The Jump

I'm going to make the jump to Mac desk top computers for my attempts on Photoshop. Question being, which one? Suggestions please...

Thanks,

Lynn

The simple answer is the best you can afford. Because Mac's are inherently intended for video/image work, most of them will do the job just fine. The issue is the cost as they are MUCH more expensive for a comparably equipped Windows based device. I am not a Mac hater, but my son is a musician and HAD TO have a Mac for his music editing software and it cost me almost 3 times as much as a PC that would have done the same thing if he had the software in PC format.

sirquack wrote in post #16309277
The simple answer is the best you can afford.

This is good advice whatever computer gear you are buying because even the top end kit will be out of date within 6 months. The high-end kit will however continue to have a productive lifespan whereas the low-end dross will not.

sirquack wrote in post #16309277
Because Mac's are inherently intended for video/image work, most of them will do the job just fine.

Sorry but this is BS. A MAC is simply a PC with a different OS - I can boot my PC into OSX (Hackintosh) or Win 7 at my choice.

sirquack wrote in post #16309277
The issue is the cost as they are MUCH more expensive for a comparably equipped Windows based device.

Agree fully and aside from having to buy a MAC because of some unusual software issues (I feel sorry for you, I really do) I see no reason to buy MAC these days.

I understand that they are well built and have a "Cool" factor that PC's don't but I can't justify the price.

sirquack wrote in post #16309277
I am not a Mac hater, but my son is a musician and HAD TO have a Mac for his music editing software and it cost me almost 3 times as much as a PC that would have done the same thing if he had the software in PC format.

Same here - not a MAC hater - in fact I nearly bought one a few years ago but I went down the custom PC route and got myself a killer setup for fractions of what the MAC would have cost - an then added a second HDD and did a Hackintosh so I have the best of both worlds (altyhought its been 12 months since I booted up into the MAC partition.

What was the Music Editing Software that you needed?

Something that he uses to edit tracks on certain high end sound boards. It apparently works for both Mac/PC, but he was brainwashed by the trade school that he went to that is runs better on the high priced Mac equipment that the school has a contract with. He would have also had to buy the PC version since they sell the Mac and PC versions separately and he already owned a license for the Mac version.

If you want raw power? Go Macbook pro Retina - I have the i7 2.8ghz, 16gb RAM and 256gb SSD, and it is a beast. At work I have the 2013 27" i5 iMac, the Macbook Pro leaves the iMac in the dust.

But if you want a really good, powerful, compact computer, the Macbook Air's are plenty powerful enough, and cheap.

The PC cost vs Mac cost argument is invalid, the equivilant PC would be roughly the same price, so just go with what you can afford. But if you want less problems (not spiting PCs here, just from experience), go with Mac.

I agree that prices can be similar if you have to buy everything from scratch.

If you already have a good monitor (or pair of monitors) then then the cost of going iMAC is significantly higher spec for spec because you have to buy the 27in screen that comes integral with it if you want it or not.

Similarly the iMAC is no where near as expandable or tweakable - my PC is comfortably overclocked to 4GHz - I'd like to see an iMac get there.

Not rubishing MAC's at all as they are great lifestyle machines, but there can be no argument that when it comes to performance $ for $ PC kicks MAC's ass.

Anyhow, the OP has already decided to go MAC and wants a desktop - so that is a MAC Pro - I'd have one of them myself.

I don't really consider the iMAC a desktop as lots of the internal componentry, especially the Graphics Cards and main memory, use laptop spec items

As far as Mac Pros go, hold off until the new Darth Vader models are finally released, because:
A. They're going to smoke the old ones in speed all while being a faction of the size and weight if you want a new one, or...
B. Older Mac Pros and refurbished models are going to crash in price as everyone is going to be dumping theirs for the new one and you can get in on the low prices. Never buy a Mac Pro new, always refurbished.

Otherwise the iMacs are pretty good computers, as they don't take up much more desktop space than a laptop, I have a mid-2011 iMac and it does everything I need for photo work while being small and light enough for me to be able to reposition it around the studio as needed.

The 27" iMac is a pretty good deal considering a color-accurate 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS monitor alone costs a good bit of money; there's no comparing it to an Eizo, but one of those can set you back as much as the whole computer itself.

The Retina MBP is smoking fast for a laptop, and has the highest resolution screen of anything as well, if you want to go semi-mobile, this is a pretty good choice.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16310122
As far as Mac Pros go, hold off until the new Darth Vader models are finally released, because:
A. They're going to smoke the old ones in speed all while being a faction of the size and weight if you want a new one, or...
B. Older Mac Pros and refurbished models are going to crash in price as everyone is going to be dumping theirs for the new one and you can get in on the low prices. Never buy a Mac Pro new, always refurbished.

Otherwise the iMacs are pretty good computers, as they don't take up much more desktop space than a laptop, I have a mid-2011 iMac and it does everything I need for photo work while being small and light enough for me to be able to reposition it around the studio as needed.

The 27" iMac is a pretty good deal considering a color-accurate 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS monitor alone costs a good bit of money; there's no comparing it to an Eizo, but one of those can set you back as much as the whole computer itself.

The Retina MBP is smoking fast for a laptop, and has the highest resolution screen of anything as well, if you want to go semi-mobile, this is a pretty good choice.

Thank you all for your feedback, I was at Apple this morning for the new iPhone and looked at the iMac 27" with the trackPad, sweettt...

Lynn

Sounds like the Apple bug has sunk its teeth into you good and proper.

I have the i7 2.8ghz, 16gb RAM and 500gb SSD and I could not be happier. You will be very happy with your purchase.

Nightstalker wrote in post #16310088
Not rubishing MAC's at all as they are great lifestyle machines, but there can be no argument that when it comes to performance $ for $ PC kicks MAC's ass.

Sorry, that's just not true. I have both - a Gigabyte MB, NXT dual plenum case, watercooled i5 overclocked to 4GHz, 16GB of 1600MHz RAM, 6BG/sec boot 120GB SSD, 2 x WD 10K 300GB 6GB/sec drives, 2 x XFX 6870s Crossfired. It runs WIndows 7 64 and 32 bit, and has OSX 7.5 installed. I got these parts fairly cheap.

Then I got tired of screwing around with hacking and PCs and went out an bought a used Mac Pro 4,1 Dual quad 2.26 GHz with 8GB of RAM and 1 320GB WD hard drive for $700, less than the total price of the PC above. With a Velociraptor RAID and and SSD and eight 8 more GB it outperforms the i5 in every way., and ultimately costs less than the PC.

The idea that a PC is made from the same components as a Mac Pro is simply hogwash. The share some CPUs, video chipsets, and other components, but the Mac Pro, even the old ones, is a far more sophisticated piece of equipment than any PC.