The newest iMacs - suitable for Photoshop work?

[Henry Ambrose]

I went by the local Apple Store recently and saw the latest iMacs. I was particularly impressed by the 24 inch version. Its fast! Its big! The screen looked great - its very bright and seemed huge compared to my 19 inch CRTs. The Apple site claims 700:1 contrast ratio for the 24 and 800:1 for the 20 inch model. The 24 is rated at 400cd/m, the 20 at 280 cd/m.

Anyway, the new iMacs seem like a lot of computer for the money and generally very capable according to the specs. Does anyhone here have an informed opinion about the goodness of these latest flatscreens for Photoshop work?

[Frank Petronio]

Why not? Unless you routinely need to work on 500 mb files for professional jobs, any recent Mac will work. Just remember to allow enough money to get the most RAM possible. It is better to have a lot of RAM and a slightly less expensive Mac than getting the top of the line and then not putting enough RAM into it.

(I still use a G4 Powerbook with moderate sized files (under 100mb).)

Photoshop will not take advantage of the power of the new Intel-based Macs until the Intel-optimized CS3 update comes out this Winter. So it may be more strategic to wait until then because the Macs will either get slight performance upgrades or the prices will go down. But if you need a new computer today, the 24" i-Mac looks like one of the best values out there and it certainly would be a great platform for the next several years.

FWIW, I figure on getting 4 years out of a Mac before feeling the need to upgrade - if you buy from the upper range of the model line, along with lots of RAM and a good sized hard drive. Unless my current 4 year old PB has a dramatic failure, I am aiming to get a loaded up but inexpensive MacBook (not the "Pro") along with a 20 or 24 inch monitor this Winter when CS3 launches. But I rarely work on huge files.

Now if I were Paul Butzi or Jack Flescher or one of the hardcore serious pros with their own Epson 9800 and drum scanners and all that noise, then yeah, I'd get a Quad Tower with 8gb of RAM. But for mere mortals like myself - who rarely print over 16 x 20 (except for the occassional commercial 14 x 40 billboard) a lowly iMac, Mini, or PB will do just fine!

[Ken Lee]

What Frank said: RAM, RAM, RAM.

Photoshop needs as much RAM as you can give it. Every time you make another layer, perform certain adjustments, they are cached, and the size of the file multiplies.

If you scan large format images, then whatever number GB of RAM your machine can handle, get that.

[Capocheny]

Henry,

I've been working with a G4 Tower for the past several years and was also looking at the newer iMac systems (as a backup.)

FWIW, I fully agree with Frank and Ken... load up on the memory!

Great computers! :)

Cheers

[Marko]

I got the iMac, 20" and the PowerBook, both first generation Intel Core Duo 2 GHz. Both maxed out on memory.

Photoshop works correctly even now, under emulation. Which is to say no crashes, no coffee breaks ;) but not fast either. That will change when CS3 comes out in a few months' time. Officially March or April, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they rush it out for Holidays.

Basicaly, what Frank and Ken said - May be better to wait for CS3, but if you need it now, buy it and don't loose any sleep over it. Either way, defnitely get all the memory you can. If you're under budget, scale down the screen and use the difference for memory.

Memory is cheap these days and represents the biggest and most visible upgrade you can get.

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks for responding guys!

I'm a long time Mac and Photoshop user so I got the part about lots of RAM, etc. years ago. My old G4 can still put out the work even though to some a 400mhz G4 with 1.5 gig of RAM may seem puny. My iBook ain't that bad either and its a G3.

What I was wondering about is the quality and resolution of the screens on the newest iMacs. They looked great in the store but thats a long way from actually running day to day production work and counting on the results. Do the flat screens calibrate OK? Can I count on them to do color correction and retouching?

I think the answer as far as flat screens have been concerned over the past couple of years has been "no" but starting to become "well kinda" to maybe even "the very best are quite good".

So does anyone have an idea about doing serious, professioinal PS work on this new generation of flat screens like the new iMacs? Its the screen I'm asking about.

[paulr]

I've had a chance to work on a bunch of the new imacs in various design studios. They have plenty of power for most photoshop use, but they wouldn't be my first choice if photoshop was the primary use of the machine.

Besides the Intel issue, they have a couple of shortcomings. One is hard drive performance and expandability (which is an issue if you plan to spend a lot of time with huge files). The drives they come with are fairly slow compared with the mac towers, and upgrading is a huge pain. No possibility of an additional internal drive. I'm not sure if the busses present a bottleneck to drive performance if you upgrade the drive ... that would be worth looking into.

The more serious shortcoming, in my experience, is the screen. It's a great screen for graphic design and web surfing, but I don't like it for photography. It sufferes from too much shift in contrast when you look from different angles. And it exhibits a phenomenon that I see to one degree or another on all but the most expensive LCDs: the pixels are too separated from each other, and appear to be outlined. This creates an artificial sharpening effect, which makes some things look great, other things harsh and jagged. It's not accurate. And I find it fatiguing. Some people look at me like I'm crazy when I mention this, but I see it plain as day. Right now I'm on someone else's 23" Mac desktop LCD. It suffers the same shortcomings, but not nearly to the same degree.

For photography, I prefer either a late model high end CRT (like LaCie or Sony) or a fabulously expensive LCD (eizo). I'm sure this will change over the next couple of years as LCD technology matures, but right now, imac level screens bug me too much for photography.

[Marko]

Do the flat screens calibrate OK? Can I count on them to do color correction and retouching?

I think the answer as far as flat screens have been concerned over the past couple of years has been "no" but starting to become "well kinda" to maybe even "the very best are quite good".

So does anyone have an idea about doing serious, professioinal PS work on this new generation of flat screens like the new iMacs? Its the screen I'm asking about.


FWIW, Apple's LCDs are SWOP (http://www.swop.org/) certified, have been since the second generation, I think.

I have been using (and calibrating) them for the last two years, mostly for web work and I know several graphic designers and photographers who use them as well. We're all happy campers.

[Gordon Moat]

You can do colour correction on some fairly crap screens, it just might take you longer. With a couple really expensive LCDs as the exceptions, nearly every monitor out there only covers the sRGB (or less) colour space. The sRGB colour space clips many CMYK commercial publication or commercial press capabilities. The way to work within those limitations is the same as it was ten years ago: look at the numbers and channels, then print a hard copy proof.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ted Harris]

I sorta disagree that the new iMac's are a good machine for image editing using Photoshop. First, the bottom line model is limited to 2 GB of RAM and the other three to GB. Three GB is not too bad but you are not using all the power of CS2 which can recognize and address up to 3.5 GB of RAM. I'll bet that the RAM addressing capabilities of CS3 will be even further enhanced so, unless price is the primary consideration, why lock your self in with such a RAM limitation?

If I had the $$ I'd go out and buy the top of the line Intel Tower and pack it with 16 GB of RAM. I am saving the pennies and will likely do it when CS3 comes out. Until then chugging away with my G5 and thinking of adding more RAM here.

[Frank Petronio]

It's obvious that a $6K Tower/LCD/4 gb RAM system is going to be faster than a $2K iMac with 2gb RAM. Just like a new $30K 39mb digital back is going to be faster than your $2K view camera investment. And if I were a client shooting high-end national ads I'd want my photographer to have the fastest gear.

But the point is, you can still do professional work of the highest quality with an iMac and an analog view camera. For a fraction of the price of the top end gear. It will just take you abit longer.

A more realistic question would be should I spend $2K on a new loaded Intel iMac or use the same $2K to buy an older G5 tower with lotsa RAM and fast hard drives? Being that they will be worth approximately the same price.

I would take the iMac hands down. How about you?

[Lee Hamiel]

Long story short - I have an illustration business as well as my photography interests - over the years the Mac's have been the most stable problem free platform ever - I have gone through several PC's in the same amount of time.

May want to consider two computers - one for editing/processing of files/backup etc. & the other as a printing/internet computer or any combination of the above.

End of story - I have spent countless hours dealing with PC issues & virtually none with the Mac's in comparison.

[Henry Ambrose]

I'd sure like to see a 300 MB scan on one of the new iMac screens. That would probably push me over the edge.

I've been several rounds with buying the latest and greatest computer. My first Mac and the Laserwriter was like buying a car. Still got the next one, a IIci - its downstairs somewhere, chock full of RAM - all 32MB that it'd hold. Then came the fully loaded 9500 with 21 inch monitor and 2 fast & wide SCSI drives. Whew.... I'm not sure I can remember exactly how much that was but it makes me cry to start thinking about it. Cutting edge technology will perform a violent suction on your wallet. (Although I did use that 9500 for 10 years - 2 processor upgrades, three power supplies and a motherboard.)

As fast as the new machines are, for "normal" scanning and printing from 4x5 I can be happy with lots less than the very top end machine. In fact I'm not that unhappy with my G4 but its time to look at the next replacement. I am astounded that a 24 inch iMac and fast everything is as cheap as it is. I'd like to be sure the screen is up to the task.

[MJSfoto1956]

I have a lowly (2-yr old) Dell laptop with Photoshop CS2 which I use while traveling. It "only" has 1Gb ram. It works fine with Photoshop (if a bit slow). One key thing I did was buy a couple of external 2.5" 100Gb hard drives to keep my digital data on. Makes it viable.

At home I use my Mac dual G4 tower w/ "only" 2Gb of RAM (but with 1 terabyte of eSATA online storage, RAID 0 scratch disk, and 1 terabyte of offline storage). No problems at all opening/editing/saving 1GB Photoshop files.

If you see a pattern here it is this: IMHO, hard disk space trumps CPU speed and/or RAM. Personally, I think many people make the mistake of biasing "speed" over storage space and redundancy.

One last thing: The fastest desktop computer you can own today is TWO desktops (one dedicated to Photoshop, the other for everything else). Or perhaps to put it another way: the efficiency of two older (i.e. used) G4s will generally outperform -- on a day-to-day basis -- the latest (and more expensive) hotshot Quad boxes.

[Dirk Rösler]

I am mostly committed to the purchase of 24 inch iMac, maxed with RAM as recommended. Still contemplating about the better video card option. Even though I am not a gamer, it is probably a good-to-have for my fully ensured next 4 yrs of Mac life and only needs $125 more.

[Marko]

Personally, I think many people make the mistake of biasing "speed" over storage space and redundancy.

This is a very valid point. Actually, most people make the mistake of not even having enough storage space, much less redundancy! I agree that this is the biggest mistake that could be made, especially with the long-term value data such as photographs.

But it is a separate issue from the performance one. The performance issue usually comes up in budget situations and concerns the scenario that gives the biggest boost for the dollar, not overall. In those cases, RAM trumps MHz or screen size any time.

[medform-norm]

For photography, I prefer either a late model high end CRT (like LaCie or Sony) or a fabulously expensive LCD (eizo). I'm sure this will change over the next couple of years as LCD technology matures, but right now, imac level screens bug me too much for photography.

I can second the choice of an Eizo screen, they are superb and have great angles of view, meaning you can view the image from almost all angles without loosing contrast. We're not so hot on the LaCie, had one, and exchanged it for a Sony within a week. Something to do with a wide app grill or whatever it's called, causing cushioning in the screen that cannot be adjusted as it's a hardware problem.
Also, we work with dual screens, one CRT and one flatscreen, but maybe you won't need that with a 24" screen where you can view two files side by side.
The comment about using two computers, one dedicated to PS, is very sensible. We use this set-up for years and whenever we upgrade one, the older computer takes over the job of 'everything else'. The only problem we run into is that we'd each like to have a computer dedicated to PS, which means desk expansion problem ;-)
I can't tell anything about the iMac screens but know they had could not hold their own compared with the Eizos in the past. Maybe that has changed?
Good luck deliberating - I know how hard it is and how much time it can cost.

[Brian K]

The Mac screens are not that good. They have that very distracting twinkle affect and are not even in tone or color. I ended up getting an Eizo, vastly superior.

Will CS3 address more than 3 gigs of RAM?

[Frank Petronio]

Well if you guys can afford Eizos then what is the point of being on this thread?

[paulr]

A more realistic question would be should I spend $2K on a new loaded Intel iMac or use the same $2K to buy an older G5 tower with lotsa RAM and fast hard drives? Being that they will be worth approximately the same price.

This is how I think about it too.

But I'd probably lean towards the older computer, maybe even older than that. With craigs list you could could probably find an earlier model G5, pack in some ram and good drives, and get a great monitor (which you would keep even if you upgrade the machine) for that price or less.

Then, when CS3 is out, and the we've had a few more generations of intel mac towers, which will likely do your dishes for you and give a mean foot rub, you can upgrade at your leisure.

[Frank Petronio]

For the next six months you could probably have the smokingest G5 Quad for peanuts AND get the fastest CS2 performance on the block. The problem is that the resale of the G5 will plummet next year, and they are even hard to give to kids (Students) since they are so large and unportable...

But then again, it's not really like you get work done twice as fast even when the machine's specs double in speed. It is something more like 10-20% better performance at getting work done, with greater performance gains from working with giant files.

The real performance boost comes from learning how to use the software efficiently and working with the approproate sized files (most people try to work too large and bog down.) I've seen good users get more out of a lowly old iBook compared to inept users fumbling away on Quad Towers.

[medform-norm]

Well if you guys can afford Eizos then what is the point of being on this thread?

Ha, I didn't tell you what model Eizo we have....not exactly the most expensive or newest one ;-) Other than that, wouldn't you think the OP might profit from our experiences?

[Rider]

One thing to consider, is that Memory for the iMac is NOT cheap, IMHO.



Memory is cheap these days and represents the biggest and most visible upgrade you can get.

[Marko]

One thing to consider, is that Memory for the iMac is NOT cheap, IMHO.

Memory for the Mac is the same as for the PC and its price depends on the brand and source. In the case at hand, 24" iMac Intel Core Duo, it is 667MHz DDR2-SDRAM (PC2-5300).

[Rider]

Memory for the Mac is the same as for the PC and its price depends on the brand and source. In the case at hand, 24" iMac Intel Core Duo, it is 667MHz DDR2-SDRAM (PC2-5300).

Marco, the issue is not Mac v. PC. Due to its smaller form, the iMac does not have as many memory expansion slots as a true desktop, and this forces you to buy the denser, more expensive memory boards to achieve a given amount of RAM.

[Ken Lee]

"If you see a pattern here it is this: IMHO, hard disk space trumps CPU speed and/or RAM. Personally, I think many people make the mistake of biasing "speed" over storage space and redundancy".

Good point. Having a physical Drive 1 for the operating system and program, and a physically separate Disk 2, dedicated to scratch files, is very important. This way, each disk drive can operate concurrently.

If you have a laptop or other "closed box" machine, then you can't add another hard drive, but you can add an external drive. If you dedicate the external drive for use as a swap file, this should speed things up quite a bit... no ?

[Brian K]

Well if you guys can afford Eizos then what is the point of being on this thread?

We come here for the camaraderie. Actually I'm thinking of getting an iMac for use as a print server.

[Henry Ambrose]

Y'all are killing me.........

But thanks for all the information!

I'll have to research this a bit more. The iMac screens seem to have good specs and they looked good to me in the store. But I guess this a bit subjective.

I know folks who switched early to LCD Mac screens and loved them. I hated the first LCDs when compared to my good CRTs. These are folks who do highest level, demanding, advertising photography work - and they were happy with LCDs.

Anyway, the newest iMacs are really something for the money. I'd still like to hear any experiences with them doing Photoshop work, so ramble on.

300 MB is about as big as I ever work with. That's enough to make as big a print on my 7600 as I can make. If anyone needs size more, good for you, but I don't. And on the rare occasion that I need a bigger file, well I can just watch that progress bar creep.

Fast processor, fast system bus, fast big SATA drive, 2 or 3 Gb of fast memory, fast video card, plenty of Firewire and USB, big screen. Its all so much better spec'd than a 6-7 year old G4. (which actually does the work and was expensed off long ago and now costs nothing but the electricity to run it. (that may answer my question right there!)

I know about specifiying a Mac for PS, heck people used to pay me to tell them that stuff - my burning question is the screen of the newest 20 & 24 inch iMacs.

[Marko]

Marco, the issue is not Mac v. PC. Due to its smaller form, the iMac does not have as many memory expansion slots as a true desktop, and this forces you to buy the denser, more expensive memory boards to achieve a given amount of RAM.

I didn't think it was. :) It's just that many people are really not aware of the fact and think they have to buy from Apple, when they don't.

1 GB sticks are actually the sweet spot, these days. iMac, at least the model I have, has two slots and can take 2 GB max.

[CXC]

PC Magazine recently posted a review:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2018044,00.asp

Regarding the monitor and photoshop, they say:

"Its 24-inch display dwarfs that of the 17-inch iMac, and because its bezel is much smaller relative to the screen, the 24-inch model looks more balanced, visually, than the 17-inch. The screen is about as bright as that of the standalone 23-inch and 30-inch Apple Cinema displays, so the iMac could easily work for a layout editor or other midlevel graphics pro. And since it's so powerful, it could also be a good system for the Adobe Photoshop interns in your art studio."

I don't normally read this magazine, so I don't know how good their reviews are...

[CXC]

Clearly I am in work-avoidance mode this Friday morning...

Computerworld's review:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003474&pageNumber=1


Relevant comments:

"As for the 24-in. display, other than the 30-in. Apple Cinema Display -- which is in a league all its own -- I've never seen a screen showed off videos, slide shows and photos as nicely as this one. According to Metz, it's 40% brighter than earlier iMac displays, and that extra brightness shows here in the office, where I'm surrounded by windows and bright light from outside. In fact, it makes my 17-in. MacBook Pro look downright dim when the two are placed side by side."

Also I don't know about the accuracy of Computerworld, not being a regular reader. I'm more of a NYRB guy...

[paulr]

keep in mind that there's a difference between a screen looking dazzling and it being accurate, or even being pleasant to use for long stretches looking at photographs.

A lot of reviewers just look at how subjectively nice the screen images are. This isn't helpful if you want to know how good it will be for photography. A well calibrated monitor almost always looks a bit dull and lifeless compared with an out-of-the box one.

All these new LCD monitors are WAY brighter than they need to be. If you calibrate to a recommended 80 or 100 luminance, your screen image will dim considerably. most people have their LCD monitors set much brighter than is useful for a color managed workflow. This actually adds to the challenge of preparing images for the web ... knowing that people's screen luminance will vary by more than a factor of 2.

[Dominique Labrosse]

I have not profiled the screens on the latest generation (Core 2 Duo) of Intel iMacs, however, I did profile a friend's 20" Core Duo Intel iMac (previous revision). Using Eizo's on-line profile comarison tool (http://www.eizo.com/microsite/profilvergleich/fs_vergleich.html) I compared the 20" iMac screen profile against the Apple 23" Cinema Display I currently use at work and the Eizo FlexScan S2410W I used to use at work. There is no comparison. The Cinema Display and the Eizo are clearly an order of magnatude better then the iMac display in terms of gamut.

Each screen was profiled with the same Gretag McBeth Eye One Display 2.

Considering that Photoshop is still not an Intel Mac friendly application, I think a slightly used Dual G5 PowerMac with a 23" Cinema Display would offer the best bang for your buck as a Photoshop machine right now.

I know it's a little late to weigh in on this thread now but I saw this while I was away on business and only had time to contribute now. I would have offered a screen shot but I have since deleted the iMac profile. I am also at home rigth now and do not have my Cinema Display profile handy either.

[Keith S. Walklet]

FWIW, I've been a Mac guy since 1989 and love the new iMacs, but there is one issue that was the deal breaker for me when I considered getting one last year. They don't support a second monitor, which I consider essential for all my PS tool palettes.

I'll bump Dominique's suggestion. Instead of jumping in for the latest and greatest, I went the refurbed dual G5 tower route when they were releasing the Quads, and put the extra bucks into RAM and a second display. I am pleased as punch.

[Marko]

I compared the 20" iMac screen profile against the Apple 23" Cinema Display I currently use at work and the Eizo FlexScan S2410W I used to use at work. There is no comparison. The Cinema Display and the Eizo are clearly an order of magnatude better then the iMac display in terms of gamut.


FWIW, I've been a Mac guy since 1989 and love the new iMacs, but there is one issue that was the deal breaker for me when I considered getting one last year. They don't support a second monitor, which I consider essential for all my PS tool palettes.

To both:

Let's not forget that the opening question was whether the new iMac is a good compromise, not the ultimate choice. Yes, Apple displays are a magnitude of order bellow the quality of Eizos. At least, I should add, having seen both. And so is most everything else. But then again, each is priced to match. If there were no budgetary constrains, there would be no question either.

To Keith:

Dual monitor setup is pretty much my basic requirement too - the only way I would give it up is if the only alternative choice was a PC instead of a Mac. And I'm running an Intel iMac with dual monitor setup, no problem. Every iMac comes with a mini-DV, the same as on PowerBooks, and all you need to have is an additional addapter for either the full size DVI or VGA and you're in business.

[Andrew O'Neill]

iMacs are great. I teach graphic design and my room is full of them. I have pre-intel chip 20" iMacs and 4 intel 24" iMacs...one word, awesome. The IT teacher across the hall has a PC lab...uses photoshop...they don't hold a candle to my room. The new iMacs come with a standard Gig of RAM, which is nice.

[Keith S. Walklet]

>Every iMac comes with a mini-DV, the same as on PowerBooks, and all you need to have is an additional adapter for either the full size DVI or VGA and you're in business.

That's terrific! I wasn't aware they'd made that upgrade. I just checked the specs on the MacBooks and see that the extended desktop feature is now included on those as well. It was always a frustration that the extra port on my iBook only mirrored the display, as was the case with the previous generation of iMacs. Very attractive!

[Marko]

>Every iMac comes with a mini-DV, the same as on PowerBooks, and all you need to have is an additional adapter for either the full size DVI or VGA and you're in business.

That's terrific! I wasn't aware they'd made that upgrade. I just checked the specs on the MacBooks and see that the extended desktop feature is now included on those as well. It was always a frustration that the extra port on my iBook only mirrored the display, as was the case with the previous generation of iMacs. Very attractive!

Actually, I stand corrected - what used to be PowerBook is now MacBook Pro and they have a Dual-link DVI, not Mini-DVI. But they are still dual-display capable.

[Henry Ambrose]

I'm going to have to try a new iMac with one of my files to see what it looks like. The other thing might be to check if anyone has tested the color gamut of the 24 inch version. It is definitely bright and contrasty so maybe the gamut is the big question.

[Dominique Labrosse]

I know this thread is getting stale but I finally found the profiles I had mentioned in an earlier post. Attached are gamut comparisons of the original 20" Intel Core Duo (not the current Core 2 Duo) iMac screen vs the 23" Apple Cinema Display graphed by Eizo's profile analyzer (http://www.eizo.com/microsite/profilvergleich/fs_vergleich.html). The solid colour is the iMac. The wireframe is the Cinema Display.

The profiles were generated using EyeOne Match and the same EyeOne Display 2.
Yes the 24" iMac is brighter, that will probably extend the gamut a little. How much is hard to say though.

I hope you find this information useful.

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks Dominique!

Very useful information.

Now all I need is for you to go buy a brand new iMac and test that one for me.
; >)

Seriously it is great to see this kind of comparison. Thanks again for sharing this.

The newest iMac screen specifications are changed for the better from the older versions, same for the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros. I'm surprised that there's not a test like yours out there on the web somewhere of all the new Mac screens.

[Dominique Labrosse]

Thanks Dominique!
I'm surprised that there's not a test like yours out there on the web somewhere of all the new Mac screens.

That would be just too convenient. ;-) You're right, I'm quite surprised that this info is not on the web somewhere.

[Dominique Labrosse]

Well Henry I went ahead and purchased a new 20" Core 2 Duo iMac (I was going to anyways, my 15" flat panel iMac was getting very long-in-the-tooth) and after getting the thing running smoothly I finally had a chance to profile it last night.

In short, the profile is almost identical to the 23" Apple Cinema Display I use at work. There is almost no point posting the graph as they are vitually identical - but I will just so that you'll believe me :-)

This means that the iMac is now a legitimate Photoshop machine. The one caveat is that it only supports 3GB of RAM. The 24" is rated as brighter so odds are it has an even fatter gamut.

Regards
Dominique

[Henry Ambrose]

Dominique, That's great to know. I'm still wavering between the 24" iMac and a MacPro. The extra expandability of the MacPro may be worthwhile in the long run and I can just plug it up to my current CRT monitors. But that iMac sure is tempting and even more so now.

Thanks for following up on this.

[Marko]

Henry,

Keep in mind that MacPro is much more prone to heating. I have both the iMac and MacPro, both maxed out on memory and MacPro can heat up significantly within a couple of hours or so, especially with CPU- and disk-intensive applications such as Photoshop.

I've had no such problems with iMac. If you can't justify one of the desktops, don't mind the memory limitations, and don't need to take it on the road, I think you'd be much better off with an iMac as your main machine.

[Dominique Labrosse]

Henry,

Keep in mind that MacPro is much more prone to heating. I have both the iMac and MacPro, both maxed out on memory and MacPro can heat up significantly within a couple of hours or so, especially with CPU- and disk-intensive applications such as Photoshop.

Marko,
Just to be certain are you talking about the MacBookPro (notebook) or the MacPro (tower)?

Henry,
The MacPro (tower) is definitely a more capable machine than the iMac. I would have bought one if I could have afforded it. But to be honest I am very happy with the performance of my new 20" Core 2 Duo iMac. Even more so now that I see the gamut of the monitor.

[Marko]

Marko,
Just to be certain are you talking about the MacBookPro (notebook) or the MacPro (tower)?

Henry,
The MacPro (tower) is definitely a more capable machine than the iMac. I would have bought one if I could have afforded it. But to be honest I am very happy with the performance of my new 20" Core 2 Duo iMac. Even more so now that I see the gamut of the monitor.

My bad, I'm not very good with all the marketing lingo. I was talking about the MacBookPro, the notebook. MacPro, the destkop, is defnitely top of the line, and neither the laptop nor the iMac can really compare if portability and/or price are not the issue.

[Mike Lewis]

At home I use my Mac dual G4 tower w/ "only" 2Gb of RAM (but with 1 terabyte of eSATA online storage, RAID 0 scratch disk, and 1 terabyte of offline storage). No problems at all opening/editing/saving 1GB Photoshop files.

If you see a pattern here it is this: IMHO, hard disk space trumps CPU speed and/or RAM. Personally, I think many people make the mistake of biasing "speed" over storage space and redundancy.


Mr. Sullivan:

I also have a Mac G4 with 2GB of RAM, but unlike you I am very disappointed with its Photoshop performance. I recently purchased a network attached storage device (NAS) with 1 TB of disk. How did you configure your eSATA box: RAID0, RAID5, or something else? And how many internal disks on your Mac are you striping for RAID0 swap? If your configuration works for you with large image files, it will work for me.

thanks,

[Henry Ambrose]

Dominique and Marko,

I was referring to the MacPro tower not the MacBookPro. I did a little test on my old G4, a MacPro 3GHZ, a 24" IMac and a MacBookPro. I sampled down a big 4x5 scan to 80 MB and wrote it to disk. My G4 took 24 seconds to open it in Preview. :>( I picked this method since all machines run Preview natively so it was as even as I could get it. And its not a bad test of the system performance.

So off to the Apple Store with the file on CD. In each instance I copied the file to the hard drive of the subject machines, quit everything, started Preview and dragged the image file icon onto the Preview icon. The MacBookPro 17 " 2GB RAM took 14 seconds, the iMac 24" 2GB RAM only 6 seconds and the MacPro 3GHZ , 4GB RAM 3 seconds (or less - it was hard to time). So while the MacBookPro may be the most super notebook its still not that super compared to a tower/desktop machine with fast drives and all that maximum speediness. Mighty nice notebook though.

What really got me was that the MacPro was hooked to a 30" Apple Display. As wonderful as the 24" iMac is - its still not 30"! Otherwise looking at my very well known file at 100% I know I'd be satisfied with either machine. Man, that was a great viewing experience on both those big screens.

So, I'm kinda holding out, counting pennies for a MacPro and all the expandibility. I'd just use it with my old monitors for while before making the move up to the 30". Or I might bite on the iMac 24. Or just wait for the next round of introductions and maybe get a deal on a just discontinued model. Or maybe just go buy something tomorrow. It depends on which day you ask me........... But its no longer a question about the iMac screen capability.

[Dominique Labrosse]

Henry,

The 30" ACD is a huge and beautiful disaplay, but if you want that kind of real estate twin 20" ACDs are a much more cost effective solution. It would be fairly easy to match them colour wise using EyeOne Match and a EyeOne Display. Then you'd have 40" of display at 2/3 of the cost of a single 30".

Regards,
DL

[Marko]

What really got me was that the MacPro was hooked to a 30" Apple Display. As wonderful as the 24" iMac is - its still not 30"! Otherwise looking at my very well known file at 100% I know I'd be satisfied with either machine. Man, that was a great viewing experience on both those big screens.

So, I'm kinda holding out, counting pennies for a MacPro and all the expandibility. I'd just use it with my old monitors for while before making the move up to the 30". Or I might bite on the iMac 24. Or just wait for the next round of introductions and maybe get a deal on a just discontinued model. Or maybe just go buy something tomorrow. It depends on which day you ask me........... But its no longer a question about the iMac screen capability.

Henry,

The 30" monitor IS gorgeous, but it costs the same as the entire 24" iMac. It needs a MacPro to go with it, and that's another 3-4-5K, depending on the configuration.

My take on it (and I practice what I preach) is to buy NOW what I can afford NOW and that will take care of the business. Generally speaking, I don't find pinching pennies a good business strategy.

If, on the other hand, you want it for pleasure, than by all means go ahead and buy the best, because nothing else will qualify. :)

But it sure sounds as if you have already reached the same conclusion, haven't you?

[Henry Ambrose]

"But it sure sounds as if you have already reached the same conclusion, haven't you?"

Well no, not really. If money were no object I'd have bought whatever is the fastest latest and greatest. Or if the only thing that would do the work was the fastest available and it made business sense, I'd have it already. Heck, that's easy.

My old machine still gets the job done and being able to boot into System 9 and run older scanners is a plus so I'll keep it around no matter what I buy new. But the new digital camera RAW programs won't run on old machines. To say nothing of the speed we'll see when Photshop goes Universal Binary.

Watching the progress bar run during Photoshop operations when I'm working on a deadline is not much fun. Its only 15-30 seconds here and there but at the end of a long day of Photoshop work it adds up to a good bit of time. Saving only one minute per file on sixty files equals one hour. If I save two minutes each that two hours off the end of the day or lots more work finished!

Soon it'll be time to take the plunge, no matter what. But for now I'm anticipating whats next and when its time to jump.

By the way, does anyone understand why the iMac is limited to 3GB RAM? Why not 4GB? It has two slots and one of them supports a 2GB chip. Why not both? Or are they just further differentiating the iMac from the MacPro by claiming the lower memory limit?

[Marko]

By the way, does anyone understand why the iMac is limited to 3GB RAM? Why not 4GB? It has two slots and one of them supports a 2GB chip. Why not both? Or are they just further differentiating the iMac from the MacPro by claiming the lower memory limit?

They used to be limited to 2GB, so this is an improvement. On the other hand, they can't use 4 GB which is a limitation. Even if it could go to 4 GB, as it probably will in the next update, it's still far short of MacPro's 16 GB maximum.

So, and this is just a guess, I think it's safe to conclude that 3 GB limit has more to do with engineering than marketing. I imagine they had to solve quite a few problems to cram entire computer and monitor into such a slim case. Both power supply and memory generate heat. 2 GB sticks require more power and generate more heat than 1 GB ones.

[Janko Belaj]

I couldn't read all messages in this thread - too many advices to get some strong and powerful beast... yes, that is the best way to go, I have to agree, but not if someone is thinking about investment of 2K$...! It is O.K. to tell him (me, or to anyone else) to invest 20 or even 50% more, but 2 or 3 or more time more? I'm a loooong time Mac and PS user ("my" first PS was 0.9b ;) and I had powerful beasts in those days when I wanted and had time to to play (work) with computers. Today, sure I would like to have some "quad", but I'm working on old 12" G4 powerbook (867Mhz, 1.2 GB) with 19" CRT in PS CS2 on files which after scanning were about 300 MB in size. And than apply all sort of layers, channel masks, 16 bits if necessary... And it *is* working. Fast? No, not while saving. Not while flattening layers, but I really don't have to wait... wait a second, can anyone remember PowerMac 9600? Quadra 800? Not to mention IIfx.... :) New iMac slow? no way ;)
(just my 2 cents... and please do compare those computers with our cameras... anyone have titanium 12x20 with 400-800mm zoom lens? f 1:5.6, of course! :))

[false_Aesthetic]

Hey,

I got the 20" Imac with 2gigs of ram. I couldn't be happier. I could've gotten a MacPro but when I figured out how much ram would cost and when I'd be replacing the Tower (3-4 years max) it didn't make financial sense.

I also spoke to a bunch of people I went to undergrad with (comp. eng. and comp sci.) they told me that unless I'm using photoshop fancyness (filters, etc) I wouldn't gain so much as to warrent the MacPro. They happen to know how I work and I doubt that this applies to everyone.

I guess we'll see how I feel in 6 months when CS3 comes out or when my files creep above 1.5gigs.


p.s. I've done work on the mid level M.P. at school and my Imac. I can't tell any difference. They seem equally fast . . . which is like 9 BAH-ZILLION times faster than my g4 933mhz. I guess i'm just happy to have an extra 1.6k to spend on camera gear.