Get rid of Windows Desktop for Mac Mini?

I am considering take the Apple plunge and getting rid of my desktop in favor of a Mac Mini. I am choosing the Mac Mini over the iMac because I have two 24" monitors that I like. Here are the specs of the two machines:

Current:
2yr Old AMD Phenom 9750 Quad 2.4GHz
8GB DDR2
ATI HD3650

Mac Mini
Intel i5 2.5 GHz
8GB DDR3
ATI HD6630

I have been told that Apple computers run more efficiently than Windows machines.

How will these two machines compare for Lightroom 3 and Photoshop?

dmbpettit wrote in post #13646355
I have been told that Apple computers run more efficiently than Windows machines.

Who told you that

The i5 should be enough for photoshop and lightroom as they are mainly a single threaded program. I dont know if your going to see a huge jump in performance between the two machines.

While the i5 certainly is faster, I really don't see anything major for photo editing. Mac OS X is definitely more stable but Windows 7 has been holding its own lately. Vista certainly is trash. 8GB on both machines, no gain there. MacMini will probably run much cooler and save you on energy bill. If your PC is not limiting you in any way, keep it. You can fit more HD for image backups on your PC rig. If you have money to spare and not doing much serious work, MacMini has a small footprint and the muscle to replace your PC.

ebann wrote in post #13646476
While the i5 certainly is faster, I really don't see anything major for photo editing. Mac OS X is definitely more stable but Windows 7 has been holding its own lately. Vista certainly is trash. 8GB on both machines, no gain there. MacMini will probably run much cooler and save you on energy bill. If your PC is not limiting you in any way, keep it. You can fit more HD for image backups on your PC rig. If you have money to spare and not doing much serious work, MacMini has a small footprint and the muscle to replace your PC.

I don't see how OSX is any more stable. You can't get more stable than no crashes and no problems...and that's how my PC runs.

I have just found that my Windows 7 machine seems to slow over time. I find myself doing a clean install every 9 months or so to speed it back up. This gets a little annoying.

For the sake of argument, lets say I just want an Apple PC. Am I going in the wrong direction with these two machines?

I have the current Mini and it's a great little machine. Its weak point is the hard drive. With 8 gb of RAM, Aperture's brushes render in near real-time. That's something my Q6600/Nvidia 8600GT couldn't do.

I have a 500GB 7200 RPM Seagate Drive that has the 4GB flash hybrid system on it. I figured I would put this in to speed up the drive. Would that fix the week point?

I am really wanting a Mac lately and I just want to make sure I don't load up my library and realize that I have a slower computer.

Yes, that would obviate the problem.

You should also come to our meetings at the FC Digital Camera Club. Next one is next Tuesday evening, 6:30 to 9:00 pm.

How can an Apple computer running the same hardware as a Windows computer be more "efficient"?

The operating system might be different, and some of the available software might run differently, but "efficient" is a pretty meaningless term with out any kind of context.


Remember the Mac Mini is designed for use a hidden server (makes a good media server with the right software) and use a simple home computer, i.e. for general web use, email etc.


If your doing a lot of photograph processing then a proper desktop is still a better option as you can set it up with multiple Hard Drives.

dmbpettit wrote in post #13646355
I am choosing the Mac Mini over the iMac because I have two 24" monitors that I like.

What resolution are your monitors and what are the available inputs?
Remember the Mac Mini has only a limited selection of out puts, a single DVI and a single HDMI out put which is limited to 1920x1200.

dmbpettit wrote in post #13646613
I have just found that my Windows 7 machine seems to slow over time. I find myself doing a clean install every 9 months or so to speed it back up. This gets a little annoying.

For the sake of argument, lets say I just want an Apple PC. Am I going in the wrong direction with these two machines?

Most Macs will benefit from a rebuild (archive and install) just like a PC. I run multiple machines with different OS flavors and they all get dirty after a while.

If you install Parallels or another VM on the Mac you can run Win7 at the same time as OS X and the Mac typically runs Win7 faster than a native PC.

Best of both worlds.

Moppie wrote in post #13649604
How can an Apple computer running the same hardware as a Windows computer be more "efficient"?

The operating system might be different, and some of the available software might run differently, but "efficient" is a pretty meaningless term with out any kind of context.


Remember the Mac Mini is designed for use a hidden server (makes a good media server with the right software) and use a simple home computer, i.e. for general web use, email etc.


If your doing a lot of photograph processing then a proper desktop is still a better option as you can set it up with multiple Hard Drives.

What resolution are your monitors and what are the available inputs?
Remember the Mac Mini has only a limited selection of out puts, a single DVI and a single HDMI out put which is limited to 1920x1200.

+1. I'll also add that you should be aware that the MAC Minis uses the mobile edition of the processors (same as in laptops). While not a "bad" thing it is something that you should know (as the desktop versions of the same processors are faster and you cannot get a quad core i5 in a Mini).

Just to remind you, Macs utilize the GPU for many tasks, so focusing on the dual-core i5 processor (which is an excellent cpu) is limiting. In particular, if the OP decides to use Aperture or Pixelmator, those will perform very well with the Mini. It is a great computer in a nice, quiet and small package.

Numenorean wrote in post #13646527
I don't see how OSX is any more stable. You can't get more stable than no crashes and no problems...and that's how my PC runs.

Just decided to add the clarification if anyone cares...

OS X is based on NeXTSTEP which is a Unix-like operating system based on the Mach kernel, plus source code from BSD. This solid background has decades of server/user stability and security. Code review of the kernel is available.

Windows 7 is the new iteration from Microsoft and is certainly their best OS so far. I cannot say it carries the same solid background because it has been out only for a short period. Code review is not available.

This said, both OS are not 100% secure, but OS X has a larger possibility of getting the holes patched up (white box/source available). Win7 requires Microsoft to find (usually after being exploited to death) and patch the hole (black box/no source available).

I use OS X for work, Win7 for games, and Linux anything else.

Hi...

What's your take on a 2.3 basic Mac mini?
WOuld one with a 128gb SSD and 8gb of RAM make a good machine for photo editing?
Would run aditional hard drives by FW800.

Cheers!

gdourado07 wrote in post #13725737
Hi...

What's your take on a 2.3 basic Mac mini?
WOuld one with a 128gb SSD and 8gb of RAM make a good machine for photo editing?
Would run aditional hard drives by FW800.

Cheers!

I have a Core2Quad and a Core2Duo system... and everything Apple offers today totally kills my system in terms of performance. These i5/i7 chips are amazing. The Intel video is nothing to laugh at (the old ones were laughable). With Thunderbolt being offered in the latest Apple machines, running additional drives thru Thunderbolt is highly desirable. FW800 is rated max at 800 Mbps. Today's SSD drives can go up to 6,000 Mbps, so firewire will be throttling the throughput. In sum, the newest MacMini can totally rock for photo editing.

Now... if you batch process thousands of images at a time, perhaps you would need a MacPro running RAID on SSD drives.