imac or pc+killer monitor

[jic2]

I'm fairly new to photography and I'm not a computer geek. My question is should I spend the money on an imac 24" maxed out (2500+$) Or should I go the pc route with more powerful hardware and a better monitor? I have a 50d and shoot raw. I am using LRII (haven't gotten to deep in the software world due to the need for hw upgrade). My current computer is a 3+ year old hp pavilion lap top with 1g ram, 80g hdd, 17in mon, centrino duo 1.6gh, and a nvidia gf 7600 gc. I plan on getting an external hdd to get me by space wise but one gig of ram is not cutting it. I plan on suffering through until windows 7 comes out and I here that apple announces new products in the fall (imacs, snow leopard osx..). I'm not into video editing (at least not yet)and games are for consoles but it would be nice to have the option for these apps. Basically I want a system that will allow me to run multiple programs without bogging down, last for at least five years, and has a monitor that will display as much of the rgb as possible for $2,500 +/-. The system I'm looking for is going to be used mainly for still photography (running LRII, cs4, and dpp at the same time).

thank you for any input.
jic2

[MaxxuM]

*sigh* - there are a dozen or more threads on this very topic.

The ONLY reason to go with a Mac is because you love OS X ... same with the PC. If you don't care, then just go get a PC and save yourself (and us) a headache ;)

If you love OS X then wait a month or two for the new iMac's which will drop in price and have (hopefully) better specs. Mac's cost more, so if you 'like' OS X but cannot afford it then there are options on easy ways to put OS X on your PC. It takes a little knowhow and putting a computer together yourself - again, pretty easy but def. hands on work.

[basroil]

That laptop is a bit outdated now...

If you have a 2500 budget, you can get yourself a great system, 1.1k on the computer (i7 920+6gb ram) and the other 1.4k on the monitor (EIZO and LaCie monitors are that price, as are the better NEC. you can also go for a 30" dell if you like overkill). It'll be as fast as the baseline mac pro (likely with a few better upgrades like video card, memory, and hdd space), and will smoke a iMac of any type. And you also get a monitor all in that price. You can also try your hands at getting two 22" dell 2209WFP (500-600 total) or even two 24" U2410 (about 1440 total) if dell releases them outside of japan sometime soon.

[Moppie]

*sigh* - there are a dozen or more threads on this very topic.



Lots of great threads on the subject, but everyones needs are different :cool:



I can't see any reason to get an iMac, unless you have some irrational need to use OS-X.

A quad core desktop running Vista (and soon Windows 7) will be 2-5 times faster, just as stable, give you options for internal and external HDDs for back ups, and you get to choose your own monitor.

The iMac will look pretty, has a fixed, built in monitor known to have brightness issues on some examples, has a single, non-user upgradeable HDD and use's an out of date lap top based processor.

[iAMB]

Lots of great threads on the subject, but everyones needs are different :cool:



I can't see any reason to get an iMac, unless you have some irrational need to use OS-X.

A quad core desktop running Vista (and soon Windows 7) will be 2-5 times faster, just as stable, give you options for internal and external HDDs for back ups, and you get to choose your own monitor.

The iMac will look pretty, has a fixed, built in monitor known to have brightness issues on some examples, has a single, non-user upgradeable HDD and use's an out of date lap top based processor.


+1 And thats coming from a MacPro user. If you are diehard about OSX, then get the Mac, simple as that. You can, on-the-otherhand, get the same power and what not from a desktop with Vista or Windows 7. An iMac, in my opinion after much deliberation, seems to be a glorified latptop. Once you purchase it, you cant do much in terms of hardware replacement or expansion. If you truly want the Mac machine to do it all, the MacPro is the way to go. Granted thats if you want/or need OSX. I cannot go back to Windows after using Mac, but thats just me. I find it more convenient using Mac. But there are better, and cheaper alternatives than the iMac. Have you thought about either a MacPro or MacbookPro with the display? You can get refurbished ones for $599 on Apple.

I bet you never would thought to hear a Mac user suggesting a PC in my entire rambling would you :)

[Moppie]

The other option would be a second hand, last generation MacPro.
I have no idea what they are worth in the US, but a single quad core model with basic ram and HDD can be had for less than US$2,000 here. You could then add extra discs and RAM and your own monitor to have what would be a low end Quad Core today, but it will still have 2-3 times the performance of a new iMac.

[wlescall]

IIRC a refurbished previous generation Mac Pro 8 core 2.8 GHz runs about $2200-2300 when available in the Apple Store.

[basroil]

IIRC a refurbished previous generation Mac Pro 8 core 2.8 GHz runs about $2200-2300 when available in the Apple Store.

Yea, that's the problem with mac pros, they just don't drop in price even after showing their age. Not many options left for the monitor that way.

[tupper]

iMac has been good to me, 24" screen is great. Now I just want a Macbook Pro to accompany it..

[Moppie]

IIRC a refurbished previous generation Mac Pro 8 core 2.8 GHz runs about $2200-2300 when available in the Apple Store.


What about a 4 core?
Still heaps of performance, but should be a lot cheaper than an 8 core.

[squaresnappr]

I'm fairly new to photography and I'm not a computer geek. My question is should I spend the money on an imac 24" maxed out (2500+$) Or should I go the pc route with more powerful hardware and a better monitor? I have a 50d and shoot raw. I am using LRII (haven't gotten to deep in the software world due to the need for hw upgrade). My current computer is a 3+ year old hp pavilion lap top with 1g ram, 80g hdd, 17in mon, centrino duo 1.6gh, and a nvidia gf 7600 gc. I plan on getting an external hdd to get me by space wise but one gig of ram is not cutting it. I plan on suffering through until windows 7 comes out and I here that apple announces new products in the fall (imacs, snow leopard osx..). I'm not into video editing (at least not yet)and games are for consoles but it would be nice to have the option for these apps. Basically I want a system that will allow me to run multiple programs without bogging down, last for at least five years, and has a monitor that will display as much of the rgb as possible for $2,500 +/-. The system I'm looking for is going to be used mainly for still photography (running LRII, cs4, and dpp at the same time).

thank you for any input.
jic2

Go for the Pc. Imac is approaching the end of the cycle as you already stated.

[jic2]

Thanks for the input. sorry It took so long for reply. had to deal with unfortunate business(death in family). I think I will go pc route and use the extra money on the most important thing a new lens. Thanks again.

jic2

[sfocato]

I just had the same doubt.
Finally I decided for a good monitor + desktop PC spending around 1400€ for monitor and 800€ for pc.
After reading thousand of posts I restrictd the field as below:
- monitor: NEC SV 2690 or LaCie 526 or EIZO 241/243
- PC: Intel core I5, with Win7 (32 or 64?).

[basroil]

I just had the same doubt.
Finally I decided for a good monitor + desktop PC spending around 1400€ for monitor and 800€ for pc.
After reading thousand of posts I restrictd the field as below:
- monitor: NEC SV 2690 or LaCie 526 or EIZO 241/243
- PC: Intel core I5, with Win7 (32 or 64?).

You can also go cheaper for the monitor, so far the U2410 has stellar reviews.

Core i5 + 7 64bit sounds good, just make sure to get 8gb ram. If you can spend a bit more on the desktop and a bit less on the monitor, I would highly suggest swapping the i5 for an i7 860, you'll get a large increase in speed. And best of all, i7 860 is pin for pin compatible with the i5, so it's usually offered as an upgrade, or you can just keep the motherboard and order a better chip

[sfocato]

Basroil,
I really appreciate your post. At office I am using a Dell 24 TN and I did not know the model you said. I read some review and it seems a good monitor (IPS panel based). It sound very "strange" the price. Here 549€ including VAT and shipment! So 1/3 of my budget. I am surprise. Do you think this monitor will be enough for me? I mean: is it comparable to LaCie 526 or NEC SV Reference 2690 or others in the normal "photo editing" use?
Does it have hte possibility of hardware calibration? Do you own it?

And abot PC: I also read about i5 750 vs i7 860 but i7 860 here costs a lot: more than i7 920 so my opinion, as you said was to stars with i5 750 and maybe switch to i7 860 in future without change mobo. Otherwise to start with i7 920 (different socket) to switch to other i7 so the doubt is between i5 750 and i7 920. Here on forum I read a lot of guys have i7 920. Is it maybe better for our purposes?
Finally do you suggest to buy a complete system ex. dell sell good config i5 and i7 based (but I do not know abuot mobo type, ram brand, HDD, grafic card) or to put together the pc myself?

Thanks to you and other guys that can help me:lol:

[mcluckie]

First you buy the software, then the hardware to run it. I'm sure to get crap for this, but IMAO, Macs run design software much better, and I'll assume that photo-editing fits in that big category. I've been Mac consulting since 1985 so maybe a tad biased! Most photo and design studios use Macs.

HOWEVER, the iMac screen is not ideal. It has a smaller gamut than other standalones. But will you notice it? Maybe not. Then I think its the best deal out there — its like a free monitor price-wise. I'm lucky enough to have 2 Apple Cinemas (a 30 in. for my MacPro and a 23 for my MacBook Pro), and I trust them completely. I even bring my 23" when I travel for a long time (I have it here in Beijing). Dell monitors are supposed to be the same guts.

[Moppie]

First you buy the software, then the hardware to run it. I'm sure to get crap for this, but IMAO, Macs run design software much better, and I'll assume that photo-editing fits in that big category. I've been Mac consulting since 1985 so maybe a tad biased! Most photo and design studios use Macs.



In 1985 you might have had a point.

Performance wise there is now NO difference between OS-X and Windows (with two big exceptions) so that just leaves hardware.
Mac's now use the same Intel based hardware as most Windows based computers, but offer only a very limited selection of it.
I'll take a quad core with 8GB of ram and 3-4 internal HDD bays, plus a card reader and e-SATA port (or 2) over an iMac with its laptop based processor, single HDD and no e-SATA any day.

When it comes to running the software (here is the exceptions), there is no 64bit version of Photoshop currently available for the Mac, and while there is a 64bit version of LR for the Mac, it has been limited to how many cores it can use due to issues with OS-X Leopard and its inablity to effciently deal with multi-threaded applications.
Since Apple went to Intel CPU's, Windows based machines have had a noticable performance advantage when running Adobe software.
This is still true.
It is expected that the next version of the CS Suite will cure this, but I can't see anything that would give the advantage back to Mac's, it will simply even the playing field. But even then, Windows based computers will have access to a wider range of hardware, most of it far more suitable to photographic work than most of the Mac range.

[mcluckie]

In 2000, I had a point. Yeah I know its all Intel, but its the smoother interface and plug 'n play Mac life that is so appealing. Adobe does its best to offer the exact same program features in both platforms, but I use them both periodically, and the Mac is cleaner.

I've got that Dual Quad w/8Gb RAM and 4 drive bays and 2 DVD burners and 4 PCI cards. I'd take it over any PC I've seen. The iMac is not made to compete with it. The iMac is done when you buy it, and any expansion is limited and done externally. For those on a limited budget (students), its a great value. Usability of all cores was resolved with Snow Leopard, I believe.

We could argue all day about Mac vs. PC — but its at best personal. Is there an iMac-style/value PC out there?

[Moppie]

In 2000, I had a point. Yeah I know its all Intel, but its the smoother interface and plug 'n play Mac life that is so appealing. Adobe does its best to offer the exact same program features in both platforms, but I use them both periodically, and the Mac is cleaner.

I've got that Dual Quad w/8Gb RAM and 4 drive bays and 2 DVD burners and 4 PCI cards. I'd take it over any PC I've seen. The iMac is not made to compete with it. The iMac is done when you buy it, and any expansion is limited and done externally. For those on a limited budget (students), its a great value. Usability of all cores was resolved with Snow Leopard, I believe.

We could argue all day about Mac vs. PC — but its at best personal. Is there an iMac-style/value PC out there?

Go and use Vista, or Windows 7, the differences are meaningless.
If you happen to believe one is better, or you enjoy one over the other, then good for you. But I have yet to see anything objective that shows a real world difference between them, and I've had proffesional training on how to use a Mac for photo editing, while I currently use Windows Vista.
I've used LR, CS2, CS3 and CS4 on OS-X and Windows, and there is no difference to the interface beyond a couple of the keys for keyboard short cuts (no alt key on a mac).

I would love your dual quad core Mac Pro, very cool computer. I nearly bought one.
Then I realised I could get 80% of the performance for 50% of the cost. The quad core I have isn't as nice as a Mac Pro, but it has been just as reliable and served me extremely well as a photography work station.
Ironicly it cost as much as a 24inch iMac, yet has more than twice the performance. Its not as pretty, but it's a lot more functional.


Snow Leopard is supposed to have resolved the issues with multi-threading, but it will take a new release from Adobe for it to be seen.
I imagine CS5 and the next LR will make great use of Apples new found multi-threading ablities, and of course will be full 64bit.
Of course if you want a system now, and you currently run an existing version of Photoshop and LR, then a Mac will not perform as well as a Windows based system.

HP, Dell and Acer all make all in ones to compete with the iMac, and from I have seen they do a very poor job of it.
If you want an all in one consumer toy for checking your email and teaching the kids how to spell, the iMac is cool.
If you want a photography work station the Mac Pro is king.
If you want something a little more affordable then you get a custom built (or build yourself) Intel Quad Core running Windows.



But, it all goes back to your supposition that "Macs run design software much better".

It simply isn't true. It hasn't been true for over a decade, and given the increasing gaps in the relationship between Apple and Adobe, it won't be true for sometime to come, if ever.

[basroil]

I would love your dual quad core Mac Pro, very cool computer. I nearly bought one.
Then I realised I could get 80% of the performance for 50% of the cost. The quad core I have isn't as nice as a Mac Pro, but it has been just as reliable and served me extremely well as a photography work station.
Ironicly it cost as much as a 24inch iMac, yet has more than twice the performance. Its not as pretty, but it's a lot more functional.

Right now it's about 95% for 50% or 110% for 60% if you check the benches on the i7 860 systems and pre-overclocked i7 920/stock i7 950 systems.

In 2000, I had a point. Yeah I know its all Intel, but its the smoother interface and plug 'n play Mac life that is so appealing. Adobe does its best to offer the exact same program features in both platforms, but I use them both periodically, and the Mac is cleaner.

I've got that Dual Quad w/8Gb RAM and 4 drive bays and 2 DVD burners and 4 PCI cards. I'd take it over any PC I've seen. The iMac is not made to compete with it. The iMac is done when you buy it, and any expansion is limited and done externally. For those on a limited budget (students), its a great value. Usability of all cores was resolved with Snow Leopard, I believe.

We could argue all day about Mac vs. PC — but its at best personal. Is there an iMac-style/value PC out there?
Plug and play wise, both OSX and Windows support plug-and-play devices quite well, though Windows tends to have more device specific drivers available in case you want that extra 5%.
Your right though, iMac is not made to compete with a dual quad, but it is meant to compete with i7 based systems like mine. Same ;rice range, but it gets totally outmatched. For those on a limited budget, you either go windows or hackintosh, or lose all reason and get a mini.
And if you want iMac style, you might have bad taste ;) (joke, of course, though I personally hate the design philosophy)

[YAYA-BOSSE]

This has been an interesting thread that I have been following. I too am new to the photography world and looking to upgrade my computer. Are you all favoring a desktop over a laptop? Is that what I should gain from this exchange?

[Moppie]

This has been an interesting thread that I have been following. I too am new to the photography world and looking to upgrade my computer. Are you all favoring a desktop over a laptop? Is that what I should gain from this exchange?


A laptop will always have to compromise performance, storage capacity, upgradablity, customisablity, back up solutions etc, in order to be small, lightweight and portable.

However, there are now laptops coming into the market using the new intel i5m and i7m CPU's that should have more than enough performance for most photo editing work.
They still suffer from a lack of HDD space, but if your prepared to work with a seperate monitor and lots of external drives (or prehaps network storage) then you can get near desktop performance, with a portable solution.
It will be expensive though, much more expensive than just buying a Desk Top.

[MaxxuM]

iMac is not made to compete with a dual quad, but it is meant to compete with i7 based systems like mine. Same ;rice range, but it gets totally outmatched.

iMac's were meant to compete against 'All-In-One' computers - I thought you had an XPS.

Price and speed can be methods of comparison, but there are much better (and fair) comparisons; the chief being computer 'type' - i.e. All-in-One, Desktop, Netbook, Notebook, Tablet, Workstation and Server. A server can fit on your desk but that doesn't make it a desktop computer.

As far as speed, yes, the iMac line is now tired and very near the end of it's life cycle, but within perspective (and logic) it still is a viable system. iMac's were never meant to be professional workstations despite many using them as such. A mobile i5 in an iMac would be faster, but when every app on the machine already pops up in less than a second what is that speed gain going to get you? FCE and Logic Express will gain a good amount of speed, but Photoshop will not. LR2 will and so will a few other apps.

The point is, if you don't have an i7 (or i5) then you're working on 3-4 year old technology. 98% of the laptops out there are antiquated by some people's standards here.

[Moppie]

A mobile i5 in an iMac would be faster, but when every app on the machine already pops up in less than a second what is that speed gain going to get you? FCE and Logic Express will gain a good amount of speed, but Photoshop will not. LR2 will and so will a few other apps.

The point is, if you don't have an i7 (or i5) then you're working on 3-4 year old technology. 98% of the laptops out there are antiquated by some people's standards here.

Do you honestly think application load times are all that matters? (photoshop will take a lot longer than 1 second to load, even on a Mac Pro).

You've run batch process on an iMac and a Mac Pro, you know how much of a difference there is between an antiquated laptop dual core, and a new i7.


And yes, 98% of the current laptops are antiquated. They are running on 3-4 year old technology, and in the fast moving electronics world that is antiquated.
Compare the files sizes from a Digital camera of 4 years ago, to one of today. Or consider the revolution in HD video camera's and what it has done to video file sizes?

While desktop CPU's have kept pace, dual cores, to quad cores, to the new i7's. Laptops have failed to keep up.
There is simply a limit to how much processor power you can pack into a light weight portable package, and have it run off of a battery.

[MaxxuM]

Do you honestly think application load times are all that matters? (photoshop will take a lot longer than 1 second to load, even on a Mac Pro).

You've run batch process on an iMac and a Mac Pro, you know how much of a difference there is between an antiquated laptop dual core, and a new i7.


And yes, 98% of the current laptops are antiquated. They are running on 3-4 year old technology, and in the fast moving electronics world that is antiquated.
Compare the files sizes from a Digital camera of 4 years ago, to one of today. Or consider the revolution in HD video camera's and what it has done to video file sizes?

While desktop CPU's have kept pace, dual cores, to quad cores, to the new i7's. Laptops have failed to keep up.
There is simply a limit to how much processor power you can pack into a light weight portable package, and have it run off of a battery.

No, but it's a good first impression of how the app will respond during usage. I don't own an iMac, but my MBP is probably a good indicator and it opens PSCS4 in 3-6 seconds and between 2-4 seconds if it's been opened at least once before being turned off (cached).

As far as batch jobs, like you said, I did do some tests with 5DMKII files, which are huge btw, and my MBP struggled to keep up with my Mac Pro. I cannot remember the speed difference - maybe 10 times faster and my MP probably would have been even faster if not for a few ms of seek time ;). But, like I said, it is nearing the end of it's life. Using the 5DMKII is not fair. My MBP does a bang-up job on my 40D files as well as HD video, which is all you can ask of it.

My point being, the average user with a P&S camera and a $500 video camera wouldn't ever know they were sacrificing speed by getting an iMac. We use Flip & Creative Vado cameras as well as Canon 9G's and 800 series P&S with iMac's and MBP's with not a hiccup or someone tapping their fingers waiting for the computer. It's pretty zippy TBO. It's another story with a XH-A1S + FCP + FX; iMac's however were never designed for such workloads.

[kellieprinzel]

Mac

[mcluckie]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/16/windows-7-versus-snow-leopard-on-a-macbook-pro-big-cats-faster/

Macs faster, Windows better for games. Games, haha

[Moppie]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/16/windows-7-versus-snow-leopard-on-a-macbook-pro-big-cats-faster/

Macs faster, Windows better for games. Games, haha


Did you read the article it links to?
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31012_7-10319612-10355804.html

First, the testing described in this article is somewhat anecdotal
the multimedia multitasking test, where I measured how long it took QuickTime to convert a movie file from the MP4 format into the iPod format while having iTunes converting songs in the background. This is sort of an unfair test as I had to use QuickTime 7 for Windows 7 and QuickTime X (which Apple claims to have much improved performance over the previous version) for Snow Leopard


So running on native hardware OS-X started up and shut down faster (but who really cares, were talking a few seconds here).
OS-X also had better battery life. This was all put down to Apple drivers for Windows 7 being not very good, as Windows 7 running on different systems has returned quite different results.

For the "multi tasking test" they used two bits of Apple software, one of which isn't available for Windows. This means Windows 7 ran an older, slower, 32bit version of quicktime, while OS-X ran the new 64bit version, and was faster.

The only tests where OS-X beat windows were tests where OS-X had an unfair advantage (better driver support and running a different version of quicktime).

In tests running 3rd party software (Cinebench and COD4) Windows 7 performed considerably bettter. Infact it killed OS-X.


The benchmarking thread stickied at the top of this forum shows similar results, where i7 920 rigs running Photoshop CS4 64bit are killing Mac Pros. Most are over clocked and running 6GB or more of tri channel ram, but they are faster.



Essentially both OS's are so similar in performance it doesn't really matter which one you use.
They are both extremely stable, well developed and now well supported.
Get over it.

The hardware is where there is a difference, and quite simply Apple are dragging thier feet with hardware choice. They only offer one current generation computer system, and its a server disguised as a desktop.

[R.Perez]

As Moppie said, check out the Photoshop CS4 benchmarks. Mac Pro's are getting owned by hardware that costs 50% or less.

[YAYA-BOSSE]

This coming Thursday, Oct. 22, most of the local retail stores are promoting Window 7 on multiple hardware brands of new laptop and desktop computers. Should I wait to see what the results are for running PS and other photography based apps on the new Windows release? I'm still at a lost of what I would purchase as it relates to hardware anyway...