like, and feel like,
regular PC's instead of rotten apples, even to include their equipment and
software mods. sooner or later they'll actually wake up and realize that
the only way to be pc, is give up the proprietary crap!
drd
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:124eunqs3mj1oaf@corp.supernews.com...
> sales wrote ...
>>I am in the process of purchasing a new computer for my video business. I
>>am looking for a PC. Mac was one I was looking for but I am very familiar
>>with the PC's and don't want to begin the learning curve of the
>> Mac. I am using a Pentium 3.2mhz (Intel) 1gig ddr2
>> ram, 400gig 7200rpm 8mb cache HD. Intel Board.. I suppose my question
>> is... do I need to upgrade? or is the computer I'm using satisfactory?
>> Any opinions? or Suggestions?
>
> Thousands of hours of video have been edited on far
> lesser machines. Chances are that most of the people
> here are editing video on lesser machines than yours.
>
> If this is for a for-profit business, I would think that the major
> consideration is the cost/benefit ratio. What benefit do you get from the
> very fastest CPU and 4GB of expensive RAM vs. what it costs? Most people
> agree that the "sweet-
> spot" in CPUs is not the very fastest/latest model, but more
> likely the one just one or two notches below it. OTOH, the
> faster/better you buy, the longer its useful lifetime will be.
>
> If you are already a "PC shop" switching to Mac does
> not appear to have much positive cost/benefit ratio. The higher cost of
> Mac may be justified in some situations,
> but yours does not sound like one of them. Since I work
> for Intel, I now have no recommendation between PC
> and Mac now that they have switched to our CPUs :-)
>
> Your listed system sounds fine except for the HD.
> IME, a 60-80 GB HD for the boot/OS/programs/cache
> is what I usually use for a audio/video editing workstation.
> Then for video, two drives at least 100~120 GB each for the media files.
> I like having two different drives because
> it seems to make rendering tasks faster (and less wear
> and tear on the drive) because of not having to "thrash"
> back and forth between the source file and the destination
> file.
>
> Whether you buy into my two-drive scheme for media
> files, in any case, you DON'T want to use the same drive
> to store both the operating system/cache AND the media
> files. This is bad news any way you slice it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|