Mac Experts, Opinions and advice please

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
12,968
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
No
I would like to upgrade my iMac which is a 2009 model with a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR 3, MIVDIA GeForce 9400 256 MB Graphics and 640 GB of storage

I have had it a few years now and it was good with LR and PS when I used my D300 but it has slowed down now that I have a D7100

I am retired and spend a lot of time at my computer screen

I also have a similar aged MBP

I have looked at the iMac and the MacPro and it looks like I will have to spend £3k to £5k, (Pro with screen), to get a really worthwhile upgrade

I looked at the following iMac spec

http://store.apple.com/uk/buy-mac/imac?product=ME089B/A&step=config

The Pro is a lot more expensive especially when you add the MacScreen onto it ……… is the Pro plus Apple Screen so much better than a 27' iMac?

What do you Mac experts think?

presumably I should buy new, (I can probably get that VAT back as I need it, (as well), for a project I am doing for a UK company), and not consider any used stuff on Ebay

I much prefer a Mac over a PC?
 
Last edited:
The current 27" iMac will do you proud. The screen is simply wonderful and there's more than enough CPU, RAM and graphics performance for what you need.

You wouldn't see any significant (for your usage) improvement if you spent the additional £££ on the Mac Pro - it's geared towards workloads that are GPU-accelerated, which means "not LR and mostly not PS".

Get a new one, buy the AppleCare, and enjoy it.
 
neil_g said:
mac mini upgrades are supposedly coming, that and a dell 27/30" IPS panel (hands down beats an apple display/tb display every time).
Click to expand...

I'd go with this really, although even a current well spec'd Mac Mini wouldn't be bad. Much better to upgrade the mini and keep the screen than have to change the lot every few years.
 
neil_g said:
mac mini upgrades are supposedly coming, that and a dell 27/30" IPS panel (hands down beats an apple display/tb display every time).
Click to expand...
This.
 
Personally if I had a decent budget to spend, I'd get a top of the range 27" imac with either a 1TB fusion drive or if budget allows even a 1TB flash drive.

Individually you could get better components. So yes, the Dell screen above will be better. You could get a faster processor....blah blah.

But a top of the range iMac will have all the grunt you need for a good few years and then some. The screen is good enough for many pro photographers and the fact it all comes in one rather sexy looking body with only one power cable needed really helps. I mean firstly you'll be staring at the screen for a long time so it may as well look good. Secondly having only one cable really helps with the clutter.
 
Unless you are doing some serious video editing the MacPro , whilst being a great machine is serious overkill.

A Mac mini is a good option, but I would wait until the proposed September 9 presentation has happened. Although it's rumoured that this will be the iPhone 6 launch it's highly possible that there will be some announcements about other products as well. If you go down the Mac mini route, look at using your existing iMac as a screen. My 2009 iMac ( i5) is still in excellent condition and calibrates well ( Max Delta 0.6) and will save you pounds.

If you still want to go down the iMac route again I'd wait for the September announcements just in case. Intel are producing a new range of chips but are several months behind on delivery date, but these are mainly for mobile ( MacBook) devices. so we may not see anything 'till next year. But I think it's worthwhile to wait.

Plus there are rumours of an Apple 4K display which we may see soon.

Rumours ,rumours, rumours .... Don't you just love 'em
 
Last edited:
gadgeteer said:
Personally if I had a decent budget to spend, I'd get a top of the range 27" imac with either a 1TB fusion drive or if budget allows even a 1TB flash drive.

Individually you could get better components. So yes, the Dell screen above will be better. You could get a faster processor....blah blah.

But a top of the range iMac will have all the grunt you need for a good few years and then some. The screen is good enough for many pro photographers and the fact it all comes in one rather sexy looking body with only one power cable needed really helps. I mean firstly you'll be staring at the screen for a long time so it may as well look good. Secondly having only one cable really helps with the clutter.
Click to expand...
so youre saying compromise and get a poor(er) screen and lower spec, just for looks?
 
neil_g said:
so youre saying compromise and get a poor(er) screen and lower spec, just for looks?
Click to expand...
And one power cable... (until you decide you want a second disk so look for a USB caddy with associated cabling, then a removable backup drive with associated cabling, need a card reader as the one on the body is so badly placed it is impossible to reach and find all you can see on the screen is yourself if there is any light in the room)

But it does look nice..... ;)
 
gadgeteer said:
Personally if I had a decent budget to spend, I'd get a top of the range 27" imac with either a 1TB fusion drive or if budget allows even a 1TB flash drive.

Individually you could get better components. So yes, the Dell screen above will be better. You could get a faster processor....blah blah.

But a top of the range iMac will have all the grunt you need for a good few years and then some. The screen is good enough for many pro photographers and the fact it all comes in one rather sexy looking body with only one power cable needed really helps. I mean firstly you'll be staring at the screen for a long time so it may as well look good. Secondly having only one cable really helps with the clutter.
Click to expand...



Thanks for all your suggestions

I like the style and set up of the iMac, plus I have had my current one since 2009 and it has been very good …….. just that the new D800's will slow it down further and the RAM limit is 8 Gbte
When I had PC's I changed them every year and always had the occasional problem

Maybe I should get a "specific" machine just for LR5 and PS6 plus all my photo stuff and keep using my current machine for all other stuff as it is fast enough for all that and is "set up"
If I was on a tight budget I could look at a well specced PC and Dell screen just for LR/PS and presumably it would come in under £1,000

I am not planning to get one until I go back to the UK in November anyway

Thanks again
 
Last edited:
I think the suggestion is that if you want a mac, get a mac mini but not an iMac. Spend the difference on a better screen that won't have to be thrown away when the mini requires upgrading.

As for the looks thing, it's only obvious when you aren't working unless you sit staring at the bezel all day. ;)
 
BillN_33 said:
Maybe I should get a "specific" machine just for LR5 and PS6 plus all my photo stuff and keep using my current machine for all other stuff as it is fast enough for all that and is "set up"
If I was on a tight budget I could look at a well specced PC and Dell screen just for LR/PS and presumably it would come in under £1,000
Click to expand...
If you're willing to go down the PC route, you can get a box that will utterly crush any iMac on performance for between half and two-thirds the cost of the 27-incher. But that's a different thread :)
 
Bill

Just went over your spec again, I think that spec will do you just fine. However I would opt for the Fusion drive. I have an iMac with a conventional HD and a MBPr with a SSD. The boot time is so much faster on the MBP. So if you can afford it go for the Fusion drive. Personally I'd opt for the i7 processor if you can. That will help future proof your machine. My 2009 iMac with a i5 processor handles large files ( 30Mb RAW ) no problem at all.
 
Fusion drive. Good idea on a Mac if you also want the benefit of large storage in a single device.

A quad core i7 won't get you any future proofing over a quad core i5 especially at the premiums Apple charge.
 
Thanks All

good info - I just like Mac's and in particular the iMac ……. so at the end of the day I'm prepared to spend an extra 25% on Apple products over the PC equivalent ……… but many disagree, including my son!!
 
The reason I suggested the i7 is that on certain tasks ( Lightroom export ) all 4 cores get maxed out. The i7 spreads the load ( as it multithreads ) and is much quicker. However if you don't mind waiting a little longer then the i5 will do fine.

Another area the i7 helps is with video rendering. Again if you are not going to much is any video work stick to the i5
 
It's your money and you are entitled to spend it how you want. If you prefer a Mac then go with it.
 
Chappers said:
The reason I suggested the i7 is that on certain tasks ( Lightroom export ) all 4 cores get maxed out. The i7 spreads the load ( as it multithreads ) and is much quicker. However if you don't mind waiting a little longer then the i5 will do fine.

Another area the i7 helps is with video rendering. Again if you are not going to much is any video work stick to the i5
Click to expand...
And the hyperthreading in an i7 gets makes very little practical difference. Let me put it this way. I'd take a 5 core processor over a hyperthreaded 4 core any day...
 
go for the 27" i-mac but buy direct from apple and get one with a solid state hard drive ,that should last you a good few years or longer
 
The core2duo bit may be the slowest link, but make sure your mac isn't running low on RAM for whatever crazy reason. Memory Clean from app store is a must.

The mac pro is a total overkill for simple photo editing. The 2 year old mini with 16GB RAM does a fabulous job on bigger files than yours in both LR and PS.

talking of iMacs - I don't like the screen. It is a bit glossy (Very bad) and has pretty obvious individual pixels, more so than dell of identical resolution for some reason. If they release a 4K version, then maybe...
 
I'm not an expert, but after almost 30-years of PC's, I bought a basic 27" iMac a year ago and love it. Yes it was expensive, but it looks great and just works. No BSODs no lengthy boot ups, no Windoze bloatware, etc.. I don't find the glossy screen to be a problem, in fact I quite like it and as for individual pixels, my eyesight doesn't allow me to sit that close to the screen where the pixel resolution is a problem.

I have a SuperDrive, a slimline USB Dock and a USB audio interface permanently attached, so not quite one cable for me, but it's much neater than the PC it replaced.

For photography I'm running LR 5 and PSE 11. I also run MS Office for Mac, GarageBand, Line 6 Pod Farm, Gearbox and Audacity for audio/music.

In hindsight, an iMac mini plus screen may have been a good call and I also considered a MacBook Air plus screen for desktop use, but went iMac instead. I'm happy though YMMV of course..
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
If you get the current 27inch iMac that will suit your needs well :) No need for a Mac Pro for photo editting
Click to expand...
fly2.gif
 
GeeJay57 said:
I'm not an expert, but after almost 30-years of PC's, I bought a basic 27" iMac a year ago and love it. Yes it was expensive, but it looks great and just works. No BSODs no lengthy boot ups, no Windoze bloatware, etc...
Click to expand...
It's great that you love your Mac, but this sort of nonsense needs stepping on. Windows hasn't been unstable since XP pre-Service Pack 2, and arguably not since the consumer operating systems moved to the NT kernel.
  • You don't get BSODs on Mac OS X, you get Kernel Panics. And they happen about as often as BSODs on Windows, which is to say, not very often at all - also, have you met my friend the Spinning Beachball Of Death? Of course you have.
  • Windows 8 boots as fast or faster than OS X
  • "Windoze"? Is it 1997 again?
  • Bloatware? Have you seen all the stuff that gets shipped with a Mac?
Macs are great computers (albeit with considerable compromises on the hardware side, but I've got no problem with anyone who goes in eyes open), and OS X is a great operating system.

No need to denigrate Windows with inaccurate information.
 
I made the move from Windows to Mac last year. Never going back

As a linux sysadmin, the unix-like-ness of Mac is really useful, but by not being linux, I get the flexibility and availability for software that a Windows PC has

I would advise against hackintoshing though. Part of the mac experience is the machine, the razor sharpness of the macbook air, or the ridiculous design of Mac Pros. Besides that, Apple are working quite hard to fight hackintoshes, and people who do use a hackintosh quite commonly hate mac, until they try it on a PC, because Apple deliberately write bugs in the code that only affect non-apple-hardware.
 
"Spinning beachball of death". Yup, no dull blue screen for Apple - they give you animations to tell you your computer has stopped working. :whistle:

Talking of bloatware, Apple users: were you aware that for every file you create in OSX there is a sidecar file, invisible to you, that the OS creates alongside it? Ever wondered why it seems to take forever to delete a large folder from the recycle bin?

TBH the biggest benefit to using OSX is Time Machine, which is incredibly simple & useful for making incremental backups. I wish Microsoft had an exact equivalent.
 
ancient_mariner said:
"Spinning beachball of death". Yup, no dull blue screen for Apple - they give you animations to tell you your computer has stopped working. :whistle:

Talking of bloatware, Apple users: were you aware that for every file you create in OSX there is a sidecar file, invisible to you, that the OS creates alongside it? Ever wondered why it seems to take forever to delete a large folder from the recycle bin?

TBH the biggest benefit to using OSX is Time Machine, which is incredibly simple & useful for making incremental backups. I wish Microsoft had an exact equivalent.
Click to expand...
shadowcopy? i think that may be limited to WHS (and better) though. i dont use it so not 100% sure.
 
It's the user interface that makes TM so brilliant. Start it up, look in a folder, zoom backward in time until you see the file you want. Click it, get it. There's no setup, either, beyond turning it on and pointing it at your external disk.

Backup technology has been around for ever, and under the hood TM isn't particularly clever; it's just incremental backups and some pruning, with sensible use of hard links to avoid excessive disk space usage.

The thing that Apple did to make it so good was to do an absolutely brilliant job on the user interface, and that's why it's something normal people can actually use now.

It's the single feature in OS X that is most deserving of the "It Just Works" catchphrase.
 
Vettahead said:
Nope, what do you think is in a mac now there intel? As long as you buy smart (follow a list online at the great tonynmac) it's easy to do.
Click to expand...

Wireless cards, LAN cards, USB interfaces, just to name a few. Apple drivers natively perform better on OS X than third party stuff. Coupled with the great hardware, it's pretty tough to beat apple in that situation (not impossible, but not easy). People always forget their network cards, USB etc when they talk about "hackintosh performance". Though, I must admit, I've seen some pretty good examples of IO performance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top