View Full Version : iMac vs Mac Mini?
photogdave
10-25-2009, 13:24
I'd like your thoughts.
I am going to order a new computer this week. What do you think is the best buying philosophy:
Get a mac mini maxed with RAM. Cheap, modular (if the monitor goes I don't lose my whole computer), takes up little space and even though not the fastest machine in the world, will still be a huge performance upgrade from my failing six-year-old 1.6ghz G5 tower. Or...
Get a 21.5" iMac with the stock faster processor, more RAM, faster hard drive (don't need bigger but oh well). Allows me to get rid of the old CRT display and have dual monitor with my Samsung 19" but will cost more $$ and if the monitor goes, so does the whole computer.
Considering both machines will be obsolete in 5-6 years is it smarter to spend the minimum amount for the mac mini which will likely be sufficient for my needs, or spend more money and get a more kick-ass machine that may offer some speed advantages in the coming years?
I mostly do photo editing, some basic graphic design and the usual watching of videos etc. on the web. I used to so a lot of video editing but not so much any more.
Mackinaw
10-25-2009, 13:59
I faced the same choice two years back. I ended up going with the Mac Mini. For me, it was a good choice. Just made more sense to me to invest in a good monitor (a 24" Dell) and to upgrade to a new computer whenever something new caught my fancy. Which is now, for I see where Apple has just updated the Mini so I'll be selling my current one and upgrading to a new Mini sometime soon.
BTW, I mainly use my Mini with Photoshop CS3.
Jim B.
I presently own four macs of recent vintage. I'm buying three more for a new office. I had to make the same choice. First, I will say that the Mac Pro Desktop is worth the extra money for heavy duty work. I didn't need a heavy hitter for the office. Once I priced the Mini plus keyboard, monitor, extra memory and DVI adaptor, it was close in price to the lower end iMac, so I went for iMac. I've two at work and they have served me well. I will also be purchasing the new Mac Mini Snow Leopard Server. Great deal if it holds up to 24x7 use.
Richard G
10-25-2009, 14:06
Mac Minis are great. I have two and one of these is my office server and it hasn't slept in 3 years.
funkpilz
10-25-2009, 14:10
Depends on what you'll use it for. I'm assuming it has something to do with photography, so your main concerns are display and harddrive. Since computers go obsolete every two years (5-6 would be a dream), I'd put my vote in for a Mac mini. With the rest of the money, get a fast harddrive and a display that you can use with any other computers you might end up buying over the next years. Lots of people sell fast 3.5" external drives with FW800, so that should be enough speed for you (if I'm not mistaken) while you can still use the drive with any newer computer.
I purchased a 24" Imac in June. I considered the Mini, but having to buy a monitor too, plus keyboard and mouse, I'd have ended paying almost the same for a less powerful machine.
Cons: if the iMac goes, it goes to the trash including the panel.
I'm very happy with the iMac. The screen is fantastic, and can be dimmed using software. The problem is the glare, but I'm used to it now and it doesn't disturb me that much anymore.
Those new 27" panels are huge. With the 24" I have more than enough.
About obsolescense, my iMac runs PS CS4 great. It does great audio too, quite fast, so as long as it keeps running I won't need another computer with more power for what I use.
I have Apple Care, so the computer is going to stay with me for three years minimum.
Can't go wrong with either. My tendency as of late is to spend the money to get the fastest processor, most memory, biggest HD etc. in the hopes that it will stave off obsolescence for a little while longer than lesser machines. My G4 mini was the best when I bought it, and it is still very usable, especially after I upgraded the HD and maxed out the memory.
My guess is that an iMac would probably be obsolete before the screen went anyway.
EDIT: the picture quality on CRTs is still quite good - the LCD I got with my mini is awful.
Just so everyone is on the same page. Both iMac and the Mini have been upgraded over the last week or so. Check out the processor speeds, new displays, memory installed and such. Don't assume that it is the same as previous systems. For photographic/video rendering purposes the slightly increased speed of the low end iMac vs. Mini might be of some value. The high end iMac is now quad-core with a 27" screen. Nice but $$.
FrozenInTime
10-25-2009, 14:23
I think all iMacs now have a glass covered glossy screen.
If you want a choice of LCDs the mini would be the way to go.
If you buy a good LCD - you can always transfer it to a faster computer later.
An old mac mini would make a good little PVR ( with a USB tuner )
Computers don't go obsolete in two years... I'm still using a computer I bought in 2003 for M8 files + photoshop.
It works just as fast as it did when I bought it.
Leighgion
10-25-2009, 14:28
Tough call, but if budget is a concern, I think I'd lean towards the Mac Mini. One of my sisters has a 20" iMac and another a Mac Mini. Funny enough, it's the later sibling that's had to do more intensive photographic stuff (daughter in high school sports) and the Mini has held up very well.
I feel I must throw in though, that my aging dual 1.8ghz G5 still holds up quite well too.
wgerrard
10-25-2009, 14:50
The iMac and the more expensive Mini both max out at 4 gigs of RAM (and I definitely would get those 4 gigs).
An iMac and a Mini with a comparable new monitor will cost about the same.
An iMac delivers a bit less clutter. The screen is really very good.
I've had both, and have an iMac now.
So... go the cheapest route to get the goodies you want. Seriously consider buying an auxiliary drive for expansion and/or backup. You don't need to buy an Apple product. Half-terabyte enclosed drives that plug in and go can be had for less than $200.
photogdave
10-25-2009, 15:05
thanks for the feedback so far!
a couple of things to add:
My CRT is fritzing out anyway so if get the mini I will probably also get a second LCD monitor. I already have a 19" Samsung that is a matte screen, which I will use for photo editing even no matter what, so if I go iMac the glossy screen will just be for web browsing etc.
My G5 still runs great too and is powerful enough for Photoshop and Final Cut but I want to try Aperture or Lightroom. Also a lot of web content is now unviewable on the G5, and the hard drive with my OS on it is starting to crash and even tough a replacement is cheap I don't want to throw any more money at this thing!
The iMac and the more expensive Mini both max out at 4 gigs of RAM (and I definitely would get those 4 gigs).
An iMac and a Mini with a comparable new monitor will cost about the same.
An iMac delivers a bit less clutter. The screen is really very good.
I've had both, and have an iMac now.
So... go the cheapest route to get the goodies you want. Seriously consider buying an auxiliary drive for expansion and/or backup. You don't need to buy an Apple product. Half-terabyte enclosed drives that plug in and go can be had for less than $200.
New iMacs have a ram limit of either 8 or 16gb, can't remember which.
Oh, and I'd get an imac personally - mine is 3-4 years old and still a very quick/efficient machine. I'll upgrade to a new one next year but I have no doubt this one will still be going great in 3-4 years time.
wgerrard
10-25-2009, 15:29
New iMacs have a ram limit of either 8 or 16gb, can't remember which.
I stand corrected. I misread Apple's site.
I have been using Macs since 1986 and in the past 5 years or so I have stopped considering the "what if" factor. "What if" the screen dies, "what if" in a year or two I decide I need to use some piece of software that requires a faster processor, etc etc. The reason I no longer consider the "what if" question when I buy a new mac is because in every single case, the "what if" never came true or if it did it was time for a new machine anyway. I just get what I need for my present usage.
amateriat
10-25-2009, 16:28
I picked up one of the new iMacs (21.5" screen) for a client on Friday. It's the base model at $1200, but you get 4 gigs of RAM (all current iMacs can handle up to 16GB), 500GB HD, 3GHz Intel Core Duo (yes, the Quad is available for more bucks), wireless keyboard, and that groovy Magic Mouse, which is a lot of fun to use.
On the bang-for-buck scale, the iMac wins over the mini: the cheapest iMac comes with 4 gigs Ram vs the mini's 2 gigs, can handle much more RAM than the mini, and comes with an LED display which theoretically should last a good deal longer than a conventional flat screen.
If your imaging needs are greater than what any of the iMacs can handle at the moment, frankly, you should be looking into a Mac Pro, perhaps even a used or refurb if buying a new one isn't in the cards budget-wise.
Over here, my main iron is a near-last-generation, dual-processor G4 tower (MDD, FW800), maxed out with 2 gigs RAM and quartet of fast, fairly big hard drives; running PS CS2, the thing is plenty fast for me, and I've been doing a heavy amount of scanning on it.
- Barrett
Unfortunately, Apple still refuses to put ESATA and Blu-Ray on their machines. Not much excuse since these are now well established technologies that would greatly add to the capabilities of these machines.
Computers don't go obsolete in two years... I'm still using a computer I bought in 2003 for M8 files + photoshop.
It works just as fast as it did when I bought it.
Agree... my 2003 G5 Mac is more than capable today with no need to upgrade it in the foreseeable future - I can work 6x7 scans at 4000dpi / 16-bit in Photoshop with no problems. But you do need to understand the software-OS-hardware lifecycle interdependencies and manage the system not just the components.
agreenspan
10-25-2009, 19:14
I have a 24" iMac and I had a 20" iMac G5 before that. They are great computers, and give the best bang for the buck. You mention that you will be using an additional monitor for photo editing. If you are a professional, or are doing critical photo work, this is important. As nice as the iMac is, it is well known to produce "prints too dark" because the screen is so bright. Using software such as "shades" will lower the brightness, but it also ruins the whites and contrast and drags any color profiles down with it. The screens are beautiful, and the glass makes everything "pop", with rich blacks - which doesn't help photographers either. I use my iMac for my photos - I am a professional artist, but only an amateur to semi-pro photographer. In the future though, I would like a Mac Pro, so that I can get a more accurate monitor.
Stephen.
my 11 year old G4 Dual 1.25Ghz MDD Power Mac finally died recently, prior it ran Leopard and PS CS3 great, sometimes certain filters where a little slow and large files where a pain (by large, I mean 75MP medium format scans).
i bought a 13" MacBook Pro (2.53Ghz, 4Gb RAM, 320GB HDD) and run my Apple Cinema Display (older matte screen, not gloss) off of it. great setup, i can place the MBP under the monitor closed and use an external keyboard and mouse, takes up hardly any space. and i can disconnect when i want o surf the internet on the lounge. i have both screen colour calibrated and couldn't be happier. PS CS4 and large files are a breeze compared to what I was used to before though :)
comparing both calibrated screens side by side, they are very very similar. the MBP has s slightly higher contrast (of course) and deeper blacks, but nowhere near as bright and painful as it was stock.
If it was 2 years ago,go with the mini, but now the iMac have a major overhaul, so get the iMac. If you get the mini now, my bet is a higher power mini will be out within the next 2 years. I prefer a seperated system between the screen and cpu, so if I were you I will wait.
amateriat
10-25-2009, 20:36
Unfortunately, Apple still refuses to put ESATA and Blu-Ray on their machines. Not much excuse since these are now well established technologies that would greatly add to the capabilities of these machines.
I think Apple regards Blu-Ray as the tail-end of optical-storage tech(and even moreso for movie distribution), as SSD technology gains a foothold. I somewhat agree about eSATA, although I think USB 3.0 is going to make a mess of SATA in general.
Then, too, I am still a FireWire sort of guy. ;)
- Barrett
photogdave
10-25-2009, 21:08
Agree... my 2003 G5 Mac is more than capable today with no need to upgrade it in the foreseeable future - I can work 6x7 scans at 4000dpi / 16-bit in Photoshop with no problems. But you do need to understand the software-OS-hardware lifecycle interdependencies and manage the system not just the components.
I'm actually scanning with my old 500 mhz G4 tower because it has a SCSI port to talk to my old Minolta Scan Multi. Both my computer are still great for scanning and Photoshopping as I've said. but they are too slow for basic web browsing and such, and can not be used with newer apps.
Over here, my main iron is a near-last-generation, dual-processor G4 tower (MDD, FW800), maxed out with 2 gigs RAM and quartet of fast, fairly big hard drives; running PS CS2, the thing is plenty fast for me, and I've been doing a heavy amount of scanning on it.
I'm running exactly the same set-up. But it is time to upgrade for me. The Mac Pros are just so expensive, however.
If I hadn't bought a rather expensive new monitor earlier this year, I would certainly be looking at the new iMacs. They are an incredible value.
photogdave
10-27-2009, 19:51
So I went to the Apple Store to have a look-see.
First of all that 21.5" iMac screen seems absolutely HUGE in person! Holy crap! But with that big screen comes all that glass and the reflections were truly annoying. Granted, I don't have the same kind of lighting as the Apple Store but I do have a window and a light fixture I need to have on to see to type, so I think that glossy screen may be too much.
Looking at photos on my usual website I had the urge to rip the glass off the monitor because of the feeling that I was looking THROUGH something, rather than AT something. I guess I could get used to it but it was kind of disconcerting.
Secondly, the iMacs seemed to run pretty hot. When I put my hand on the top of the monitor (where all the heat is channeled out) it felt nearly as hot as my girlfriend's Macbook. Obviously I wouldn't be operating the computer with my hand on top of the monitor all day, but I'm still not really comfortable with hot-running machines (insert joke here).
Performance-wise the basic 3.06 ghz iMac didn't do anything faster than the 2.53 ghz Mac Mini, both with 4GB RAM, in the basic tests I did. The machines at the store aren't loaded with any heavy-duty apps of course, so all I could do was some basic iPhoto edits and watch HD video clips from Vimeo and with Quicktime. Both machines appeared equal in these tasks.
I did really like the Magic Mouse. It seems to be getting mixed reviews so far but I really liked how it handled.
So my mind isn't made up yet. As impressive as the iMac display is in terms of resolution, contrast and color, the glossiness might be too much for me. Starting to lean towards the Mini and maybe a second Samsung matte display...
I have two Mac Mini's and they are absolutely bargains to use. Even if I upgrade every 3 years I can still use the keyboard, mouse and monitor for many more years. This is why I won't buy an iMac: Not very environmentally friendly.
Yesterday morning I ordered a 21.5" iMac from B&H (won't ship for a few days), but I won't be using it for photo editing. I ordered the environmentally friendly version with the Al Gore sticker on it.
The iMac is the power champ but I don't use my iMacs for photos, so I didn't consider the reflective screens. Choosing just the right screen for your tastes seems like a big plus, but good photo-editing screens are very expensive. I have an old Lacie Electron22blueIV for such use with my photo/video editing setup, but my HannsG 27" from Costco is what I spend most of my time staring at. I turn on the Lacie for final color/contrast/brightness adjustments and have the whole thing calibrated from screen to printer. If you are going to pay attention to the screen, things can get a bit expensive..fast. That is why I haven't spent the money for a new flat screen photo monitor.
amateriat
10-27-2009, 20:39
I will say that the glossy screens Apple has favored of late rub me the wrong way. too, but there are aftermarket solutions to this.
Performance-wise, if you have enough RAM, the difference in processor speed may be more or less a wash. But I recommend maxing the mini (wow, that sounds funny...) out to a full 4GB if you're going to be swinging large files to-and-fro. (I manage fine with 2GB, but I'm running Tiger on a late-generation (and dual-processor) G4; Leopard (and Snow Leopard) require more overhead, and each succeeding version of Photoshop seems to want a bit more RAM as well.
Speaking of minis, I'm taking apart a client's right now, to upade the hard drive (from a slow, poky and mostly-stuffed 40GB to a faster 250GB). iMacs have never been fun to take apart, save for the very first iMac G5. But minis are "character-building" in their own way if you ever decide to do a DIY upgrade.
- Barrett
Mephiloco
10-27-2009, 20:43
I built a quadcore pc and dual boot between OS X and Windows depending on what the situation calls for. I'm not limited to the older hardware apple uses, nor do I have to pay a premium for old hardware. The box is now around 2 years old and still performs as least as good as the current iMacs and Mac Pro's while having better hardware and costing less.
Getting Apple hardware wasn't really a choice for me as apple likes to force hardware upgrades to keep sales up by imposing hardware checks, like with the new final cut studio (apple decided at the last minute to make it Intel only and imposed a hardware check, which can luckily be circumvented easily). There was also the issue with apple dropping essentially all SCSI support going into 10.5. Also the lack of eSATA, the lack of expandability (even with the Mac Pro 2 hd max).
Of your two choices I would go with the MiniMac. Displays fade over time and nearly all the apple displays I worked with experienced terrible ghosting and dimming after about 3 years. I'd prefer to replace the display than the whole computer. I'd also go with the minimac because when you upgrade following this new acquisition, it'll be much easier to still use the minimac. It could easily become a HTPC, a server, etc whereas the iMac could be in fine working order but unfortunately have a bad display, making it essentially useless as the repair would cost as much as the whole iMac is worth. You could always plug up an external monitor, but that would just be annoying.
So yeah, if you have to buy apple hardware, I'd go with a MacMini.
photogdave
10-27-2009, 20:58
There was also the issue with apple dropping essentially all SCSI support going into 10.5.
Yes, this is why I still keep a G4 tower to operate my Minolta scanner.
Displays fade over time and nearly all the apple displays I worked with experienced terrible ghosting and dimming after about 3 years. I'd prefer to replace the display than the whole computer. I'd also go with the minimac because when you upgrade following this new acquisition, it'll be much easier to still use the minimac. It could easily become a HTPC, a server, etc whereas the iMac could be in fine working order but unfortunately have a bad display, making it essentially useless as the repair would cost as much as the whole iMac is worth. You could always plug up an external monitor, but that would just be annoying.
So yeah, if you have to buy apple hardware, I'd go with a MacMini.
This is a very good point you make. At work I have a G4 iMac with a flat screen that is about 5 years old and the display still seems fine. But we also have a quad core tower with a 2006 30" cine display that is definitely showing ghosting and fading. Our previous 22" studio display didn't fare much better. You never know when it's going to be a problem.
Mephiloco
10-27-2009, 22:59
Considering the pain of system updates exactly how much money do you save?
For anyone considering this you might want to read:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/
Summed up as:
"If you want a proprietary OS that supports your hardware, XP or Vista will do the job. If you want an Open Source OS, there are many flavors of Linux and BSD available. Any of these OSs will take far less time to install and provide better hardware support than a pirated, hacked version of OS X."
Macs are now priced so low you can just toss 'em after 3 years without much pain. At $1199 (less for students and teachers) for a 21.5 inch monitor, 4GB memory, etc, working out of the box, hard to consider anything else, except a new Mini for $599. Almost anyone can afford 33 bucks a month for a computer, you can't get a cell phone for that.
Updates are as painful as going to software update, downloading, and letting it install my updates.
buzzardkid
10-28-2009, 00:26
although the fading screen is an issue, new iMacs are fitted with LED screens, which have not been in use for three years. Nothing sensible to conclude about ghosting and brightness there yet.
IMHO you would do best to buy the Mac Mini now and if in a couple of years the LED displays turn out to be very durable, you can always switch to the iMac. Possible premium: the LED displays might have gotten cheaper by then, too!
I have had all kinds of Macs. The first iMac, several G3, G4 and today we have 2 minis and an iMac. I prefere the Mini. It is a really good and fast-working computer. You can take it with you if you need and you can buy a screen at your own convinience. And if you change the computer in a few years you still can keep the screen, keyboard, etc. Go for a MiniMac.
Pherdinand
10-28-2009, 06:12
Do you want a very big hi-rez monitor? then get the iMac but the bigger one.
If you don't want that monitor, makes no sense to get the iMac sinfce you have a monitor already that suits your needs.
Al Patterson
10-28-2009, 06:36
As a bifocal wearer, any monitor larger than 15" causes me to do the neck roll to use the whole screen, or to scrunch down my browser or app window so I can see it without moving my head.
So I'd be buying the Mini and use my current Sony monitor.
The all in one iMac is a better dollar value though.
AL:
You are suffering from a poor choice of glasses and not a screen size. Get some professional advise on that one. There are lots of products that work great. I'm viewing a 27" screen with lined trifocals without any issues at all. Glasses are a tool, but you need the right tool.
We have both Mac Mini and 24" IMac's in the studio (previous model). I love the look of the IMac but can not do critical editing on the high gloss screen. I have it perfectly calibrated but the high gloss give a false impression of sharpness and contrast making it useless for me to do critical work on. I just purchased a new Mini last month and purchased a new Lacie 324 to go with it. The speed difference between the IMac and MIni is of no consequence. Converting Canon raw files to 95 meg Tif files takes just under 3 seconds on the Imac and four seconds on the Mini. 1 second difference, no big deal! Both have 4 gigs of ram and I'm running Photoshop CS4 on both unde OS 10.6. I would have bought the IMac again had it not been the gloss screen. I labored over adding another gloss IMac until I researched monitors. I've been editing on Lacie 22" CRT's for the past six or seven years and just could not find a screen that showed as much information until I found the Lacie 324. I'm sold now on the Lacie and will replace another PC in the studio with a new MIni and 324 next year. I also have a Mac Book Pro that I bought last year. I generally carry it on shoots in the field but now use it to scan to with my Fuji Finescan scanner. Basically the Mini is the same guts as the Mac Book Pro and I regularly scan 1 gig or larger files to the Mac Book with no problems. I expect the Mini will perform the same.
photogdave
10-28-2009, 08:34
Thanks Don. That's a really useful real-world comparison!
Al Patterson
10-28-2009, 08:35
AL:
You are suffering from a poor choice of glasses and not a screen size. Get some professional advise on that one. There are lots of products that work great. I'm viewing a 27" screen with lined trifocals without any issues at all. Glasses are a tool, but you need the right tool.
Agreed, but I did have a pair made for work that allowed me to use larger screens, but then I had to hold the newspaper at arm's length to read it. (Books too) I ended up with 2 pairs, one for work and one for home.
I'll stick to the tools I have for now.
Now, a 13.3 MacBook would fit the bill quite nicely, as the 14.1" Toshiba I'm on now fills my lined bifocals perfectly when on my lap here in the coffee shop...
nobbylon
10-28-2009, 08:47
I'd go for the imac, less cables. I updated my g4 pudding basin to a 20" 5 months ago due to the bigger files coming out of the D700. All the Nikon software works great and CS4 with plug ins. A word of warning though, use Leopard and not Snow Leopard. Nikon have just updated so should be fine now but my Macbook pro came with Snow and it wouldn't work properly. In CS4 also, certain plugins ie Alien Skin and Dfine also wouldn't work so I've installed Leopard on it until everyone gets their act together with Snow!
IF you can afford $1,400, then the iMAC is a no brainer. I bought one (24") from MacMall.com with a $300 rebate! The Mac Mini is cute, but it is NOT a desktop! It is a scaled down laptop without the screen, mouse and keyboard (the motherboard and internals are the same as the Macbooks). by the time you add a decent monitor, memory, etc,, you are at $1,400, so get the iMAC. I bought mine for the display, and will never go back! My colors are right on with my Epson 3800 printer.
orenrcohen
10-28-2009, 10:06
Mac Mini for sure.. the IMAC screen is glossy (cannot get it in a flat matte) and way to contrasty for post in my opinon.. Save money and max out a mac mini.. use the savings to buy an external Drobo drive and a higher end monitor (Lacie, Eizo).
Mephiloco
10-28-2009, 10:44
Whatever you say... but you are the only one running OSX, and the hundreds of Macintosh apps, and updates, without any problems.
But if you like it, hackintosh yourself to nirvana.
For those who enjoyed working with autoexe.bat and config.sys files, and miss the sweet agony, here is a helpful link, on an attempt to make everything easy.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139912/Review_Psystar_s_Rebel_EFI_Snow_Leopard_on_a_PC
The first article you cited was about a year old and deals with Os X 'distrobutions' ie modified kernels and extensions. I didn't bother with the psystar article since they're a crap company and are currently in legal problems with apple, and have been known to steal open source software and sell it as their own, despite being GNU licensed.
If you have the proper hardware, as in take a little time to make sure your chipsets are copasetic with Os X when buying your hardware, installing becomes very easy. If you did a little more research you'd see the number of people running 'Retail' installs of OSX on PC's has increased substantially, and all of these people are able to run software update, time machine, et al with no problems. The only reason someone would have problems with applications (FCP and the Adobe Suite come to mind) in a hackintosh is if they bought an unsupported video card, ie one too new for Apple to have written in support for, so there will be no Quartz Extreme meaning no FCP or Adobe.
The only problems I've had with my Hackintosh are due to Apple's limited testing of their updates before releasing them.
BillBingham2
10-28-2009, 11:16
Hackintosh is perfect for folks who like tinkering. I've had 30 years of tinkering with different systems from a Singer System 10 to a zSeries and lots of stuff in between. I've got the last Macbook I think I will need for many years. Give me simple and working for me and my family. We have two in our family and a MacMini (first dual core). I'm thinking that when we get another it will be a Mini because I can do remote processing of stuff (remote control) and use the laptop or pad for browsing and low power stuff. I like the cloud computing model and think it can work well on a smaller scale.
The biggest draw back to the Mini is the lack of built in dual monitor support. I'd go iMac for what you've described for what you do. It's easy to plug in a second monitor to an iMac. If you find the slick too bouncy for you, get an extra, it rocks.
B2 (;->
photogdave
10-28-2009, 12:08
Well I pulled the trigger and ordered a base model mini with 4GB RAM.
My current Samsung 19" monitor will continue to suffice and I can put the money saved towards a higher end matte display. I already have a LaCie 1TB external drive for backup and I can boot from that if the mini's 5400 RPM drive proves too slow. I already have keyboard/mouse although I can see picking up a magic mouse in the future.
I'm sure this machine will be sufficient for my needs because almost everything about it is faster than my G5 PowerMac, which is still pretty fast anyway.
BillBingham - the current minis do support dual monitor!
Thanks for all the input everyone!
Mephiloco
10-28-2009, 13:05
So you run Adobe suite CS4 and and plugins with no issues whatsoever?
Why is no one else reporting this kind of success? Is it the fact that it is in violation of the user agreement? If it is so easy, I am not sure why we are not seeing more positive comments.
Just wondering... It is hard to imagine you are just more willing to undergo a lot of tinkering, than you are aware of. :D
I don't use many plugins besides a couple Nik Plugins, but have had no problems. Also no problems with Aftereffects; I don't really use illustrator or indesign etc. The only plugin I can't get to work is the Canon Filmget plugin, though to be fair, Canon stopped developing it for my scanner years ago and supposedly it'll work if you run Photoshop is Rosetta. I'm happy with Vuescan so I've not bothered.
I did go through a lot of tinkering to get all my hardware supported, but that was long ago before the community was so large. Now most hardware is documented extensively, and there are extension packs for specific motherboards to give you out of the box ethernet, sound, wireless, and full north/south bridge support including all your sata ports, raid, et al so that the actual work done is significantly less at this point.
The only real troubles I've had have been doing things that I would've had equally as much trouble doing on a real mac, like getting scsi support in 10.5, ultimately I succeeded.
This install has been running fine for over a year with no issues, it would've been longer than that but I decided to wipe most of my non crucial hd's and start fresh as to make everything less cluttered. My uptimes usually exceed 60 days and are only interrupted by power loss or the need to boot into windows.
I've been following this thread for a bit, noting the comments. I spoke yesterday with the Apple consultant (he works for Apple) at Best Buy. And I looked at the iMac. Yes, the screen is very reflective! He said that after awhile you don't notice this. I don't think I agree. But then I saw that you can adjust the angle of the screen. By pulling the top towards me, I could eliminate the reflections. I wonder if others have this a satisfactory workaround for the shininess of this screen? The man said that an advantage of the shiny screen is that it makes the colors more saturated. Any observations on that?
Another thing he told me is that the mini is no more powerful than the laptop versions, where the iMac is a lot more powerful. It does seem like a lot of computer for $1500. That's if I can get past the shiny screen. Really, he'd like to sell me the MAcPro. And I might like to buy it.
Another thing, related to comments in previous posts. Someone sai they would not like the iMac because if the screen goes, you lose the whole computer. He showed me that the screen pops off and can be replaced. (There would still be down time though. I gues with a Mini or Macpro you can just hook up another monitor, if you have one.) Also claims the iMac can be upgraded.
So, I'm deliberating. I'll use it mostly for photography (as well as chatting on RFF!)
wgerrard
11-14-2009, 11:34
Rob, if you're near an Apple store, it might be worth a trip there just to get another perspective.
The shiny screen concerned me before I bought my iMac. But, it really has not been an issue. Tilting the screen, and not necessarily very much, works. However, it is rather reflective if there's light coming from behind you.
A comparison of the specs of both the iMac and the Mini at apple.com ought to resolve the "which is more powerful" question. Pay particular attention to drive speed. I'm also not sure what video card is inside a Mini these days.
Good to know you can haul your iMac into an Apple store and get the screen replaced if it ever dies. (If you get one, do save the box. Makes it much easier to haul around.)
One thing you cannot do with either the iMac or the Mini is upgrade the hardware. If that's in your thinking, going for the Mac Pro might turn out to be a smart move.
amateriat
11-14-2009, 19:21
An aftermarket for matte overlays for glossy screen surfaces (iMac/MacBook) has sprung up, so that's a possibility. (These are not to be confused with the anti-snooping screen overlays that have come and gone.)
The fact that the glass front of the iMac is held by magnets probably hints at why the newest iMac screens are now relatively easy to replace. The one question mark concerns the heard drive: the first iMac G5's hard drive (and power supply, and logic board...in fact, damn near everything) was almost ridiculously easy to get to and replace, then became ridiculously difficult to replace in subsequent models. (Apple, for some reason, goes through cycles like this.) Towers, of course, are sheer goodness in terms of upgradability, which is why I still have, and love, my last-generation (FireWire 800, dual-mirror doors) Power Mac G4. Haven't had need to upgrade yet, and it sees heavy scanning/Photoshop/printing duty.
- Barrett
wgerrard
11-14-2009, 19:56
I tend to think of my iMac as just an overgrown laptop. Likely not literally true, but not by much. Certainly it's very similar in the amount of stuff crammed into a small space. Mini and iMac owners need to resign themselves to taking their machine into an Apple store for just about everything. I remember trying to add memory to my G5, something that ought to be dead simple. From my perspective, the screw holding the little door on the memory compartment had stripped threads. Couldn't remove it. So, I lugged it into the nearest Apple store. The threads weren't stripped. I just lacked the special little magic Apple tool needed to remove it.
If I needed the horsepower of a tower, I'd get one in a heartbeat. But, I don't, so I won't. A rare victory over rationalization.
Rob, if you're near an Apple store, it might be worth a trip there just to get another perspective.
The shiny screen concerned me before I bought my iMac. But, it really has not been an issue. Tilting the screen, and not necessarily very much, works. However, it is rather reflective if there's light coming from behind you.
A comparison of the specs of both the iMac and the Mini at apple.com ought to resolve the "which is more powerful" question. Pay particular attention to drive speed. I'm also not sure what video card is inside a Mini these days.
Good to know you can haul your iMac into an Apple store and get the screen replaced if it ever dies. (If you get one, do save the box. Makes it much easier to haul around.)
One thing you cannot do with either the iMac or the Mini is upgrade the hardware. If that's in your thinking, going for the Mac Pro might turn out to be a smart move.
I took this advice and went to the Apple store. I was open to getting any Mac as long as it was the right one for my needs. Here's what they said: The Mac Pro is too much computer: overkill. He made the observation that it is hard for laptop users to adjust to a desktop, since you lose the portability. The mini, he said, is not powerful enough to use with heavy duty photo processing software, and not very portable. I want to use Aperture. The Macbook Pro has all the power I would need and can be ordered with a matte screen for $50 extra.
So I think it will be the 17" Macbook Pro. The iMac looks like the best runnerup if I don't need portability (well, it's sort of portable). I see a lot of members here seem fond of the iMac so I haven't completely ruled it out.
Remember the iMac has a better GPU, which for Photoshop work, Lightroom work or Aperture work will really improve things. The iMac also has the faster HDD.
Hmm, I have no idea what GPU or HDD mean. I do have a Shutterbug article here from September '08, in which the author says he tested Aperture by running it on the 17" Macbook Pro. He said that Aperture runs best and fastest on that one; and that certain features of Aperture are available only on the Macbook Pro. But of course this article is now 14 months old. Has anything changed since then?
What do GPU and HDD mean?
GPU=Graphical Processing Unit
HDD=Hard Disk Drive
Both the GPU and the HDD will have a significant impact on real-world performance. Hence, iMac>Mac Mini for photographers.
But MacPro is even better, but $$$ more than iMac.
For me, iMac was the best combination of performance and value for the money (now especially true because of the new 27" LED LCD)
Hmm, I have no idea what GPU or HDD mean. I do have a Shutterbug article here from September '08, in which the author says he tested Aperture by running it on the 17" Macbook Pro. He said that Aperture runs best and fastest on that one; and that certain features of Aperture are available only on the Macbook Pro. But of course this article is now 14 months old. Has anything changed since then?
What do GPU and HDD mean?
GPU=Graphical Processing Unit
HDD=Hard Disk Drive
Both the GPU and the HDD will have a significant impact on real-world performance. Hence, iMac>Mac Mini for photographers.
But MacPro is even better, but $$$ more than iMac.
For me, iMac was the best combination of performance and value for the money (now especially true because of the new 27" LED LCD)
Thanks for the info! The MAcPro is out of the question for me because of its size and bulk. But would the comments about the MacPro being even better, also apply to the Macbook Pro?
Thanks,
Rob
wgerrard
11-23-2009, 08:27
Rob, the MacPro and the Macbook Pro aren't comparable. That doesn't mean the Macbook Pro is a weakling. It isn't. The MacPro line is the top-of-the-line for Apple in terms of capability, performance and expandability.
If portability is a requirement, then the Macbook Pro is the best alternative.
If you do not need to haul your computer around with you, then I'd look at an iMac. While they are not expandable, they can be tricked out with upgrade options at the time of purchase. I use Photoshop and Lightroom on last year's model with no problems. (The MacPro is really the only Apple machine that is truly expandable after purchase. The density of hardware inside an iMac or laptop precludes easy homebrew upgrades. Opening the case also voids the warranty.)
There's another option if the screen thing is a sticking point. Get the Macbook Pro and use it with an external monitor of your choice. In other words, when the Macbook is home on your desk, it uses another monitor for the display.
Whatever your choice, I strongly recommend maxing out the memory and video card at the time of purchase. Those two things will reap the most apparent performance rewards. Hard drives are relatively cheap so there's really no reason not to go for the largest. Images consume lots of disk space, especially if you start saving RAW files. So much so that you might want to remind yourself to buy an external drive down the road.
Thanks, Bill. I didn't mention that I can order the 17" Macbook Pro with a Matte screen for an extra $50.00. Not available on the iMac. But then, I do like the 20.5" screen on the iMac. I just don't like the glossy screen. I did notice that I can tilt the screen forwrd a bit, to reduce reflections. But then I would not get to look at the screen head-on.
The main question is whch machine is actually better for running the photo applications: MAcbook Pro, or iMac? What if cost isn't a factor? Also, how do people find it to type on that tiny iMac keyboard? OK, or not? Also, I kind of like the touchpads better than a mouse. But the main question is which machine will run Aperture and Photoshop or Photoshop Elements the best? I may or may not eventually get Lightroom.
photogdave
11-23-2009, 09:17
For the record, after two weeks with the mac mini I find it was exactly what I was looking for. Photoshop CS operates just as fast as it did on my PowerMac G5 tower, and I can try out Lightroom and Aperture now.
Anyone who says you can't do photo editing on one of these simply hasn't tried it.
JPSuisse
11-23-2009, 09:18
I'm running an iMac G5 2.1 Ghz. Great machine. Lightroom also runs great.
At the time I bought it, I had to make the same choice. The weak point at that time of the iMac was that the screen was only able to be calibrated by software. A software and hardware profiling would be better.
In spite of that I went with the iMac and I'm not sorry. It's been good.
JP
Pherdinand
11-23-2009, 09:23
if you need portability i suggest you go for a 15" macbook pro.
If you don't then iMac is better value.
Honestly, i never understood the reasoning behind 17" laptop monsters. My 13" is plenty for everything when i'm on my way.
amateriat
11-23-2009, 10:10
I think most everyone here has made some great points. All I'll add here is:
- If you go for the iMac, do go for the matte screen option, and, if possible, go for the quad-core processor. I've set up two of the standard-processor models (21.5") over the last month, and while they are sweet, I might feel the desire for a bit more speed when crunching large image files. If you need to stick to the standard processor, no biggle.
- I wouldn't worry too much about the internal HD (the cheapest models now come with 500GB right off the bat). Where the action will be is with external HDs, and perhaps an external drive housing that holds several at once, depending on just how much work you're planning on doing. ;)
- I'm doing well with my "old" top-end setup (late-model dual-processor G4 tower, late PowerBook G4). If I were doing it all over again, and could pick just one machine, it would be a 15" MacBook Pro, with maxed-out RAM, and a good external monitor for a dual-screen setup similar to what I now have with the G4 tower. Storage? Probably a swatting-big RAID box of some kind. (Already have the better part of 2TB storage, not counting the network drive for backup.)
This never really stops, does it?
- Barrett
aperture64
11-23-2009, 10:14
I just bought a Mini. I was a good candidate for it because I had a spare LCD monitor and mouse. It cost me $650 for the computer and keyboard. Big price difference compared to the iMac.
I think generally speaking, the latest iMac would be better than Macbook Pro for running PS and LR. The top version of the iMac runs the iCore7 processor. Plus the screen is gorgeous, if you can deal with the glare. My iMac is not facing any window or bright lights, so I don't have any glare issues with the glossy screen.
I would get the fastest RPM hard disk (7200rpm) at the time of purchase because that is a difficult upgrade to do later.
However, I would get the minimum memory because Apple really overcharges for memory. I would buy the memory upgrade from OWC (http://www.macsales.com) as an immediate upgrade. The sweet spot appears to be a 4G or 8G upgrade for the 2009 iMac.
Thanks, Bill. I didn't mention that I can order the 17" Macbook Pro with a Matte screen for an extra $50.00. Not available on the iMac. But then, I do like the 20.5" screen on the iMac. I just don't like the glossy screen. I did notice that I can tilt the screen forwrd a bit, to reduce reflections. But then I would not get to look at the screen head-on.
The main question is whch machine is actually better for running the photo applications: MAcbook Pro, or iMac? What if cost isn't a factor? Also, how do people find it to type on that tiny iMac keyboard? OK, or not? Also, I kind of like the touchpads better than a mouse. But the main question is which machine will run Aperture and Photoshop or Photoshop Elements the best? I may or may not eventually get Lightroom.
wgerrard
11-23-2009, 10:52
- I wouldn't worry too much about the internal HD (the cheapest models now come with 500GB right off the bat). Where the action will be is with external HDs, and perhaps an external drive housing that holds several at once, depending on just how much work you're planning on doing. ;)
This external storage requirement bears emphasizing for anyone who shoots more than an occasional photo. High-resolution image files are B-I-G. Example: I shot 14 rolls on a recent trip. Scanned almost all of them to 4000px RAW files. That consumed almost 100 gigs of drive space. Fourteen rolls of film ain't that many, you know.
I think generally speaking, the latest iMac would be better than Macbook Pro for running PS and LR. The top version of the iMac runs the iCore7 processor. Plus the screen is gorgeous, if you can deal with the glare.
I would get the fastest RPM hard disk (7200rpm) at the time of purchase because that is a difficult upgrade to do later.
However, I would get the minimum memory because Apple really overcharges for memory. I would buy the memory upgrade from OWC (http://www.macsales.com) as an immediate upgrade. The sweet spot appears to be a 4G or 8G upgrade for the 2009 iMac.
I have just learned from an Apple store that images on the Matte screen are not as sharp as on the glossy, because of diffusion of the image. This, plus the iMac's nice big 21,5" display screen, is causing me to re-think this. The 17" Macbook is a bit large for travel anyhow. So I'm thinking of the iMac now. I could get a small laptop for travel, with the money saved on the iMac vs. the Macbook Pro. What is it like to type on that tiny iMac keyboard, though?
Which is the better of the two graphics cards they offer on various models? Is it the Radeon?
Might the faster running hard drive wear out faster?
As a long-term Mac bore, I believe you're over-thinking this.
All those options will work really well; even the Mac Mini. I do photoshop and webstie stuff on an ancient G4, and keep my Macbook Aor merely for emailing. The hard drives on any of these should last forever.
THe iMac is a great package; the Mini is a better deal if you have a monitor lying around, or better still if you want to keep the same monitor long-term - hence you'll never suffer depreciation on it. Macbook Pro is a great machine but speaking as one who has used Apple laptops righ back from the 100, you pay a price in long-term reliability, for the laptops.
wgerrard
11-23-2009, 14:05
I have just learned from an Apple store that images on the Matte screen are not as sharp as on the glossy, because of diffusion of the image. This, plus the iMac's nice big 21,5" display screen, is causing me to re-think this. The 17" Macbook is a bit large for travel anyhow. So I'm thinking of the iMac now. I could get a small laptop for travel, with the money saved on the iMac vs. the Macbook Pro. What is it like to type on that tiny iMac keyboard, though?
Which is the better of the two graphics cards they offer on various models? Is it the Radeon?
Might the faster running hard drive wear out faster?
Rob, I can't offer advice on the graphics card choice, except to say that high-end cards are usually optimized for video games because that's the biggest market for high-end cards. If you aren't a gamer, you'll need to compare specs and see which is the best buy for photo work.
My iMac keyboard is just fine for my use, which does not include banging out pages and pages of text. If I did, I'd look at other Apple and third-party keyboards.
The difference in drive speed shouldn't impact their longevity.If it concerns you, you can always chase down the Mean Time Between Failure rates of the actual hardware.
The reflectivity of an iMac screen is a very subjective matter, and heavily dependent on the intensity and location of lighting. It hasn't been an issue for me.
Again, my recommendation is that if you do not need a laptop's portability, it doesn't really make sense to buy a laptop. Unless you're going to do an awful lot of demanding photo work or jump into video, a MacPro seems to be overkill. If I was setting up a graphics shop, I'd buy one, max it out, and use it to serve the iMacs on my employees' desks.
So, buy the one you think you'll most enjoy using. The issues you seem to be looking at now are really pretty marginal. After all, it will be a Mac. They're all good.
Yes, the 21" iMac makes the most sense. I've lost my aversion to the glossy screen. I will use it in the basement, and can arrange the lighting to avoid reflections.
For the same or less money as the Macbook Pro, I can, and probably will, get the iMac and their cheapest 13 inch notebook. I can save another $300 by getting the polycarbonate case instead of the aluminum one. Polycarbonate no doubt bounces higher anyhow. The 13" is a must better choice for travel than the 17."
I wonder if Apple allows installing Aperture on 2 computers, or if they limit you to one at a time, like some others do.
...I can save another $300 by getting the polycarbonate case instead of the aluminum one. Polycarbonate no doubt bounces higher anyhow. ....
The polycarbonate is indeed better - it's tough, whereas the aluminum gets dents .
robklurfield
11-24-2009, 07:13
two people at my local apple store told me that Aperture CAN be installed on more than one mac at a time. I haven't tried it yet.
Yes, the 21" iMac makes the most sense. I've lost my aversion to the glossy screen. I will use it in the basement, and can arrange the lighting to avoid reflections.
For the same or less money as the Macbook Pro, I can, and probably will, get the iMac and their cheapest 13 inch notebook. I can save another $300 by getting the polycarbonate case instead of the aluminum one. Polycarbonate no doubt bounces higher anyhow. The 13" is a must better choice for travel than the 17."
I wonder if Apple allows installing Aperture on 2 computers, or if they limit you to one at a time, like some others do.
wgerrard
11-24-2009, 07:50
The Aperture license posted on Apple's site (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/aperture.pdf) says you can install single-user Aperture on one Apple desktop and one Apple laptop that you own.
We ordered online last night. I went for the 21" iMac with 1TB drive, also the polycarbonte 13" macbook. And I went for the gloss. These choices were greatly aided by the comments in this thread, so thanks to all! And yes, the Apple store told me I can install Aperture on both machines.
You know, the one-on-one instruction only applies to one computer. If you want one-on-on one for each, apparently you have to buy it twice. We didn't. Both machines are much more similar than different, so we just bought the one-on-one for the iMac.
We did get the extended care plan for each one.
So: thanks again! I (we) will soon be members of the elite Apple community. (Actually, I have been a member since 1980, when I bought my IIe. It still works, and I still use it!
wgerrard
11-25-2009, 07:23
Enjoy, Rob, as I'm sure you will.
OK, the Macbook arrived--still waiting for the iMac to be shipped. Guess what, I,m typing this on the Macbook. So thi is my first official Mac communication. Now to try putting some photos on it!
Thanks for all the help (I,m sure I'll be back!)
I would choose the iMac. More powerful and would give you a tidier work space.
Eric, that is right. I'll have the iMac for power and screen size, and the little 13" for portability, travel, etc.
I was debating between the Mac Pro and Mac Mini. In a way, I would love to future proof my purchase by getting a Pro, but I could not justify the cost since I do not make profit from my work. Instead, I went and bought the stock cheapest Mac Mini ($549 on Amazon during black friday) and also a 30gb SSD drive from newegg ($127, $97 after rebate). Taking apart the mini was easy and does not void warranty unless something is broken during process. Installation was easy... From a cold boot, where my computer has been off for several hours, I can get to load Safari in about 20 seconds after I press the power button. That is FAST. If the computer has been off for only a little, or if I am restarting system, it takes less that 15 seconds to boot. Programs load extremely quick. I tested the higher mac mini model at a apple store and it took 11 seconds average to load microsoft word 2008. It takes about 5 seconds on my ssd mini. And I still haven't upgraded the ram to 4gigs. You can also but an ssd into a imac, but it is a much harder process. I use external drive for storage of files and the ssd only for OS and programs. I am hoping to install my photo software today after work and see how fast things work. I did try loading 100+mb .tiff files and they loaded quickly in preview, about 2-3 seconds.
pevelg,
what is a ssd drive??
ssd=solid state drive. They are flash/ram based hard drives. Here is WIKI link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive) They are much faster than regular hard drives. Since they are a pretty new technology, they are pretty expensive for cost per gigabyte. They have no moving parts and thus are more reliable.
I see, thank pevelg. Now I know what I am getting when my HD die. I just installed a 7200rpm HD last year, the speed is noticeable faster, well with the SSD, I think it will extend a few years off the life of the mini.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.