New PC or laptop or Mac? Which for a Christmas gift?

[ScottsGT]

OK, need some help here guys! My parents have decided to purchase my family a new computer for Christmas. Their inital thoughts, and mine, is to replace the 9 year old Dell desktop the kids use for everyday homework/net surfing. But then the wife got me thinking, I've been wanting a really good laptop I can use for photo work. To this point I have yet to even try Photoshop since my PC is 9 years old, and MY laptop is at least 6 years old and very slow running Ubuntu.
My thoughts were to jump into the Mac arena since that seems to be the graphic computer these days. I'm thinking MacBook (Don't want to spent too much of thier money on MacBook Pro) and using it for kids homework and my photo work and learning PS on.
Or should I stick to a PC based Dell laptop?

In a nutshell, I need recommendations on a good MacBook for photo editing. If it can handle that, it will do anything the kids need!

BTW, the two old PC's will become the kids "net surfing" machines just to keep crap off the new computer.

[basroil]

OK, need some help here guys! My parents have decided to purchase my family a new computer for Christmas. Their inital thoughts, and mine, is to replace the 9 year old Dell desktop the kids use for everyday homework/net surfing. But then the wife got me thinking, I've been wanting a really good laptop I can use for photo work. To this point I have yet to even try Photoshop since my PC is 9 years old, and MY laptop is at least 6 years old and very slow running Ubuntu.
My thoughts were to jump into the Mac arena since that seems to be the graphic computer these days. I'm thinking MacBook (Don't want to spent too much of thier money on MacBook Pro) and using it for kids homework and my photo work and learning PS on.
Or should I stick to a PC based Dell laptop?

In a nutshell, I need recommendations on a good MacBook for photo editing. If it can handle that, it will do anything the kids need!

BTW, the two old PC's will become the kids "net surfing" machines just to keep crap off the new computer.

1) MBP, wait until new ones come out if it's for photo editing, they are currently running 3 year old technology. In spring they may come out with new machines. Until then, there is absolutely no reason to purchase one unless you both: 1) already have an apple computer AND 2) can't fix it for under 50% of the cost of a new one.Some laptops from all OTHER major brands now at least offer the option for i7 based versions, usually for the same price as a 15" MBP. The slowest i7 based laptops will have 2-4x the processing power of even the fastest Core 2 Duo ones (like MBP)

2) Your old computer isn't too old for photoshop, I've used photoshop on pentium III computers and it runs fine. Though they recommend 1.8gh processor or higher for CS4, it's not a hard requirement. Earlier versions required much less, CS2 works fine on pentium III or later systems

3) Your windows PC survived 9 years, why bother switching now? Why not stay with windows? Most people that switch do so for no real reason. Stick to a single system, so if you ever upgrade software, you can give the old versions to the kids. Not all software can do that, but it helps with some of it. And when they go off to college and get software discounts, they can pass that on to you afterwards

4) Install windows 7 on the old machine. it's actually capable of running it most likely, and it will feel like a new system.

[Tony-S]

In a nutshell, I need recommendations on a good MacBook for photo editing. If it can handle that, it will do anything the kids need!

The MacBook can process your 7D files, but it won't be blazing fast at the moment (e.g., 1-2 second RAW rendering). The MacBook Pros are likely to get Arrandale cpus next month (dual-core, 4-threads), but the MacBook will likely stay on Core 2 Duo for a while. These decisions are largely based upon energy consumption. It's thought that the next iteration of Aperture will use Grand Central to leverage the 16 or 32 gpu cores for processing. If that's true, then even the MacBook should be able to cut through raw files quite quickly.

The slowest i7 based laptops will have 2-4x the processing power of even the fastest Core 2 Duo ones (like MBP)

You're just makin' stuff up (again). The entry level Dell i7 laptop gets a 5700 on Geekbench. The entry level MacBook Pro gets 3300. Not even 2x. There's more to a computer than its cpu.

[MaxxuM]

OK, need some help here guys! My parents have decided to purchase my family a new computer for Christmas. Their inital thoughts, and mine, is to replace the 9 year old Dell desktop the kids use for everyday homework/net surfing. But then the wife got me thinking, I've been wanting a really good laptop I can use for photo work. To this point I have yet to even try Photoshop since my PC is 9 years old, and MY laptop is at least 6 years old and very slow running Ubuntu.
My thoughts were to jump into the Mac arena since that seems to be the graphic computer these days. I'm thinking MacBook (Don't want to spent too much of thier money on MacBook Pro) and using it for kids homework and my photo work and learning PS on.
Or should I stick to a PC based Dell laptop?

In a nutshell, I need recommendations on a good MacBook for photo editing. If it can handle that, it will do anything the kids need!

BTW, the two old PC's will become the kids "net surfing" machines just to keep crap off the new computer.

basroil is the resident PC advocate and I guess I would be the voice for Apple :D;) So, take what we say with a grain of salt.

What baroil said is about right, though I wouldn't bother with putting Windows 7 on that old of a PC. It may be able to handle it, but it'll probably become slower for it.

More than 90% of laptops out on the market today are using older technology. And don't forget, laptops will be on average 30% slower than desktops and will cost 30% more than an equivalent desktop. Getting a laptop is usually a consideration for people that are very mobile and require computers on location. Though nifty, I wouldn't recommend one unless it's important to you to work 'on-the-go'. In which case, wait for late February or early March for the new MacBook's (likely with i5's and i7's).

The ONLY reason to go with Mac is because you love or require the OS. I use it because Vista killed any affection I had toward Microsoft. Now, OS X is my choice because I think it's the superior OS. It's more stable than Windows, requires less power to run at optimal speeds and for more than two years I haven't seen OS crash screen despite being an extremely heavy user (professional video, photography and some 3D modeling and audio work - mainly to support video). I think it says a lot when a professional IT guy of a 10K+ Windows (primarily) network depends on OS X. To each their own though. I just say, try out OS X and see what you think.

The i5 and i7 iMac is the way I'd go unless mobility is very important. They come with excellent screen's, are competitively priced and are perfect for the average user. The only real limitation of the iMac in my book is no eSATA or easy hard drive upgrades - but that has not hindered me with my MacBook Pro. I use fire wire 800 for storage of Aperture libraries as well as a work drive for Final Cut Pro. FW800 is NOT a limiter in HD video so I cannot see it being so for photo's (my largest library is only 40GB though). The main limiter, speed wise, is the CPU so get the fastest you can afford.

[basroil]

You're just makin' stuff up (again). The entry level Dell i7 laptop gets a 5700 on Geekbench. The entry level MacBook Pro gets 3300. Not even 2x. There's more to a computer than its cpu.

Benches vs real world, I would take the real world. Who uses only one program at a time? And what about LR2 and other applications where multiple cores are actually used?

EDIT: Oddly enough the only thing bench I can find that actually uses multiple threads is here, and that says almost exactly twice the score for a 720qm to a t9400 (used in 15" MBP) and more than twice of the p7550 used in the Macbook. I personally don't trust that bench too much though, since it's clear that the numbers are not linear, and it makes heavy use of l2/l3 cache, but it's the only thing that is close enough to real world.

basroil is the resident PC advocate and I guess I would be the voice for Apple :D;) So, take what we say with a grain of salt.

What baroil said is about right, though I wouldn't bother with putting Windows 7 on that old of a PC. It may be able to handle it, but it'll probably become slower for it.

More than 90% of laptops out on the market today are using older technology. And don't forget, laptops will be on average 30% slower than desktops and will cost 30% more than an equivalent desktop. Getting a laptop is usually a consideration for people that are very mobile and require computers on location. Though nifty, I wouldn't recommend one unless it's important to you to work 'on-the-go'. In which case, wait for late February or early March for the new MacBook's (likely with i5's and i7's).

The ONLY reason to go with Mac is because you love or require the OS.

Might be slower than fresh install of XP, but it'll probably be faster than it currently is. I just figured OP didn't want to reformat to XP.

And currently those numbers are way off. It was true 6mo ago, but now you can get i5/i7 systems for the price of a core 2 duo laptop, so there's actually some more reason to stay away from core 2 duo laptops...


The other option you have is to get a i5/i7 desktop, and a very cheap core 2 duo laptop for on the go stuff. Both together can come in under $1500, if you already have an extra monitor and don't need a fast laptop really, you can get it closer to $1k by going with an i5 machine and a netbook (with a 1366x768 screen).

And though OP put mac in bold (bad move, causes big issues here), OP also asks whether or not it's worth it to go to macs and what other options there are

My thoughts were to jump into the Mac arena since that seems to be the graphic computer these days. I'm thinking MacBook (Don't want to spent too much of thier money on MacBook Pro) and using it for kids homework and my photo work and learning PS on.
Or should I stick to a PC based Dell laptop?

(BTW, there is no such thing as "PC based" anymore... and back when there was, it was actually the apple computers that had a PC chip, the "pc" had x86 chips :rolleyes: ; a mac IS a pc, always has been, and now even more so since it's the same components, anyone that says otherwise is an idiot, and only listens to advertising )

[Tony-S]

Benches vs real world, I would take the real world. Who uses only one program at a time? And what about LR2 and other applications where multiple cores are actually used?

Perhaps you should be clearer when you make your assertions. And since you're making assertions, can you provide data that supports your contention? Or is all this just your personal opinion? When I'm doing photo work on my computer, I'm not doing anything else because I don't want the distractions. So I guess "real world" is a highly variable term. :rolleyes:

(BTW, there is no such thing as "PC based" anymore... a mac IS a pc, always has been, and now even more so since it's the same components, anyone that says otherwise is an idiot, and only listens to advertising )

Maybe you ought to tell Microsoft since they're the one's who's pushing it ("I'm a PC!"). Seriously, no one cares about this but you and everyone already knows the vernacular of "PC". Your continued diatribes won't change that.

I can already see where this thread is heading. :rolleyes:

[BeritOlam]

I wouldn't worry about what "may come out" next Spring or beyond. You have to jump in sometime....and chances are in 4 or 5 months there will be something else to hold out for! And from the sounds of your question (plus your sig line...."just a hobby"), holding out for the latest whistle-and-buzzer system will likely not do you that much good anyhow.

Of course, all of that talk about waiting on the new MacBook Pros might be completely irrelevant since you made clear that you "...don't want to spent too much of their money on MacBook Pro." The lower end MBP's are cheaper than they use to be, but I wouldn't expect them to change much from what they are now in 4 or so months. If it's too much money now, then it's likely going to be too much money if you wait a few months.

If your home PC is 9 years old and your laptop 6 years old, *anything* (even on the low end!) you buy now is going to be a significant boost in processing power (whether Mac or PC).

I use an 18-month-old Macbook for work. Admittedly, I don't do a lot of Photoshop or Lightroom on it, but I can on occasion when I need to. And it does the job. If I were needing to batch process multiple photos at a time, then of course I'll wait until I can get it home to my desktop -- the Macbook is definitely not set up for that kind of use. Speaking personally, I've rarely seen "Photoshop newbies" become power-users overnight....so buying a screaming fast system right now would probably be overkill anyway.

Maxxum's comments are wise (as usual) -- don't buy a laptop unless you absolutely need the portability. Of course, that means different things for different people. Some people like my sister (for example) hardly ever take their laptop anywhere, but she lives in a pretty small condo and doesn't want to take up space with a designated computer area.

Heck, I think you could probably do just fine with a Mac Mini, if you really don't need the flexibility of a laptop. [It's going to be a big hit with my wife for Christmas, as she loves *any* desktop that takes up almost no space! ;)]. I've recently discovered (much to my surprise frankly!) that there are quite a number of people here at POTM that use their Mac Minis for their *professional* photo editing. Sure, there are better systems out tehre....but if a Mini works well for them, then it would probably do you just fine (provided you get the memory upgrade! ;))

[Jethro790]

Whoa, I haven't spent much time in this sub-forum... and it looks heavy duty!

[MaxxuM]

And currently those numbers are way off. It was true 6mo ago, but now you can get i5/i7 systems for the price of a core 2 duo laptop, so there's actually some more reason to stay away from core 2 duo laptops...


The other option you have is to get a i5/i7 desktop, and a very cheap core 2 duo laptop for on the go stuff. Both together can come in under $1500, if you already have an extra monitor and don't need a fast laptop really, you can get it closer to $1k by going with an i5 machine and a netbook (with a 1366x768 screen).

And though OP put mac in bold (bad move, causes big issues here), OP also asks whether or not it's worth it to go to macs and what other options there are

Way off? Care to toss out some numbers? I just went to Newegg and looked at a i7-720QM Clarksfield 1.6GHz and i7-920 Bloomfield 2.66GHz; the cheapest i7's mobile vs desktop and the spread is still pretty evident, both in MHz and price. At CompUSA/Tiger Direct and Best Buy C2D laptops are still under powered vs desktops and i7 laptops still carry a premium. I don't see mobile chips challenging desktop's anywhere except in benches where CPU's are not as important (some games and photoshop for instance).

[basroil]

Way off? Care to toss out some numbers? I just went to Newegg and looked at a i7-720QM Clarksfield 1.6GHz and i7-920 Bloomfield 2.66GHz; the cheapest i7's mobile vs desktop and the spread is still pretty evident, both in MHz and price. At CompUSA/Tiger Direct and Best Buy C2D laptops are still under powered vs desktops and i7 laptops still carry a premium. I don't see mobile chips challenging desktop's anywhere except in benches where CPU's are not as important (some games and photoshop for instance).

Meant at the bottom rather than the top. Seems like there is a minimum score there, and the difference between a macbook and macbook pro 15" there is only 6%. If it is, then so be it, but that really means that the 13" MBP really isn't worth it over the macbook. And that and 2.4gh processor is about as good as you'll get with core 2 duo.

[MaxxuM]

Meant at the bottom rather than the top. Seems like there is a minimum score there, and the difference between a macbook and macbook pro 15" there is only 6%. If it is, then so be it, but that really means that the 13" MBP really isn't worth it over the macbook. And that and 2.4gh processor is about as good as you'll get with core 2 duo.

You also have to remember that cost does not always equal to the sum of a computers parts. The best Apple laptop CPU's would be 2.2GHz - MB, 2.5GHz MBP 13" - and 3GHz in the MBP 15" & 17".

[Moppie]

OK, need some help here guys! My parents have decided to purchase my family a new computer for Christmas. Their inital thoughts, and mine, is to replace the 9 year old Dell desktop the kids use for everyday homework/net surfing. But then the wife got me thinking, I've been wanting a really good laptop I can use for photo work. To this point I have yet to even try Photoshop since my PC is 9 years old, and MY laptop is at least 6 years old and very slow running Ubuntu.
My thoughts were to jump into the Mac arena since that seems to be the graphic computer these days. I'm thinking MacBook (Don't want to spent too much of thier money on MacBook Pro) and using it for kids homework and my photo work and learning PS on.
Or should I stick to a PC based Dell laptop?

In a nutshell, I need recommendations on a good MacBook for photo editing. If it can handle that, it will do anything the kids need!

BTW, the two old PC's will become the kids "net surfing" machines just to keep crap off the new computer.


The idea that Macs are some how better for graphics work is simply a myth that started in the 80s when Apple was the first to use a separate processor for driving the display. For a short period of time they were better, but the hardware windows runs on soon caught up, and rapidly over took in performance difference. The current generation of Macs all use the same Hardware system that is used by everyone else. It is best to think of Apple as another choice of computer that uses a slightly different operating system. I've used enough of them, and they are by no means magical, or somehow better at doing things. Any talk along those line is rhetoric and sales pitch.

The current platform in mainstream use is called x86, and is based around processors developed by Intel and AMD.

Currently there is a lot of choice in the computer market as Intel are going through a huge change in their processor line up, replacing the old Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad chips with new i5 and i7 chips.
The new chips use new technologies, and are considerably faster than the ones they are replacing, however the old chips are still more than suitable for most users, and so many manufacturers are still using them.
AMD are not as popular as they used to be, but do have some interesting chips available, although nothing that can match the performance of the new Intel range.


You mention that your current computer is to old and slow for you to do any Photoshop work on, and one reason for getting a new one is the hope you will able to try Photoshop.
This is important, as it means you are no longer just the average consumer, so a consumer orientated system might work properly.
As a general rule, I have always found it useful to have computer technology that matches your camera's technology, and was released at a similar time.
This means a Core 2 Duo based computer would be suitable for working on photos from your XTi, but would be under powered for working on photos from your 7D, which is a considerably more advanced camera that produces considerably larger files, that then need a considerably faster computer.
An Intel i5 or i7 based system would be ideal.


Next, have a think about what Maxxum said about laptops. They really are a compromise in terms of performance, cost, Hard drive size and functionality.
It also limit's your choice, as the mobile versions of the i5 and i7 chips have only been released in the last couple of months.

A desktop will always be a better solution for editing photos. You get more choice and more options, as well as the ability to run more than more Hard Drive for back ups etc.

Don't get the cheapest on the market, computers are a bit like cars, they all do a similar thing, but the more expensive models will more reliable and better built.

If your really serious about photo work then do some more research and look into a proper desk top with an Intel i5 or i7 processor, 6GB or more RAM several internal hard drives and a 64bit operating system.

If your more interested in just in doing something more casual, and need something with low impact in your home, then as Maxxum suggested, an i5 27inch iMac with 4-8GB of RAM would also be ideal.
Just make sure you have an external HDD for back ups as well.

Below that there are lots of Intel Core 2 Quad computers on the market, using the Q8200 and Q8300 processors. These will also work really well, and as it is out going technology the prices are very, very good. Often cheaper than Core 2 Duo computers that only have as much performance for photo editing work.

Try and avoid anything with a Core 2 Duo, this really is out dated technology. While it is considerably better than your current P3, it is the absolute minimum needed to use Photoshop in a meaningful way on photos from your 7D. Especially if you get into shooting RAW and batch processing etc.





I can already see where this thread is heading. :rolleyes:


Only if you take it there by attacking anyone who puts forward an alternate opinion to your own, or suggests that your favorite brand is less than perfect for doing everything.

[basroil]

Try and avoid anything with a Core 2 Duo, this really is out dated technology. While it is considerably better than your current P3, it is the absolute minimum needed to use Photoshop in a meaningful way on photos from your 7D. Especially if you get into shooting RAW and batch processing etc.
I wouldn't say to avoid Core 2 Duo, rather to understand the limitations of the chips and the requirements you have for what you want the computer to do. I recently ordered a core 2 duo desktop, but I knew that it would be used for exactly three things, only one at a time (surf web, play music, watch hd video), and i knew that the alternative would not improve these fuctions (once you play video at the native resolution and speed, more processing power just goes into being idle longer, firefox can only use one thread per page, etc)... and I knew that saving 30W max, 10-15W idle would be much better for my home theater since the case could be smaller and fan be a bit more quiet. For photo editing though, I would definitely try to chose something else, core 2 duo is just too slow... worked fine for xt photos on my laptop, but mkiii photos were slow, and forget about trying it with 5dmkii photos

[ScottsGT]

Wow, great info here! I've looked into the Macs a little closer and I'm starting to lean towards the 21" iMac desktop. Still easy enough to move around, and I don't really think I'll ever need to go battery power. I was thinking of being able to do work at the kitchen table and easily put the computer away. Possibly even get one of the iTotes bags to carry on vacations. I guess "semi portability" is what I'm looking for. Honestly though, I'm using my 6 year old Inspiron 8500 right now that has Ubuntu on in. We did this at work with our computer gods because I got sick and tired of all the virus' i kept getting hit with running XP and the virus protection we have at work. (Major University in the South East) I have access to all the programs I will ever need since we have a license that allows us to load them on our personal machines if we do work from home. never know when I might have to do some photoshop from the bedroom if I'm at home sick! Had a long conversation with the Windows guys and the Mac guys at work. One windows guy, old fart the refused to try and learn anything new since he's always been on a PC and is about to retire! All the Mac guys (Mind you now, there are our graphics department and video editing department) are really pushing me had to come to their side. One guy put it this way, " Ever hear of anyone dumping Mac and going PC?" I do get an educational discount on Macs, knocks the $1200 iMac down to $1150.00 Not much, but helps. And I am leaning towards the 21" so I can make it semi portable.
BTW, waiting until the spring is out of the question, since Mom wants to get it now for Christmas for everyone. I'll be handing my XTi down to my oldest daughter since she took her first photography class as a high school senior, and now she has the bug, really bad I must add! Hopefully the computer won't be used to edit photos of teenage girls making gang signs and pouty lips and she'll do something really creative!

[basroil]

Ever hear of anyone dumping Mac and going PC?"

One right here, twice (well, once is dumping the iFlop and getting a Zune), and couldn't be happier. In six years of having machines connected 24/7 to a highspeed, high upload speed network (the type botnets love to make their own), I have not had a single virus on any one of the six computers I take care of.

If you are willing to spend ~1k and don't need a laptop, at least look at quad core desktops of a similar price, or at least look at ones in the 850 range+dell 2209WA monitor. You can get some small computers with the same specs (OptiPlex 760 Small Form Factor and Ultra Small Form Factor, or countless ones you make yourself). Fact of the matter is, unless you go with high end versions of the iMac, you are wasting your money. Remember, in two years if you decide you need a faster system, you can't upgrade anything yourself (ram doesn't make a system faster, lets you do more before it slows down), and you'll have to go and buy an entirely new system (and forget what people say about value retention, if you are thinking about reselling your computer later on, you are thinking about the wrong computer)

[kini]

Good choice. Don't let the Windows ''power'' users try to tell you that the C2D is not enough. With Windows you pretty much NEED the quadcore chips because Vista and to a slight lesser extent are dogs. You might want to look at the 24'' refurbs too. I ''was'' a long time Windows user since the 3.1 days. OS X is worth any premium real or perceived.

[BeritOlam]

Scotts,

There's no denying that you can get better *hardware* via the PC route. But Mac users (whether recent converts or old guard loyalists) generally don't place as high a premium on that kind of thing. As Maxxum said under #4, there's really only one reason you switch to Mac -- you want OSX over Windows.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the Dual Core vs. Quad core vs. i5/i7 talk....unless of course you really want to. But in re-reading your comments, you strike me as the kind of guy (based on experience with friends/acquaintances) that doesn't care so much about every detail "under the hood" as you do with just getting a system that will do the job.

FWIW, I knew someone that thought along your lines, about toting the iMac to and fro for "semi-portability"....and she ended up getting a Macbook Pro after about 8 months! ;) IOW, you can do it...but it is a bit cumbersome to tote around on vacation.

[MaxxuM]

One right here, twice (well, once is dumping the iFlop and getting a Zune), and couldn't be happier. In six years of having machines connected 24/7 to a highspeed, high upload speed network (the type botnets love to make their own), I have not had a single virus on any one of the six computers I take care of.

If you are willing to spend ~1k and don't need a laptop, at least look at quad core desktops of a similar price, or at least look at ones in the 850 range+dell 2209WA monitor. You can get some small computers with the same specs (OptiPlex 760 Small Form Factor and Ultra Small Form Factor, or countless ones you make yourself). Fact of the matter is, unless you go with high end versions of the iMac, you are wasting your money. Remember, in two years if you decide you need a faster system, you can't upgrade anything yourself (ram doesn't make a system faster, lets you do more before it slows down), and you'll have to go and buy an entirely new system (and forget what people say about value retention, if you are thinking about reselling your computer later on, you are thinking about the wrong computer)

I wouldn't wish one of these on an enemy :)

We have a few hundred of these two particular models and they're butt ugly, the small form factor model is actually pretty bulky/heavy for a computer of it's class (think of a '57 Buick) and the ultra small one is a mix match of laptop tech (external brick power supply & DVD). The connections and memory are a constant issue with these computers (BSoD and failed boots). It has become a common practice to open them up and reseat all the wires and memory before setting them up. I wouldn't want to have to move these things around all the time (because I do :confused:). Other irritation's are if you ever have to replace the power supply you'll likely have to take out the motherboard too (due to one of the power cords being routed under the board). If you ever want to add a card you'll have to find a half-high, which can be a pain for some things. No quad cores. Limited upgrade-ability. I get the different models mixed up, but I don't remember a second HDD bay either - but there may be an empty floppy bay though. May be good for an internal card reader, but there aren't any internal USB hookups. Overall, an OK business solution with it's heavy duty manufacture, but not a great overall consumer computer in my book.

As far as Zune's vs iPod's, it's all about the interface for most people. I like the Zune personally, but iTune's and the ability to use apps leaves the Zune looking like the land that time forgot. If I could share, sync and buy from every computer in the house, use my iPhone as a remote for my bedroom & living room stereo's and do it all seamlessly and cheaply I might have considered the Zune. Plus, iTune's is a powerful search and sorting solution for my different libraries. I have my work library with sound fx and video backgrounds on a portable drive that I can take to work and update, bring it home and use the same fx and update in one place. Not to mention, I can use my iPod classics as portable hard drives in a pinch.

[basroil]

I wouldn't wish one of these on an enemy :)

We have a few hundred of these two particular models and they're butt ugly, the small form factor model is actually pretty bulky/heavy for a computer of it's class (think of a '57 Buick) and the ultra small one is a mix match of laptop tech (external brick power supply & DVD). The connections and memory are a constant issue with these computers (BSoD and failed boots). It has become a common practice to open them up and reseat all the wires and memory before setting them up. I wouldn't want to have to move these things around all the time (because I do :confused:). Other irritation's are if you ever have to replace the power supply you'll likely have to take out the motherboard too (due to one of the power cords being routed under the board). If you ever want to add a card you'll have to find a half-high, which can be a pain for some things. No quad cores. Limited upgrade-ability. I get the different models mixed up, but I don't remember a second HDD bay either - but there may be an empty floppy bay though. May be good for an internal card reader, but there aren't any internal USB hookups. Overall, an OK business solution with it's heavy duty manufacture, but not a great overall consumer computer in my book.

As far as Zune's vs iPod's, it's all about the interface for most people. I like the Zune personally, but iTune's and the ability to use apps leaves the Zune looking like the land that time forgot. If I could share, sync and buy from every computer in the house, use my iPhone as a remote for my bedroom & living room stereo's and do it all seamlessly and cheaply I might have considered the Zune. Plus, iTune's is a powerful search and sorting solution for my different libraries. I have my work library with sound fx and video backgrounds on a portable drive that I can take to work and update, bring it home and use the same fx and update in one place. Not to mention, I can use my iPod classics as portable hard drives in a pinch.

Some SFF computers do allow quad cores, i remember configuring one of the dells with it when i contemplated it for a HTPC (just made my own, so it could have optical audio out). But yes, they are a pain to upgrade, but you CAN upgrade them. All of the other things you mentioned though work against the iMac as well though, so OP should keep those in mind too.

As for Zune, great for home use. Search also is amazing, since it'll find the file on your computer and online at the same time. Takes getting used to, but very good. Then add zune-pass and three computers (including HTPC), and suddenly you have a million songs (almost literally) to choose from. Apps are still limited (though project gotham racing is amazing), so I do hope they change up the store a bit.

And yea, iPods were great when you could actually do something with that otherwise pointlessly huge drive. New ones you can't even access the drive with.

[Moppie]

Wow, great info here! I've looked into the Macs a little closer and I'm starting to lean towards the 21" iMac desktop. Still easy enough to move around, and I don't really think I'll ever need to go battery power. I was thinking of being able to do work at the kitchen table and easily put the computer away. Possibly even get one of the iTotes bags to carry on vacations. I guess "semi portability" is what I'm looking for. Honestly though, I'm using my 6 year old Inspiron 8500 right now that has Ubuntu on in. We did this at work with our computer gods because I got sick and tired of all the virus' i kept getting hit with running XP and the virus protection we have at work. (Major University in the South East) I have access to all the programs I will ever need since we have a license that allows us to load them on our personal machines if we do work from home. never know when I might have to do some photoshop from the bedroom if I'm at home sick! Had a long conversation with the Windows guys and the Mac guys at work. One windows guy, old fart the refused to try and learn anything new since he's always been on a PC and is about to retire! All the Mac guys (Mind you now, there are our graphics department and video editing department) are really pushing me had to come to their side. One guy put it this way, " Ever hear of anyone dumping Mac and going PC?" I do get an educational discount on Macs, knocks the $1200 iMac down to $1150.00 Not much, but helps. And I am leaning towards the 21" so I can make it semi portable.
BTW, waiting until the spring is out of the question, since Mom wants to get it now for Christmas for everyone. I'll be handing my XTi down to my oldest daughter since she took her first photography class as a high school senior, and now she has the bug, really bad I must add! Hopefully the computer won't be used to edit photos of teenage girls making gang signs and pouty lips and she'll do something really creative!


Don't get hung up on "sides" or the Mac vs PC debate.
IMO anyone who wants you to change sides has missed the point. Computers are tools, not a religion.

The 21inch iMacs are nice, but remember, they are limited to the old, out dated and about to discontinued core 2 duo chips.

The 27inch is a MUCH nicer machine. If you goto a shop and see the two side by side you will see what I mean, and with a an i5 or i7 they are well future proofed and you won't ever have to worry about having enough power to do anything with your photography.

The iMac are very portable, I've been to a Motorsport even filled with about 100 other media. Everyone was using laptops, except one clever guy who bought his iMac. All he needed was a bigger bag to carry it in, and was able to leave it set up in the media center over the weekend.
If you want an all in one, they are the best there is.

But, remember, they are limitations. They are designed as consumer machines only, and not ideal for serious photography work.


Good choice. Don't let the Windows ''power'' users try to tell you that the C2D is not enough. With Windows you pretty much NEED the quadcore chips because Vista and to a slight lesser extent are dogs. You might want to look at the 24'' refurbs too. I ''was'' a long time Windows user since the 3.1 days. OS X is worth any premium real or perceived.

Windows has move on a bit since 3.1. OS-X now requires more resources to run efficiently than Windows does. Going 64bit only was the best thing they could do (I wish MS would do this with Windows), but 64bit processing does need a higher minimum level of RAM (notice that the level suppled on new Mac's went up when Snow Leopard was released), and there are still 32 versions of Windows available.

[BeritOlam]

Don't get hung up on "sides" or the Mac vs PC debate. IMO anyone who wants you to change sides has missed the point. Computers are tools, not a religion.

I'm not sure anyone here "wants" ScottsGT to bow the knee at the alter of the Almighty (Steve) Jobs. If one goes back to the OP, it's pretty clear that he was *already* considering this option. A number of us switched in the past as well....so is it so wrong that we tell him our experiences of what we did when we switched?

People "switch" all the time....and precisely because computers are tools, not simply because they view the "Mac or PC" debate as a religion.


The 21inch iMacs are nice, but remember, they are limited to the old, out dated and about to discontinued core 2 duo chips.


For a *power* photog user, this makes since. But since OP said he's looking for a general home computer that he can learn Photoshop/LR on, any of the current 21 inch iMacs would work just fine.

I first started dabbling in Photoshop years ago on an 'ancient' system (even more ancient than the Core 2 Duos are by today's standards), and it worked. If pros in here can do their *pro* work on a Mac Mini, then I'm sure the OP will be just fine learning Photoshop on any of the iMacs. Sure, you eventually discover there's more power out there, but IMHO it's not necessary when getting started.

The iMac are very portable, I've been to a Motorsport even filled with about 100 other media. Everyone was using laptops, except one clever guy who bought his iMac. All he needed was a bigger bag to carry it in, and was able to leave it set up in the media center over the weekend.
If you want an all in one, they are the best there is.

Right on. [See, we don't always disagree! ;)]

But, remember, they are limitations. They are designed as consumer machines only, and not ideal for serious photography work.

I suppose it comes down to what "serious photography work" means, and how one goes about evaluating whether someone needs it or not. Reading the OP's comments ("I have yet to even try Photoshop"...."learning PS"...etc), I don't get the sense that ScottsGT is at the "serious photography" stage yet.

Sometimes, you don't need a home run (i5/i7) -- a double (Core 2 Duo) will do just fine! If OP can get by on a 6-year old laptop, then I don't think he's going to mind a computer that's a generation or 2 old now.


Windows has move on a bit since 3.1. OS-X now requires more resources to run efficiently than Windows does. Going 64bit only was the best thing they could do (I wish MS would do this with Windows), but 64bit processing does need a higher minimum level of RAM (notice that the level suppled on new Mac's went up when Snow Leopard was released), and there are still 32 versions of Windows available.

With memory being as *cheap* as it is now, is this really a big issue (for Mac or PC)? If we're talking about minimum RAM capabilities, we might as well throw out MAC AND PC....and go straight for Linux, since it is the clear winner in the RAM-utilization process. Until earlier this year, I had an old Linux box that ran just fine on 256kb RAM. It's been a long time since Mac or PC could run on that.... ;) ;)

[ScottsGT]

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the Dual Core vs. Quad core vs. i5/i7 talk....unless of course you really want to. But in re-reading your comments, you strike me as the kind of guy (based on experience with friends/acquaintances) that doesn't care so much about every detail "under the hood" as you do with just getting a system that will do the job.

Man, you can read me like a book!!

I suppose it comes down to what "serious photography work" means, and how one goes about evaluating whether someone needs it or not. Reading the OP's comments ("I have yet to even try Photoshop"...."learning PS"...etc), I don't get the sense that ScottsGT is at the "serious photography" stage yet.

Hehehe..If you only know how long I resisted going digital! I like to think of myself as an "old school" photographer. When I first got my XTi, it was all about making the image come out of the camera as I wanted it. then I discovered RAW. I'm now hooked on post processing and I look at it as custom darkroom work I use to have others do for me in the processing lab. As far as "serious photographer" statement, I kind of take my hobbies to an extreme that should seek professional mental health. Seriouly, how many guys buy a 7D to take mostly photos of their kids and pets! Hell, you should see my gun cabinet. No, I'm not happy with a $200 Ruger 10/22, I have to have the full blown AR platform with a dedicated short barrel upper and silencer with all the legal tax stamps in order to purchase one. So basically I have invested $1800 to do the same thing a $200 rifle would do. (And this is just the tip of the iceberg) I'm in the process of restoring a '66 mustang GT Fastback. I'm not happy with the average 289/302 small block. Ohhh nooooo....I'm waiting on Ford to release the new Coyote 5.0 and retrofit it to the car which means cutting out the entire NEW original suspension I installed a few years back. (Been in the garage on the back burner for 7 years now)
And my buddys wonder why I won't take up golf with them!

As far as the 21" vs the 24" Mac, I had no idea they had different chip/hardware. I was just hung up on the size. I"ll go back and revisit the Apple Store and see if dear old Mom is willing to go a little deeper in her pockets. (Deep pockets, so I'm pretty much guilt free seeing how she is buying my older brother a house for Christmas!)

[basroil]

Man, you can read me like a book!!



Hehehe..If you only know how long I resisted going digital! I like to think of myself as an "old school" photographer. When I first got my XTi, it was all about making the image come out of the camera as I wanted it. then I discovered RAW. I'm now hooked on post processing and I look at it as custom darkroom work I use to have others do for me in the processing lab. As far as "serious photographer" statement, I kind of take my hobbies to an extreme that should seek professional mental health. Seriouly, how many guys buy a 7D to take mostly photos of their kids and pets! Hell, you should see my gun cabinet. No, I'm not happy with a $200 Ruger 10/22, I have to have the full blown AR platform with a dedicated short barrel upper and silencer with all the legal tax stamps in order to purchase one. So basically I have invested $1800 to do the same thing a $200 rifle would do. (And this is just the tip of the iceberg) I'm in the process of restoring a '66 mustang GT Fastback. I'm not happy with the average 289/302 small block. Ohhh nooooo....I'm waiting on Ford to release the new Coyote 5.0 and retrofit it to the car which means cutting out the entire NEW original suspension I installed a few years back. (Been in the garage on the back burner for 7 years now)
And my buddys wonder why I won't take up golf with them!

As far as the 21" vs the 24" Mac, I had no idea they had different chip/hardware. I was just hung up on the size. I"ll go back and revisit the Apple Store and see if dear old Mom is willing to go a little deeper in her pockets. (Deep pockets, so I'm pretty much guilt free seeing how she is buying my older brother a house for Christmas!)

Actually, here's another radical suggestion. Get a nettop (atom 330 + ion based one) and save up the other 800. You clearly don't need any of the power of a new system, so why not just spend the money on lenses or other things?

[ErikatSSI]

Wow, great info here! I've looked into the Macs a little closer and I'm starting to lean towards the 21" iMac desktop. Still easy enough to move around, and I don't really think I'll ever need to go battery power. I was thinking of being able to do work at the kitchen table and easily put the computer away. Possibly even get one of the iTotes bags to carry on vacations. I guess "semi portability" is what I'm looking for. I do get an educational discount on Macs, knocks the $1200 iMac down to $1150.00 Not much, but helps. And I am leaning towards the 21" so I can make it semi portable.

One of the mac users I support has been using a case to tote his cinema display from home to work and I have to say that it works well for that sort of thing.

http://www.ilugger.com/

[wlescall]

As far as the 21" vs the 24" Mac, I had no idea they had different chip/hardware. I was just hung up on the size. I"ll go back and revisit the Apple Store and see if dear old Mom is willing to go a little deeper in her pockets. (Deep pockets, so I'm pretty much guilt free seeing how she is buying my older brother a house for Christmas!)


If you are a NAPP member, the discount at the Apple Store online is slightly more than the educational discount. I will say that my NAPP membership has more than paid for itself several times over just on the free shipping from B & H alone. :oops: :lol:

[chrishunt]

I've looked into the Macs a little closer and I'm starting to lean towards the 21" iMac desktop.

Great choice. Get 8GB of RAM if you can afford it. If anyone tells you that is not enough machine, ask to see their photographs (I bet they suck).

You will find that your creativity limits you more than your machine. Go get em!

[basroil]

Great choice. Get 8GB of RAM if you can afford it. If anyone tells you that is not enough machine, ask to see their photographs (I bet they suck).

You will find that your creativity limits you more than your machine. Go get em!

Usually getting a better machine isn't about quality, it's about speed. If you pump out 100 usable photos in an hour on a good machine or half a dozen good ones in the same time, and both batches are sent to a wire service, guess who will get more money? The faster, lower quality guy every time (given the photographs are not a once a decade quality shots).

When editing 5dmkii sized files, you'll run into speed issues very soon, especially with certain filters. Liquify and previews also work better with more cores. Working with a slow machine is like telling an artist to paint with lead weights strapped to his wrists.. it's perfectly doable, but not the best way about it.

Now, OP doesn't necessarily do that sort of thing, so it's just another issue to take into account.

[Village_Idiot]

I think a notebook would suck as a family computer that gets "tossed around" from person to person.

That.s just my 2¢

[basroil]

I think a notebook would suck as a family computer that gets "tossed around" from person to person.

That.s just my 2¢

Easier to toss a 6lb notebook than a 20lb screen ;)

[chrishunt]

Usually getting a better machine isn't about quality, it's about speed.

Right. This machine is replacing a 9-year-old Dell. It'll be much faster, I promise. :) A 21-inch iMac is more than enough machine to edit 5D Mark II images.

Working with a slow machine is like telling an artist to paint with lead weights strapped to his wrists.. it's perfectly doable, but not the best way about it.

It's actually more like taking a photo with your old 20d instead of your 1d Mark III. Yeah, the 1d is faster and cost you more money, but the 20d still does a great job and produces significantly better photos than the 1d when handled by a person who doesn't know how to use it. Everybody wants a 1d, but not many people need it.

If you pump out 100 usable photos in an hour on a good machine or half a dozen good ones in the same time, and both batches are sent to a wire service, guess who will get more money? The faster, lower quality guy every time (given the photographs are not a once a decade quality shots).

If you are person that depends on speed to make your living, then you can rationalize buying the best: a Mac Pro. You are also a photo journalist and you shoot in jpg... without editing your photos. :p

[basroil]

Right. This machine is replacing a 9-year-old Dell. It'll be much faster, I promise. :) A 21-inch iMac is more than enough machine to edit 5D Mark II images.



It's actually more like taking a photo with your old 20d instead of your 1d Mark III. Yeah, the 1d is faster and cost you more money, but the 20d still does a great job and produces significantly better photos than the 1d when handled by a person who doesn't know how to use it. Everybody wants a 1d, but not many people need it.



If you are person that depends on speed to make your living, then you can rationalize buying the best: a Mac Pro. You are also a photo journalist and you shoot in jpg... without editing your photos. :p

Mac Pro actually has several issues for photographers, namely the multithreading limitation that some adobe products (mainly LR2) experience under OSX. Unless you manually split batches on a dual processor mac pro, any i7 800 or 900 series processor based rig running windows will actually work faster (since LR2 won't have to deal with multiple batch overheads). The 2500 minimum pricetag also doesn't help things, for that amount you could very well justify three equally configured machines and just remote into each and process photo and video that way (or splurge on something like the i7 975 and overclock it to 4ghz+)

Your camera analogy could work also, but you are focusing on the wrong things. You forget that the 1d has better focusing, shooting speed, resolution, iso, even neat features like live-view. Sure, a great photographer with a 20d will take better shots than a novice with a 1dmkiii, but the great photographer with the 1dmkiii will take better shots than he could with a 20d (cleaner, for action shots have higher keeper rate, etc), and even the novice will do better, simply because the increased camera performance will hide the novice's inability to get consistent results (chance of a good shot*number of shots= number of good shots, and that increases regardless of the user so long as the chances don't change with rate of shots. for novices, you can assume that the chances are independent of rates). Again, it's not that OP won't do poorly with a crappy core 2 duo, it's that he'll do better with a faster system, especially if he isn't used to post processing (the faster you can undo your mistakes and make new ones, the faster you learn)

[chrishunt]

Mac Pro actually has several issues for photographers, namely the multithreading limitation that some adobe products (mainly LR2) experience under OSX. Unless you manually split batches on a dual processor mac pro, any i7 800 or 900 series processor based rig running windows will actually work faster (since LR2 won't have to deal with multiple batch overheads). The 2500 minimum pricetag also doesn't help things, for that amount you could very well justify three equally configured machines and just remote into each and process photo and video that way (or splurge on something like the i7 975 and overclock it to 4ghz+)

Your camera analogy could work also, but you are focusing on the wrong things. You forget that the 1d has better focusing, shooting speed, resolution, iso, even neat features like live-view. Sure, a great photographer with a 20d will take better shots than a novice with a 1dmkiii, but the great photographer with the 1dmkiii will take better shots than he could with a 20d (cleaner, for action shots have higher keeper rate, etc), and even the novice will do better, simply because the increased camera performance will hide the novice's inability to get consistent results (chance of a good shot*number of shots= number of good shots, and that increases regardless of the user so long as the chances don't change with rate of shots. for novices, you can assume that the chances are independent of rates). Again, it's not that OP won't do poorly with a crappy core 2 duo, it's that he'll do better with a faster system, especially if he isn't used to post processing (the faster you can undo your mistakes and make new ones, the faster you learn)

All solid points, but the camera analogy still stands. If the 20d does everything that you need to do, then the extra speed, resolution, iso, and live-view are pointless.

Another analogy, because I like them: If I'm buying a car for the interstate, then 80mph is fine... even if I could get a nascar for marginally more money.

PS: I apologize to the OP for taking this off topic :)

[red-barron]

All this talk about outdated tech really doesn't make a lot of sense. A 2009 mac mini, imac or macbook/pro will be fine for most types of photography even though it runs a trashy, old, outdated slow c2d:rolleyes:. I see all sorts of pro photographers out there who make a killing from their photography like Chase Jarvis and Scott kelby and do you believe, they actually do a lot of editing on c2d macbook pros when they're not at home in front of a mac pro. Can you believe that? Surely if they're slow and outdated these pros would be using some quickass dell or lenovo, surely? Just because there are quicker options out there doesn't mean that the cheaper, older ones are no good at all. If you are upgrading from an old dell then any c2d based system will be a big step up. The way OSX works will also be a step up and might take some time getting used to.

[Village_Idiot]

Good choice. Don't let the Windows ''power'' users try to tell you that the C2D is not enough. With Windows you pretty much NEED the quadcore chips because Vista and to a slight lesser extent are dogs. You might want to look at the 24'' refurbs too. I ''was'' a long time Windows user since the 3.1 days. OS X is worth any premium real or perceived.

Hahahaha. You're funny, guy. I had an OG 2.0 C2D Dell notebook ran just as well running Vista as the 2.13 15" MBP I had at the time. People's perception of Vista is what makes it a dog. I never had any problems running Vista Ultimate or home premium on my machines and I even had Ultimate installed on my Dell notebook since launch.

Right. This machine is replacing a 9-year-old Dell. It'll be much faster, I promise. :) A 21-inch iMac is more than enough machine to edit 5D Mark II images.





I have a current 15" MBP that's pretty slow when editing multiple 5D MKII files in Photo Shop. I haven't tried editing anything on my i7 gaming rig yet.

[BeritOlam]

All solid points, but the camera analogy still stands. If the 20d does everything that you need to do, then the extra speed, resolution, iso, and live-view are pointless.

Another analogy, because I like them: If I'm buying a car for the interstate, then 80mph is fine... even if I could get a nascar for marginally more money.

PS: I apologize to the OP for taking this off topic :)

Basroil's continued hang up with Mac isn't so much 20D vs. 1D. Rather it's more like 1D Mark III camera hardware for $4k (iMac Core2Duo) vs. 1D Mark IV camera hardware for $3k (PC w/ i5/i7) -- why would anyone pay *more* money for out-dated technology when you can get the *newer* and more powerful stuff for less?

This of course makes a key assumption that the bottom-line consideration in purchasing a computer should be head-to-head hardware specs. Now, it is certainly a consideration, and the beauty of the market is that it allows you to find your place in the market based on your needs.

But this misses what *most* people are after (or need, for that matter). I've built dozens of systems for people over the years, and less than 5% of them cared about things like front side bus, hyper-threading, AMD vs. Intel, ATI vs. nVidia, or L2/L3 cache. People that actually know and care about this stuff are often power users. Most people just want an end-user experience that does what they need and doesn't cause them hassles in the process.

[ScottsGT]

OK, done deal. Just pulled the trigger on a 27" iMac i7 with 8GB of RAM. I think I'm good for another 9 years!

[basroil]

OK, done deal. Just pulled the trigger on a 27" iMac i7 with 8GB of RAM. I think I'm good for another 9 years!

Probably not 9 years (don't expect the system to physically survive that long, and certainly by year 5 it will start showing it's age, by 8 it will be fairly slow), but until cameras are 30mp and 16bit, you should be fine

[themadman]

OK, done deal. Just pulled the trigger on a 27" iMac i7 with 8GB of RAM. I think I'm good for another 9 years!

Well, I hope you enjoy your iMac! I had a iMac (a work computer) for about a year and I enjoyed it a lot. I kinda miss having an iMac on my desk actually...

On the other hand... 9 years is a bit oppomistic...

If you are new to Macs, I would recommend getting an external drive for "Time Machine", the built in backup software, it can save you some grief (incase you ever need to erase and install)

[BeritOlam]

On the other hand... 9 years is a bit oppomistic...

I think he's referring to the 9 years he's planning on taking to pay the thing off!!! ;) ;) ;) ;)

Seriously though, way to pull the trigger. Great computer. I was playing around with one today, and it's NICE!!!

[ena]

Probably not 9 years (don't expect the system to physically survive that long, and certainly by year 5 it will start showing it's age, by 8 it will be fairly slow), but until cameras are 30mp and 16bit, you should be fine

I've sat this one out so far but 9 years seems reasonable to me since I am sitting in front of a 9 year old Powerbook with a <gasp> PPC processor. Yes it is a lot slower than the current state of the art but it has held up pretty well since I got it and has processed a lot of digital images over the last eight years as well as editing lots of hours of video. I'll probably replace it next year sometime since it can't reasonably handle HD video from my new camcorder and the speed bump to at least C2D would be very nice.

All of my Macintosh computers have held on for more than 7 years each and the last couple were still usable (for basic computing) even after 10 years. I think that last sentence kind of dates me but what the heck. My work computers (various brands of windows PC's) have had much shorter life's despite (or maybe because of ?) professionals taking care of them.

Not statistically significant in either case. I think I recall an industry study that indicated Mac owners replace machines less often (like 5 yrs vs. 3 yrs). Wish I could find it but doesn't matter since statistics don't convince most people anyway. :)

The other thing that I am surprised went uncommented on in this thread is color management. Yes Windows PCs can have faster HW, more choices, more upgrades but they also have a much larger color management task with Windows. Mac's have a single integrated color management system which is the main reason they are (were?) popular with some professionals. Less fussing with the system and more photography. Of course some people like to play under the hood and get some really awesome results that way. There is no single right answer, just what works for each individual.

Hope the OP likes his new iMac, it is a very nice personal computer.

- Eric

[basroil]

All of my Macintosh computers have held on for more than 7 years each and the last couple were still usable (for basic computing) even after 10 years. I think that last sentence kind of dates me but what the heck. My work computers (various brands of windows PC's) have had much shorter life's despite (or maybe because of ?) professionals taking care of them.


Probably because of the "pros", my power-pc lasted 5 years (before major issues including RAM failure, disk errors, dog eating the power cord finally killing it), one pc lasting 9.5 years (hdd failure, PATA 66 compatible drives are hard to find nowadays), one is 6 years old (works fine, use it to download stuff and manage other computers, runs photoshop just fine, but awfully slow compared to even my core duo laptop), and a few others between a year and four years old that work fine.

It's never really about hardware failure, even if you have a failure, you can usually replace the component. The problem is when the speed of the machine, even fully upgraded, is not enough for modern expectations. A decade ago, I was happy to wait five minutes for a web page to load or a minute to open a photo i had scanned (and waited 10 min for it to finish). Nowadays, I can't even wait 5s for a web page (which has 10x the content and 200x the size) to load, or even a a few seconds to not only open the photo, but also edit and export it too. Sure you can run a new program on a slow, old machine, but even if it's not slower with the new program than it was with the old one, your expectations are bound to change anyway.

Kind of like how games used to run at 29.97fps if you were lucky, then along came the graphics quality revolution and now anything less than 60fps is "unplayable" to many.