Computers

[theprizefighter]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi, All

For everyone doing radiology research, what laptops do you think are best in terms of giving you the best image resolution and processing? Macs? Dells?

Thanks,

tpf

 

[MossPoh]

Speaking as a computer geek, not a radiologist. Most laptops are about the same.....(fairly crappy for image stuff...) the major concern should just be which platform the software runs best on. If you are dead set on a laptop then just get one with lots of ram, and the best graphics card they have...The problem with the laptops for that stuff is that you can't upgrade cards very easily. Laptop displays, while improving greatly are still a bit subpar oftentimes. Probably be better to find a nice big one to plug into your laptop. The absolute best notebook computer would probably be something like a Dell XPS M1710 (Core 2 Duo)...which is very very expensive, or if you enjoy the mac platform then pretty much pick out the shiniest, biggest, most expensive one they have and max out the areas you want..or buy ram and install it yourself for that. You really want the biggest display you can afford......as bright as possible is a nice touch too. I am sure there are ones that can hold and do what you want for less...but it is really just a matter of cruising cnet and finding the right balance for yourself and your needs. I personally would just get a desktop and get a nice graphics card, lots of ram, and a pretty quick HD.....then invest in a very very nice monitor that you could use for years. It'd give you more power, a clearer image, and save you cash.

 

[hans19]

Speaking as a computer geek, not a radiologist. Most laptops are about the same.....(fairly crappy for image stuff...) the major concern should just be which platform the software runs best on. If you are dead set on a laptop then just get one with lots of ram, and the best graphics card they have...The problem with the laptops for that stuff is that you can't upgrade cards very easily. Laptop displays, while improving greatly are still a bit subpar oftentimes. Probably be better to find a nice big one to plug into your laptop. The absolute best notebook computer would probably be something like a Dell XPS M1710 (Core 2 Duo)...which is very very expensive, or if you enjoy the mac platform then pretty much pick out the shiniest, biggest, most expensive one they have and max out the areas you want..or buy ram and install it yourself for that. You really want the biggest display you can afford......as bright as possible is a nice touch too. I am sure there are ones that can hold and do what you want for less...but it is really just a matter of cruising cnet and finding the right balance for yourself and your needs. I personally would just get a desktop and get a nice graphics card, lots of ram, and a pretty quick HD.....then invest in a very very nice monitor that you could use for years. It'd give you more power, a clearer image, and save you cash.

Dell XPS 1210 is a full featured laptop with Core 2 Duo processor, nVidia dedicated graphics, dual layer DVD burner weighing in at 4.3 lbs and 12.1 " screen. You can get a built in 1.3 MP webcam vs Mac's 0.6 MP built in iSIGHT.

The Mac book pros are very slick, but at the moment they only offer the Core duo (first gen) processors, single layer DVD burner, and seem to be more expensive than comparable Dells. They also weigh in at 5.6 lbs. Kinda on the heavy side. OSX 10.4 is a leap ahead of windows and the mac comes with some great bundled software. Known issues are overheating, 'mooing' and random shut downs (seems like they rushed to get teh mac book pro out there) It seems the build quality on this generation of mac book pros suffered.

Theres the more compact mac book, which has a 13.3" screen and weigh in at 5.2 lbs, but they have integrated graphics (not a dedicated video accelerator like the dell or MBP).

I'm looking at getting one of these. I've been leaning towards the 1210 b/c its lighter and cheaper with a better processor than the mac. But I think I'll wait till mid September when Apple should roll out a core 2 duo version of its mac book pro.

 

[Skeptic]

Personally I'd go with a Mac. If you are interested in the newer MacBook Pros, I'd wait until Leopard comes out. Hopefully they'll have most of the Intel crossover issues resolved, and more third party apps will be better suited for the compatability issues. I personally love the Macs. I recently got one and have been hooked since. Perhaps the newer PC screens are just as nice, but I've always felt that PCs have been two steps behind the race while Apple continues to pave the way for new technology. One of the great perks for Radiology (as we'll be talking about at RSNA, so come check it out), is the integrative capabilities fo iLife apps and OsiriX. OsiriX is a free open-end user app which directly connects and Mac to a PACS station and allows you to download images directly onto your computer. From there, you have the ability to export into either iPhoto or Quicktime and simply process them onto iWeb for teaching file creation, or research. The ease of which you can do this with is amazing. Thus, I recommend the Apple. Plus, the commercials are freakin hilarious. Good luck.

 

[theprizefighter]

Thanks for the posts, everyone! Any more thoughts?

 

[MossPoh]

This is just out of my own interest...I remember when macs used to be prefered for telerad stuff but then the software just never caught up with it and Pcs started dominating for a bit with PACS or whatever it is. That still hold true?

Fyi. I am currently an Information Science Technology major, who is doing a lot of stuff with efficiency, human-computer interaction, and all that good stuff. If it is approved, I want to do a bit of a study involving all of the new dictation software and PACS and what not. The goal is really to be able to increase the ease of use and realiability for you guys. This came to mind when I was watching some radiologists working and a few of them spend disproportionate amounts of time just screwing with the software that never seemed to write what they said properly....along with somewhat bulky menus that just seemed to take more clicks than needed. If I had an old school dictation service to kind of benchmark the times (from the radiologist side of it) that it takes to read each study and move on to the next. Basically..if it gets approved. Any of you interested in maybe relaying some information? Ultimate goal is to make your lives a bit easier....if they ever were into my ideas which can be helped upon by one of the bigtime researchers for it. (the ipod menus have been tuned by him, along with airplane controls and other stuff)

 

[Neuronix]

As a computer junkie turned Radiology researcher I have to say...

The laptop you choose really doesn't matter that much. I think people put alot of emphasis on the latest and greatest, but in reality there's very little difference in performance between year old technology and brand new technology except for whopping changes in price to get the latest stuff. In any case, my research lab and the others I interact with are split between PC (mostly Dell) and Mac. I've always liked PCs better because they just have more applications developed for them, though Mac has always been strong in the image processing world. All the apps you're likely to use (Photoshop, ImageJ, IDL, diferrent DICOM viewers, etc) will have Mac versions. I would choose based on what most of your lab mates have, and if they're split, go with which you like. Personally I have a fully loaded Inspiron 9300, which at the time (a little over 6 months ago) had just about the same features as the XPS (sans the stylish case) but for about $1000 less.

But, if we're going to get into the nitty gritty, the following disclaimer applies: certain things are going to depend on exactly what kind of processing you're doing, so it's hard to generalize. On the processor side, I run alot of custom jobs in IDL and ImageJ, and I think any modern processor is going to handle that just fine. You're not going to see much difference among them. You probably won't see much difference when it comes to 3D rendering either. For those reasons I would say to save your money on the processor (buy the lowest for whatever model of laptop you decide on) and put that money into other things.

Make sure you have at least a gigabyte of RAM. It really helps if you have alot of operations going on. I'm yet to see a Radiology imaging application that really stresses a video card. As far as I can tell, the only thing that really stresses the modern video card is a video game (i.e. my World of Warcraft addiction). In any case, avoid video cards that don't have their own memory and from there decide if you're ever going to want to play games on it (if you do, go for the best video card, if not... middle of the road is fine).

I have a 17" screen on my laptop, but I know others who don't wanna lug such a monstrosity around. So the other option is to buy a smaller laptop and then buy a LCD for your desk to plug it into. That's something you have to think about. Personally, I would never want to have a 14.1" or 15" and have to stare at it for hours on end with all the windows I usually have up at once. The image resolution really isn't going to matter, as all modern laptops are high enough for this application.

I think a DVD-burner is becoming increasingly useful, especially since images tend to take up alot of hard drive space. Hard drive storage itself is also important for all that data, though your lab should hopefully have some sort of network storage.