[ottyee]

Hey Guys I'm a newbie and thinking about buying a mac. I do alot of photoshop work, some of my files can be anywhere from 100mb to 800mb. I need your help in deciding which, mac pro or imac, way to go. I plan on install bootcamp or parallels to run some windows apps. The problem that I have with PC is the 3.5gb memory limit. Any advise would help.

Thanks in advance

[jjk5]

Sounds like you want a Mac Pro. It'll offer you greater expandability with respect to hard drive arrays and memory.

[Og Oggilby]

Mac Pro!

[Veltliner]

For serious photo editing an iMac can no longer be recommended, thanks to the glossy screen.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

For serious photo editing an iMac can no longer be recommended, thanks to the glossy screen.

Why?

Once the screen is calibrated its fine.

Back to the OP's question. If you're doing some pretty significant photoshop work which it seems you are, then the MacPro is your best option, not only do you get more horsepower, you also get more expandability.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Why?

Once the screen is calibrated its fine.

What I have read here on the forum, it's not fine.

The glossy screen makes the colors look more striking, more saturated.

Also: you need to be very careful about the glare.

There is an interesting thread on the MacBook Pro forum regarding this.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

If you're doing some pretty significant photoshop work which it seems you are, then the MacPro is your best option, not only do you get more horsepower, you also get more expandability.

Definitely.

And in the long run, you will possibly save money as you don't have to upgrade so often. And you can put in much more RAM. And stock it up with a lot of hard drive space.

And when Blueray gets cheaper, you can just go out and get one and put it in (I at least hope it will be that easy).

With an iMac you'll either have another upgrade coming, or you have another extra box plus connector spaghetti decorating your work area.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

What I have read here on the forum, it's not fine.

The glossy screen makes the colors look more striking, more saturated.

Also: you need to be very careful about the glare.

I don't think it's a problem. There was a time when people claimed you couldn't do serious editing on TFTs, only CRTs were `good enough'.

The glossy screen doesn't `make colors more vibrant or saturated' as they are, the compensation films that matte screens have are missing. Once the screen is calibrated, that shouldn't be a problem. Remember that CRTs were reflecting a lot of light, too.

I haven't worked with glossy screens full-time, but my sister and a good friend of mine both have glossy screens and it seems just fine.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think it's a problem. There was a time when people claimed you couldn't do serious editing on TFTs, only CRTs were `good enough'.

The glossy screen doesn't `make colors more vibrant or saturated' as they are, the compensation films that matte screens have are missing. Once the screen is calibrated, that shouldn't be a problem. Remember that CRTs were reflecting a lot of light, too.

I haven't worked with glossy screens full-time, but my sister and a good friend of mine both have glossy screens and it seems just fine.

I can very well remember that CRT thing. But wasn't that at a time before LCDs became good? Weren't the first LCDs truly sharp, but lousy in color, and only later improved on color? And when LCDs got better, that argument shrunk, until only a hard core CRT user group upheld it.

I remember the iMacs before the iSight 2.1 (or was it two generations before that?). I went to an apple store, and they showed trailers on the Mac. The image was horrible, grainy, not sharp, bad colors, even on the cinema displays. Or can you remember the screen on the first Titanium Powerbook? (I'm sure the graphics cards were partly responsible for this, too).

After a long hiatus in computer shopping I went back into an apple store, and the performance on the iMacs was great! (the 2.1 20" iSights), the cinema displays even better.

So it could be that those glossy screens do that to the colors. You can read the same argument on the photographers' forums. Glossy screens just came out for the mac (and those earlier Sony glossy screens I always found awful), so it may be a first generation thing.

I hope to find someone, who does any kind of color sensitive work on a high level, has experience with glossy screens, to get his detailed arguments.

[OreoCookie]

I've used TFTs since my first Mac, a PowerBook G3 Kanga, so I know TFTs have come a long, long, long way. An older 18" Sun TFT on my desk reminds me that there is a difference between most notebook panels and those meant for displays you put on your desk.

Unlike the transition from CRTs to LCDs, matte and glossy panels aren't based on different technologies, they just have different coatings. Matte displays have additional diffusions that will certainly decrease image quality, contrast and brightness. But they will effectively diffuse point-like light sources. Glossy screens have a different coating that doesn't diffuse light.

I'm not saying that people should switch from one to the other, but since the underlying technology is the same, I find claims that `you can't do image editing on glossy displays' a bit far-fetched. Some even claim that you cannot calibrate glossy screens (the manual of my Color Spyder specifically says, that the calibrations should happen in a dark room, all external lights should be switched off, etc.). You can usually avoid nasty reflections on your screen by being reasonable about your work environment. Other than the issue of reflections (which may be an issue), I think it's just hype.

Basically, there are two camps in the notebook world now: those who like glossy screens and those who don't. I didn't have a choice (I `had' to take a matte display for my ProBook), but even if I did, I honestly don't know which I would have taken. Ask me again in three, four years when I need to buy my next ProBook

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm not saying that people should switch from one to the other, but since the underlying technology is the same, I find claims that `you can't do image editing on glossy displays' a bit far-fetched. Some even claim that you cannot calibrate glossy screens (the manual of my Color Spyder specifically says, that the calibrations should happen in a dark room, all external lights should be switched off, etc.). You can usually avoid nasty reflections on your screen by being reasonable about your work environment. Other than the issue of reflections (which may be an issue), I think it's just hype.

Agreed. There needs to be serious fact finding. I wonder if the statement, glossy screens had more color saturation, is based on fact or fiction.

I looked into that thread you linked your post to. That macrumors member did not give any details. I could imagine that reflections of ambient light could fool the eye. Adjustments of a photo always lie in the eye of the photographer, and we all know how many ways there are to manipulate the eye into wrong judgement. But like you I could not think why a screen calibrator would not work. I always calibrate my screen at night with no bright lamps on, so there could be no reflections.

I really need to upgrade, too. But I am definitely thinking more of a MacPro now.

[OreoCookie]

From what I've heard and read, you get used to it and your brain filters out the glare after a short while. If you are in the market for a pc notebook, it's very hard to get a matte screen. My sister wanted one, but we've shown her the models that were in her price range, nada.

[Veltliner]

Tigerlittle found the following interesting article about the new iMac screens, and how they are worse than the previous generation's:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24321625

[bloggerblog]

MacPro Pros
- You can connect multiple monitors
- You can use the external monitors with your next purchase
- You have massive memory upgrade options
- You have massive internal storage options
- you have PCI cards incase you decide to increase network bandwidth or install new Graphic Cards
- Easy access to the inside
- Can be placed under your desk

MacPro Cons
- Large

iMac Pros
- Affordable
- Preserves desk space
- Looks good
- Convenient

iMac Cons
- Limited Memory expansion
- Limited Internal Storage expansion
- Monitor is not re-usable with your next purchase
- If you decide to get a second monitor, i'd be less convenient than getting two Apple monitors that perfectly stack next to each-other
- Difficult to clean or access the inside
- Graphic card not upgradeable
- No PCI

[OreoCookie]

You can also connect a second monitor to an iMac and span across two screens. Most people don't use more than two screens at the same time.

[ninahagen]

The new iMac is very powerful, more than enough for most photo editing if you max it with 4GB RAM. Photoshop can only use 3GB of RAM in its current incarnation (32-bit), so that leaves you an extra gig to manage other apps you may want to have open at the same time. The exception is for CS2/CS3 pros who multi-task accross PS, AI and InDesign with heavy batching... then you may want more RAM for optimum speed.

I saw an iMac today for the first time, and would hesitate to buy one because of the glass face. It reflected the rest of the shop and seemed that unless you can regulate the light in your workspace it would be a hassle. Still, if you can regulate your light so there is a single source above the machine you should be OK.

Anyway, it is sleek, sexy, strong and fast. Unless you need a Ferrari, it will work well. I would get the 1TB drive if you work with such big files.

[Biest]

I would say the MacPro is best here, because of the file size and the fact that one can easily upgrade the components if needed, esp. RAM and HDD

edit//

And i am guessing you already have a monitor that you like or not?

[Veltliner]

Adding:

MacPro advantage:

Speed, doesn't have to be upgraded so often, you are flexible about the monitor,

iMac con:

Those machines are outdated much, much quicker than a MacPro. You will have to go through the onerous task of selling your computer more often.

[cube-dude]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Adding:
iMac con:

You will have to go through the onerous task of selling your computer more often.

I'm in a similar iMac/Pro debate as ottyee, but after 3 easy (and lucrative) Mac sales in 3 years on Craigslist, I'm sorry but I don't see the eventual selling as a "con" whatsoever. I guess it's all relative.

[cube-dude]

Veltliner, feel free to ask that PM publicly.

[zaghahzag]

if money isn't a major concern, get the mac pro. If you're finding 3.5 gigs to be limiting in photoshop on a PC, you will probably want more than the 4 gigs you can put into an imac.

Get a mac pro, 8 gigs of ram, and a RAID array. you'll be screaming. Its got 2 more cores, more ram, and faster HD setups.

(Buy the ram 3rd party as it's a lot cheaper.)

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by cube-dude 

I'm in a similar iMac/Pro debate as ottyee, but after 3 easy (and lucrative) Mac sales in 3 years on Craigslist, I'm sorry but I don't see the eventual selling as a "con" whatsoever. I guess it's all relative.

Well then... How, cube-dude, did you manage to make your used mac sales lucrative? Does it have to do with software you did not erase (and left on the machine) when you sold your old machine?

[cube-dude]

I find selling a Mac simple, as opposed to your opinion that it is onerous, and you suggest I'm a scammer. I reckon that you think kids selling lemonade lucratively on your street corner are serial murderers?

The Mac's high resale value, combined with condition from an owner's good care, makes selling easy IMO. My former Mac generally funds 75-100% of the next one. Hardly onerous, but like I said it is all relative.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by cube-dude 

The Mac's high resale value, combined with condition from an owner's good care, makes selling easy IMO. My former Mac generally funds 75-100% of the next one. Hardly onerous, but like I said it is all relative.

Same here, I sell my Macs on ebay or craigslist and the money from the sales offsets a significant portion of the new mac that I'm buying

[zaghahzag]

i think the resale thing is definitely true with the laptops. my 12 inch powerbook might fetch 500-700 bucks on ebay while it's probably almost 4 years old. how many 4 year old pc laptops are worth half that much?

and from what i've seen on ebay, the pro towers keep their value rather well too.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by cube-dude 

I find selling a Mac simple, as opposed to your opinion that it is onerous, and you suggest I'm a scammer. I reckon that you think kids selling lemonade lucratively on your street corner are serial murderers?

The Mac's high resale value, combined with condition from an owner's good care, makes selling easy IMO. My former Mac generally funds 75-100% of the next one. Hardly onerous, but like I said it is all relative.

This is a misunderstanding, cube-dude.

I never suggested that, and there is no reason to suggest that.

--Edited to clear up a misunderstanding.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by cube-dude 

I reckon that you think kids selling lemonade lucratively on your street corner are serial murderers?

Victims of serial murderers would be a slightly higher probability.

[OreoCookie]

People, stay nice and on topic here … 

[cube-dude]

Thanks, OreoCookie. When onerous turns odorous, there's nothing like that fresh new Ignore button smell.

[Veltliner]

Why not? Let's exchange ignore button-clicks.

[zaghahzag]

to the original poster:

Did you make a decision? I think for working on 800mb photoshop files, a macpro is a no brainer.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Photoshop can only use 3GB of RAM in its current incarnation (32-bit), so that leaves you an extra gig to manage other apps you may want to have open at the same time.

Actually, even though PS only can directly access ~3 GB RAM, the PS app interacting with OS 10.4 shows improvement with up to 8 GB of RAM on board. As we move into OS 10.5, 10.6, CS4, etc. (all well within the life cycle of a new box) IMO the 4 GB RAM limitation of MBPs and iMacs will become significantly more limiting than it already is today.

I have not seen the new iMac displays, but before I bought my MacBook Pro I carefully examined glossy and matte MBPs in various lighting. IMO the "pop" of the glossy is nice - but I do not want the hardware to add "pop" to my images. I chose matte. It is just a matter of personal preference. Most professional graphics folks find the extra saturation and contrast that glossy screens add to be undesirable.

Personally I consider iMacs to be poor choices for pro graphics usage. If you intend desktop pro graphics work a Mac Pro is a far superior life cycle purchase than an iMac.

-Allen Wicks

[zaghahzag]

i got the glossy on my macbook pro and i wish i hadn't. it's a nice screen, but the glare is annoying at times. For a serious photoshopper, i think you'd want an ACD/dell LCD anyway.

[ottyee]

Thanks everytbody. I purchased a MP 2.66 with 1gb ram. I have since upgraded the ram to 5gb (1gb standard and 4gb from OWC). I did notice that PS CS3 only recognizes 3 gb, so does that mean the extra memory is wasted? And what do you guys recommend about how ram is needed.

Thanks in advance

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by ottyee 

Thanks everytbody. I purchased a MP 2.66 with 1gb ram. I have since upgraded the ram to 5gb (1gb standard and 4gb from OWC). I did notice that PS CS3 only recognizes 3 gb, so does that mean the extra memory is wasted? And what do you guys recommend about how ram is needed.

Thanks in advance

The extra RAM is not wasted. It allows you to run other programs at the same time without cutting into the 3GB dedicated to PS. We use 8GB for CS3, and never run out of RAM. Unless you multi-task accross CS3 a lot, and/or do huge batch runs in PS, you will never strain the 5GB. Seems like you really hit the sweet spot for value. 2.66 + 5GB is a marvelous cost/performance ratio, and leaves you plenty of upgrade room for more RAM (which you will want if CS3 comes out in a 64-bit version), seperate scratch and system discs for PS (WD Raptors best), a RAID array, etc. Good choice.

[Richard Richard]

the biggest problem with the imac is the internal lcd screen

if you get problems with it , and i did with mine , you're really stuck

send it in for repair and have no mac , or put up with a shoddy screen

the mac mini is the only real alternative to the pro in the apple lineup and that's really pretty crazy for the average consumer

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Richard Richard 

the biggest problem with the imac is the internal lcd screen

if you get problems with it , and i did with mine , you're really stuck

Not to discount the issue or your problems with it, but that argument has been the main objection since day one of the the all-in-one computers, even the original Macintosh. I think (at least I hope) purchasing Apple Care would mitigate some of the risks by carrying a 3 year warranty.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Actually, even though PS only can directly access ~3 GB RAM, the PS app interacting with OS 10.4 shows improvement with up to 8 GB of RAM on board. As we move into OS 10.5, 10.6, CS4, etc. (all well within the life cycle of a new box) IMO the 4 GB RAM limitation of MBPs and iMacs will become significantly more limiting than it already is today.

I have not seen the new iMac displays, but before I bought my MacBook Pro I carefully examined glossy and matte MBPs in various lighting. IMO the "pop" of the glossy is nice - but I do not want the hardware to add "pop" to my images. I chose matte. It is just a matter of personal preference. Most professional graphics folks find the extra saturation and contrast that glossy screens add to be undesirable.

Personally I consider iMacs to be poor choices for pro graphics usage. If you intend desktop pro graphics work a Mac Pro is a far superior life cycle purchase than an iMac.

-Allen Wicks

I considered buying one of the outgoing 24" iMacs (white). But the amount of RAM seems to put an expiration date on that machine, as nice as it is. My current iMac is a g5 2.1, and it's only 18months old, and starts feeling slow. So I am thinking of waiting for the MacPro and the cinema display upgrades, and will, until then, work with the g5. Also, regarding the resale value, the recent price drop in 20" iMacs was devastating for the market value of the g5 iMacs I presume. I guess the 1200 Dollar price difference between the 24" iMac and the 23" ACD and MP is worth it in the long run.

[ColdFireDragon]

Originally Posted by ottyee 

Thanks in advance

I kind of sperate out what I would reccmend like this
Home Use, College Student, Basic Office System -- iMac
Profesional Image/Video Edting, Power User -- MacPro

[hukalaki]

OK, I currently have an upgraded AGP 350 G4 tower, now with a 1.2 GHz processor, 1.75 gigs ram, NVidea aftermarket graphics card, with two internal 300 meg SATA drives in a software mirror raid as well as another internal drive and an external firewire drive, both for cloned backups. This is a business computer and I need the redundancy to ensure data security.

However, at this point I would like to get another machine--although the G4 is fine for the usual stuff such as web, word processing and finance, it is too slow for casual video editing (I'm not a graphics or video person), and I'd like to use the new computer for my business needs too. I have liked the upgradeability of my G4 but frankly it was a little tedious to get it to where it is now, and it is just barely adequate 7 years later.

I have been looking at the Pros for the SATA drive bays and setting up a mirror raid with an internal backup with an external firewire backup as I currently have. However, ease of setting up the drives is really the only reason why I would need one as speed wise the iMacs are plenty fast for video editing, and possibly the Minis too.

So my question is whether I can use these SATA drives on an external RAID array with the iMac or mac mini, and if so , would the cost of the enclosures, not to mention the hassle factor, reliability issues etc bump the price of the iMac closer to that of the Pro? I assume I'd have to keep everything on, and boot from, the external mirror raid, which would have the system, apps and doc files, and clone to the internal iMac drive for backup as well as the disconnectable firewire drive. Does sticking all these peripherals on an iMac make sense or would it be better just to get the Pro? And if so, wait until November?

[mduell]

Why did you post in this thread hours after starting your own thread?

[hukalaki]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why did you post in this thread hours after starting your own thread?

thanks, I'm not a fan of crossposting either. However, after reading more of the threads in both sections, there seem to be substantial differences in opinion re pro users vs imac users re the machines. I did not think I could delete the thread from the other section, and would appreciate these users' input.