[IrishDaze]

Hello! I am agraphic designer that is considering making the switch from PC to Mac (and am sooooooooo looking forward to it!!!). I need a little help trying to decide which system is best for me. Any help would be appreciated!

I use Adobe Illustrator, PhotoShop, and PageMaker (InDesign once I convert to Mac) to produce printed material (ie: not Web pages). Would the new iMac be powerful enough to run these programs all at the same time?? Or should I get the Mac Pro?

Thank you for any help and/or thoughts!!!!!

[Landos Mustache]

Of course the iMac will handle it more than fine. The only real issue comes down to RAM so max it out on the iMac.

Yes the Pro will be faster obviously but you do not need all that power for most of what you do in these apps.

The biggest problem is NONE of those apps you mentioned are Universal binary so they will run much slower than they would on a Power PC computer.

Nothing you can do about that though until next year when the next photoshop comes out.

[iREZ]

the macpro will be generously faster than the imac seeing that not only does it have quad processors (imac only has dual) but its also 64bit where as the imac is only 32. it will run the apps faster in rosetta, and trust me...the next version, cs3, will definitely take advantage of more ram. the imac will be able to do what youre mentioning, but its reached the end of its cycle and i foresee an upgrade in sept for the machine (where im guessing it'll get bumped up to 64bit as well). if you make your money with your computer, i say go macpro and dont look back, if this is occasional printing...i say wait for the next iteration and pick up the imac.

[brokenjago]

I agree with iRez. If you make most of your living off your computer, don't hold back: Go Mac Pro, you won't regret it. If, however, it's only an occasional flight of fancy or something done moderately, go for a maxed out iMac when the next revision comes out in the next couple of weeks.

[Autumn]

If you need it now and could afford it: Go with Mac Pro ALL THE WAY!!!

[Javizun]

anything "PRO" hand downs mac pro hence the name
the imac can definetly handle anything thrown at it but is more a consumer lineup
mac pro is for wha tyou do...if i had the money ill buy a mac pro and use it for personal computing theres no book saying you cant do it-is always better to have power then to be under-powered.

MAC PRO

[Batman Beyond]

Believe me when I say that I have toiled over this decision myself. I finally came to the conclusion to go with the Mac Pro because it can expand to meet my needs in the future. The iMac will meet your needs now, but in two years you may have wished you had some expansion options.

Internal ATA hard drives are inexpensive. To get more hard drive space in the future is an easy option with the Mac Pro. More RAM? Again, up to 16 Gigs! The speed of this machine will keep up with my needs for many years to come.

For the price difference, I think you would be happier with the Mac Pro.

Sincerely,

Batman Beyond

[Biest]

My pick would be the Mac Pro as well since you are a pro, but before I would buy one now, wait till CS3, etc. comes out, since right now Adobe products run via Rosetta and that slows them down... even with a Mac Pro

[iREZ]

macpro is apparently on par with the quad g5 when it comes to running adobe cs, im talking about the 3.0macpro by the way...not too shabby if you ask me.

[Biest]

Originally Posted by iREZ

macpro is apparently on par with the quad g5 when it comes to running adobe cs, im talking about the 3.0macpro by the way...not too shabby if you ask me.

i wanna see how fast CS3 will than...

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by IrishDaze

Hello! I am a graphic designer...
I use Adobe Illustrator, PhotoShop, and PageMaker (InDesign ...

iMacs are consumer boxes totally unsuited for future graphics work. Photoshop - the existing PSCS2 version - already can use 4 GB of RAM and shows improved performance with up to 8 GB on board. PSCS3 will want even more RAM.

Buying a desktop box today limited to max 2 GB RAM like iMacs are (even though PS currently can run pretty well with 2 GB RAM even if it is sub-optimal) would be a very bad life cycle decision for a graphic designer.

You want a pro Mac. You will find that Macs are a very good value; when a PC box seems cheaper it is invariably because things are missing.

Wait to see what products are announced beween now and mid-September. Then decide if you want a Merom-based MacBook Pro, a Mac Pto, or if you can wait until December/January to see what the quad core MacIntels look like. If you need a box immediately get a Mac Pro.

-Allen Wicks

[oybrator]

Originally Posted by Batman Beyond

I finally came to the conclusion to go with the Mac Pro because it can expand to meet my needs in the future. The iMac will meet your needs now, but in two years you may have wished you had some expansion options.

...

This is actually a very true case. The iMac will be able to suit your needs now and even in the foreseeable future. But if you're planning for the future, Mac Pro is the only way to go. I bought the first iMac G5 and although I'm still very happy with it these are my external peripherals:

1. Scanner
2. Printer
3. Memory card reader
4. External Dual Layer DVD writer
5. External FireWire Drive
6. External FireWire Drive
7. External FireWire Drive
8. External sound card
9. External TV-tuner
10. FireWire HUB to get more ports
11. USB 2 HUB to get more ports

Come to think of it I'm not saving any space any more and the sleekness of the iMac is somewhat lost. A lot of this stuff could either go inside a Mac pro or wouldn't be needed at all.

[J.W. Pepper]

I seriously doubt you will need the extra power of the Mac Pro, many of us have been using G3 & G4 machines until recently without to many problems, unless yiouy are in the business of video rendering. The reason why you would be better off witht he Mac Pro is that you can get a much bigger screen of your choice. CRT or LCD it is up to you, but as a graphic designer you would find the limitations of a 20" iMac had to live with.

[Dark_Lotus]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

iMacs are consumer boxes totally unsuited for future graphics work. Photoshop - the existing PSCS2 version - already can use 4 GB of RAM and shows improved performance with up to 8 GB on board. PSCS3 will want even more RAM.

Buying a desktop box today limited to max 2 GB RAM like iMacs are (even though PS currently can run pretty well with 2 GB RAM even if it is sub-optimal) would be a very bad life cycle decision for a graphic designer.

You want a pro Mac. You will find that Macs are a very good value; when a PC box seems cheaper it is invariably because things are missing.

Wait to see what products are announced beween now and mid-September. Then decide if you want a Merom-based MacBook Pro, a Mac Pto, or if you can wait until December/January to see what the quad core MacIntels look like. If you need a box immediately get a Mac Pro.

-Allen Wicks

I started doing Graphic Design on my 12" iBook this summer with 512MB of RAM and it ran fine, so saying that PS will run 'pretty well' with 2GB of RAM is a major understatement. Like others said, if you do make a living doing design with your computer, then go ahead and spend the extra bucks to get the Mac Pro. If you want to save up some money, then an iMac will definetly suite your needs. Either one will work.

[iREZ]

Originally Posted by Biest

i wanna see how fast CS3 will than...

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Yikes. If you want to use photoshop better hold off on getting a pro until PS is native.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Not only that but the numbers aren't that impressive. The 2.66 is pretty much on level with the Quad G5's which is disappointing.

again i talked outta my ass before checking the facts, but its still relatively close to the quad even though its not running a universal app. not too shabby.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Dark_Lotus

I started doing Graphic Design on my 12" iBook this summer with 512MB of RAM and it ran fine, so saying that PS will run 'pretty well' with 2GB of RAM is a major understatement. Like others said, if you do make a living doing design with your computer, then go ahead and spend the extra bucks to get the Mac Pro. If you want to save up some money, then an iMac will definetly suite your needs. Either one will work.

We disagree. An iMac may suit your needs - today - but any new desktop box today will have a life of 2007, 2008, 2009 or even longer. Intentionally limiting the OS and graphics apps of 2007-2008-2009 to a maximum of 2 GB RAM would create a huge restriction on OS and application performance.

To dabble in graphics 2 GB is fine today. To do real work in graphics in the future using OS 10.5, CS3, etc. is an entirely different scenario. Similarly, management of DSLR image capture using apps like Aperture will also prefer more than 2 GB RAM.

It is not about simply getting an app to run, it is about using it most cost-effectively over time. Like I said, Photoshop already can use 4 GB of RAM and shows improved performance with up to 8 GB on board. PSCS3 will want even more RAM.

Sometimes a 2 GB RAM limitation can be an acceptable trade-off. E.g. so far laptops have been limited to 2 GB RAM, but one may find portability worth the very significant degradation in graphics performance.

Or maybe cash flow is such that a less expensive box gets purchased, expecting a shorter less cost effective life cycle; but in that case I would recommend a loan or as second choice a used DP G5 tower, never an iMac. iMacs are a poor life cycle choice for desktop-bound graphics work.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by J.W. Pepper

I seriously doubt you will need the extra power of the Mac Pro, many of us have been using G3 & G4 machines until recently without to many problems, unless yiouy are in the business of video rendering...

Perhaps cruise the Adobe Photoshop Mac Forums. There are very few graphics pros using G3s at all, let alone without problems. Of course anyone can stop in time and not upgrade anything, but few can do so and stay competitive in the digital graphics/images marketplace. Make no mistake: G3s/G4s are dead for future graphics. Note too that DSLR still image work has transformed graphic design to where hardware needs are now similar to what used to be video needs. E.g. Aperture sucks on stock G5s but works fine on MacIntels.

Those of us using higher end dual processor G4 towerss (like me) have been limping along, suffering lost productivity for whatever our individual cash flow reasons have been, typically waiting to see the MacIntel towers. Currently dual processor G5s are toward the end of their life cycle, but pretty much equal to Mac Pros at this point until UB CS3 and OS 10.5 are out Q2 2007.

Buying a new box for the future, if one intends to do workplace graphics only pro Macs should be considered.

-Allen Wicks

[hdsalinas]

How would you compare a 20" imac with 1 gb ram to a base 2.0ghz macpro model?

I am planing on getting an imac around christmas (hope they have the core 2 duo chips inside the imacs by then). On amazon I can get the imac + an extra 1Gb ram stick (for a total of 1.5G ram) for $1836. (before $100 mail in rebate) Mac mall offers the base mac pro for $2099 before the $100 mail in rebate. -A diference of less than $300.

I like the form factor of the imac. I am not sure if would make use of the upgrade capabilities of the macpro. (probably just add more of ram down the road)


Would there be a big diference between these two?

[::maroma::]

I think it all depends on how intensive you will use your personal Mac for your design work. I'm a designer, but I work for a design studio that I go to every day, and they provide my computer for me at the office. So my home Mac doesn't get used too much for my design work. I use it here and there, mostly for personal stuff, but my Mac at work is what gets the most use.

So, I'd say figure out how much you're going to use it for real work. Then decide how much money you want to spend maximum on a new computer.

For me, an iMac at home works just fine. Not only is it cheaper, it meets my needs for my personal design work or any work I'd take home. And the cheaper price allows me to buy a new Mac sooner than I would if I bought a Pro.

So its a toss-up. iMac or Pro is about your personal preferences. And I will tell you from personal experience that 2GB of RAM is plenty for print design work. Don't let anyone tell you that 2GB of RAM is not enough for print work. If they tell you that, they aren't a print designer. Sure more RAM is better, but 2GB is great for now and the near future.

And you really can't make a truly informed decision until the new iMacs are released and we see the specs. They might increase max RAM to 3GB or something, better processors, etc.

[hdsalinas]

True,

I think that the imac has more "home stuff" too, like the camera and the remote control.
I really hope that the release the imacs with the new chips for christmas.

Santa Jobs, here is what I want for Christmas

20" imac (23" would be great)
1 GB base ram, expandable to at least 3, but 4 would be excellent.
Perhaps you could make a removable back panel to easily swap hard drives (like on the macpro)
How about you make the screen touchscreen and detachable from its base (so it can work as a tablet) You could take the power unit out of the imac and replace it with a laptop battery.
What else... oh! a SD card slot on the bottom would be perfect.

I think thast all for now. Although an Apple printer would be cool.

[all2ofme]

I'm not convinced that Macworld's Photoshop tests are all that useful since the machines only have 1GB of RAM each. This shouldn't make too much of a difference provided they're both running native code, but the Photoshop result under Rosetta likely makes for a poor showing for the Mac Pro since Rosetta is so RAM intensive.

Barefeats have tested a few different configs with more RAM that paint quite a different picture (though they've only shown the MP-aware tests here):
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html

[sc_3007]

I have been wanting a 20 Inch iMac for months now but I have been waiting patiently for the release of the intel core 2 duo conroe chip because rumor has it that the iMac's were at some point going to be equiped with them.

I have all the money I need to buy one now saved up and I just am dying to get my hands on one. Although waiting for conroe is making me regress to the mental age of a 4 year old throwing a fit cause I am not allowed my favourite toy, LOL

But Muuuuuuuuuuummmm..... lol

Does anyone know what the situation with this???? If anyone can shed some light then please do

[chabig]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

Intentionally limiting the OS and graphics apps of 2007-2008-2009 to a maximum of 2 GB RAM would create a huge restriction on OS and application performance.

Ever heard of virtual memory? Programs are not limited to just the amount of RAM in your machine.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

iMacs are consumer boxes totally unsuited for future graphics work. Photoshop - the existing PSCS2 version - already can use 4 GB of RAM and shows improved performance with up to 8 GB on board. PSCS3 will want even more RAM.

What? Photoshop can't even use more than 4 GB and no way in hell do 99% of photoshop users need anywhere close to that much RAM.

You guys are talking like photoshop doesn't even launch on an iMac.

[Atkins]

What? Photoshop can't even use more than 4 GB and no way in hell do 99% of photoshop users need anywhere close to that much RAM.

You guys are talking like photoshop doesn't even launch on an iMac.

Well, of course you can launch Photoshop on Imac, but that's not the question. I don't know what are your needs, personally graphic design is just my hobby, and still I often have 300mb PS files, that are using quite a bit of my RAM. (and when you are doing some design stuff, you'll probably have more than PS launched).
The next year, when the next PS will be out, your Imac will start giving up. I am sure at the end of the next year you'll think about changing it. The Mac Pro is more powerfull, more expandable, and you can keep it for the next 3 years with some minimal investment. It's always better to have more power than needed, the softwares are developing really fast. And if you work simultaneously with multiple apps, it's really the better choice.

[Dark Helmet]

IrishDaze is cost an issue? Just the 8 Gigs of Ram these people as suggesting for the Mac Pro will run you the cost of about 3 iMacs so for the cost of a Mac Pro you can replace the iMac every year.

I am a graphic designer full time and freelance and you will be more than fine with an iMac with 2 gigs of RAM especially for the amount it costs.