Which computer?

[bowen192]

Hello

My company have very nicely offeres to buy me a new computer. 

They have asked me for a spec, but having lost interest in specs when I ditched my 486, I'm not sure what to go for.

I run Framemaker, Autodesk Inventor, Autodesk Inventor Publisher and, Office 2010, a browser, Dropbox and am going to be purchasing Adobe Creative Suite sometime soon.

Any suggestions?

[Art_Campbell1]

Publishing and CAD are both very compute intensive, so I'd go with a workstation-class machine:

• Probably an Intel I-7 processor or equivelent
• Lots of RAM -- 8G at least
• Dual monitors
• RAID hard drive setup if possible
• Size of the hard drive isn't too critical unless you're storing all your data/docs locally, which you shouldn't be. But most currently available drives are really big by previous standards, usually measured in tetrabytes.

[Bob_Niland]

Start with the list of workstations certified by Autodesk for use with Inventor. The key element there is the graphics. If you're considering a laptop, for example, it appears that AD has certified the Radeon integrated on current AMD A-series processors (which is way more than adequate for everything else you do). Beware of Intel integrated graphics.

Dual-core at least (and Intel hypethreading doesn't count as a core in my book). Win7 Professional 64-bit. I'd get 8GB RAM.

Next question: do you do any critical color work? That would affect a recommendation for monitor.

[bowen192]

I didn't leave that much info, did I?

It'll be a desktop for use in the work office.  Apart from what I have on my own Dropbox, everything will be accessed from the work server.

Art, are you suggesting a RAID setup becuase of the speed of access to a remote server?

Error7103, I never knew Autodesk had such a list, so I'll check that out now.  I already have my monitor, space mouse etc, so it's just the computer I'll be getting.

EDIT: How fast processor do you think I'll need?

[Art_Campbell1]

I'm suggesting RAID because in general, it's more reliable and it protects local data well; it wouldn't have any effect on access times to a remote server because the speed of the network is your gating factor there.

Yeah, you already have a monitor, but for serious work with any of the newer Frame revs (and I suspect CAD too) two monitors are pretty much standard. Get it now, while you can; it's a minor addition to a full system. Don't cut that particular corner....

[bowen192]

OK, I'll monitor up then.  It'll be like watching The Matrix.

Will 2.8 GHz be fast enough, or will I need 3.2?

Also, how many different types of graphic card are there?!  I think I'll go for a NVIDIA Quadro 1800.

[Bob_Niland]

Probably an Intel i7 processor or equivalent

If you need the very fastest CPU, Intel is the only choice at the moment. But AMD will save your company some money at mainstream performance levels (e.g. you may get double the cores at the same price and GHz). In any event, try to delay the decision by a couple of weeks. The long-delayed AMD "Bulldozer" CPU is about to be released. It may or may not make AMD competitive at the high end again, and it may or may not appear in Dell and HP workstation bundles, but it is likely to drive prices down.

And let me upgrade my CPU recommendation to at least quad core. Nowadays you need 2 cores for Mr.Bill, 1 for anti-malware daemons and 1 for you.

two monitors are pretty much standard

I'm running dual head on Unix, and single-24 on Windows. I prefer single. What I really want, of course, is single 30 running at 2560x1400, although triple-head portrait mode would be worth a look.

[bowen192]

Luckily Error7103, delaying decisions by two weeks is what this company does best.

Error7103 wrote:

Probably an Intel i7 processor or equivalent

I'm running dual head on Unix, and single-24 on Windows. I prefer single. What I really want, of course, is single 30 running at 2560x1400, although triple-head portrait mode would be worth a look.

Now that's just greedy.

[Bob_Niland]

>> What I really want, of course, is single 30 running at 2560x1400, although triple-head portrait mode would be worth a look.

Actually, make that 2560x1600.

Now that's just greedy.

Not really. Pitch it to management as a productivity amplifier.

Framemaker runs adequately on just about any x86 PC offered for sale these days, but how easily you can read and work with the document varies greatly.

The typical FM user is working with 8.5x11in pages of 10 point type. If you can display a full page at a time, it saves a lot of time spend scrolling.

A full page display is marginal at 1200 pixels high. 1400H is tolerable. 1600H is acceptable.

Very few monitors offer over 1200H these days. In fact, we're back-sliding, as most monitors are now 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio, instead of 16:10, and even the 24-inchers are only 1920Wx1080H at 16:9.

There are many 4:3 and 16:9 monitors that are at least 1600 pixels wide, and these make great DTP monitors if you can rotate them to portrait mode (PM), so that the 1600W becomes 1600H. Most graphics cards and software support PM these days, but the problem is the LCD switching plane tech. Cheap TN* (twisted nematic) monitors can have nasty off-axis artifacts in PM. If you are going for PM, try to get a set of  IPS, VA or PLS displays (with LED BLU for extra credit).

______

* If the data sheet doesn't specify the LCD tech, it's TN

[Bob_Niland]

Framemaker runs adequately on just about any x86 PC offered for sale these days ...

Let's considere the Tech Specs that Adobe provides.

• Intel Pentium4 or faster processor

Can't fail: The slowest P-IV was 1.3 GHz, and had relatively low IPC. A current processor with comparable performance might be 650MHz. Well, nobody sells a single-core CPU slower than 1.5GHz.

• Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 3 , Windows Vista Service Pack 2, or Windows 7

Can't fail (maybe): I doubt if you can buy a new Windows PC with anything but Windows 7 now. I notice that Adobe doesn't qualify this, but it implies that Frame would even run on Win7 Starter. Win7 Non-Starter has so many designed-to-be-frustratin limitations that I wonder if this is true.

• 512MB of RAM (1GB recommended)

Can't fail: It's nearly impossible to buy a Windows PC with less than 512M.

• 1.7GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on flash-based storage devices)

Can't fail (but): The smallest HDD you can buy is 10x that size. You might need to uninstall some shovelware.

But? I tend to doubt the "cannot install on flash-based" restriction. If drive C is an SSD, I doubt the Frame installer has any way to know. What is likely true is that if you install to a Drive E USB stick, Frame won't run on any other PC you plug that stick into.

• DVD-ROM drive

True? FM is available for download install, so I imagine that any optical drive is optional (and many mobile PCs lack them).

• 1024x768 screen resolution (1280x800 recommended) with 16-bit video card

The 1024x768 is likely the bare minimum for a visible workspace with minimal menus. You could fail this on many smaller laptops. The 16-bit "High Color" you can't fail. Graphics are all 24- or 32-bit "True Color" these days.

• Activation is by internet only.

Not strictly true (because many classified shops are not on the internet, and Adobe has a process for them): But for ordinary users; can't fail, because it's hard to buy a PC without a network port.

[Dov Isaacs]

Error7103 wrote:

...

• 1.7GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on flash-based storage devices)

Can't fail (but): The smallest HDD you can buy is 10x that size. You might need to uninstall some shovelware.

But? I tend to doubt the "cannot install on flash-based" restriction. If drive C is an SSD, I doubt the Frame installer has any way to know. What is likely true is that if you install to a Drive E USB stick, Frame won't run on any other PC you plug that stick into.

The wording “cannot install on flash-based storage devices” was quite unfortunate. It was written prior to widespread availability of SSD (solid state drive) disks. What it should have said is that FrameMaker (or for that matter any and all Adobe software) cannot be reliably installed on a stand-alone basis on a removeable drive such as a flash memory-based USB thumb drive. Why? Adobe software as does most Windows software, installs software not only in the primary location that you designate, but also in system directories on the bootable system drive. Location-dependent entries are also made in the Windows registry. If you install on a USB thumb drive (or any other mobile drive, i.e. not a permanently-mounted “removeable” drive), any change of drive letter assignment renders the installation unusable. Likewise, you cannot move your copy of FrameMaker or other such applications from one system to another simply by changing which system you've plugged the drive into. I believe that other Adobe products may have better wording for this issue!

          - Dov