View Full Version : Time for a new computer. iMac recommendations?
I'm shopping for a new computer and I'm looking at the new iMacs. It seems they can be configured with more than enough power for my needs, the most demanding of which would be Photoshop and my first foray into video editing with Final Cut Express. I'm leaning towards the 27" with the Quad-Core i5 processor, but since once you buy an iMac you're pretty much stuck with the hardware it comes with (outside of RAM) I'm wondering if the i7 processor and/or the SSD would be a worthwhile upgrade, or just overkill for my needs?
Thanks in advance and feel free to share any other tips. :)
andredossantos
12-05-2010, 16:19
I just got the latest Imac a month or so ago and while I dont do anything more processor heavy that lightroom/photoshop/scanning and other assorted photo related stuff I have to say I LOVE it.
My last computer that finally just died was the original Imac so I needed an upgrade bad and may just be in shock because this one is so much more advanced!
Anyway, the upgrades you mentioned at least for me, would be overkill. YMMV, esp with the video stuff.
I'm sure I'll be in shock, too. My current iMac is a PowerMac 1.8GHz with 2GB of RAM. :D
Go for the i7. I love mine, and they'll probably be a longer investment. I buy a mac every 8 years or so.
I ordered mine with the ssd & 1TB hard drive combo. The start-up speed will spoil you. I ordered my extra memory from Other Word Computing. It's been a great machine.
I would like to get a new one with everything possible. I have an iMac from 2006 (2.16 GHz Core 2 duo) , with two external HD, and 3gb ram, and it's still going strong.
I can only imagine the performance of a new iMAC.
Frank Petronio
12-05-2010, 17:05
First priority: Get the biggest hard drive and budget for an external of the same size for Time Machine backups.
Second: RAM, as much as you can afford.
Third: Processor upgrades maybe... i.e. your money is better spent on more memory.
Thanks for the tips! OWC offers 16GB of RAM for $261. :) I think I'll bite the bullet and max out on storage with the 2TB HD plus the SSD.
BillBingham2
12-05-2010, 19:53
Not sure if they have SSD for internal drives on the iMac yet, if the do get it. Internal SSD rocks, I'm getting one for my Mac Mini to breath new life into it.
Mac's have always been more responsive to more memory than faster processor, but a quad processor makes me wonder. My bet is it's really hard to do more than a memory upgrad to the iMac. I'm with the idea of not buying every new mac that comes out. While 8 years or so it a bit longer than I can do but to each his/or her own.
Good 3rd party memory is every bit as good as Apple (at least IMHO). I picked up some 2TB dirves for $80 each on Black Friday. You can find a low cost slower drive for backups and something fast for active work (like an SSD).
If I were getting an iMac I'd go for the quad core, add 3rd party memory (do not trade in your old stuff as you might need it for service) and an internal SSD (perhaps good 3rd party but I do not know how easy it is to change) with an external drive or two.
B2 (;->
also take a look at the refurbished listings on apple's store
Regarding SSDs; my daughter's MacBook Air has a solid state hard drive, and it's nice for a laptop because it boots up faster and runs the battery down slower than a conventional hard drive. On a desktop like the iMac, SSDs have no battery life advantage over a conventional HDD, so you have to decide whether this rather expensive storage device still makes sense.
Frank Petronio
12-05-2010, 20:37
I don't think I'd get a SSD, at least until I spent all my money elsewhere first, since 8-16gb of RAM should keep Photoshop from using the hard drive and Apple wants $600 for a 256gb one ;-/ Seems kinda extravagant for now, more practical in a couple of years when they come down in price.
I just looked at the Apple Store, if I were "luxe yet practical" I'd go for the 27/Quad-Core, 16 gb OWC RAM, internal 2tb ATA and an external 2tb FW800. That would be a decent machine for the next 5-6 years.
The only thing I don't like about iMacs is that the screen and puter are one, so if one fails it takes the whole kabboodle out. But I see they've now priced the Pros so there isn't any overlap like there used to be... So it might be worth the extended warranty for something like that. The extended warranty has paid for itself several times with my laptops.
consider SSD for OS and apps, HD for storage.
My home computer is an octo-core 2.93GHz Nehalem Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, a 256GB SSD for boot/OS and apps, and two 2TB WD Caviar Blacks in RAID 0 for data. My work computer is a 27" 2.8GHz i7 iMac with 8GB RAM and a 750GB drive. The iMac boots far more slowly, but apart from that, it doesn't feel appreciably slower in day-to-day usage. Granted, I do mostly coding on the iMac, no heavy Lightroom pushing, but I am quite impressed with the i7 iMac's performance. One thing I am not so impressed with is how hot it gets, despite my not really running very high loads on it. I don't know how well it would handle heavy video rendering jobs before thermal protection throttles the CPU speed.
You might want to check out Lloyd Chambers' tips at www.macperformanceguide.com.
If you already have a Mac Pro, and thus presumably also a decent monitor, it would seem like getting the Westmere 6-core Mac Pro would be your best option.
My home computer is an octo-core 2.93GHz Nehalem Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, a 256GB SSD for boot/OS and apps, and two 2TB WD Caviar Blacks in RAID 0 for data.
:eek:
That thing must fly! Not to mention the power consumption...
Mister E
12-05-2010, 23:51
I picked up the latest iMac with the quad-core 2.8Ghz i5. Tossed in a Caviar Black 2TB drive and 16GB of RAM. This baby screams and has a much smaller footprint than the Mac Pro. I highly recommend this setup. All together it cost me only $2400, but I can do all the hardware installs myself. The same configuration from Apple would have been over $3k. The RAM is especially simple to install.
Alpacaman
12-05-2010, 23:53
Try to get a raid 1 array going - it is worth it. Hard drives are essentially designed with failure in mind, as bearings and lubricants only last so long. Many last quite a while, many do not, and I wouldn't want to take the chance with all of your data. Raid 1 keeps 2 hard drives as mirrors, so you don't get extra capacity, but you get security - you have redundancy. If either drive fails completely, your machine still works perfectly and all your data is intact. It is not a replacement for backing up, but it is far more convenient and arguably more powerful. I would have it as a higher priority than storage, which can be upgraded later.
And as far as specs are concerned a middle range system should be good enough, don't worry about it, although more power won't hurt.
My iMac (2006 late) died. One day it simply stopped working. I lost everything that was on the disc.
I am back for PC now.
I feel awkward as I really got used to MacOS, but I have 8 gB RAM, i5 processor, 1gB videocard and 1 tB disk at a 1/2 price of the coolest iMac at the moment.
I'd say focus on processor, video editing is about as processor intensive as it gets and bear in mind disk and RAM can be easily upgraded at a later date. Technically, you could probably upgrade the processor too, but that is not supported by Apple and will void your warranty. With iMacs, for all their strengths, they're not workstations and should not be considered upgradeable apart from disk and RAM, so get the processor and video card you need NOW, as you can't fix it later. RAM and hard disk are only getting cheaper though.
Same for SSD, see how you go with hard disk, if you feel you want SSD in a year, it'll be cheaper and faster.
Why waste $ on a Mac. Get a PC and save some cash :)
My home computer is an octo-core 2.93GHz Nehalem Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, a 256GB SSD for boot/OS and apps, and two 2TB WD Caviar Blacks in RAID 0 for data ...
Do you back-up your RAID 0 in any way? I mean - if one disk fails, you will loose it all ...
Mister E
12-06-2010, 01:45
Do you back-up your RAID 0 in any way? I mean - if one disk fails, you will loose it all ...
I back up to an onsite RAID 5 array and two separate off-site locations.
My iMac (2006 late) died. One day it simply stopped working. I lost everything that was on the disc.
I am back for PC now.
I feel awkward as I really got used to MacOS, but I have 8 gB RAM, i5 processor, 1gB videocard and 1 tB disk at a 1/2 price of the coolest iMac at the moment.
That is indeed bad, but you stored all you data on one single HD without any backup - one day it HAD to die ... I am keeping all my relevant data in RAID 1 - 1TB discs are not so expensive anymore and the RAID box itself (takes care of the mirroring) was about 100 euro. I just want to be on the (a bit) safer side.
And OS-X has since 2 or 3 last versions very nice automatic back-up via time-machine. I use that for my MacBook.
Pickett Wilson
12-06-2010, 01:47
"Why waste $ on a Mac. Get a PC and save some cash"
Because the Mac just works. :)
Spleenrippa
12-06-2010, 01:50
MAC is a waste of money. Don't pay two or three times as much for the same hardware.
This picture explains everything (http://robotbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1291590139934.jpg)
Pickett Wilson
12-06-2010, 01:52
I use a Lacie 2TB Raid 1 NAS (Network Attached Storage) for files (I have several computers on the network that access the same files), and back it up weekly to a 2TB USB drive. It is rare, but I had both drives in a Raid 1 setup die at the same time, once (the UPS blew up and took the drives with it).
nightfly
12-06-2010, 03:47
How do you guys who use the iMacs like the glossy screen? That's the big thing that would hold me back from one. I really like my older matte screen Cinema display.
Also I highly recommend using Dropbox for backup of your working files at least. I do a daily backup to external drives at night but everything I'm working on sits in a Dropbox folder so it auto backs up to the web and is accessible from other computers.
I hated how Time Machine was constantly accessing my drives and indexing, drove me nuts. Really no need to be backing up all your apps etc all the time, just your working files.
As for the PC folks, the OP said he wants a Mac, you are probably not going to change his mind. It's only cheaper if you don't value all the time you spend futzing with it and re-booting and re-installing the OS etc. Also Mac hardware tends to be high quality and lasts a long time.
Mister E
12-06-2010, 03:58
I used to hate glossy screens, but I really have liked this iMac's screen. It's the best I've seen aside from other Apple screens.
Thanks for all the feedback!
Would it be nuts for me to consider a refurbished Mac Pro over an iMac? I don't begin to need all the capabilities and expansion potential it offers, but I do like that I can pick and choose my own monitor and easily add memory and expansion cards for things like eSATA ports (something which isn't available on an iMac.) Plus, as Frank pointed out, it would be nice to have the monitor and computer in separate housings so the failure of one doesn't bring down the whole thing.
A refurbished 2.66GHz Quad-Core is available for $2,119, FWIW, and the iMac is pushing $3k the way I configured it.
nightfly
12-06-2010, 13:36
Definitely consider the Mac Pro. If you have the space and have or can get your hands on a good monitor, it gives you way more flexibility.
Frank Petronio
12-06-2010, 13:38
I think the drives and memory might be a bit less expensive too... you should, in theory, get a longer life from everything thanks to all the cooling and "room" compared to cramming everything into a laptop or iMac case.
My thinking for next computer is to go back to a desktop, now that tablets and even my phone are getting more useful for remote use... in the rest of the house.
Satisfied 21.5" iMac user here. I'm happy with the size screen I have, using it at normal distance of around 22 to 24 inches. I imagine the larger screen might be more comfortable at a greater distance.
I switched from PC to Mac, mostly for the advantages Mac has for photography. I find the Mac very easy and intuitive to use, and the one-to-one teaching available at the Apple stores has been very helpful for getting the most out of Aperture. I have not used Lightroom, so I can't compare; but I really like Aperture's processing, adjustments, and image organizing. I have a copy of PSE 6 on it for a few things Aperture won't do, like perspective correction. My Aperture 3 closes the gap somewhat with PS, as it has the Brushes tools now.
Agree with all the previous comments about backing up with external hard drive.
Highly recommended!
Mister E
12-06-2010, 14:04
Thanks for all the feedback!
Would it be nuts for me to consider a refurbished Mac Pro over an iMac? I don't begin to need all the capabilities and expansion potential it offers, but I do like that I can pick and choose my own monitor and easily add memory and expansion cards for things like eSATA ports (something which isn't available on an iMac.) Plus, as Frank pointed out, it would be nice to have the monitor and computer in separate housings so the failure of one doesn't bring down the whole thing.
A refurbished 2.66GHz Quad-Core is available for $2,119, FWIW, and the iMac is pushing $3k the way I configured it.
I don't think that is nuts at all.
I think the drives and memory might be a bit less expensive too... you should, in theory, get a longer life from everything thanks to all the cooling and "room" compared to cramming everything into a laptop or iMac case....
The drives are cheaper, the RAM is a bit more expensive. And, yeah, the iMacs DO run hot. The 27" I tried at the Apple Store was hot to the touch, and I can't help but think that can't be good in the long term. If separating components is good for audio, I have to think it's good for computers, too.
My thinking for next computer is to go back to a desktop, now that tablets and even my phone are getting more useful for remote use... in the rest of the house.
I talked with a friend of mine today who's an editor in L.A., and he's come to the same conclusion. He's always been a big Mac Book advocate, but now all he wants to carry are his phone and an iPad. He's the one who put me onto the Mac Pro idea... Great. Now I have to THINK about this stuff! :eek: :D
Ronald M
12-06-2010, 17:22
Mac mini and a decent display screen. There is little reason to combine these two items and a mini has the same processing power as the iMac.
Or get a Mac pro notebook, keyboard and mouse or graphics tablet and a plugin monitor.
I do run photoshop sucessfully on a 2006 iMac with 2 gb ram. You really don`t need much. I also run Nikon NX2 which is a processor/memory hog with no problems.
The biggest secret is off load the files not being worked on to an external drive keeping the HHD at 50%. I have 3 one terabite drives. One has time machine and two redundant storage of all files.
You simply do not need anything super powerful unless you get into stitching 6 frames in panoramas making hugh files.
nightfly
12-06-2010, 19:04
I disagree, my 2 year old Macbook Pro with 4 gigs of RAM (maxed out) and the older 2.5 ghz Core Duo II processor bogs down in Photoshop all the time.
This is the same processor as the current Mac mini. I have 90 gigs of free hard drive space.
With the iMac you can get the i5 and i7's which are faster. The current Mac Book Pros have these as well. Also the RAM limits are higher.
Mac mini and a decent display screen. There is little reason to combine these two items and a mini has the same processing power as the iMac.
Or get a Mac pro notebook, keyboard and mouse or graphics tablet and a plugin monitor.
I do run photoshop sucessfully on a 2006 iMac with 2 gb ram. You really don`t need much. I also run Nikon NX2 which is a processor/memory hog with no problems.
The biggest secret is off load the files not being worked on to an external drive keeping the HHD at 50%. I have 3 one terabite drives. One has time machine and two redundant storage of all files.
You simply do not need anything super powerful unless you get into stitching 6 frames in panoramas making hugh files.
MAC is a waste of money. Don't pay two or three times as much for the same hardware.
This picture explains everything (http://robotbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1291590139934.jpg)
The hardware isn't really the same. I did a comparison when I bought my iMac 27". For the same _quality_ display and components the hardware isn't that much cheaper. And don't even talk about PC notebooks. They are without exception terrible. I've owned them all. Dell, HP, Compaq, Lenovo. All garbage. Keys fall off, screen is loose, overheating problems. Terrible crap. Then there is the software. Windows is horrible and infested with malware (since I'm the computer guy I do all the support for my relatives. Life would be so much easier if they got a mac). And don't talk about hackintosh please... Been there, done that and DO not want to go back.
Frank Petronio
12-06-2010, 19:39
The Mac Mini isn't a bad option now that you mention it, certainly a lot less expensive and bulky. You loose the Quad-Core option but just pretend it's last year ;-)
How do you guys who use the iMacs like the glossy screen? That's the big thing that would hold me back from one. I really like my older matte screen Cinema display.
I was worried about this while shopping for a Mac, but the Apple sales guys convinced me it's not a problem. They were right. For one thing the screen tilts helping to minimize reflections. For another thing, my screen doesn't face into any lights or windows. It's set up in the basement. As I'm typing right now, I see no reflections at all. And my pictures look bright, brilliant, saturated and sharp--much more so than when I had them on a PC. They use the glossy screen for a reason!
I have owned Mac Pro Intel, MB Pro Unibody etc. etc. And I work on them as a Genius at an Apple Store.
Despite being a geek and liking the latest and greatest I am amazed what I can do with a humble Mac Mini. A specially since I upgraded it with an SSD drive and 8Gb of Ram.
Running Aperture better than ever!
Processor speed is not relevant for photo editing. It might take a few minutes longer to convert a badge of RAW images but other wise. RAM is your biggest friend. Further for a snappy happy experience an SSD drive with the OS and the APP's The storage on an external HD.
With regards to storage I would look into a Drobo. No more running out of space and worrying about crating back-ups of back-ups...
Here is a short video of my Super Mini rebooting into Aperture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2loWJRn9ckU
My iMac (2006 late) died. One day it simply stopped working. I lost everything that was on the disc.
I am back for PC now.
I feel awkward as I really got used to MacOS, but I have 8 gB RAM, i5 processor, 1gB videocard and 1 tB disk at a 1/2 price of the coolest iMac at the moment.
Did you take it to the Geniusbar or Called Apple care?
Just "died" usually refers to a failed power supply witch can be fixed easily.
Or did the hard drive failed? These things are the same in a Mac or PC and fail equally often. The only remedy is back-up back-up back-up.
Also a failed Hard drive is an easy and affordable fix.
gekopaca
12-06-2010, 20:54
"Why waste $ on a Mac. Get a PC and save some cash :)"
Because you need a car. Not a cart.
Alpacaman
12-07-2010, 00:40
As for the PC folks, the OP said he wants a Mac, you are probably not going to change his mind. It's only cheaper if you don't value all the time you spend futzing with it and re-booting and re-installing the OS etc. Also Mac hardware tends to be high quality and lasts a long time.
I will not try to convince the OP either way, but I feel I should call you out here. Apple use the same components as other manufacturers, there is no real quality difference as far as parts are concerned when compared with any major pc manufacturer.
MAC is a waste of money. Don't pay two or three times as much for the same hardware.
This picture explains everything (http://robotbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1291590139934.jpg)
I agree that the Mac is pretty much the same hardware, although if you find Macs cost 2-3 times as much, you're looking in the wrong shops.
I use both PC & Mac, PC most of the time at home (but also Mac), and Mac all the time at work. I would say avoid the Mac Mini like the plague, they are as slow as treacle, just, awful, awful, awful computers. The new iMacs on the other hand are very fast indeed, and a pleasure to use.
The Macs are of course, a good bit more expensive, especially the laptops, but if you compare with a comparable brand like Sony, then the difference is not a lot, maybe 15% more expensive. Nobody here would compare a Leica camera to a Vivitar*, so comparing the price of a Mac to LASERTRON 3000s or whatever sold from a van behind your local fried chicken shop is not really very reasonable.
Windows has come a very long way, Window 7 is actually pretty decent, and runs a lot faster than Mac OS X on similar hardware. However, if you don't mind the extra spend, get a Mac, as you can run Windows as well if you want to. Think of it this way, an iMac is a computer which can run Mac OS X and Windows 7, a PC just runs Windows 7 (I'm forgetting all the *nix OS for the moment).
I've ranted long enough, just that this anti-Mac rhetoric annoys me every bit as much as anti-PC rhetoric. They're just computers, each have pros and cons, get the one you prefer.
*Not truly equating Apple to Leica here, Apple's build quality is not even close to Leica, but it was an easy comparison.
wgerrard
12-07-2010, 06:44
My advice, as a long-time iMac user, is to follow Frank's advice.
My usual advice is to watch what I buy and then wait two weeks because everything I buy is replaced with a newer, better model or gets a drastic price cut about two weeks later.
I would add that as the price of a very accessorized iMac increases, you might look at the price of an equivalent Mac Pro because they'll allow you to do hardware upgrades and expansions in the future.
I don't think I'd get a SSD, at least until I spent all my money elsewhere first, since 8-16gb of RAM should keep Photoshop from using the hard drive and Apple wants $600 for a 256gb one ;-/ Seems kinda extravagant for now, more practical in a couple of years when they come down in price.
I just looked at the Apple Store, if I were "luxe yet practical" I'd go for the 27/Quad-Core, 16 gb OWC RAM, internal 2tb ATA and an external 2tb FW800. That would be a decent machine for the next 5-6 years.
The only thing I don't like about iMacs is that the screen and puter are one, so if one fails it takes the whole kabboodle out. But I see they've now priced the Pros so there isn't any overlap like there used to be... So it might be worth the extended warranty for something like that. The extended warranty has paid for itself several times with my laptops.
You must be talking about the first generation G5 Mac Mini. Or there is something wrong with your confirmation.
I agree that the Mac is pretty much the same hardware, although if you find Macs cost 2-3 times as much, you're looking in the wrong shops.
I use both PC & Mac, PC most of the time at home (but also Mac), and Mac all the time at work. I would say avoid the Mac Mini like the plague, they are as slow as treacle, just, awful, awful, awful computers. The new iMacs on the other hand are very fast indeed, and a pleasure to use.
The Macs are of course, a good bit more expensive, especially the laptops, but if you compare with a comparable brand like Sony, then the difference is not a lot, maybe 15% more expensive. Nobody here would compare a Leica camera to a Vivitar*, so comparing the price of a Mac to LASERTRON 3000s or whatever sold from a van behind your local fried chicken shop is not really very reasonable.
Windows has come a very long way, Window 7 is actually pretty decent, and runs a lot faster than Mac OS X on similar hardware. However, if you don't mind the extra spend, get a Mac, as you can run Windows as well if you want to. Think of it this way, an iMac is a computer which can run Mac OS X and Windows 7, a PC just runs Windows 7 (I'm forgetting all the *nix OS for the moment).
I've ranted long enough, just that this anti-Mac rhetoric annoys me every bit as much as anti-PC rhetoric. They're just computers, each have pros and cons, get the one you prefer.
*Not truly equating Apple to Leica here, Apple's build quality is not even close to Leica, but it was an easy comparison.
jpfisher
12-07-2010, 06:49
Thanks for all the feedback!
Would it be nuts for me to consider a refurbished Mac Pro over an iMac? I don't begin to need all the capabilities and expansion potential it offers, but I do like that I can pick and choose my own monitor and easily add memory and expansion cards for things like eSATA ports (something which isn't available on an iMac.) Plus, as Frank pointed out, it would be nice to have the monitor and computer in separate housings so the failure of one doesn't bring down the whole thing.
A refurbished 2.66GHz Quad-Core is available for $2,119, FWIW, and the iMac is pushing $3k the way I configured it.
Kevin,
I bought a brand-new-in-the-box 2009 model quad-core 27" last week for $1550 from B&H -- http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656542-REG/Apple_MB953LL_A.html
It's not the latest CPU and graphics card, but it's a very speedy machine. Bought an additional 4GB of RAM (the computer ships with two open RAM slots -- very easy to install yourself, just need a small Phillips head screwdriver).
1TB of internal storage isn't a ton, in the grand scheme of things, but you could use the money you save in comparison to a 2010 model to get external storage -- I use a WD MyBook Studio Pro in a RAID 1 (mirror) configuration to store my photos. Connects via FireWire-800 -- if you buy a 2TB drive and make it a RAID 1, you will only be able to store 1TB of data, but if one of the drives inside the enclosure fails, you won't lose any data. WD gives you software to montior drive heatlh status, and warranties the drive for five years.
Buying an external drive for Time Machine is also a nice backup option -- I do both -- RAID 1 for the photos, backed up to a Time Machine drive, and I use a few portable drives that I store at my office for off-site backup.
For photo work (Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture), the Mac Pro is not a good bargain -- the performance increase doesn't merit the extra cost. You have to take the display you're getting into account with the iMac as well.
I wouldn't be concerned over the glossy screen -- I have a dual monitor setup, an older 23" Apple Cinema Display (matte finish) next to the 27" iMac. Calibrated both wtih a SpyderPro with no problems -- they match up quite well. The glossy finish on the iMac is much better than it is on my late 2008 model MacBook Pro.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
Jim
Same hardware with regards to hard drive, optical drive and some other peripheral parts. Main logic board (motherboard in your language) is different and build to way higher standards. Most importantly the configurations are very stable, well tested and supported for a long time.
Most importantly they run OSX something no PC can.
By the way a couple of times PC magazine called a Mac the best windows machine out there.
[QUOTE=thegman;1485422]I agree that the Mac is pretty much the same hardware, although if you find Macs cost 2-3 times as much, you're looking in the wrong shops.
Every day I deal with people who lost all data due to a human error or technical failure. They all knew they had to back-up bud did not. And now expect a miracle to happen. Mostly other than a very expensive trip to Drivesavers there is little that can be cone.
It saddens me every time again :-(
Computers should come equipped with an annoying alarm like the one for the seatbelt in your car in order to warn you or just plainly refuse to start if you did not back-up in the past... day's.
And if you disable the alarm, at least you (pretend) that you know what you are doing.
Smiles across the wires,
Rogier
ZeissFan
12-07-2010, 07:35
Go out, buy the parts and build your own PC. Then you know what's inside should something go wrong. Then you can add the Apple OS.
I will never buy an off-the-shelf computer again.
On the other hand, many people aren't cut out to do this type of work. So my response wasn't of much help. Sorry.
But my general feeling is that you should buy one down from the top of the line. You pay a bit less but still get 90% of the computing power.
nightfly
12-07-2010, 08:40
Can you elaborate with respect to "bogs down"?
As far as the bogging issue I'm often working with large layered Photoshop files for my work (web development). When I go to say crop something down, it lags. Then I got to save for web to jpeg, it lags, several to say 30 or 40 seconds sometimes.
I also do high resolution scans of my photos from negatives which are often 100 megs each when saved as layered PSDs. When I'm working them, cropping, adjusting levels, cruves etc, I often get several seconds of lag time.
Unfortunately my Macbook Pro is maxed out ram wise at 4 gigs.
A friend of mine who is graphic designer and often works on 100 meg + print files has a 17" Macbook Pro with the i7 chip and 8 gigs of RAM and says it's as fast as his older desktop Mac Pro.
If you're going for a 27" iMac 2009/2010, do yourself a favor and check it in the store. The 27" panels still have problems with the so called "yellow tint" issue, where certain parts of the screen - usually the lower right - shows a distinctive yellowish tone.
I bought an 27" iMac 2009, had the display panel replaced under warranty twice, then got the 2010 as replacement, but they sent the wrong configuration, then finally a good one. The last one was the one with an acceptable display, all the displays before were really yellow.
So spare yourself such a service nightmare and check the display in the store.
Frank Petronio
12-07-2010, 11:40
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656542-REG/Apple_MB953LL_A.html
B&H special from the Online Photographer... I haven't shopped at all but it seems like a pretty good deal.
Even if it is a little slower or yellower or not a PC or not this or not that....
If you go with an iMac, I agree it's wise to maximize the hardware, especially things that can't be changed later such as the processor. It's more of a closed system than a Mac Pro.
I got my 27" iMac i7 built-to-order a year ago this month just as they were starting to ship, and there was talk online about the yellow tinge. Mine doesn't suffer from that, and I'm surprised it still exists with new iMacs.
I typically have a dozen or so applications open, some with documents open. And I don't generally shut it down, just put it to sleep for the night. Then, I may see the spinning beach-ball cursor when switching to an inactive application... My iMac has 4Gb RAM, and it seems this delay is due to reading in virtual memory from the hard drive. So I've ordered a pair of 4Gb RAM cards from Crucial, which has a nice feature on their web page to zero in on exactly which computer you have and the correct memory. Priced better than Mac Connection too. I hope cracking the iMac open and installing the RAM will be easy....
I'm happy with the peppy performance compared to my dual-G5 Power Mac which moved from business office to home office now. There is an operating system version barrier here: The G5 can run Leopard but not Snow Leopard, while the iMac runs Snow Leopard but not Leopard. Unfortunately, we're seeing productivity software now that runs only on Intel processors, so down the road there will be ever more divergence in application compatibility.
I use a LaCie 1TB external for Time Machine backup on Firewire 800. As mentioned, the glossy screen is glorious but good to position it to reduce reflections. I also carry files between office and home on flash cards both for convenient access and for additional backup.
I also use the wireless Magic Mouse, and find it both handy to use but also irritating. The slightest inadvertent touch to the top surface can send your open window scrolling wildly to follow the zooming cursor. I've taken to holding it by its edges for clicking and fine movements.
You're getting some useful advice - except that suggesting a PC! - and I wish you luck in your shopping and then ongoing satisfaction with your choice.
The tips are great. Like I said, I hadn't considered a Mac Pro until yesterday. And I've been buying film from B&H for years, but didn't know they sold computers. D'uh! :D They have some good deals....!
If you go with an iMac, I agree it's wise to maximize the hardware, especially things that can't be changed later such as the processor. It's more of a closed system than a Mac Pro.
I got my 27" iMac i7 built-to-order a year ago this month just as they were starting to ship, and there was talk online about the yellow tinge. Mine doesn't suffer from that, and I'm surprised it still exists with new iMacs.
I typically have a dozen or so applications open, some with documents open. And I don't generally shut it down, just put it to sleep for the night. Then, I may see the spinning beach-ball cursor when switching to an inactive application... My iMac has 4Gb RAM, and it seems this delay is due to reading in virtual memory from the hard drive. So I've ordered a pair of 4Gb RAM cards from Crucial, which has a nice feature on their web page to zero in on exactly which computer you have and the correct memory. Priced better than Mac Connection too. I hope cracking the iMac open and installing the RAM will be easy....
I'm happy with the peppy performance compared to my dual-G5 Power Mac which moved from business office to home office now. There is an operating system version barrier here: The G5 can run Leopard but not Snow Leopard, while the iMac runs Snow Leopard but not Leopard. Unfortunately, we're seeing productivity software now that runs only on Intel processors, so down the road there will be ever more divergence in application compatibility.
I use a LaCie 1TB external for Time Machine backup on Firewire 800. As mentioned, the glossy screen is glorious but good to position it to reduce reflections. I also carry files between office and home on flash cards both for convenient access and for additional backup.
I also use the wireless Magic Mouse, and find it both handy to use but also irritating. The slightest inadvertent touch to the top surface can send your open window scrolling wildly to follow the zooming cursor. I've taken to holding it by its edges for clicking and fine movements.
You're getting some useful advice - except that suggesting a PC! - and I wish you luck in your shopping and then ongoing satisfaction with your choice.
That magic mouse is great! Much better than the old mouse with the rubber scrolling ball on top. I updated OS to be able to use that mouse.
nightfly
12-07-2010, 13:37
Big fan of non-apple mice. Steve Job's longtime jihad against multiple button mice and scroll wheels turned me off years ago.
I really like the Razor Salmosa, it's a gaming mouse (I don't game) but it's super light and responsive and doesn't have a thousand extra buttons. Hard to find a good corded mouse these days.
That magic mouse is great! Much better than the old mouse with the rubber scrolling ball on top. I updated OS to be able to use that mouse.
visiondr
12-07-2010, 13:38
I hated how Time Machine was constantly accessing my drives and indexing, drove me nuts. Really no need to be backing up all your apps etc all the time, just your working files.
Try this: http://timesoftware.free.fr/timemachineeditor/
Time Machine Editor is free and works perfectly. I have Time Machine backing up two times a day instead of the requisite hourly backups - which, for most people, is a complete waste of CPU resources.
nightfly
12-07-2010, 13:46
Yeah, my current system of having SuperDuper run every night for full back up and then using a Dropbox folder that holds all my working files is working well.
Dropbox actually has the same functionality as TimeMachine with regards to multiple sequential backups with the advantage of being stored on the web. I've rolled back to earlier versions many times which has saved my a##.
Thanks for the tip.
Try this: http://timesoftware.free.fr/timemachineeditor/
Time Machine Editor is free and works perfectly. I have Time Machine backing up two times a day instead of the requisite hourly backups - which, for most people, is a complete waste of CPU resources.
I really like the Razor Salmosa, it's a gaming mouse (I don't game) but it's super light and responsive and doesn't have a thousand extra buttons. Hard to find a good corded mouse these days.
Yea, I never thought it would be that hard either. I hate to rely on batteries to run a mouse. I'm still using a simple 15 yr old ball mouse that "plugs in" but sadly its days are numbered. I also use an old "clickity" keyboard of the same vintage that's built like a tank. Thanks for the suggestion on the Razor.
So a refurbished Mac Pro and a 22" NEC monitor with calibrator can be had for less than an iMac. Man, am I glad I started this thread... :D
wgerrard
12-07-2010, 15:23
MAC is a waste of money. Don't pay two or three times as much for the same hardware.
This picture explains everything (http://robotbacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1291590139934.jpg)
What you are paying for in a Mac is not the hardware. It's the design and the software and the consistency. If that works for you, it is well worth the money.
samuelphoto
12-07-2010, 15:49
I'm shopping for a new computer and I'm looking at the new iMacs. It seems they can be configured with more than enough power for my needs, the most demanding of which would be Photoshop and my first foray into video editing with Final Cut Express. I'm leaning towards the 27" with the Quad-Core i5 processor, but since once you buy an iMac you're pretty much stuck with the hardware it comes with (outside of RAM) I'm wondering if the i7 processor and/or the SSD would be a worthwhile upgrade, or just overkill for my needs?
Thanks in advance and feel free to share any other tips. :)
I recently purchased an iMac with a 3.06 GHz Core i3 and 8GB of RAM and it screams. I can't believe how fast it loads and processes a 200MB medium format scan. Best purchase I ever made in terms of gear, and that includes cameras. AND, unlike PC's it NEVER hangs up; totally problem free. I couldn't be happier.
What you are paying for in a Mac is not the hardware. It's the design and the software and the consistency. If that works for you, it is well worth the money.
x2. I've had this iMac plugged into the internet since the day I bought it 5 years ago. Not a hiccup. No viruses, nothing. I'm not going back to a PC.
MAC is a waste of money. Don't pay two or three times as much for the same hardware.
Actually, they cost just about the same.
Rationalize. Do it the way business owners do. May not help on taxes, but justifies the upgrades..... Do these calculations:
Calculate two configurations
1) Max out the RAM on both computers
2) Max out the Storage... with backup capability on both computers
3) Configure machine one with the i5
4) Configure machine two with the i7
amortize #1 over three years (divide price by 36 months)
amortize #2 over four years (divide price by 48 months)
conjecture:
Machine two will give a year longer in real effective usage due to upgrade CPU
second conjecture:
No intelligent accountant will allow over a three year writeoff on a business expenditure for IT hardware, so doing four years is a push.
I'm pretty sure you will find the second machine will pencil out much better than the first machine on a monthly basis.
Granted we may not be able to afford adopting good business practices for personal purchases of this nature, but in todays world we need all the rationalization we can summon up to buy the toys we want.;)
robklurfield
12-07-2010, 21:07
my wife still has a Selectric. no clue whether the damned thing works anymore. and, she's pining away for a new MacBook or iMac. in the late 70's she worked for IBM. she once sold 800 Selectrics to a hospital. She hated the job.
No one has any idea what computers will really look like in four years.
You sound like an IBM salesman in 1985, when IBM thought computers should last as long as Selectric typewriters :D
No one has any idea what computers will really look like in four years.
You sound like an IBM salesman in 1985, when IBM thought computers should last as long as Selectric typewriters :D
In fact that's somewhere near the time I was selling HP 3000 series mid size computers utilizing RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) and we were kicking ass all over IBM during their transition from System 36 to 38, and IBM couldn't take the time to write a native OS for the 38. They wrote emulation layers over the System 36 OS. They lost a lot of business trying to make that faux pas work.
That doesn't alter the fact that a lot of companies were making huge mistakes on their write-offs for computers.
Yes, the method I used for the OP was pure rationalization. However, no one I know in the personal PC world is using a more real two year life span for their computer needs. Nor, for that matter is anyone in the corporate market place.
Right now, the businesses in the US are using computers that are largely outdated and inefficient. Corporate decisions to bypass Windows Vista in large part have resulted also in ancient hardware running our businesses. Terribly inefficient and probably not nearly as good as the IBM business model of the mid 80's.
That's just one more nail in the coffin of a waning image of the US in the Global Markets.
Don't buy iMac! I have one, use it for work and PS, I love it but its the system I love not the hardware. I'll not buy another one ever! In stead, I'll go back to a configuration of a box i.e. computer (like mini mac box or big power mac) and a separate monitor. Yes, I know it doesn't look as sexy but than when monitor goes bad, you want a bigger one or when hard drives fails it is a lot easier to deal with.
Apple has a great reputation but its hardware is not as good as many think. In three years of owning the imac I lost two internal and one external hard drive, one monitor started to yellow from the top (and needed lengthy overseas fight with Apple until they replaced it) now a year old monitor started to yellow out from the left side and calibration is good just for 2/3rds of it. A guy to whom we bought a macbook pro lost his hard drive (like me in the first year so it was covered by warranty) so its not just me.
My imac has been rock solid for like 4-5 years now and is still speedy and reliable. I'll be buying another one for sure. I'd recommend.
You must be talking about the first generation G5 Mac Mini. Or there is something wrong with your confirmation.
Hi Rogier, There was no G5 Mac Mini (that would have been cool), there was a G4 one though.
I'm talking about a Core Duo Mac Mini, 1.86GHz (I think). I find it horrendously slow, mostly due to it's video, but also due to it's only 2GB RAM, which causes it to swap frequently on a slow hard disk.
Obviously it's objective whether a computer is slow or not, and what we're comparing to, but for me, that Mac Mini is torturous. However, spend £750 on a refurb iMac from Apple, and it's a different world.
The fact is the Mac Mini was made to be just enough Mac for a low cost to get people onto their first Mac. I'm using it as a professional software developer, and that's not it's intended purpose at all.
I don't criticise the Mac Mini too much, it's a cheapish way to get a tiny, quiet little Mac which will serve the needs 90% of users. I think however, developers and photo enthusiasts are in the 10%.
Frank Petronio
12-08-2010, 05:02
I've had plenty of Apple warranty repairs, as well as outright failures to power supplies, video and logic boards, etc. All that stuff is made in the same factories as other major computer brands. I think Apple has always been in the top three quality-wise, in spite of the overall decline in the quality of components industry-wide.
What I like about Apple hardware is that it is well designed and ergonomic, more often than any other manufacturer. There are less seams, less gaps, less cheap plastic cracking and falling off. Noise and radiation are usually less. The laptop hinges and latches are better. The power cable is better... lots of little touches like that.
In the end, it just plain looks better. We're visual artists who spend a lot of our lives using these boxes, that should count for something.
I thank you for all the tips and advice. :)
I just placed an order with B&H for a 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro, and a 22" NEC monitor with built-in calibrator for $500 less than the 27" iMac I was considering. I'm kinda stoked...! :D
wgerrard
12-08-2010, 13:48
I thank you for all the tips and advice. :)
I just placed an order with B&H for a 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro, and a 22" NEC monitor with built-in calibrator for $500 less than the 27" iMac I was considering. I'm kinda stoked...! :D
I'd be stoked, too! Enjoy.
Now if you haven't already, think about backup. Stuff happens. I use a Time Machine that backs up everything. (Yes, it runs every hour. I'm too lazy to mess with it.) I also have a RAID 1 box from OWC that I use specifically to back up image files and a few other directories. Carbon Copy Cloner does a daily incremental backup at 4:00 a.m. (I leave the OWC drives unmounted. They don't make much noise, but I find it annoying.) At 3:59am, the iMac wakes itself up. I've set a crontab (a Unixy thing) entry to mount the drive at 4:00am. Carbon Copy Cloner launches at 4:01am. When it's done, it spawns a shell script that unmounts the drive, sends me an email with the details of the backup, and puts the iMac back to sleep.
I also use an online backup service for third-level stab at image files. Several are on the market, but I use a Mac-only outfit called Backblaze. Since you'll be uploading over your ISP, the first upload typically takes a very long time. Mine -- of 45 gigs -- took about 3 weeks. Costs $5 per month.
I thank you for all the tips and advice. :)
I just placed an order with B&H for a 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro, and a 22" NEC monitor with built-in calibrator for $500 less than the 27" iMac I was considering. I'm kinda stoked...! :D
Wise choice. Very wise. I was wondering how you got it for less than the iMac until I realized you didn't buy the current model. Great savings.
I'm off to buy a Mac Pro tomorrow. My old G4 MDD tower is going batty in its old age and it's time to move on.
For heavy users, I still believe firmly that the Mac Pro is a better buy over the long haul than an iMac (if you can afford it).
I thank you for all the tips and advice. :)
I just placed an order with B&H for a 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro, and a 22" NEC monitor with built-in calibrator for $500 less than the 27" iMac I was considering. I'm kinda stoked...! :D
Sounds lovely, I use a 3ghz iMac and couldn't be happier with it, I've always been a Mac guy, but every time I use I remember why I am.
You'll be very happy with that Mac, I guarantee it.
I always think, get what you want, if you cheap out, you'll just end up replacing it and end up spending more.
I was wondering how you got it for less than the iMac until I realized you didn't buy the current model. Great savings.
I'm really glad someone mentioned B&H in this thread. It slipped my mind that they sell computers, too, and they discount the non-current models so that a new computer from them is substantially cheaper than the same computer refurbished from Apple.
For heavy users, I still believe firmly that the Mac Pro is a better buy over the long haul than an iMac (if you can afford it).
I came to the same conclusion. An off-the-shelf iMac is a great buy, but when you start to configure them to you're liking, they get pricey fast. If you want two drives, it's a $750 option. That's what ultimately led me to the Mac Pro.
Two hard drives is not really an option.
Correct. Which is why I said "two drives." :)
If Apple offered two hard drives in the iMac, I would have happily done that. But the fact that one is forced to buy the 27" screen (which I really didn't want, lovely as it is) just to have the option of a second drive and THEN pay so handsomely for that is what led me to explore other options.
I think the Mac Pro is unquestionably the best high end graphics station on the market -- and in its basic form an incredible bargain at $2,499. Nothing else even comes close.
B&H has 2.66GHz 2009 models for $1,899. I have to admit the below-$2k pricetag caught my attention. :D
If Apple offered two hard drives in the iMac, I would have happily done that. But the fact that one is forced to buy the 27" screen (which I really didn't want, lovely as it is) just to have the option of a second drive and THEN pay so handsomely for that is what led me to explore other options.
This is why there are so many hackintoshes now. I'm on my second; first was a q6600 mid-tower that was about $800 in parts. When I upgraded a few months ago to an i7 I spent another $400 (cpu/mobo plus optional upgrade of my graphics card to a 9800gtx+/512). Aperture is very happy with this computer. Building a hackintosh has never been easier (but with the inherent risk of overnight obsolescence).
robklurfield
12-09-2010, 19:18
even when companies source parts from same suppliers, it doesn't mean the parts are of the same grade. a big company like Apple or Dell can get what they want from suppliers and most suppliers offer among their other options, parts built to a certain price point. so, the fact that Apple and others use the same suppliers doesn't mean the quality of something like a power supply isn't necessarily the same.
I've got agree with Frank about the ergonomics and design. They do just look and feel better. And while one could argue, as many folks have here, that Apple charges too much, that hasn't stopped enough of us from buying their products to hurt their business, which seems to be doing better than ever (yes, yes; I know that's coming in large part from iPhones, iPods, etc., but their computer market share has never been better).
I'm typing on a PC (free from my employer and a pile of garbage, buzzing loudly as I type this), but I'm itching to replace my six-year old PowerBook G4 as soon as I can afford another Mac. I'm tempted to get a 27" iMac next time around. My kids are each on their third or fourth Macs. My wife is on her first and I'm on my second (I think I bought my first one around 1988).
I've had plenty of Apple warranty repairs, as well as outright failures to power supplies, video and logic boards, etc. All that stuff is made in the same factories as other major computer brands. I think Apple has always been in the top three quality-wise, in spite of the overall decline in the quality of components industry-wide.
What I like about Apple hardware is that it is well designed and ergonomic, more often than any other manufacturer. There are less seams, less gaps, less cheap plastic cracking and falling off. Noise and radiation are usually less. The laptop hinges and latches are better. The power cable is better... lots of little touches like that.
In the end, it just plain looks better. We're visual artists who spend a lot of our lives using these boxes, that should count for something.
ElectroWNED
12-09-2010, 19:44
I post-process just fine on my netbook w/ the touchpad (ie no mouse) that has a 10" screen, 1gb ram, and 1.6 ghz.
Any iMac will be good :)
robklurfield
12-09-2010, 19:47
10" screen? wow. your eyesight must be about 50X better than mine. I'd go blind trying to edit on a screen that small. more power to you. however, don't get older. my 19" desktop screen barely cuts it for me anymore and my 15" PowerBook is a real challenge. Enjoy that good vision!:D
I post-process just fine on my netbook w/ the touchpad (ie no mouse) that has a 10" screen, 1gb ram, and 1.6 ghz.
Any iMac will be good :)
Frank Petronio
12-09-2010, 19:56
I edit on my phone, it just takes 100x longer.
Do you back-up your RAID 0 in any way? I mean - if one disk fails, you will loose it all ...
I have a Time Machine backup to a 2TB drive in the 4th drive slot, run hourly incremental backups to a Solaris ZFS box using rsync, and backup offsite to a computer at my office (thanks to a 45Mbps symmetrical Internet connection), all in all 4 copies of the data.
I documented my setup here:
http://majid.info/blog/backing-up-is-hard-to-do-right/
You guys are all spoilt. I edit on an abacus.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.