I need a new puter...

[areben]

Listen, Vista is fine. It isn't buggy. The drivers are fine, yes there are still some gaps, but if you buy a computer with it PRELOADED there will be no conflicts. Vista is very stable. If you haven't used it, STOP REPEATING WHAT YOU HEAR EVERYONE ELSE SAYING. It is just totally wrong, use it for yourself, form your own opinion. I don't even like windows, I've used linux now for many years. I've installed Vista on my laptop and it runs beautifully and I love it (yuck).
JH: If you're going to buy a new computer, buy one with Vista. It doesn't cost that much when its coming OEM. If you're going to be editing photos you will need a decent amount of RAM. I mean, with your camera (which if I recall is an XTi) your pictures are HUGE (we're talking ~5MB). Adobe gobbles up memory like nothing else known to man... At least 2GB.
I'm not 100% sure that Adobe is a 64Bit program. If it isn't, buying a 64bit chip is not going to increase performance. 64Bit chips are no faster at running 32bit programs than their native counterparts.
A Dual Core processor now-a-days is a must. Intel or AMD is up to you, although Intel has gained the edge over AMD.
As for a graphics card, you wont need something amazing if you're just using Vista and editing photos. A 256MB card made by either nVidia or ATI will be fine. I'd go with ATI just because if you aren't buy high-end nVidia, ATI will always beat it out.
If you're editing a lot of photos you'll need a decent amount of HD space. At least 160GB.
So something like an: Intel Dual Core >=2.0ghz Processor, >=2GB DDR2 Memory (DDR2 only, DDR is outdated and should be avoided like the plague), >=160GB HDD, 256MB ATi (or nvidia, whatever) Graphics Card. These are pretty much the basic specs.

[Gish]

[snikro]

[JHamilton]

Yeah, the Mac won't happen. Again, everyones advice is very much appreciated.

[scion_xA]

Yeah, the Mac won't happen.

[Nychold]

If it isn't, buying a 64bit chip is not going to increase performance. 64Bit chips are no faster at running 32bit programs than their native counterparts.

Absolutely untrue. A 64 bit microprocessor has twice the internal bandwidth and storage capabilities for most operations than does a 32 bit microprocessor. Since the chip has to pull memory off the bus no less than 64 bits at a time, while in 32 bit mode, the chip can have twice the amount of memory stored away, ready to go, reducing cache hits and misses, increasing the number of usable clock cycles. Even if you only add one clock cycle per 1,000, that's still a performance increase of 2MHz on a 2.0 GHz processor.

[snikro]

Yeah, the Mac won't happen.

Not even for Ellen Feiss?

[areben]

If it isn't, buying a 64bit chip is not going to increase performance. 64Bit chips are no faster at running 32bit programs than their native counterparts.

Absolutely untrue. A 64 bit microprocessor has twice the internal bandwidth and storage capabilities for most operations than does a 32 bit microprocessor. Since the chip has to pull memory off the bus no less than 64 bits at a time, while in 32 bit mode, the chip can have twice the amount of memory stored away, ready to go, reducing cache hits and misses, increasing the number of usable clock cycles. Even if you only add one clock cycle per 1,000, that's still a performance increase of 2MHz on a 2.0 GHz processor.

Absolutely untrue! Go find your sources.
"Currently, most commercial software is built as 32-bit code, not 64-bit code, so it can't take advantage of the larger 64-bit address space or wider 64-bit registers and data paths on 64-bit processors, or, on x86 processors, the additional registers in 64-bit mode. However, users of free or open source operating systems have been able to use exclusive 64-bit computing environments for years. Not all such applications require a large address space or manipulate 64-bit data items, so they wouldn't benefit from the larger address space or wider registers and data paths; the main benefit to 64-bit versions of applications that wouldn't benefit from them would be that x86 versions would be able to use more registers."
Software not designed to take advantage of being native x64 will see no improvement.

[StrangeWill]

I agree with areben, the Vista thing is blown out of proportion, I've had a few friends run it, minus issues from a lack of drivers, it's stable, and fairly okay to use. Most people that are like "LOL SP 1!" Have no clue what they're talking about. Though I wont blame them, they aren't computer people regurgitating what they hear.

[Nychold]

Absolutely untrue! Go find your sources.
"Currently, most commercial software is built as 32-bit code, not 64-bit code, so it can't take advantage of the larger 64-bit address space or wider 64-bit registers and data paths on 64-bit processors, or, on x86 processors, the additional registers in 64-bit mode. However, users of free or open source operating systems have been able to use exclusive 64-bit computing environments for years. Not all such applications require a large address space or manipulate 64-bit data items, so they wouldn't benefit from the larger address space or wider registers and data paths; the main benefit to 64-bit versions of applications that wouldn't benefit from them would be that x86 versions would be able to use more registers."
Software not designed to take advantage of being native x64 will see no improvement.

Grossly oversimplified. Sounds like propeganda from the media, and completely does not correlate to the reality of the situation.

When an x86 processor goes into 64 bit mode, it cannot under any circumstances, natively use 32 bit code. This has to do with the fact that it is expecting 64 bit code, much like 32 bit mode is expecting 32 bit code. For example, imagine the instruction below:

B8 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

When an x86 processor boots, this code is translated into MOV AX,201h, a 16 bit instruction. After the transition into 32 bit mode has taken place, the instruction is then read MOV EAX,4030201h, which is a 32 bit instruction. Finally, after the move from 32 to 64 bit mode, the code is now read MOV RAX,07060504030201h, which is a 64 bit instruction.

So while in 64 bit mode, there is no 32 bit mode. While in 64 bit mode, a program must use 64 bit code. Period. End of story. This raises the question of how to run old code in new modes. Microsoft answered this with WOW, which I forget what means, but in the 16/32 transition of the 90s, it allowed 16 bit code to run in 32 bit Windows by producing a set of functions which, when called, emulate the 16 bit version of the chip. (Not really, but it's wholly more complicated than I can remember, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. All I can remember right now is the process of 'thunking' ) MS has also answered with WOW64, which does the same, only with 32/64 bit code, allowing it to run in native 64 bit code. And surprisingly, there's even a WOW which thunks from 16 to 32 bit address space, then from 32 to 64 bit address space.

Your programs are still running in 64 bit mode using the 64 bit registers (sort of), address space, and data paths. You do gain the benefits of running in that mode. It is just, at current, the performance in being hindered by WOW64. It has nothing at all to do with 32 bit code being limited in the data pathways or extra "abilities" of the 64 bit processor.

EDIT: I almost forgot the most compelling part. When you run a 32 bit program in a 64 bit environment, the drivers can only be 64 bit drivers. Says so right in the Windows Vista 64 bit documentation. That means, any and all calls which access driver functions (hard drive access, network connectivity, graphics card interfacing, etc.) are all being done in 64 bit mode. Even if the program never got any speed up from the 32 bit code, it would get the added benefit from the 64 bit drivers.

But, I will agree absolutely with one thing: if you have a 64 bit chip running in 32 bit mode, you will get absolutely no benefit. The only benefits come from running a 64 bit chip and a 64 bit OS.

[StrangeWill]

If you remembered 32 bit processor codes you gross me out man.

Been doing assembly work as of recently, stuff is awesome, but the level of work to do so little output makes me sad.


(RAX, new 64 bit register?)

[Gish]

If you buy a Mac you don't worry about having to buy firewalls and spyware. EVER! Factor that into the cost of the computer...

[StrangeWill]

If you buy a Mac you don't worry about having to buy firewalls and spyware. EVER! Factor that into the cost of the computer...

Firewall: $50, spyware - Free

Usually a hardware firewall built into a router is MORE than enough for a home network really... And if you're running a Mac server, you need to worry about firewalls too anyway.

Actually any Mac with any network accessible resources should be firewalled too to the outside world if you want to get into that...


IMHO: People that argue about security with Macs or cost usually have no clue what they're talking about, you pay more for a Mac than you will with a clone, PERIOD. Can't make clone macs, no one but apple provides most of the hardware.

Everyone that I've met in PERSON that has argued mac security usually has NO computer background other than owning a mac and makes remarks such as "I can get into a windows wireless network *laugh* so insecure"

Of course I'm quick to remind them that there is no such thing, wireless routers run on their own OS systems, and that your friend is just running an insecure wireless network, has nothing to do with insecure windows or your "uber-mac".


Macs are okay, they're secure, but much like Linux, they're limited in software options, and is harder to work with the lower OS system (especially because Apple decided to change all the Unix commands, dumb bastards). You sacrifice flexibility for security, it's how computers have always been, Apple no exception. (coming from someone thats actually been a network administrator working on a PC AND Mac based network combined, it is no picnic due to Macs poor implementation of Samba, and IMHO: Network security sucks for a Mac unless you want to shovel out tons of money for an OSX server, no network storage of user-permissions and accounts, yay!)


Basically:
Only get a Mac if you've used one, and have enjoyed the environment more than you have on Windows, and aren't looking to run Windows applications unless you're going to emulate a Windows machine (+$180), in which case you're back to square one about avoiding Windows in the first place, except now you're taking a performance hit.



Really, I'd run Linux on my main computer before I'd run OSX, there are just too many quirks, and Linux is way more customizable and flavorful if I want security.

[Gish]

But...But....

[StrangeWill]

Mac is fine, just don't justify it for the wrong reasons.