Need Mac advice

[stevo8]

So here's the story. I have a old core duo MBP. 2.0GHz/2g/100g hd. I store my photos on a external which leaves about 60-70gb free on the computer. I don't have a tv in my room so I use a 22" external monitor for my tv shows via torrents. I wasonly using CS3 for editing, but then upgraded to CS4 and found the glory of Lightroom at the same time. Well my little old Laptop absolutely hates me watching videos while running CS4 and LR together.

So, now I'm looking to upgrade(on a budget of course) and wondering what would do the trick? I'll most likely go with a iMac since I don't need portable since I have my MBP and will for sure be running a seperate monitor off it. The visual aspect (screen/look/graphics etc) is very important to me. I'll be buying used but with existing apple care and then extending that before it ends. My budget is about $1200-$1400. Apple has had 2.4GHz 24" iMacs for about $1450 refurbished but I don't know if that would be enough and it's still $1550ish to the door.

[Pete]

Get a MacBook Wheel

-=LINKY=- (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary)

[stevo8]

Thanks for the advice.

Anyone?

[TheHoff]

How about trying 4G RAM in your MBP first?

[stevo8]

It doesn't support it. It's like 4years old. It's the first intel MBP with the core duo (pre core 2 duo)

[TheHoff]

Well how is your current machine slowing down? Is it running out of RAM and swapping around if you try and do something in CS4/LR while watching a video? Or is the video just stuttering because it is too high of a res for the machine to playback while doing something else?

If it is the first case, you should be fine with just about any more modern machine and 4 gigs of RAM. I have a hard time imagining that this is an issue because of your processor speed unless you're playing back huge video files.

[Tony-S]

Apple has had 2.4GHz 24" iMacs for about $1450 refurbished but I don't know if that would be enough and it's still $1550ish to the door.

I suspect when (if?) the new iMacs come out you'll be able to pick up a previous model with the 24" display for close to that much. It's really tough to get a computer you're wanting with a good (e.g., H-IPS) display in that budget. The 24" has one - the 20" has a crappy TN display. Of course, when (if?) a new Mini is released, then you could probably get there on your budget.

[stevo8]

well I have experienced both the video scipping and running out of ram. Plus overall it's just real slow going from one app to another, shutting things down etc. Is the current 20" is a TN screen then forget about that all together. I'm just wondering if I pulled the trigger on a 2.4GHz 24" iMac if I'll regret it.? I dont NEED the latest and greatest, but at the same time I would hate to spend $1500 and regret the purchase cause it still drags or something.

[stevo8]

So anyone with a imac wanna chime in? Im sure theres a few here running LR and CS4.

[MaxxuM]

So anyone with a imac wanna chime in? Im sure theres a few here running LR and CS4.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking - iMac's are going to be faster than your laptop, remarkably faster. I have a few 24" iMac's in one of my labs and they run pretty fast. Have you tried doing a complete reinstall yet? 4 years is a long time to go without a freshening of the OS. That will surely speed things up.

Here are some things to think on... Apple is due for a changeup of their Mini, Mac Pro and very soon their iMac's. The moble i7 is not due out until Q2-3 and we wont see a new iMac until then. There is already a i7 server chip, but the motherboards are still very expensive as is the memory configuration - they wont be coming down in price until at least Q2-Q3. Then there is OS 10.6 Snow Lepoard which is again, is due out this year and is going through heavy testing atm. Put those things together and you have a new lineup for Apple this summer if not a little sooner... or later. I foresee prices coming down too, mainly for the Mini. The current iMac's will come down in price, probably around 1300-1400 for referb units. Since Mac's retain their value you won't be seeing a great drop in prices.

So, doing a little deductive reasoning, if the 24" is right for you price wise, and you'll only see a savings of only around $200 by summer, you'll see a speed increase of at least 3x I guess then you'll have to decide if you want to wait for a more powerful iMac or get what you can now.

Sorry for the long post, but this is a big buy for you so I though I would be thorough.

[stevo8]

Yeah I follow you. I guess my main question is, is will a 2.4GHz with 4gig of ram going to be enough to flawlessly run LR, CS4 and play video/dvd's or will even that get bogged down and should I put forth the effort to get the 2.8GHz and possibly upgraded graphics card?

[butangviber]

Just a quick note:
Check what speed your hard drive is running at. I think they were 5400rpm, but if not, you could upgrade to a bigger/faster hard drive and that may solve some of your problems. Being on a budget, I would try that first.

[stevo8]

yeah 5400. The thing is is that Im not looking for a band aid. I want to solve the issue completely. I just want to make sure that whatever I get I will be able to use without issues for awhile. I dont need the absolute latest and greatest but I also dont want to repurchase another computer until its needed as it is now. My MBP has treated me GREAT but its just time to upgrade.

[stevo8]

OK well another question.. which is the better buy? both refurbs at $1299.

20" Imac with 2.66GHz processor, 2GB ram or
24" Imac with 2.4GHz processor, 1GB ram?

The 24" would get 4gigs but obviously always be stuck with the 2.4GHz. The 20" would get 4gig as well but obviously always be stuck with the 20" screen. So... Processor speed or 4" more on the screen?

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/imac

[René Damkot]

24". AFAIK, the 20" has a TN screen.

[stevo8]

So heres some more info on my current situation. Edited three pics while running the activity monitor.

As for what the activity monitor says:

free in green is usually around 20-40mb
Inactive in blue is usually around 400-600mb
active in yellow around 1.00-1.40GB
Wired in red around 200-250mb

As I type this with my usual programs running in the back but not actually doing anything the VM size is 11.25GB and page ins/outs 504485/73153.....

I get a whole lot of the spinning wheel and the watch ticking when Im editing and it gets real frustrating. My MBP is already maxed out at 2gig ram(core duo) so Im wondering what should be my main focus when looking for a new computer? TIA for the help.

[Moppie]

I get a whole lot of the spinning wheel and the watch ticking when Im editing and it gets real frustrating. My MBP is already maxed out at 2gig ram(core duo) so Im wondering what should be my main focus when looking for a new computer? TIA for the help.


You are asking your computer to multi task in CPU AND Ram AND HDD intensive applications.
The only way to have that work flawlessly is to run multiple CPU's, lots of RAM and multiple hard discs.

That means either a Mac Pro with extra ram and discs, or mid range quad core PC with extra ram and discs.

Since neither is an option, then you are going to have to compromise and prehaps try something clever with an iMac.

A newer core 2 duo, iMac with a couple of external HDD's might work.
Don't get hung up on CPU speed. Screen quality, RAM and HDD disc speed are more important,

If you can set priority to programs using OS-X, then you could give your video playing software full priority and let it play the movies from 1 disc, while LR and CS are given less priority (limit the amount of ram CS can use) and work from a seperate disc, and chug along in the back ground.

In theory this way 1 core and 1 disc get used for playing the movie, while CS and LR share a disc and core for the processing.
Then the only things then left to work as a bottle neck and slow the system down are RAM and BUS which hopefully won't be an issue if you can set priority levels.

[stevo8]

Wow cool thanks for the info. My friend has a 3.06GHz Imac with 4gig and handles everything I can throw at it and then some. Unfortunately I cant afford that so Im just trying to decide if a 2.4GHz will do or if I need to tough it out and save for a 2.8GHz. both in which would get 4gb

[TheHoff]

Processor is the least of the concerns... As Moppie said, get the RAM and extra HD for scratch if you can.

[Moppie]

Wow cool thanks for the info. My friend has a 3.06GHz Imac with 4gig and handles everything I can throw at it and then some. Unfortunately I cant afford that so Im just trying to decide if a 2.4GHz will do or if I need to tough it out and save for a 2.8GHz. both in which would get 4gb



When you ask your computer to load a program and then do something with that program there is quite an involved process that goes on, of which the CPU only plays a part.

The program has to be taken from the hard disk, and loaded into RAM.
Then the program has to take the photo from the hard disk, and also load it into RAM.
The program then takes bits of the photo from RAM and runs them through the CPU and puts them back into RAM.
This happens as many times as needed, until finished.
You then save the photo and the program takes it out of RAM and puts it back on the hard disk.
Loading the program, etc, of course also uses the CPU.

Now if you try and do all of the above, while also trying to load and run another program, you start to slow things down.

The hard disk can only do one thing at a time. That means one program has to wait while information is taken from the hard disk and loaded into RAM.

If the mutiple programs need more RAM that the system has avialiable, then they have to wait while some of the information is written back to the hard disk as a swap file (scratch disk).
But, the hard drive can only do one thing at a time remember.

Remember that each CPU core can only do one thing at a time as well.
You might have a 4ghz CPU, but if it only has one core, then everything else has to wait for it to be ready.

And of course all of this moving information around goes through the system BUS, and if that is slow then again, things have to wait.


This is why I just upgraded my better halfs computer, but giving her a CPU with a slower clock speed and replacing everything else.
She went from a single core 3ghz with 1.5GB of ram, to a quad core 2.3ghz with 1GB of ram.
However I also put in a new mother board with a BUS speed twice as fast as the old one (this is matched to the RAM and CPU) and a hard drive that is able to read and write data more than twice as fast as the old one.


So although a single bit of information will take longer for the CPU to process, it gets there and out again an awful lot faster.
And of course there are another 3 cores that can also be processing things at the same time.

In my computer I have 4 Hard drives, and 2 externals, lots of ram and a 2.4ghz Quad Core CPU.

I can have one internal disk backing up to an external, process photos on another disk using CS4 and LR, download something to another disc, and watch a movie loading from another disc, or play a game, all at the same time.
I usually set CS4 or LR doing a batch process, then load COD4, or farcry2 or WoW and play with out any problems, while backing up one of the internal disks to an external.
Despite running different 4 programs, none of them are competeing for system resources, so none of them get slowed down.

Of course I am not tied to an Apple/Dell/HP etc built system, and neither is my better half, so there no none of the compromises that come from mass production.


Since you are after a Mac, then you need to find away around the compromises associated with them.

[stevo8]

ummm thats a mouth full and Im not really sure how to interpret it other then Im not going to get what Im after in buying a off the shelf Imac. I understand that the RAM is somewhat of a short term memory, and that the cpu processes the info into it and it travels through the buses so it all has an effect on how fast the computer handles applications but Im not real sure what I need to be concentrating on looking for and/or upgrading when I purchase a computer.

Im obviously no computer geek, but I do know that I have been more then just happy with my mac and far more then disappointed with my pc. So much so that its only been turned on a half dozen times since it was purchased over 6months ago. So needless to say I would love to purchase another mac and at this point even god himelf would have his work cut out convincing me otherwise.

[Tony-S]

Do you need to buy right now, or can you afford to wait a month or so?

[TomTomTuning]

Your no going to notice a big difference between 2.4 and 2.6
ID personally get the 24" iMac!!!!

I can have LR, BR, PS iTunes & Firefox going all at once and it run's great. But i never tired playing video at the same... I have a 2.4ghz w/ 4GB of ram (MBP)...

But remember you could always use both computers.. Have the MBP playing your movie full screen or to your monitor and the iMac for editing (larger display)... Or visversa depanding on what you want.

Good luck.. I want a 24" iMac so bad!!!!! But i want the 5D2 before that..

[TheHoff]

ummm thats a mouth full and Im not really sure how to interpret it other then Im not going to get what Im after in buying a off the shelf Imac. I understand that the RAM is somewhat of a short term memory, and that the cpu processes the info into it and it travels through the buses so it all has an effect on how fast the computer handles applications but Im not real sure what I need to be concentrating on looking for and/or upgrading when I purchase a computer.

Im obviously no computer geek, but I do know that I have been more then just happy with my mac and far more then disappointed with my pc. So much so that its only been turned on a half dozen times since it was purchased over 6months ago. So needless to say I would love to purchase another mac and at this point even god himelf would have his work cut out convincing me otherwise.

I am a computer geek and I always buy a system with the following criteria:

- cheapest processor level commonly available
- max out the RAM
- get in a 2nd hard drive for scratch

Follow that and you'll get the right system and a good price. Spending on processors is best reserved for video editors and 3D renderers.

[stevo8]

Do you need to buy right now, or can you afford to wait a month or so?

yeah I can afford to wait, but I figured I would start doing my research now. Im not really concerned with whats coming out as much as I am with what happens in the used market when it does get released. I like to let other people take the large initial hit on the new stuff and reap the benefits of them testing it for me. Kinda like with my camera stuff.. Just picked up a 40D with 600clicks on it for $600 and a 24-105L for $600 :lol:

So as of now My money would be best spent on a 24" Imac with a 2.4 and 4gb ram, after that how do I go about another hard drive for scratch? Im not sure exactly what that means?

Right now my work flow consists of loading everything I plan to keep on a 640GB WD MyBook, everything I need to edit in a folder on my desktop thats pulled into lightroom and then exported to CS4 and only Jpegs I plan to post on the web or print are saved to a separate folder on my desktop and the original RAW file is exported back onto the external drive. Is this a decent way to go or is there something Im doing wrong here? Also when I move to a Imac I will be backing up and storing my files with a FW800 drive.

[TheHoff]

Well that was a poor suggestion for an iMac as you can't add another drive internally. Keeping your data on a separate drive is a good idea; that way your system drive can be operating on something else while loading images from the MyBook (or a FW800 drive).

Put your movies there (or on a separate FW drive), too, to keep them away from the system operations.

[Moppie]

ummm thats a mouth full and Im not really sure how to interpret it ................

What Hoff said:


I am a computer geek and I always buy a system with the following criteria:

- cheapest processor level commonly available
- max out the RAM
- get in a 2nd hard drive for scratch




A 24inch iMac with a core 2 duo processor, any speed, will do.

Then get an external usb or fireware HDD.
Either one of the apple ones, or a Mybook or similar.

This will give you 2 hard drives, which is good for backing up your photos, and also means you can do 2 things at once.

i.e. watch a movie that is on one HDD, and process photos that are on another.

:cool:

[MaxxuM]

Then get an external usb or fireware HDD.
Either one of the apple ones, or a Mybook or similar.


Just to add, never use a USB drive to work on photos or video - though they do well for backup and music. Firewire or eSATA (via Express Card) are much better choices, albeit more expensive. I work away from home a lot and the drives I have come to depend on most are LaCie Rugged All-Terrain External HDD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012INC2C/sr=1-4/qid=1231569180/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231569180&sr=1-4) FW800 powered so no extra wires needed.

[stevo8]

Just to add, never use a USB drive to work on photos or video - though they do well for backup and music. Firewire or eSATA (via Express Card) are much better choices, albeit more expensive. I work away from home a lot and the drives I have come to depend on most are LaCie Rugged All-Terrain External HDD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012INC2C/sr=1-4/qid=1231569180/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231569180&sr=1-4) FW800 powered so no extra wires needed.

Is this due to reliability or speed? For backup of my RAW files I dont mind the external being slow as long as it doesnt crap out on me.

[TheHoff]

The drives inside the enclosures are all the same -- WD, Seagate, or Hitachi. The only difference is the interface. But if you're worried about speed issues now, you'd get an advantage by storing your movies on a FW800 external drive and playing them from there. Heck maybe USB2 is enough to play a movie for you --- probably OK for compressed files but not for full-res DVD or Blu-Ray.

[Moppie]

Just to add, never use a USB drive to work on photos or video - though they do well for backup and music. Firewire or eSATA (via Express Card) are much better choices, albeit more expensive. I work away from home a lot and the drives I have come to depend on most are LaCie Rugged All-Terrain External HDD (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012INC2C/sr=1-4/qid=1231569180/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1231569180&sr=1-4) FW800 powered so no extra wires needed.


If you want eSATA then you need a PC. It is not an option on any of the Macs yet.

I would suggest playing the moving from the iMac internal drive, and using the external for the photos.
The photos will take longer to process, but that is not so much of an issue if your watching a movie at the same time, and it is better than than having the movie pause every so often because of a slow connection from the external drive.

[Tony-S]

Is this due to reliability or speed? For backup of my RAW files I dont mind the external being slow as long as it doesnt crap out on me.

It's mostly about speed, since FW controllers have their own processors, while USB relies upon the computer's cpu, thus taking time from it. I have read that the NVida 9400m chipset (found in the new MacBooks/Pros) has a much faster USB2 implementation than the Santa Rosa chipset (found on current iMacs). Perhaps Hoff can chime in here since he has a 9400m MB. Regardless, for backup purposes USB2 is fine - I use one for our Time Machine.

But if you're worried about speed issues now, you'd get an advantage by storing your movies on a FW800 external drive and playing them from there. Heck maybe USB2 is enough to play a movie for you --- probably OK for compressed files but not for full-res DVD or Blu-Ray.

Actually, even Blu-ray plays back just fine with USB and are sold in this way. Those movies are typically in the 30-40 mbps range and USB2 delivers about 250 mbps. Reading isn't the problem with USB drives - writing to them is. This is where FW has an advantage.

[TheHoff]

Actually, even Blu-ray plays back just fine with USB and are sold in this way. Those movies are typically in the 30-40 mbps range and USB2 delivers about 250 mbps. Reading isn't the problem with USB drives - writing to them is. This is where FW has an advantage.


ahh, danke for the clarification.

I have my backup RAID on USB now even though the enclosure has eSATA. It isn't a big deal since it is only a backup but if I used the drive every day, I'd want at least FW.

[MaxxuM]

If you want eSATA then you need a PC. It is not an option on any of the Macs yet.

Actually, yes you can via an express card like this one here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16839200006). You cannot boot from this drive I believe, but it works just fine otherwise. I personally don't need the extra speed; firewire 800 is perfectly fine for video work as long as I don't scrub the line with non-rendered effects - but that just par for the course.

[René Damkot]

Yeah, and there are also PCI cards for eSata.
AFAIK, non of those will fit an iMac however ;)