MAC question

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

Hi there..My Pc desk top has been giving me problems for ever...thank god my buddy owns at a computer repair shop..lol But now Im fed up and would like to get a MAC desk top.. I have a MacBook and love it but for a desk top Im not sure what to go for..I was looking at either the mini mac..24inch I-mac and even the 15.4 inch macbook pro (after some reading on SS) that Id use as a desk unit with an other monitor plugged into it..
So I really have no idea what to do for as they all seem good..lol
Any help would be thankfull.:)
Thanks

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

EDIT:..just did some reshearching...
15.4" MacBook with 2.33 processor..120gig hd and 2 gigs of ram..$2799
24" I-MAC with 2.33 processor..250 gig hd .. 2 gigs of ram with the wireless keyboard/mouse..$2829
Mac Mini with 1.83 processor..120gig hd..2 gigs of ram..with the wireless keyboard/mouse and the 23" Apple cinama display..$2537

For HD space Im not really worried as I have 4 external drives..
Now I just have to choose..lol

[Todd Corzett]

Out of the ones listed above... I'd say go with the 24" iMac for a desktop unit, given that you already have the MacBook for work on the road. Now, another option would be to just buy a 23" display and plug it into the MacBook you already own. Compared to a mini it's going to be of comparable speed... and with the dual displays you get more screen to work with.

-Todd...

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

Thats actually not a bad idea about my macbook..the only thing is Id like to have two comps just incase something happens..My best friend owns a older gen mac mini with a gig of ram and he can do raw processing with it no problem so Im still considering that as the new one with 2 gigs or ram should be a lot faster..
Basicly would I see difference in the speed of a mac mini and the 24" I mac?

[John Thawley]

I think you'll find the MacBook breathing heavy as more and more native apps rolling out for the Intel chips. I know with Aperture you'd be hard pressed to keep it running smooth.

I'm running a 15.4 MacBook Pro 2.16 with 2 gig of ram running dual displays with a 23" HD Cinema display and bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I then run four LaCie 500gb Firewrie externals off the back of the monitor.

Pretty happy with it. Jim Sykes just purchased a Mac Pro desktop so he can comment there.

JT

[John Waugh]

I run the MacBook Pro 17" as my portable for field editing and client presentations and love the results. But that said I have a 2.7 GHz dual as a desktop with 5 GB ram and 6 firewire drives daisy chained for my everyday photo processor. As the software demands grow, huge ram capabilities are vital. The MacBook Pro is a great machine but is limited by a 120 GB hard drive and 2 GB ram. Aperture, when really running a large project gets kind of bogged down with 2 GB ram. As the other softwares emerge for the Intel like CS3 w/ Lightroom imbedded you might find that a Mac Pro or an Older G5 2.7 dual will give you the ram and the drive configurations you need to really manage your work flow. You will be sorry with a Mini. Its just to bare bones to drive the new photo softwares. 3 GB ram minimum.

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

The MacPro is awesome but out of my budget.. So now Im still confused..lol

[John Waugh]

Look into a G5 2.7 dual with added ram and a fast video card.
the Mac Pro is pulling alot of video people out of thier 2.7's.
I have been running Aperture on a 2.7dual and a Mac Pro and see very little difference.
It might be an affordable route to go.
John

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

Thanks for the tips...thats a very interesting option..One of the reasons why I wanted a new MAC was cause of the intel chip and being able to run both xp and osx..

[Todd Corzett]

One of the reasons why I wanted a new MAC was cause of the intel chip and being able to run both xp and osx..
At this point... for me at least... there is little reason to buy a Mac that doesn't have the intel chips. Buying the older systems is a great way to save some cash (I saved several K when I bought my Dual 2.0Ghz G5), but if you want the ability to run XP that too (I know it's on my list of reasons)... it's the only real option.

You will be sorry with a Mini. Its just to bare bones...
I agree 100%. Unless you are using it as a temporary system, you are going to be wanting more (now and in the future). If you buy the mini to get the 23" Display... then upgrade to a Mac Pro in the (near) future, then it's a different story all together. But, I'd say get the 23" and use your MacBook... I understand the want to have a backup system, but you can buy a mini at anytime if you needed to.

As the software demands grow, huge ram capabilities are vital. The MacBook Pro is a great machine but is limited by a 120 GB hard drive and 2 GB ram. Aperture, when really running a large project gets kind of bogged down with 2 GB ram. As the other softwares emerge for the Intel like CS3 w/ Lightroom imbedded you might find that a Mac Pro or an Older G5 2.7 dual will give you the ram and the drive configurations you need to really manage your work flow.
I agree that in the future the demands of software make things difficult... but when it comes to computers, I think you need to buy for NOW. The price of hardware, RAM, etc. tends to drop quite rapidly over time... and busying something more than you need just to be ready for the future leaves you stuck (financially) in one system for a longer time. I think getting expandability is great, but in the world of Macs... short of throwing in more RAM or another hard drive... you just get a new computer (as processor upgrades are virtually unheard-of these days).

What would I do? Determine what you want, or better yet NEED, and save for it. If you NEED something now, then get what you can afford now... but if you have something that does what you NEED, just keep saving. I don't foresee a major hardware upgrade in the near future (well, maybe something minor at MWSF in Jan), so you should be OK on that front. As software gets more resource hungry, as it always will, you can upgrade to a new system at a fraction of the price it would cost you to buy now.

-Todd...

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

Ok so now between the macbook pro and the 24inch I-mac?? hehe

[John Thawley]

MacBook Pro. I don't believe the iMac will allow for dual monitor configurations. With the MBP, you can add a large montior later and run in dual display mode. Big plus for me.

JT

[Todd Corzett]

With the MBP, you can add a large montior later and run in dual display mode. Big plus for me.
Not to mention that you get the speed of your "desktop" when you are on the road. Personally, I'd rather have one computer for everything than two systems that need to have data/info transfered around on.

-Todd...

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

Im back with one more question..IM going to be getting an 24 inch I-mac.I can either get it with a 2.16 processor or a 2.33 processor its a 300$ difference between the two...is it actually worth it..like would I see a difference?
Thanks

[Doug DeVetter]

The difference IS measurable in benchmark tests, but only you can decide how important that is to you. I can dig up details on benchmark results if you're interested.

Personally, the $300 premium isn't worth it to me because I'm an amateur photographer and I've got more time than money. If this is your primary (or only) workstation and you'll be doing a lot of image processing (professional use vs personal/hobby??), then perhaps it is worth to you. I buy new computers frequently and usually "buy down" a level or two from the top of the line...what I consider to be the sweet spot in price vs performance tradeoff. If you plan to keep your computer for a few years, perhaps the faster processor will extend the useful life of the system for another 6-12 months. If I was a pro photographer and believed that "time was money," there's no doubt that I'd spend the additional $300.

Disclaimer: I work in the computer industry. This is my opinion, and not the opinion of my employer. :)

[John Thawley]

Im back with one more question..IM going to be getting an 24 inch I-mac.I can either get it with a 2.16 processor or a 2.33 processor its a 300$ difference between the two...is it actually worth it..like would I see a difference?
Thanks

I'd upgrade the RAM with the $300. I think the performance would be much more measurable with increased RAM.

I'm still not sold on the iMac choice, though.

JT

[John Waugh]

MacBookPro no question. But if you must get the iMac the be bench tests will relate to video processing more than photo work. you can get a big external hard drive with the difference you will want it.

[Todd Corzett]

I'd upgrade the RAM with the $300. I think the performance would be much more measurable with increased RAM.
Took the words right out of my mouth... the money is better spend other places... like RAM... or saving it for the CS3 upgrade when it comes out.

-Todd...

[Mark Delbrueck]

I think the iMac is the best all around value. JT- are you sure you can't add a second display on the iMac.

Sure laptops are nice in terms of portability, but I'm not sold on the reliability (more parts being tossed around and what not). Plus you have battery issues to deal with, chargers, etc. If what you want is a bread-winning workhorse, I'd go with a desktop.

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

You can add a second monitor to the I-mac..and I already have my mac book and dont really wanna have two laptops..plus 24" I-Mac is awesome :)..
Thanks for the comments.
and btw..I do do this for a living..

[Dennis Murray]

How does the video card upgrade compare as a price/value ratio compared to RAM or CPU?

[Jeremy Alan Glover]

the vid card upgrade is not to expensive and I plan on getting it with 2 gigs of ram..