While one cannot say more cpu power hurts, a good editor and a cheap cpu can do the same, it just takes longer to render. As long as it finishes overnight, I really don't care.
Video is one of the vertical markets Macs enjoy (along with publishing), but I personally feel the system is very limiting, basically confining users to a single video package (FCP). PS My Core2 system is only 1.66ghz and it does video just fine (using Vegas). And I often render on my old Pentium 2! On 9/19/07, Steve Rigby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A friend of mine is looking into a new computer for video work. I am > guessing she is making videos of some sort, probably high resolution > stuff, and is seeking something that runs at 2.66 GHz or faster. I > guess that faster is always better for video, but would she truly > require that fast a processor for what will basically be amateur level > video work? ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
