Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Open Forum › “Workstations Buyer’s Guide” article
- April 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM #44415Moab ManParticipant
Just got done reading the article. While it had great content for hardware needed at different levels of editing, but I want to know if they were they trying to scare people away? What I’m talking about is the quoted prices at the different levels of computer you might consider. Not sure if they are shopping in Beverly Hills for diamond encrusted computers, but those dollar figures were ludicrous for what a person was getting in computer hardware. (I can’t say one way or the other for the Small Budget Professional systems)
And this line, “You can see transfer speeds up to 4.8Gbps as compared to USB 2.0 with transfer speeds of 480 Mbps.” Yeah right, as someone who is using USB 3, you won’t even close to that. Sure, it’s the theoretical capability of USB 3.0, but you won’t even see half that speed in the real world.
I love Videomaker and the tech articles, but I expected better of the article. Prices – WAY HIGH and could effectively scare someone away from getting in the proverbial video editing pool. The info on USB 3.0 – Videomaker is one of my go-to references to give me the real scoop and not the quoted spec not seen outside of laboratory testing. Please don’t quote the advertisers spec – tell me what I will REALLY see in performance.
Again, love the info and articles, but that article needs to be reeled back in fromouterspace.
Actually, overall based on the structure of the pricing levels, I found them to be fairly realistic from my personal experience in recent purchases. While anyone with some shopping experience and knowing exactly what they want, need and can budget for, can find possible “deals” the uninitiated among new incoming “industry or independent players” will often be shocked at the actual real costs of getting into a system that will do what they want or need.
Rather than sugar coat actuals I think it is wise that information err on the side of high dollars rather than, as has happened to me in past purchases, knocking off a base price that doesn’t come near what the REAL costs are when the true needs are realized and additional dollars have to be spent to get up to the operational efficiency, power and speed needed or desired for anticipated production focus.
I have a question about operating systems, I have heard that Microsoft has quite a bit of stuff going on in the background all the time and Macs are more streamlined. I am going to upgrading my system in the very near future and I am really considering getting away from Microsoft and found that for comparable systems the Mac to be less expensive. I will stay with Adobe products as I work in print and video, any suggestions/advice?
EarlC, I recently bought my new computer and paid ~25% less than the “Low Budget” but have the computer of the “Serious Amateur” build. My numbers quote is referencing using a PC and not a Mac. As I think about it those prices would be inline with purchasing a Mac. Good discussion and I do concede the point of not low bidding it, but I wonder if they were quoting Mac prices?
Charles, PC’s do have a lot going on behind the scenes. The two types of computers work like this. The PC to operate needs all of its pieces working for the whole of the machine to work. As a “piece” corrupts, then you see things like the slowing or bogging down of the system.
A Mac on the other hand is like a multi-plugin powerstrip. The power strip is the bare bone operating system. Each one of the plugs is some extension of the system that you might want to run. As you need that part of the system it “plugs-in” to the power strip. Now one of the beauties of the Mac is that if the plug-in corrupted in its operations then it will just fall off the powerstrip without taking the whole system – PC freeze up.
I love the architecture of the Mac computer vs the PC, but can’t justify the price. I use a built PC and all its does is video editing… NOTHING ELSE. I have no problems and I think that is because I recognize thevulnerabilityof the PC computer and don’t add anything to possibly corrupt it. IF I were a professional editor like a number of folks here, if it were my livelyhood, then I absolutely would spend the money on the Mac.
I am not real sure where Moab Man is coming from but the two operating systems are more alike than dis-alike. Underneath both are more or less a Unix based system. Mac has chosen to use more the POSIX “standard” (if there really is such a thing) while Microsoft has not. As far as “going on in the background” that is a little general to answer. All modern operating systems have a lot going on in the background because they multi-task – because that is what we demand. The only real difference between a modern PC running the latest 64-bit operating system and a Mac running the latest version of the Mac OS is the look of the operating system and the software each will run. They use the same processors and almost identical hardware now. There is very little difference any more. (Mac people will say different but they always try to compare a 4 year old PC running WinXP to the latest Mac running SnowLeopard)
I use PC for editing professionally and currently use my PC for internet surfing, email and pc gaming. I’m moving to a more stable editing system that have a limited budget so I decided to stick with PC instead of Mac. I also wanted to customize the graphics card to be one recommended by Adobe for CS5 and couldn’t see that could be done in the Apple lineup. Is there a way to get customized graphics cards in Apple’s line up? How about the Imacs?
I desired the new Imacs but because of price and customizing needs I decided to go with a PC and found that I could get a screaming machine for under $1500. I plan to keep it as a dedicated editing machine and keep it offline and game free.