Need help buy a new Mac

[big_apple_ken]

I currently process all my photos on my 2 year old 13" Macbook (it's the Macbook that first came out in black). Anyway it was about 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB or DDR2 SDRAM. The graphics card I have is a Intel GMAX3100.

So my main issue is I've noticed my photos look 100 times better when I look at it with a iMac in the store. Furthermore I can't really run multiple programs when I have CS4 & LR2 open. A lot of times i like to be listening to music or surfing the web when I am editing.

My question is what is the best Mac (excluding the Mac Pro) out there for post processing work? I would consider the Mac Pro but I really hate the desktop processor towers. Thanks!

[basroil]

Unless you get yourself an i7 iMac ($2200), just forget about it and get yourself a monitor. . You can also upgrade your ram to 4gb for about $100 bucks, and that should let you keep other programs open. The thing about looking 100x better has nothing to do with the computer, everything to do with the monitor. Just getting a decent monitor will give you exactly what you want.

[big_apple_ken]

Unless you get yourself an i7 iMac ($2200), just forget about it and get yourself a monitor. . You can also upgrade your ram to 4gb for about $100 bucks, and that should let you keep other programs open. The thing about looking 100x better has nothing to do with the computer, everything to do with the monitor. Just getting a decent monitor will give you exactly what you want.

Interesting (I was just about to suggest getting the 24" LED monitor & more RAM) but isn't it partially the monitor and partially the graphics card?

[basroil]

Interesting (I was just about to suggest getting the 24" LED monitor & more RAM) but isn't it partially the monitor and partially the graphics card?

Absolutely nothing to do with the graphics card. The card only helps when calibrating multiple monitors, and even that is limited.

But do avoid the 24" ACD, it's freaking overpriced as hell, and if you have the older macbook, you don't even have displayport, so you would need adapters to get it to work. Check the 2209WA thread, U2410, HP's 2475, and a few other IPS screens. Currently LED is more of a gimmick than an actual measure of quality, and you should check first hand accounts about all the monitors, especially from people than owned multiple ones.

[elContrarian]

The 24" LED monitor is a rip-off. It's an amazing monitor, but still a rip-off. Get a high-end Samsung or other brand at 23" or 24". I know some high-end Samsung to be amazing for photo professionnals' needs. There are others too. (The other non-LED Apple monitors are even bigger rip-offs).

I'm a hardcore Apple fan. I own 3 Macs and owned around 10 Macs in the last 15 years but I still believe Apple lives on a totally different planet with its monitors' pricing schemes.

[elContrarian]

My question is what is the best Mac (excluding the Mac Pro) out there for post processing work? I would consider the Mac Pro but I really hate the desktop processor towers. Thanks!

Even the lowest entry-level iMac of the current line is a fantastic workhorse for photo processing. If you can afford, get the 27-inch. It's out of this world. If you saw it at the AppleStore, you didn't see it. You have to see it in a room, in a house. Out of this world, I'm telling you... But as far as power and speed are concerned, as I said, any iMac does a great job and will do so for years to come.

I believe both 21.5 and 27 displays are very highly regarded in terms of color accuracy, but do check around to make sure.

[elContrarian]

Unless you get yourself an i7 iMac ($2200), just forget about it and get yourself a monitor. . You can also upgrade your ram to 4gb for about $100 bucks, and that should let you keep other programs open. The thing about looking 100x better has nothing to do with the computer, everything to do with the monitor. Just getting a decent monitor will give you exactly what you want.

I don't agree at all. The entry-level 21.5-inch iMac has a 3.06 processor, 4 MB RAM and 0.5 TB. It's a powerful machine for running simultaneously, CS4, etc, anything you want. It's $1200.

Evidently, it's not a bad idea to pull out $200-$300 more to get a 1.0 or 1.5 TB HD... make it 8 GB of RAM if you feel like, but honestly, 4 GB is plenty for most of all mortals... even if you deal with 24-mb 5DII files.

[elContrarian]

$1199 gets you the 21.5 iMac with a 3.06 processor.
$899 gets you the 24 display.

You do the math.

[basroil]

I don't agree at all. The entry-level 21.5-inch iMac has a 3.06 processor, 4 MB RAM and 0.5 TB. It's a powerful machine for running simultaneously, CS4, etc, anything you want. It's $1200.

Evidently, it's not a bad idea to pull out $200-$300 more to get a 1.0 or 1.5 TB HD... make it 8 GB of RAM if you feel like, but honestly, 4 GB is plenty for most of all mortals... even if you deal with 24-mb 5DII files.

But is it really all that much better than what he has? 2.4gh to 3gh is 25% improvement for 150% increase in price over a monitor and more ram. His machine already can run cs4 and lr2 just fine (much better after increasing ram), getting a new system just means that he'll have to worry about maintaining libraries across two machines.

If OP does the math, he'll end up going with a third party monitor and RAM. Unless he's ridiculously rich and doesn't care for the fact that a 21.5" iMac runs on $800 laptop technology, and isn't better than the last gen MBP 15" you can get from the refurb store for the same price.

[elContrarian]

Well it's more comfortable to do PP on a 21.5 inch screen with a separate keyboard than on a laptop... plus, apparently the black MB's screen sucks for PP while the iMac's is LED. I really don't know. That's what people who really care about color accuracy are saying. As for the increase in performance, yeah, you're right. No big deal there, but 7200 rpm vs. 5400 rpm does make a sizeable difference when working with RAWs.

A good Samsung 23" monitor runs about $250, so that makes perfect sense to upgrade.

[basroil]

Well it's more comfortable to do PP on a 21.5 inch screen with a separate keyboard than on a laptop... plus, apparently the black MB's screen sucks for PP while the iMac's is LED. I really don't know. That's what people who really care about color accuracy are saying. As for the increase in performance, yeah, you're right. No big deal there, but 7200 rpm vs. 5400 rpm does make a sizeable difference when working with RAWs.

A good Samsung 23" monitor runs about $250, so that makes perfect sense to upgrade.

Exactly, OP should focus on a screen (and mouse/keyboard possibly) rather than a new system.

And as for 5400RPM vs 7200RPM, after file sizes of about 4mb, all hdds are about the same regardless of spin speed. It's in files smaller than 2mb that it starts getting noticeable. Photoshop will open faster on a 7200RPM drive, but we are talking fractions of a second rather than seconds or minutes.

[EmmaRose]

Well whats the budget?

[elContrarian]

Watch out though for native resolutions. Find whatever that may be on what you want to buy and make sure your video card supports it. You don't want to invest in a monitor and then use it at a resolution which it actually supports but which isn't quite "natural" for it. For PP, it may suck.

[basroil]

x3100 should support all standard resolutions up to 1920x1200 @60Hz, 2560x1600@30Hz

[Tony-S]

x3100 should support all standard resolutions up to 1920x1200 @60Hz, 2560x1600@30Hz

According to Intel, GMA X3100 has maximum resolutions of 1920x1200 (DVI) or 2048x1536 (VGA). And assuredly under OS X.

[wlescall]

You will see an improvement with more RAM as the GMA X3100 "shares" RAM with the system. An increase to 4 GB of RAM will definitely help in the ability to keep more applications open.

[ScottsGT]

Hmmm....I just logged on here with my newly unboxed and delivered via FedEx this morning 27" i7 iMac. This thing is AMAZING!

[firstclass]

I believe both 21.5 and 27 displays are very highly regarded in terms of color accuracy, but do check around to make sure.
Except for the continuing jaundiced screen issue.
Hmmm....I just logged on here with my newly unboxed and delivered via FedEx this morning 27" i7 iMac. This thing is AMAZING!
Make sure the screen is alright.

[basroil]

According to Intel, GMA X3100 has maximum resolutions of 1920x1200 (DVI) or 2048x1536 (VGA). And assuredly under OS X.
Yes, that's right, screwed up the numbers there. 2028x1536 is intel's limit, single link dvi can do 2560x1600 at 30Hz (but nobody does that, and almost all graphics cards that support dvi at 2560x1600 use dual link anyway).

[MaxxuM]

I currently process all my photos on my 2 year old 13" Macbook (it's the Macbook that first came out in black). Anyway it was about 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB or DDR2 SDRAM. The graphics card I have is a Intel GMAX3100.

So my main issue is I've noticed my photos look 100 times better when I look at it with a iMac in the store. Furthermore I can't really run multiple programs when I have CS4 & LR2 open. A lot of times i like to be listening to music or surfing the web when I am editing.

My question is what is the best Mac (excluding the Mac Pro) out there for post processing work? I would consider the Mac Pro but I really hate the desktop processor towers. Thanks!

The reason you cannot run more programs is because of the lack of RAM, not CPU speed. The 2.4GHz C2D is still an OK processor - the video card is a bit weak for CS4, but by far, RAM is your issue. And yes, an iMac's screen makes just about everything more beautiful. It's the glass - it makes things pop (contrasty).

So, now that you know the why's you can decide the course of action. Some (basroil) think that pure processing power is the end all of gauging a computers worth - it isn't. It may be a big factor, but there are other things that are very important.

You need a computer that has at least 3GB of RAM, but 4 is much better. The step from 2 to 4GB of RAM is very evident. Any computer of 2.4GHz will work fine if it had at least 4GB of RAM. I can use CS4, Aperture, Firefox, iTunes and even be rendering in the background with Compressor (set to use only one CPU if I'm editing photos) without issue on my 2.5GHz 4GB RAM MBP.

It's a pretty easy choice you now have. If you want to run several memory hungry apps then you're going to need more RAM. If it's important then you have to move to another computer. The iMac i5 and i7 are two very good choices if you don't need to be mobile. If you do need to be on the move then I'd wait to see what happens in February with the MacBook Pro's. It doesn't sound like you're in any hurry - so that shouldn't be an issue. You can keep your MacBook to keep a mobile solution or you can sell it. That MB is still pretty popular and will fetch you a good price.

[harroz]

got the i7 here too, with some added ram, and I agree, it's pretty amazing. I read somewhere that straight from the box it has more power than the low end pro at the moment. That'll soon change though when the pro model gets upgraded. Still, a blindingly fast machine for big file work in ps etc.

Hmmm....I just logged on here with my newly unboxed and delivered via FedEx this morning 27" i7 iMac. This thing is AMAZING!

[basroil]

got the i7 here too, with some added ram, and I agree, it's pretty amazing. I read somewhere that straight from the box it has more power than the low end pro at the moment. That'll soon change though when the pro model gets upgraded. Still, a blindingly fast machine for big file work in ps etc.

2.8gh i7 860 is about 10% faster than a 2.66gh nahelem computation wise, and the ati 4850 is a good 200% or more faster than the gts120

[Tony-S]

My i7Mac finally arrived and it looks to quite a machine. I'm doing Migration Assistant ATM from my Time Machine volume, so there's a few hours to go. But it's ginormous. The brightness is fine, but the glass panel is annoying. This really needs to be in a well-controlled ambient light environment or have the glass removed to mitigate reflections. No yellowing of the display or other problems that occurred with the first off the assembly line.

[squaresnappr]

got the i7 here too, with some added ram, and I agree, it's pretty amazing. I read somewhere that straight from the box it has more power than the low end pro at the moment. That'll soon change though when the pro model gets upgraded. Still, a blindingly fast machine for big file work in ps etc.

I am glad Apple has updated the Imacs and now they should offer a matte option for the Imac. That would entice me to purchase one upstairs but it is really nice to see good results.

[basroil]

My i7Mac finally arrived and it looks to quite a machine. I'm doing Migration Assistant ATM from my Time Machine volume, so there's a few hours to go. But it's ginormous. The brightness is fine, but the glass panel is annoying. This really needs to be in a well-controlled ambient light environment or have the glass removed to mitigate reflections. No yellowing of the display or other problems that occurred with the first off the assembly line.

I am glad Apple has updated the Imacs and now they should offer a matte option for the Imac. That would entice me to purchase one upstairs but it is really nice to see good results.


I think we're starting to get a bit out of hand considering OP doesn't really need a new machine for what he wants.

[squaresnappr]

I think we're starting to get a bit out of hand considering OP doesn't really need a new machine for what he wants.

He wants to buy a new Mac. LOL

[basroil]

He wants to buy a new Mac. LOL

Only because he didn't know that the only things that were holding him back were the lack of a monitor and too little RAM.

It's like saying you need a new car because your tires are worn down and someone keyed your door :rolleyes:

[squaresnappr]

Only because he didn't know that the only things that were holding him back were the lack of a monitor and too little RAM.

It's like saying you need a new car because your tires are worn down and someone keyed your door :rolleyes:

So your opinion is the right opinion and everyone else is wrong and that it is your urge to tell others they are getting out of hand. Go argue with somebody else and his post title says he needs help to buy a mac. Have you ever purchased something you wanted but not necessarily needed. If your gonna talk about cars, I know lots of people who buy new cars when they are not needed but they still do, that is their choice, your opinion is not always the right one. Can I buy a new Imac for upstairs, or are you going to argue and say it is not needed.

Why don't you stop arguing and stay on topic. Maybe suggest the wrong cable for this person as well.

To the OP, if you want to get a new Imac, I agree with some of the others and think the 27" Imac is a fantastic machine but if you want a new monitor and ram, good luck to you. Although some have very negative views towards the LED apple cinema display, I actually enjoy mine and think it is a great display.

[Rubi Jane]

My G5 (2.1 GHz, 2MB RAM) was choking with CS2 & LR2 running separately. I spent more time watching the rainbow wheel spin than work on it, so unproductive. My MacBook (2 GHz 2MB RAM) was really no better. I was in your position and couldn't add more RAM so a new machine was my answer.

The 27" i7 iMac with 4MB RAM screams it's way through large files and processing tasks. I can productively run CS2, LR2, iTunes, PhotoMechanic, Word, Excel, browser & mail all at the same time. I'm a heavy multi-tasker and don't usually close applications until the end of the day, this machine has no problems.

As for the screen, no yellowing and zero glare. I have no light source above or behind me so there's nothing to reflect. If there were a window or light behind me I can see that it would pose an issue. The display is incredible!

If you can warrant the spend get a new iMac, if you can't warrant the spend then upgrade the RAM and get a nice display.

[Tony-S]

I've spent a little time with Aperture on the new Core i7 iMac this morning. It uses all 8 threads of the processor. It renders my 5Dii RAW files virtually instantaneously. Lightroom is a bit more sluggish and appears to only use 4 threads (one per core), but it's still plenty fast.

[basroil]

I've spent a little time with Aperture on the new Core i7 iMac this morning. It uses all 8 threads of the processor. It renders my 5Dii RAW files virtually instantaneously. Lightroom is a bit more sluggish and appears to only use 4 threads (one per core), but it's still plenty fast.

Yes, it's a known bug with OSX. Many non-Apple products can't seem to use the right processor count, so you need to use multi-batch method.

And for the folks out there that decided to skip the thread and just read the (wrong) title,

Interesting (I was just about to suggest getting the 24" LED monitor & more RAM) but isn't it partially the monitor and partially the graphics card?

OP at no point says he wants more power. All he says is that his images don't look as good on his laptop as on an IPS screened iMac. He DOES NOT NEED a (more powerful) iMac, HE DOES NEED AN IPS SCREEN.

[firstclass]

He DOES NOT NEED a (more powerful) iMac, HE DOES NEED AN IPS SCREEN.
Though to be fair, the iMac has an by all accounts excellent IPS screen when it's not one of the broken ones.

[Tony-S]

Yes, it's a known bug with OSX. Many non-Apple products can't seem to use the right processor count, so you need to use multi-batch method.

That's a really lame excuse. There are a lot of apps that can use hyperthreading in OS X, many are freeware apps done by people who program just for fun. Adobe is just sloppy and lazy.

[basroil]

Though to be fair, the iMac has an by all accounts excellent IPS screen when it's not one of the broken ones.

Yes, but is also has $700-2000 of baggage called a pc (of the mac type) built into the monitor. No point in him buying a $1200 iMac just for a $300 monitor

[MaxxuM]

Yes, it's a known bug with OSX. Many non-Apple products can't seem to use the right processor count, so you need to use multi-batch method.

Bug with OS X? Can you point me to some articles on this phenomenon? As far as I'm aware it is Adobe (and other third party vendors) who have been lazy complying with Apple's coding standards. Apple shamed them by making it a point in showing that their software was subpar when Snow Leopard came about.

Please keep it honest basroil.

OP at no point says he wants more power. All he says is that his images don't look as good on his laptop as on an IPS screened iMac. He DOES NOT NEED a (more powerful) iMac, HE DOES NEED AN IPS SCREEN.

If the OP wants to run more programs (efficiently) then he will have to upgrade something. I believe the MB he has can go to 3GB memory, which will help run multiple programs, but you loose dual channel and 3GB isn't exactly a lot of memory - but it will help.

Yes, but is also has $700-2000 of baggage called a pc (of the mac type) built into the monitor. No point in him buying a $1200 iMac just for a $300 monitor

$300 for the iMac IPS screen? Can you point me to it so I can buy three?? ;)

[basroil]

$300 for the iMac IPS screen? Can you point me to it so I can buy three?? ;)
21.5" screen you can get for $300 (screen alone though ;)) And other companies have 22-23" IPS screens between $200 and $400, many rated higher.


EDIT:
The bug is something seen pretty much everywhere you see adobe or x264 based things. The processors just aren't processing the right threads even though they are there. Works just fine in windows, only OSX is giving issues. If it's actually on both program's sides rather than OSX, it's just an example of a poor platform (not really platform, but you know what i mean) choice for 64bit programs in osx

[firstclass]

21.5" screen you can get for $300 (screen alone though ;)) And other companies have 22-23" IPS screens between $200 and $400, many rated higher.
I was referring to the 27" model, the 21.5" doesn't offer any great value, the 27" does.