pdrg wrote:Video editing benefits from as much memory as possible, decent graphics configuration, etc, true, but they also can depend on versions of codecs, be sensitive to automatic updates for the OS, drivers, etc.
I have been doing video editing, playing games, and doing 3D animation on the same computer for years. As a matter of fact, I can't honestly recall a time when I used multiple computers for separate things, because when I once tried doing that, I immediately regretted it due to file synchronization -- or lack thereof.
Games, domestic/regular applications and internet rarely, if ever, introduce any new services. I cannot recall any examples of the above categories that added a new service, save for security software (which, obviously, needs to run at all times in order to be effective). None of those add any "BHO's" (Browser Helper Objects -- such as the Alexa or Yahoo! toolbars for Internet Explorer), at all. I don't even know why you brought that up -- the last time a program ever tried to install a BHO was CCleaner trying to install the Yahoo! toolbar for Internet Explorer.
As for autoupdates, updates to Windows generally don't break applications. When they do, it's very, very
rare, and they're almost immediately recalled or patched by Microsoft. Updates for application software shouldn't break any other programs, because... well... it shouldn't patch anything that isn't that specific program, which isn't a global system factor. Properly-coded programs will not break neighboring programs on the same system. Stupidly-coded programs will -- and most games and video editing applications don't fit well into that category.
I'm sorry, but having one computer for video editing and gaming makes tremendous sense unless you're a video studio with workstation nodes connected to renderfarms. Since godfather here is an example of the former and not
the latter, he should be just fine with... one computer. Any machine with a modern processor, 1 or 2 GB of RAM and some sort of graphics card.
tyguy2021 wrote:You can load OSX and XP (don't bother with Vista, it sucks) and have a mac and a pc in the same box. Can't do that on a pc.
Or you can load OS X and Vista. I highly recommend he gets Vista, because it's a fantastic operating system. Naysayers be damned, every damn negative point about Vista carries little, if any, weight.
I feel inclined to add, Vista is installable on anything that runs it. Mac OS X is, too... there's nothing technically
preventing you from running Mac OS X on a PC -- except for Apple's licensing terms. Take it as a word of knowledge -- I've installed Mac OS X on a PC before.
tyguy2021 wrote:Built in camera and mic. A remote control.
A lot of PC's these days come with a... built-in camera and mic. And you can even get remote controls for Windows' built-in and more feature-filled Media Center, and you can get simple ones that even slide into the ExpressCard slot on the PC. I happen to have owned one myself, it worked very well over Bluetooth.
tyguy2021 wrote:It also has magnetic power cord so your laptop dosn't get knocked off a table.
And it also has only one hard drive... and no numeric keypad.
the new godfather wrote:I am looking to spend under 2000. Preferably PC.
It seems like there is no one "winner" for doing it all (editing, gaming, work, power using, etc."
There are. Quite frankly, I'd consider my laptop a "winner" in that area. Plays games, does video editing, and does 3D animation just great. This
notebook, for example, would probably do all of that just fine. It uses a member of the Nvidia Geforce 8-series cards, so it isn't really affected by Nvidia's dismal driver situation. It should power through games and OpenGL just great.
Did you get a chance to take a look at my post?
the new godfather wrote:O and one more question.... is xp really better/faster than vista?
No. Not at all. It is a little bit more resource intensive, and drivers are still immature, so some programs/devices can end up being slower barring a patch or a driver update... but not many. Vista is just nicer, much easier to use, and much more modern and intelligent than Windows XP. I was eager as hell to get rid of Windows XP. It wasn't a bad OS... it was an old one. Vista's new, it's fresh, and it's relatively free of XP's shortcomings.
Of course, it's not perfect, but... games play just fine on it (unless you have an Nvidia card...)
tyguy2021 wrote:Vista has a lot of problems, security is bad (same with xp) and it takes a ton of memory. And its pricy. Way over priced.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Vista is the exact same price of Windows XP -- at retail, Windows Vista Business is $200, the same price as Windows XP Professional (and Vista Business offers... more functionality).
And security... Windows XP doesn't come close. As a matter of fact, some people reckon that nothing comes close. There's User Account Control (and with it, Protected Mode for Internet Explorer 7), the Address Space Layout Randomizer (which effectively breaks thousands of remote attack viruses), Windows Defender (built-in), BitLocker Drive Encryption and a ton of other security tweaks built-in to the NT kernel. In 64-bit versions of Vista, you get PatchGuard which denies third-party access to the kernel entirely (a fantastic feature) and it requires digitally-signed device drivers.
Some say it's even more secure than Mac OS X, architecturally. I'm... inclined to agree.