iMac vs Mac Mini?

if you need portability i suggest you go for a 15" macbook pro.
If you don't then iMac is better value.

Honestly, i never understood the reasoning behind 17" laptop monsters. My 13" is plenty for everything when i'm on my way.
 
I think most everyone here has made some great points. All I'll add here is:

- If you go for the iMac, do go for the matte screen option, and, if possible, go for the quad-core processor. I've set up two of the standard-processor models (21.5") over the last month, and while they are sweet, I might feel the desire for a bit more speed when crunching large image files. If you need to stick to the standard processor, no biggle.

- I wouldn't worry too much about the internal HD (the cheapest models now come with 500GB right off the bat). Where the action will be is with external HDs, and perhaps an external drive housing that holds several at once, depending on just how much work you're planning on doing. ;)

- I'm doing well with my "old" top-end setup (late-model dual-processor G4 tower, late PowerBook G4). If I were doing it all over again, and could pick just one machine, it would be a 15" MacBook Pro, with maxed-out RAM, and a good external monitor for a dual-screen setup similar to what I now have with the G4 tower. Storage? Probably a swatting-big RAID box of some kind. (Already have the better part of 2TB storage, not counting the network drive for backup.)

This never really stops, does it?


- Barrett
 
I think generally speaking, the latest iMac would be better than Macbook Pro for running PS and LR. The top version of the iMac runs the iCore7 processor. Plus the screen is gorgeous, if you can deal with the glare. My iMac is not facing any window or bright lights, so I don't have any glare issues with the glossy screen.

I would get the fastest RPM hard disk (7200rpm) at the time of purchase because that is a difficult upgrade to do later.

However, I would get the minimum memory because Apple really overcharges for memory. I would buy the memory upgrade from OWC (http://www.macsales.com) as an immediate upgrade. The sweet spot appears to be a 4G or 8G upgrade for the 2009 iMac.


Rob-F said:
Thanks, Bill. I didn't mention that I can order the 17" Macbook Pro with a Matte screen for an extra $50.00. Not available on the iMac. But then, I do like the 20.5" screen on the iMac. I just don't like the glossy screen. I did notice that I can tilt the screen forwrd a bit, to reduce reflections. But then I would not get to look at the screen head-on.

The main question is whch machine is actually better for running the photo applications: MAcbook Pro, or iMac? What if cost isn't a factor? Also, how do people find it to type on that tiny iMac keyboard? OK, or not? Also, I kind of like the touchpads better than a mouse. But the main question is which machine will run Aperture and Photoshop or Photoshop Elements the best? I may or may not eventually get Lightroom.
Click to expand...
 
amateriat said:
- I wouldn't worry too much about the internal HD (the cheapest models now come with 500GB right off the bat). Where the action will be is with external HDs, and perhaps an external drive housing that holds several at once, depending on just how much work you're planning on doing. ;)
Click to expand...

This external storage requirement bears emphasizing for anyone who shoots more than an occasional photo. High-resolution image files are B-I-G. Example: I shot 14 rolls on a recent trip. Scanned almost all of them to 4000px RAW files. That consumed almost 100 gigs of drive space. Fourteen rolls of film ain't that many, you know.
 
Talex said:
I think generally speaking, the latest iMac would be better than Macbook Pro for running PS and LR. The top version of the iMac runs the iCore7 processor. Plus the screen is gorgeous, if you can deal with the glare.

I would get the fastest RPM hard disk (7200rpm) at the time of purchase because that is a difficult upgrade to do later.

However, I would get the minimum memory because Apple really overcharges for memory. I would buy the memory upgrade from OWC (http://www.macsales.com) as an immediate upgrade. The sweet spot appears to be a 4G or 8G upgrade for the 2009 iMac.
Click to expand...

I have just learned from an Apple store that images on the Matte screen are not as sharp as on the glossy, because of diffusion of the image. This, plus the iMac's nice big 21,5" display screen, is causing me to re-think this. The 17" Macbook is a bit large for travel anyhow. So I'm thinking of the iMac now. I could get a small laptop for travel, with the money saved on the iMac vs. the Macbook Pro. What is it like to type on that tiny iMac keyboard, though?

Which is the better of the two graphics cards they offer on various models? Is it the Radeon?

Might the faster running hard drive wear out faster?
 
As a long-term Mac bore, I believe you're over-thinking this.

All those options will work really well; even the Mac Mini. I do photoshop and webstie stuff on an ancient G4, and keep my Macbook Aor merely for emailing. The hard drives on any of these should last forever.

THe iMac is a great package; the Mini is a better deal if you have a monitor lying around, or better still if you want to keep the same monitor long-term - hence you'll never suffer depreciation on it. Macbook Pro is a great machine but speaking as one who has used Apple laptops righ back from the 100, you pay a price in long-term reliability, for the laptops.
 
Rob-F said:
I have just learned from an Apple store that images on the Matte screen are not as sharp as on the glossy, because of diffusion of the image. This, plus the iMac's nice big 21,5" display screen, is causing me to re-think this. The 17" Macbook is a bit large for travel anyhow. So I'm thinking of the iMac now. I could get a small laptop for travel, with the money saved on the iMac vs. the Macbook Pro. What is it like to type on that tiny iMac keyboard, though?

Which is the better of the two graphics cards they offer on various models? Is it the Radeon?

Might the faster running hard drive wear out faster?
Click to expand...

Rob, I can't offer advice on the graphics card choice, except to say that high-end cards are usually optimized for video games because that's the biggest market for high-end cards. If you aren't a gamer, you'll need to compare specs and see which is the best buy for photo work.

My iMac keyboard is just fine for my use, which does not include banging out pages and pages of text. If I did, I'd look at other Apple and third-party keyboards.

The difference in drive speed shouldn't impact their longevity.If it concerns you, you can always chase down the Mean Time Between Failure rates of the actual hardware.

The reflectivity of an iMac screen is a very subjective matter, and heavily dependent on the intensity and location of lighting. It hasn't been an issue for me.

Again, my recommendation is that if you do not need a laptop's portability, it doesn't really make sense to buy a laptop. Unless you're going to do an awful lot of demanding photo work or jump into video, a MacPro seems to be overkill. If I was setting up a graphics shop, I'd buy one, max it out, and use it to serve the iMacs on my employees' desks.

So, buy the one you think you'll most enjoy using. The issues you seem to be looking at now are really pretty marginal. After all, it will be a Mac. They're all good.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the 21" iMac makes the most sense. I've lost my aversion to the glossy screen. I will use it in the basement, and can arrange the lighting to avoid reflections.

For the same or less money as the Macbook Pro, I can, and probably will, get the iMac and their cheapest 13 inch notebook. I can save another $300 by getting the polycarbonate case instead of the aluminum one. Polycarbonate no doubt bounces higher anyhow. The 13" is a must better choice for travel than the 17."

I wonder if Apple allows installing Aperture on 2 computers, or if they limit you to one at a time, like some others do.
 
Rob-F said:
...I can save another $300 by getting the polycarbonate case instead of the aluminum one. Polycarbonate no doubt bounces higher anyhow. ....
Click to expand...
The polycarbonate is indeed better - it's tough, whereas the aluminum gets dents .
 
two people at my local apple store told me that Aperture CAN be installed on more than one mac at a time. I haven't tried it yet.
Rob-F said:
Yes, the 21" iMac makes the most sense. I've lost my aversion to the glossy screen. I will use it in the basement, and can arrange the lighting to avoid reflections.

For the same or less money as the Macbook Pro, I can, and probably will, get the iMac and their cheapest 13 inch notebook. I can save another $300 by getting the polycarbonate case instead of the aluminum one. Polycarbonate no doubt bounces higher anyhow. The 13" is a must better choice for travel than the 17."

I wonder if Apple allows installing Aperture on 2 computers, or if they limit you to one at a time, like some others do.
Click to expand...
 
We ordered online last night. I went for the 21" iMac with 1TB drive, also the polycarbonte 13" macbook. And I went for the gloss. These choices were greatly aided by the comments in this thread, so thanks to all! And yes, the Apple store told me I can install Aperture on both machines.

You know, the one-on-one instruction only applies to one computer. If you want one-on-on one for each, apparently you have to buy it twice. We didn't. Both machines are much more similar than different, so we just bought the one-on-one for the iMac.

We did get the extended care plan for each one.

So: thanks again! I (we) will soon be members of the elite Apple community. (Actually, I have been a member since 1980, when I bought my IIe. It still works, and I still use it!
 
OK, the Macbook arrived--still waiting for the iMac to be shipped. Guess what, I,m typing this on the Macbook. So thi is my first official Mac communication. Now to try putting some photos on it!

Thanks for all the help (I,m sure I'll be back!)
 
Eric, that is right. I'll have the iMac for power and screen size, and the little 13" for portability, travel, etc.
 
I was debating between the Mac Pro and Mac Mini. In a way, I would love to future proof my purchase by getting a Pro, but I could not justify the cost since I do not make profit from my work. Instead, I went and bought the stock cheapest Mac Mini ($549 on Amazon during black friday) and also a 30gb SSD drive from newegg ($127, $97 after rebate). Taking apart the mini was easy and does not void warranty unless something is broken during process. Installation was easy... From a cold boot, where my computer has been off for several hours, I can get to load Safari in about 20 seconds after I press the power button. That is FAST. If the computer has been off for only a little, or if I am restarting system, it takes less that 15 seconds to boot. Programs load extremely quick. I tested the higher mac mini model at a apple store and it took 11 seconds average to load microsoft word 2008. It takes about 5 seconds on my ssd mini. And I still haven't upgraded the ram to 4gigs. You can also but an ssd into a imac, but it is a much harder process. I use external drive for storage of files and the ssd only for OS and programs. I am hoping to install my photo software today after work and see how fast things work. I did try loading 100+mb .tiff files and they loaded quickly in preview, about 2-3 seconds.
 
ssd=solid state drive. They are flash/ram based hard drives. Here is WIKI link. They are much faster than regular hard drives. Since they are a pretty new technology, they are pretty expensive for cost per gigabyte. They have no moving parts and thus are more reliable.
 
I see, thank pevelg. Now I know what I am getting when my HD die. I just installed a 7200rpm HD last year, the speed is noticeable faster, well with the SSD, I think it will extend a few years off the life of the mini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom