Re: ghz and speed...
I'd have to disagree. As the owner of a retouching studio, I always find it the best option to buy the fastest machines available. Photoshop eats memory and I could always do with more processor speed.
Slow computers = time waiting = time not working = less profit.
Until computers can process 16bit multilayered poster sized files in real time then faster is always going to be neccesary for me. Of course it still makes no sense to spend money on redundant machines when the majority are sure that new technology for the same price is just around the corner.
Originally posted by ph8te
Second, I use a G4 466MHz and use it for extensive Photoshop work and some DTP and Illustrator work, and although I have not had the pleasure of working with OS X yet - our company will only be upgrading towards the end of the year - I find that the operating speed between my mac and a newer model with 1 Ghz are minimal, the only time when you will notice a difference is when you are doing pure processing work, like applying filters or rendering.
So, for all the speedfreaks out there unless youre into heavy 3d rendering , video production or other intensive processor work, give Apple the time to bring out the right product, without errors, bugs or other faults. Look at how many PC-based companies go belly up because they are trying to deliver quickest without considering quality.
I'd have to disagree. As the owner of a retouching studio, I always find it the best option to buy the fastest machines available. Photoshop eats memory and I could always do with more processor speed.
Slow computers = time waiting = time not working = less profit.
Until computers can process 16bit multilayered poster sized files in real time then faster is always going to be neccesary for me. Of course it still makes no sense to spend money on redundant machines when the majority are sure that new technology for the same price is just around the corner.