View Full Version : The New imac
Andrew ren
21-Oct-2009, 17:02
the LED-Backlit and in-panel switching(ips) look very interesting...
i think it reaches a point that do we still need a high end graphic panel? say a eizo?:)
a well-calibrated new 27in imac with these new technology does the job?
Andrew
Ken Lee
21-Oct-2009, 17:21
I saw some new ones at the Apple store a few days ago, and was pleasantly surprised at the difference between them, and my 1-year-old iMac.
I really had to change viewing angle substantially, to notice a change in color or brightness.
Andrew ren
21-Oct-2009, 17:31
Ken, correct me if I am wrong.
I think the new imac(LED&ips) is quiet new. might be just on market today?
its 21'' and 27" instead of the 20" and 24" version.
I am suffering the same problem on one of my one year old imac. i have to stand up and sit lower, pan left right to make sure the dark details are there. what a PAIN!
Andrew
I haven't seen the new iMac in person (it was only announced a couple of days ago), but I've looked at the specs. Leaving aside the monitor, I would want to upgrade the processor and the amount of RAM from the stock model. That ups the cost significantly, although you can buy more RAM from cheaper sources than Apple.
There is also a lot of uncertainty about the future of Intel's i5/i7 processors as the company is moving to a new architecture and is not exactly forthcoming on its intentions about future support for those processors, especially the i7 series. Just something to keep in mind.
Myself, I'm going with a custom Windows build. I just want more control over what is going into my computer, and more control over future upgrades. The new iMac doesn't look attractive enough to change that plan, although I should point out that I've already got an Eizo monitor and it is one of the factors in my decision.
I haven't seen the new iMac in person (it was only announced a couple of days ago), but I've looked at the specs. Leaving aside the monitor, I would want to upgrade the processor and the amount of RAM from the stock model. That ups the cost significantly, although you can buy more RAM from cheaper sources than Apple.
There is also a lot of uncertainty about the future of Intel's i5/i7 processors as the company is moving to a new architecture and is not exactly forthcoming on its intentions about future support for those processors, especially the i7 series. Just something to keep in mind.
Upgrading from 2.66 GHz i5 to 2.8 GHz i7 costs about $200. That's about 10% of the package price. I'm not sure I would call that "significant". Upgrading RAM can be done cheaper through third party sources, but the upgrade would not be covered by Apple's warranty and I'm not sure the savings would cover the time and effort invested.
Bottom line is, you don't buy a Mac for price, you buy it for quality and reliability. And design. Design and quality matter to some of us. :)
Although, if you match a PC and a Mac by specs, item by item, you'll see that the price differential is not all that significant either. The major difference is essentially in the features built in. With PCs it's pick and choose, with Macs it's all or nothing.
Answering Andrew's monitor question - the only reason why someone would want to add a high end display such as an Eizo is that their top ($$$) models provide 12-bit depth and Adobe RGB color space, while new iMac OLED displays are 8-bit sRGB. They are still an improvement over the old LCD models, which were 6-bit. That difference is not Earth-shattering but it is noticeable.
Andrew ren
21-Oct-2009, 18:21
Answering Andrew's monitor question - the only reason why someone would want to add a high end display such as an Eizo is that their top ($$$) models provide 12-bit depth and Adobe RGB color space, while new iMac OLED displays are 8-bit sRGB. They are still an improvement over the old LCD models, which were 6-bit. That difference is not Earth-shattering but it is noticeable.
Well said. Marko.
Thanks
Andrew
Marko,
The problem is that the processor upgrade that Apple offers, to what appears to be an i7-860, doesn't give me the processor that I want. What I want is an i7-950, or maybe a 920. For me, at least, the stock i5 processor in the iMac is a complete non-starter.
The cost of additional RAM, if purchased through Apple, is in fact out of line with what RAM is going to cost me for a custom Windows machine. I've checked the numbers.
Also, I want a solid state drive, and that does not appear to be offered with the new iMac. Also, I don't want a 1 terabyte internal drive, which I would be stuck with if I buy the new iMac. What I actually want is three internal drives, one for the operating system and applications, one for scratch and one for data. The iMac doesn't even offer this.
The truth is, a custom PC is analogous to a Mac Pro, not an iMac, and having costed out both, there is no doubt in my mind what is more cost-efficient and what will give me more control now and in the future.
I agree with the following statement: "With PCs it's pick and choose, with Macs its all or nothing."
I'm interested in pick and choose, because it means that I get what I want.
To each his own.
There is no good or bad choice - or, let me take that back and rephrase it - there are no bad choices at this time, only more or less appropriate ones.
For me, quality and stability are more important than price (alone). For you it is price. The great thing is, each of us gets what we want. :)
Marko, if you had read what I wrote without blinders on, you would know that I was talking principally about quality and function. The machine that I'm building will cost more than the new base iMac, but it will have a better processor, better RAM and better drive configuration/performance. Trying to compare a custom-built PC with the new iMac is ridiculous, and you should know it. If you want to talk about Mac Pros, fine, that's another matter.
Don't be so insufferably patronizing.
I really don't see anything patronizing about what I said.
It's not like I started putting down PCs and praising Macs in a PC-related thread, now is it?
Man, you really ought to get out of this fanboy mentality.
The title of this thread is about a new Apple product that was released two days ago, and presumably invites discussion about how it stacks up against alternatives.
As someone who is actively in the market, and who is more interested in getting a job done than in whether I line Bill Gates's or Steve Jobs's pocket, I have been looking at both a custom Windows machine and a Mac.
As part of this, I looked pretty carefully at the specs of the new iMac.
I explained what I want from a computer for work on photographic images and why I think that the iMac falls short. As I also said, the Mac Pro is another matter entirely. And personally, between the new iMac and a high-end MacBook Pro with an external monitor, I'd go for the latter.
Your decision to try to turn this into some kind of Mac/Windows debate is your problem.
Henry Ambrose
21-Oct-2009, 20:00
My older 24" iMac is wonderful.
WONDERFUL!
Its not got the very fastest processor or the most RAM. But its not that far off the latest ones. And its way plenty fast to do anything I do with 4x5 scans or digital camera files. I added a second old CRT monitor for my PS tools.
15 years ago, if you made your living at an imaging computer you surely wanted the very best you could get. I've been that route more than once - $10K systems that still left you waiting. Not too long ago though we kinda reached the point where the latest and greatest just isn't a requirement - not at all like it used to be.
If the new iMac led monitors are good then its one hell of a Photoshop machine for not that much money.
And don't buy Apple memory - its easy to add your own. But I thought most everyone knew that.
Frank Petronio
21-Oct-2009, 20:02
Well back the original question, yeah the new iMac looks really great as an easy-to-configure, not-overly-expensive, off-the-shelf imaging computer.
But you could probably build a PC with more power and memory for the same money. It will just take more effort, lack a few features, and not look as nice. Oh and it will have to run an OS that requires constant vigilance to prevent security breaches, viruses, etc. Of course it appears that Photoshop will run faster on a PC these days so it may be worth it if you're doing high production or huge giant files.
jim kitchen
21-Oct-2009, 21:32
r.e.
Take a Vallium, and just relax...
There is no need for you to be this aggressive, during this discussion, nor should you just read the specifications, and continue a banter that one is better than the other. This argument has gone on for decades between platforms, with no end in site.
Who cares?
People make choices based upon their needs, and your needs are obviously different, because you seem to want to build your own box.
So be it, just do it... :)
jim k
Ben Syverson
21-Oct-2009, 21:43
One thing to note... the new iMac can act as an external monitor. The 27" iMac has nearly the same resolution as the 30" Cinema Display, but is actually cheaper: $1699 vs $1799.
Just a thought. Obviously neither display has the amazing gamut of something like the LaCie 724 (123% of Adobe RGB!), but if your main interest is having more screen real estate, the new iMac is like buying a display and getting a really great computer for free.
Man, you really ought to get out of this fanboy mentality.
The title of this thread is about a new Apple product that was released two days ago, and presumably invites discussion about how it stacks up against alternatives.
As someone who is actively in the market, and who is more interested in getting a job done than in whether I line Bill Gates's or Steve Jobs's pocket, I have been looking at both a custom Windows machine and a Mac.
As part of this, I looked pretty carefully at the specs of the new iMac.
I explained what I want from a computer for work on photographic images and why I think that the iMac falls short. As I also said, the Mac Pro is another matter entirely. And personally, between the new iMac and a high-end MacBook Pro with an external monitor, I'd go for the latter.
Your decision to try to turn this into some kind of Mac/Windows debate is your problem.
Dude, life is short, go get some of it before it runs out.
I don't give a damn what do you choose to spend your money on and neither should you about my choice.
This thread is about new iMac line and how good it is for running Photoshop. There is another currently active thread that discusses the best PC for running Photoshop.
Something for everybody.
My something isn't there so I discuss it here. Your something is obviously there, so why are you here in the first place?
One thing to note... the new iMac can act as an external monitor. The 27" iMac has nearly the same resolution as the 30" Cinema Display, but is actually cheaper: $1699 vs $1799.
Just a thought. Obviously neither display has the amazing gamut of something like the LaCie 724 (123% of Adobe RGB!), but if your main interest is having more screen real estate, the new iMac is like buying a display and getting a really great computer for free.
It is a good compromise for those of us who can't afford or simply don't want to pay for an Eizo or even LaCie.
But it is also worth noting that it is always possible to add a high-gamut external monitor (up to 30") to an iMac at a later date. Each display can, of course, be calibrated independently and run at their respective native resolutions.
There is also a lot of uncertainty about the future of Intel's i5/i7 processors as the company is moving to a new architecture and is not exactly forthcoming on its intentions about future support for those processors, especially the i7 series. Just something to keep in mind.
.
Umm no. The roadmap is clear out to 2020 when they claim 2 nm processors ... sure. Bloomfield will go forward to a 35 nm 6 core part supposedly still on x58 so your Bloomfield path is clear. Lynnfield will serve the lower end. The two sets of i processors is confusing for sure.
While I have you all. Both Mac and Windows suck massively.
I find it hard to believe that Steve has pretty well destroyed the FreeBSD base and the suckage will continue. OS X just went 64 bit years after everyone else. Did they ever fix their IO problem that broke the fine server OS FreeBSD used to be?
Windows is stumbling to an uncertain future as they try to lock in features. Hi ho. Win 7 does seem to work though.
Linux rocks.
Damn this GTX 260 is fassst. Just got her back up after surgery.
Ben Syverson
21-Oct-2009, 22:15
Linux rocks.
Not to pick a fight, but a real question: what image processing app do you use?
I'm a big supporter of Free & Open Source Software, but when I'm dustbusting a 2400 DPI 8x10 scan at 100% using the spot healing brush and GPU acceleration, I know there's no way I could give up Photoshop.
...to say nothing of editing HD video in realtime...
Doug Dolde
22-Oct-2009, 00:06
In my un-humble opinion, anyone who uses a PC instead of a Mac deserves Windoze in any of it's garbage ridden releases.
Andrew ren
22-Oct-2009, 02:49
to me the cpu and ram don't seem a problem, as I think the mac I am using is fast enough for my photoshop work. actually, any normal duo-core/4G ram is good enough for now, at least in my case.
My main concern is the quality of the display.
After reading all these, I think a eizo CG is still a go. and the NEC is the best buy for the money. the Lacie is somewhere between, same panel as NEC, but more expensive...
I have to make my decision fast, as the Xmas is coming...
Andrew
Brian_A
22-Oct-2009, 05:51
In my un-humble opinion, anyone who uses a PC instead of a Mac deserves Windoze in any of it's garbage ridden releases.
As does anyone who uses a Mac deserves to forfeit all the money they will dump into it. I can count on one hand (Since I began using windows as 3.1) how many times I've had PC crashes. I can count on a lot more hands how many times I've had a MacOS lock up on me. I look forward to the day when there is a quality Linux port to Photoshop along with all the other imaging software I use. Until then I'll stick with what gets it done fastest with minimal problems. Maybe I'm the exception that just somehow doesn't have many issues like you all seem to. Lucky me. Plenty of nice computers out there, now you just gotta decide what you're willing to pay for it: cash or vigilance. I'll take vigilance along with my haul-ass computer compared to any Mac I've seen recently.
My main concern is the quality of the display.
After reading all these, I think a eizo CG is still a go. and the NEC is the best buy for the money. the Lacie is somewhere between, same panel as NEC, but more expensive...
I have to make my decision fast, as the Xmas is coming...
Andrew,
You can always any of those as an external monitor to your iMac and calibrate it separately. The graphics card they come with, especially the Radeon 4850 in the top model, have enough juice to run both.
Once you get used to dual-monitor setup, you will never go back, trust me. :)
What I would do if I were you - actually I may really do that myself! - is get the 27" iMac and try it out for a while to see if the built-in monitor is sufficient or needs some help. If you are happy with it as it is, you're golden, if not, then add the second monitor.
Just my $0.02, YMMV, etc.
Marko
So, Brian, have you decided yet which of the 6 versions of the Windows 7 are you going to upgrade to? Did you attend one of those tupperwar... err... Windows launch parties yet or do you save that for deciding on all the new hardware that you will need to buy in order to upgrade?
:)
The Mac which came with the very first version of OS X back in the 2000 can still run the latest version of OSX with only a disk and RAM upgrade. And it runs faster under the latest OS X than it did under the first version.
How many times did you need to upgrade your hardware since Windows 98?
But be that as it may, it is your machine, your money and your choice. I have absolutely no problem with it as long as you don't try to make it my choice. I just don't think that you are saving any money compared to me in the long run, we are just distributing it differently. ;)
Andrew ren
22-Oct-2009, 09:27
Marko,
you might be right. but the most useful experience I got since I started taking photos in 2004 is, the best way to save your money is to buy the most expensive gear you can ever afford. in long run, its the cheapest way.:D
so, for now, I am still thinking a eizo cg24... then a mac tower.
Cheers
Andrew
Brian_A
22-Oct-2009, 10:14
Marko,
I don't care what ya'll blow your money on as far as computers go. Mine runs well and fast. Last I checked, Photoshop does the same thing on both PC and Mac. So long as it does that I couldn't care less whether you shoot digital or film, use a Canon or Nikon or use PC or Mac. I have no issues at all with my PC and, for that matter, have had more lockups with Macs. I'll spend less money now and get more speed rather than less speed and more money. I don't care if it can run Windows Version 6123 in 20 years as long as it runs Vista/7 quickly today. I don't know why everyone whines about Vista, it runs very quickly for me. If this ISN'T fast, then I can't wait to see Windows 7's speed. Plus my computer runs a lot faster than my aunts brand new shiny fully loaded MacBook Pro.
-B
Mark Stahlke
22-Oct-2009, 10:32
The new iMac sounds like a nice machine. I'm really curious about how well the monitor can be calibrated. I've heard a lot of complaints that older iMac monitors were to bright for good calibration and print matching. As I recall, people had to jump through a lot of hoops to lower the monitor brightness.
Does anyone know how easy it is to get the appropriate brightness level on these monitors?
BTW, Linux does rock. Mostly. Just not for image processing.
Cheers,
Mark
Jeffrey Sipress
22-Oct-2009, 10:42
PenGun, I have no idea what you are talking about. Computers, perhaps?
I saw the new 27" iMac yesterday, and it is fabulous. Best feature? It doesn't run windoze!!
to me the cpu and ram don't seem a problem, as I think the mac I am using is fast enough for my photoshop work. actually, any normal duo-core/4G ram is good enough for now, at least in my case.
My main concern is the quality of the display.
After reading all these, I think a eizo CG is still a go. and the NEC is the best buy for the money. the Lacie is somewhere between, same panel as NEC, but more expensive...
I have to make my decision fast, as the Xmas is coming...
Andrew
Andrew,
Whatever you get, you might want to make sure that you can upgrade processor and RAM and run at least two if not three drives. The expectation is that CS5 will be out in the not too distant future, and that it will make use of more power. I don't know if you plan to run it, but if so, it's something to take into account.
I like the Eizo monitor that I purchased, but I suspect that a NEC, which I also looked at, would have perfomed just fine.
I've used a Mac Pro box, which you say you are also leaning towards, and I thought that it was a great machine. People I know who have MacBook Pros are delighted with them; and I was sufficiently impressed with my limited time with one that I've pretty much decided to get one myself, although in my case not for image editing.
Re the references to Linux, I run a version called Arch Linux. I've thought about running Gimp, but I've got too much time invested in Photoshop to start learning another programme, and the user community - and hence the knowledge base - for Photoshop is a lot larger.
PenGun, I have no idea what you are talking about. Computers, perhaps?
I saw the new 27" iMac yesterday, and it is fabulous. Best feature? It doesn't run windoze!!
Sweetie I have 7 OSs on this machine. I have the Mac OS X whatever broken free from their lock. It's a broken piece of .... I have XP and Win 7 .... well they play games and run Photoshop ... whoopie.
I have 4 Linux dists, two Slackware, Debian Lenny and a 32 bit Ubuntu just for fun.
I'm about to clean up a bit and ram in Slackware 13. My favorite.
Paid for none of it.
What was that ... something about computers I think.
Wallace_Billingham
22-Oct-2009, 12:47
How many times did you need to upgrade your hardware since Windows 98?
and how many people are running 11 year non upgraded old Macs to edit LF film scans in Photoshop? I would love to know. I am sure that 128mb of ram and 30GB hard drive is still more than enough.
Ken Lee
22-Oct-2009, 13:33
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/deadhorse.gif
Lol, Ken, it would be great if you would be so kind as to allow the usage of this image whenever the need arises!
:D
Ken Lee
22-Oct-2009, 13:59
I didn't create the image. I just saw it somewhere, and grabbed it - for times like this. :)
and how many people are running 11 year non upgraded old Macs to edit LF film scans in Photoshop? I would love to know. I am sure that 128mb of ram and 30GB hard drive is still more than enough.
It always helps to provide full quotes instead of taking things out of context. Especially if the full quote provides the answer to your question. Here's the full quote, missing part bolded for enhanced visibility:
The Mac which came with the very first version of OS X back in the 2000 can still run the latest version of OSX with only a disk and RAM upgrade. And it runs faster under the latest OS X than it did under the first version.
How many times did you need to upgrade your hardware since Windows 98?
Upon cursory inspection, you might notice that I did mention disk and RAM upgrade... You might also realize that I never mentioned anything about running Photoshop or LF film scans. Although I could do that on such a system if I really had to. I used to run Photoshop on that system in the past.
But that's beside the point. The point being that the new iMacs are much more capable in that respect. The rest is just noise.
I didn't create the image. I just saw it somewhere, and grabbed it - for times like this. :)
Well, perhaps we could persuade the good people running this forum to make it available for times like this. They (the times, that is) seem to be proliferating... :)
Dave Aharonian
22-Oct-2009, 15:24
Thanks Ken - I just spat out my water because of that! I love it!!!
Wayne Crider
22-Oct-2009, 16:14
The Mac which came with the very first version of OS X back in the 2000 can still run the latest version of OSX with only a disk and RAM upgrade. And it runs faster under the latest OS X than it did under the first version.
Huh? I've never heard of this before. I have an 600mhz Power PC G3 running 10.2x and as far as I know I can't run anything past 10.3x. Please expound as I would love to upgrade if possible, but I need facts and will probably verify with Apple.
I can count on a lot more hands how many times I've had a MacOS lock up on me....Maybe I'm the exception that just somehow doesn't have many issues like you all seem to.
You are.
There are a number of industry-wide studies on uptime, and on the ratio of machines to tech support people required on both platforms. It's not even close.
percepts
22-Oct-2009, 16:40
In my un-humble opinion, anyone who uses a PC instead of a Mac deserves Windoze in any of it's garbage ridden releases.
Macs are designed to be idiot proof and they need to be...
Brian_A
22-Oct-2009, 17:12
You are.
There are a number of industry-wide studies on uptime, and on the ratio of machines to tech support people required on both platforms. It's not even close.
Maybe the fact I have my machines run all their anti-virus/spyware stuff every night during hours I don't use it helps :) I just have always tried to stay on top of all security updates and whatnot. Yes, I probably spend more time making sure bad things don't happen but I'm alright with that. See, unlike most, I don't mind either type of system. I have never had issues with my PC really, so I am in that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Until I have some major issue that really causes me to want to stray away from PC I'll stick with it.
The Mac which came with the very first version of OS X back in the 2000 can still run the latest version of OSX with only a disk and RAM upgrade. And it runs faster under the latest OS X than it did under the first version.
Huh? I've never heard of this before. I have an 600mhz Power PC G3 running 10.2x and as far as I know I can't run anything past 10.3x. Please expound as I would love to upgrade if possible, but I need facts and will probably verify with Apple.
Wayne,
As I said earlier, a cursory reading of what you choose to quote and reply to often already contains an answer. Please see the bolded section above.
The first Mac that officially came with OSX - and that was what I was referring to, just in case it still isn't clear enough - was a 2002 G4 model.
I stand corrected insofar as the OS X 10.5.x officially requires at least an 867 MHz G4 processor which was the top model of that series.
What you have is a late (2001) G3 model, which came with OS 8 or 9, depending on the shipment, which you have later upgraded to OSX.
Apple has a very detailed and well organized support site and you can easily find all of this and much more if you need details.
Macs are designed to be idiot proof and they need to be...
And apparently they really are... Or perhaps idiot-repellent might be a better term?
:D
Henry Ambrose
22-Oct-2009, 20:49
The new iMac sounds like a nice machine. I'm really curious about how well the monitor can be calibrated. I've heard a lot of complaints that older iMac monitors were to bright for good calibration and print matching. As I recall, people had to jump through a lot of hoops to lower the monitor brightness.
Does anyone know how easy it is to get the appropriate brightness level on these monitors?
BTW, Linux does rock. Mostly. Just not for image processing.
Cheers,
Mark
Coloreyes Display Pro
http://www.integrated-color.com/
Fixed mine.
Its great.
Doug Dolde
22-Oct-2009, 22:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYWmDag3ruM
neil poulsen
22-Oct-2009, 22:21
So, does the new IMac screen have a glossy surface or a non-glossy, matte surface?
8x10 user
23-Oct-2009, 00:44
I wonder if the iMac still uses laptop memory.
asnapper
23-Oct-2009, 04:56
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-10-blog.html#_20091020Apple_iMac
Take a read of Lloyd Chambers thoughts on the new imac's
As for me I'm at the point when I need to get a new PC with my old windows P4 Dell PC being unable to cope with my 10x8 scanned negs from my recently purchased Microtek scanner.
I think the 27" imac is appealing but with its backup limitations & due to the very high premium you have to pay for Macs here in the UK it would be far more cost effective to get a 30" display along with an off the shelf or customised quad core windows 7 PC.
Wallace_Billingham
23-Oct-2009, 10:17
It always helps to provide full quotes instead of taking things out of context. Especially if the full quote provides the answer to your question. Here's the full quote, missing part bolded for enhanced visibility:
Upon cursory inspection, you might notice that I did mention disk and RAM upgrade... You might also realize that I never mentioned anything about running Photoshop or LF film scans. Although I could do that on such a system if I really had to. I used to run Photoshop on that system in the past.
But that's beside the point. The point being that the new iMacs are much more capable in that respect. The rest is just noise.
Ohh ok sorry, so what you are saying is that you need to upgrade your Mac to run the new OS, and then you put down Windows 98 because you would need to upgrade hardware to run a new flavor of windows on an 11 year old machine. I get you now. I don't understand how you think that is a valid comparison but I will just leave it that you do.
Of course I have never purchased a new computer just to get an new OS. Over the last 20+ years every time I get a new computer, I do it to take advantage of new hardware. Things like more ram, bigger HDs, CD/DVD burners, faster processors etc. Getting a new OS to take advantage of these new hardware items is just a bonus, and when I get a new computer I pass the old one down the line.
My old Windows 3.1 machine still works, as does my Windows 95 machine I got a few years later, however we never use them. My kids still use the Windows 98 machine to get online and use office 98 for homework, my wifes $600 XP machine still works very well and with 1GB of ram and a 300GB hard with about 50GBs used does all she needs it to.
My current system which I use mainly for Photoshop and Lightroom, also works quite well under Vista. I got it when Vista first came out, and have never had a virus or any other issues. Unlike most people who put down Vista I have actually used it quite a bit.
Do other people have issues with viruses under windows? Sure but they all do stupid things to get them. Other people have STDs as well for doing stupid things, but I have not given up on sex because of it.
Sometime in the next year I am going to build a new computer. Mainly so I can pass mine down to my wife, so she can pass hers down to my kids. At that point I will retire the old Windows 98 box that has served us well for 11 years with no major issues of any kind. I could pay a lot more and get a Mac but why? I have nothing against Macs, but for me I do not see any real advantage to using one.
Computers are just tools, one is not better than the other they are just different. Since everyone has different needs some tools fit that persons needs better than another one.
Ben Hopson
23-Oct-2009, 10:49
I didn't create the image. I just saw it somewhere, and grabbed it - for times like this. :)
And what a perfect time to use it!
Ohh ok sorry, so what you are saying is that you need to upgrade your Mac to run the new OS, and then you put down Windows 98 because you would need to upgrade hardware to run a new flavor of windows on an 11 year old machine. I get you now. I don't understand how you think that is a valid comparison but I will just leave it that you do.
No, what I said was that I needed to upgrade RAM and HD in order to run a new OS. I did not need to upgrade my Mac at all. Same CPU, same graphics, same ports, same display.
And I'll say it again - reading what you're responding to might help in writing a response.
;)
Sometime in the next year I am going to build a new computer. Mainly so I can pass mine down to my wife, so she can pass hers down to my kids. At that point I will retire the old Windows 98 box that has served us well for 11 years with no major issues of any kind. I could pay a lot more and get a Mac but why? I have nothing against Macs, but for me I do not see any real advantage to using one.
Good for you. You'll get what you want.
But since you have no interest in Macs and this being a thread specifically discussing the new Macs, why exactly are you here?
Brian_A
23-Oct-2009, 11:58
I just read too much stuff about how the monitor is so hard to work with as far as iMacs go... If I were to invest in a Mac it'd be in one that had a separate monitor...
Now it's time for PRICE. I can and will build a new i7 Bloomfield system soon. I'll pay about $700 for parts to build a machine that will smoke all Mac toy machines.
I call em' toys because it comes in a package and you need to know very little.
I've built all my own machines from parts. Installed and configured all my own OSs. It's fun and you can learn stuff.
$700 ... eh'.
Ben Syverson
23-Oct-2009, 13:37
Well, regardless of how many OSes you plan on running, and Mac vs PC vs Linux bullshit aside, this new iMac looks like a sweet machine with a great display.
Frank Petronio
23-Oct-2009, 13:53
Yeah they ban talking about politics and religion here but this Mac vs. PC bullshit is worse ;-)
Same for film vs. digital.
percepts
23-Oct-2009, 14:08
And what a perfect time to use it!
I made a smiley for just this purpose. Feel free to save and use wherever you like...
32428
Well, regardless of how many OSes you plan on running, and Mac vs PC vs Linux bullshit aside, this new iMac looks like a sweet machine with a great display.
Actually Mac vs Windows vs Linux but I take your point.
You are welcome to overpriced, well marketed junk. I prefer the fun of building and enjoy the very high quality of the machines I build. I've fixed Macs and there is lots of price point hardware in their machines, none in mine. The one I use has been up for nearly 5 years now. It only goes down for hardware changes. My daughter will get it soon.
percepts
23-Oct-2009, 14:26
I just configured my home pc as a web server. All software freely available including a highend mailserver, ftp server and of course Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, and FTP server. This is all on Pentium II 400Mhz box with a 40GB hardrive and less than a gig of ram. It works flawlessly and serves up pages at reasonable speed over a bog standard ADSL line running at 7.6Mb download and around 384Kbs upload to web.
So why exactly do all you people need all the power you seem to need? The answer is paranoia about not having the latest piece of kit. Thats how marketing in a consumerist society works... Make em beleive they must have the latest and greatest and remarkably they go for it. Now what did I say about Macs....
I just configured my home pc as a web server. All software freely available including a highend mailserver, ftp server and of course Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, and FTP server. This is all on Pentium II 400Mhz box with a 40GB hardrive and less than a gig of ram. It works flawlessly and serves up pages at reasonable speed over a bog standard ADSL line running at 7.6Mb download and around 384Kbs upload to web.
So why exactly do all you people need all the power you seem to need?
Let's see:
Perhaps for the same reason (or a set of reasons) anybody would need a web server on their home computer?
Or for the same reason why anybody would buy a Leica instead of a Bessa?
Or maybe for the same reason anybody would buy an Ebony instead of a Shen Hao?
Or Lexus/Mercedes/BMW vs. a Kia/Hunday?
(Insert any of the gazillion other questions just like that here)
Me, I like the simplest answer for the things I choose:
Because I can.
;)
I hope that this is answer good enough for all of those who have no interest (or no money) for the actual topic. Perhaps we could even get back to the discussion once all of you are done venting your spleen?
Please?
Ben Syverson
23-Oct-2009, 15:30
So why exactly do all you people need all the power you seem to need? The answer is paranoia about not having the latest piece of kit.
Oh, okay, I must have gotten lost -- I was almost sure I was on LargeFormatPhotography.info, not MinimalistWebServers.info. :rolleyes:
Why do I need a lot of power? I routinely work with multi-GB film scans, and being able to fit the entire image into RAM and operate on it quickly is a must.
I understand that you and PenGun like to build and configure your own machines -- it's a hobby. I get it. Why does it have to be my hobby too?
I bill $150/hr for software development. Lets say I build my own Linux machine for $750 instead of $1500 for an off-the-shelf Mac. Setting up the Linux machine will likely take over 5 hours, so the Linux box is going to cost me MORE than the Mac. If my Mac breaks, I take it to the Apple store that day. If my Linux box breaks, I'm down for a day or two poring over log files and searching forums.
That's what it boils down to. I can't afford to spend time working on my computer instead of working with my computer. So I can't afford to NOT have a high-end Mac.
Greg Blank
23-Oct-2009, 15:47
I don't see that at all, I've used Macs since 1988. The Imac I have is a 2.4 GHz Core Duo with GB 667 DDR2 SDram. The all glass screen is true a pleasure, I watch movies instead of a TV and its great. When editing photography I have the screen calibrated with a Spyder Elite Pro. I have no problems with judging colors or with versus black.
I just read too much stuff about how the monitor is so hard to work with as far as iMacs go... If I were to invest in a Mac it'd be in one that had a separate monitor...
percepts
23-Oct-2009, 15:57
Oh, okay, I must have gotten lost -- I was almost sure I was on LargeFormatPhotography.info, not MinimalistWebServers.info. :rolleyes:
Why do I need a lot of power? I routinely work with multi-GB film scans, and being able to fit the entire image into RAM and operate on it quickly is a must.
And what exactly has scanning and raster image editing got to do with photography?
sanking
23-Oct-2009, 16:39
And what exactly has scanning and raster image editing got to do with photography?
It is similar to the relationship between engines, gasoline and tires to the automobile.
Sandy King
So why exactly do all you people need all the power you seem to need? The answer is paranoia about not having the latest piece of kit. Thats how marketing in a consumerist society works... Make em beleive they must have the latest and greatest and remarkably they go for it. Now what did I say about Macs....
To run my games on my 34" 1920x1080 Sony HD CRT, yup the Super Fine Pitch pro tube, from heaven. Need lotsa snap. I need my 100 fps at full max video settings or the children will kick my ass ... eh'.
I'm really just pulling chains here. People get so up in their own grill over what they have that it's really a bit of mean fun for me.
Like Frank said it's a religion. In these troubled times fanbois at least have something to believe in. ;)
Henry Ambrose
23-Oct-2009, 17:26
Wow.
A guy asks a question about the new iMac and it turns into this.
Why bother?
Is the new proud owner of the 27" iMac. I remember when my 20" inch screen looked huge.
Andrew ren
23-Oct-2009, 18:36
Wow.
A guy asks a question about the new iMac and it turns into this.
Why bother?
that's all about.
and i am glad its going to be heated it up like this..
AS this is might be THE breaking point if a consumer-level thing fits us the Analogue/Hybrid (PURE)people..
good to have these thoughtful and sheer unadulterated(expertie) ideas flooding around... learning curve though
what a pleasure to know you guys!
best,
Andrew
sanking
23-Oct-2009, 18:57
I love my 24" iMac toy. It works seamlessly with all of my software and I have no complaints at all about the monitor.
Ultimately it is a tool, as are all cameras and computers, but it is a tool that works for me with no complications, allowing me to do my work without having to worry about what is inside. The IT guys may need more than me in terms of power, but as a photographer the iMac is the cat's meow IMO.
Sandy King
percepts
24-Oct-2009, 04:07
I love my 24" iMac toy.Sandy King
Well I hope you'll be very happy together and you have a long and fullfilling relationship. What does your analyst think about it?
Henry Ambrose
24-Oct-2009, 06:45
that's all about.
and i am glad its going to be heated it up like this..
AS this is might be THE breaking point if a consumer-level thing fits us the Analogue/Hybrid (PURE)people..
good to have these thoughtful and sheer unadulterated(expertie) ideas flooding around... learning curve though
what a pleasure to know you guys!
best,
Andrew
Again, now ----
Why bother?
If want an argument ask for it.
If you want real information about the iMac ask that question and mean it.
What a waste of time - my time and other poster's time for answering in a fashion related to your original question.
This is as much fun as someone asking a view camera question and having a bunch of trolls chime in about how much better their DSLR is than any VC.
So why bother?
Why provide a serious answer to a non-serious question?
What a waste of electrons.
What a crock of crap.
Again, now ----
Why bother?
If want an argument ask for it.
If you want real information about the iMac ask that question and mean it.
What a waste of time - my time and other poster's time for answering in a fashion related to your original question.
This is as much fun as someone asking a view camera question and having a bunch of trolls chime in about how much better their DSLR is than any VC.
So why bother?
Why provide a serious answer to a non-serious question?
What a waste of electrons.
What a crock of crap.
Why bother?
Because there are many among us who might be seriously interested and need information about these new machines, that's why.
And because this IS a discussion forum, after all. We are supposed to discuss various topics here.
Someone else just asked a question about a DSLR in the other thread - also not entirely seriously - and a bunch of usual seagulls swooped in and did their usual thing, but those readers who are seriously thinking about adding a DSLR to their view cameras should still be able to get some good information out of it. Information from people just like them, who are actually using both, instead of getting one-sided guesses from people who never even touched one or the other.
Now, if only we could have an effective mechanism for keeping the trolls and baiters who chime in only to have a little sick fun, it would be even better.
And that brings me to the final reason why it is worth bothering with serious responses even to non-serious questions: if we all start thinking "why bother" and stop participating, what will become of this forum? If we do that, we let the trolls and seagulls have their way and effectively control what we do and say, where and when. That's why I still bother, even though a thought has crossed my mind, more than once, that this might all just be one colossal waste of time.
Same as with any other thing in life these days. People like you, Jim, Jiri, Colin, Ken, Bruce and many others - apologies to anybody I missed, they all know who they are - are what makes it all worthwhile. And that also more than makes up for those others, who also know who and what they are not. ;)
Ben Syverson
24-Oct-2009, 09:23
It would be one thing if any of the arguments on this thread were even potentially interesting or useful, but that's not the case.
I really don't get it. If you want this computer, buy it. If you don't, don't. If your reason for buying or not buying is related to photography (rather than BSD internals or OEM component quality), then let's hear it. Otherwise, go find a Mac forum to troll on.
percepts
24-Oct-2009, 09:52
You can rest assured that no matter how upto date your intended purchase is today, it will be out of date tomorrow... So go ahead and pay the price for the latest and greatest. Next week it will cost a lot less...
Brian Ellis
24-Oct-2009, 10:23
It would be one thing if any of the arguments on this thread were even potentially interesting or useful, but that's not the case.
I really don't get it. If you want this computer, buy it. If you don't, don't. If your reason for buying or not buying is related to photography (rather than BSD internals or OEM component quality), then let's hear it. Otherwise, go find a Mac forum to troll on.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that you didn't find it useful or at least interesting when a Mac owner says "[i]n my un-humble opinion, anyone who uses a PC instead of a Mac deserves Windoze in any of it's garbage ridden releases"? : - )
Ben Syverson
24-Oct-2009, 10:56
You can rest assured that no matter how upto date your intended purchase is today, it will be out of date tomorrow... So go ahead and pay the price for the latest and greatest. Next week it will cost a lot less...
What's your point, and what does it have to do with the iMac? Every computer depreciates.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that you didn't find it useful or at least interesting when a Mac owner says "[i]n my un-humble opinion, anyone who uses a PC instead of a Mac deserves Windoze in any of it's garbage ridden releases"? : - )
Haha, exactly. What's the point of posting something like that?
Again, now ----
Why bother?
If want an argument ask for it.
If you want real information about the iMac ask that question and mean it.
What a waste of time - my time and other poster's time for answering in a fashion related to your original question.
This is as much fun as someone asking a view camera question and having a bunch of trolls chime in about how much better their DSLR is than any VC.
So why bother?
Why provide a serious answer to a non-serious question?
What a waste of electrons.
What a crock of crap.
Whoo Hoo. You told the OP your really liked your 24" Imac. That's a serious answer?
Some of us offered some context and perhaps some technical information but that is a waste of electrons and a crock of crap.
I know you are a fanboi but try to show a little restraint.
Brian_A
24-Oct-2009, 11:56
Someone needs to post that dead horse thing again.....
Ken Lee
24-Oct-2009, 12:23
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/deadhorse.gif
Henry Ambrose
24-Oct-2009, 16:57
Whoo Hoo. You told the OP your really liked your 24" Imac. That's a serious answer?
Some of us offered some context and perhaps some technical information but that is a waste of electrons and a crock of crap.
I know you are a fanboi but try to show a little restraint.
It was a factual answer based in personal experience.
If the new screens are good then the full answer to his question is that maybe we don't need a high end monitor. Basing that on the fact that my older iMac is entirely satisfactory to me.
Your posts are troll like. I don't see them adding anything to this forum. How about adding some value here before you start insulting us?
Brian_A
24-Oct-2009, 18:04
Thank you Mr. Lee.
Andrew ren
24-Oct-2009, 18:55
... How about adding some value here before you start insulting us?
well well well, I got my answer/decision via the help of other members here.
I really appreciated that.
what's the value you being added in this thread?
and, BTW, what do you mean by mentioning "us"?
Andrew
Darryl Baird
24-Oct-2009, 19:30
gawdddddd, do I ever miss the Lounge where we could (once upon a time) at least talk politics and religion... something worthy and appropriate of narcissism, angst, egomania, and bile unlike our relative choices in computing hardware/platforms
get a life folks, really, there are some issues needing this passion and wit, but not this
It was a factual answer based in personal experience.
If the new screens are good then the full answer to his question is that maybe we don't need a high end monitor. Basing that on the fact that my older iMac is entirely satisfactory to me.
Your posts are troll like. I don't see them adding anything to this forum. How about adding some value here before you start insulting us?
You insulted the OP. Told him he was wasting your time. Think about it a bit.
srbphoto
24-Oct-2009, 20:07
For everyone who loves and appreciates Ken's "dead horse being beaten" image check out the Youtube link. It is the same image but with very appropriate music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk
Andrew ren
24-Oct-2009, 20:57
You insulted the OP. Told him he was wasting your time. Think about it a bit.
PenGun,
i did a goggle of "op", not too much.
so i think that's referring me:-0
Honestly and "personally", I do not think that was an INSULT. its just his opinion, and here is the forum for it.
to myself, I was just surprised with his words, but again, not too much.
now, we are start to WASTE our time...
Should that's the case, let's stop it right here and now. input something more informative..
Cheers all
A
iamjanco
25-Oct-2009, 10:53
Lol, interesting thread. Once could certainly make a strong argument that computers (or anything digital for that matter) are, in a certain "cents," a lot like used cars and dslrs: that is, if you buy them new and keep them a few years.
Btw, there's a lot of things that affect digital processing performance: main CPU, graphics card/CPU, memory, storage, processing app, etc. You can have the fastest of them, but if you couple them with one or more weak links in a chain (like a "slow" motherboard, etc.), the slowest of them dictates processing speed depending on what you're doing.
Jan C.
i've been using a trs80 and still seems to work fine.
Doug Dolde
25-Oct-2009, 14:16
i've been using a trs80 and still seems to work fine.
Thats pretty funny.
iamjanco
25-Oct-2009, 14:21
i've been using a trs80 and still seems to work fine.
Hey, it was a great machine in its day. I learned Basic using one.
Jan C.
Hey, it was a great machine in its day. I learned Basic using one.
Jan C.
it plays a mean game of PONG!
Ben Syverson
25-Oct-2009, 19:06
i've been using a trs80 and still seems to work fine.
Not sure if you're joking or not, but I use my TRS80 (a Tandy 100, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100) the first real laptop) from time to time. Recently my main laptop was down, so while I waited for the new one to be delivered, I did some writing on the 100.
It may be old, but get this: it goes at least 14 hours on 4 rechargeable AAs, it boots instantly, there's no "save" command because it saves automatically during every keystroke, and it has a wonderful full keyboard. i like my brand new laptop, but it can't touch any of those. Best of all if you're trying to get some writing done, it's a huge hassle to get on this forum (although it's possible), so there are no distractions!
percepts
25-Oct-2009, 19:22
Not sure if you're joking or not, but I use my TRS80 (a Tandy 100, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Model_100) the first real laptop) from time to time. Recently my main laptop was down, so while I waited for the new one to be delivered, I did some writing on the 100.
It may be old, but get this: it goes at least 14 hours on 4 rechargeable AAs, it boots instantly, there's no "save" command because it saves automatically during every keystroke, and it has a wonderful full keyboard. i like my brand new laptop, but it can't touch any of those. Best of all if you're trying to get some writing done, it's a huge hassle to get on this forum (although it's possible), so there are no distractions!
Oh, okay, I must have gotten lost -- I was almost sure I was on LargeFormatPhotography.info, not museumlaptops.info.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=520446&postcount=60
:D :D :D :D
Ben Syverson
25-Oct-2009, 20:16
The four posts preceding mine suggest otherwise...
it's the worst when i am running abacus ...
Dave Jeffery
26-Oct-2009, 04:22
Wow!
We are all not worthy. Please prepare to bow to the new computer power Gods.
I liked all the Pee Cee's that I have have built for the last 20 years until I watched this video. Maybe we all suck?
http://gizmodo.com/5166798/24-solid-state-drives-open-all-of-microsoft-office-in-5-seconds
Brian_A
26-Oct-2009, 10:26
Wow!
We are all not worthy. Please prepare to bow to the new computer power Gods.
I liked all the Pee Cee's that I have have built for the last 20 years until I watched this video. Maybe we all suck?
http://gizmodo.com/5166798/24-solid-state-drives-open-all-of-microsoft-office-in-5-seconds
That is so sick. I want one.
bvstaples
26-Oct-2009, 13:04
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/deadhorse.gif
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I don't know how much more of this "my pencil is better than yours" dribble I can take.
And to think, I was really interested at first because I am upgrading my PC and I just bought a new Mac.
Brian
srbphoto
26-Oct-2009, 14:45
Oh Yeah! Well I'm going to bust out my Commodor Vic 20 and show all of you the power of personal computing. Get 'em Shatner!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUEI7mm8M7Q
Maybe a dead horse here, but this current discussion at photo.net about the iMac and the Mac Pro is perhaps worth reading, regardless of whether one uses a Mac or a PC. See especially the posts from Andrew Rodney: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Usfj
Wallace_Billingham
30-Oct-2009, 21:19
Maybe a dead horse here, but this current discussion at photo.net about the iMac and the Mac Pro is perhaps worth reading, regardless of whether one uses a Mac or a PC. See especially the posts from Andrew Rodney: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Usfj
Thanks for this link. I am puzzeled however by the question that was posted there they said
he has an ancient 1.67 G4 laptop and we are looking to upgrade him to a new mac, either mac pro or imac. he has a 5 year old apple screen
What puzzels me is that I have been told that you never need to upgrade a Mac besides a simple ram or disk upgrade. It seems that only Windows or Linux machines need to be upgraded.
I wonder why they just don't upgrade to the new OSX?
So, Brian, have you decided yet which of the 6 versions of the Windows 7 are you going to upgrade to? Did you attend one of those tupperwar... err... Windows launch parties yet or do you save that for deciding on all the new hardware that you will need to buy in order to upgrade?
:)
The Mac which came with the very first version of OS X back in the 2000 can still run the latest version of OSX with only a disk and RAM upgrade. And it runs faster under the latest OS X than it did under the first version.
How many times did you need to upgrade your hardware since Windows 98?
But be that as it may, it is your machine, your money and your choice. I have absolutely no problem with it as long as you don't try to make it my choice. I just don't think that you are saving any money compared to me in the long run, we are just distributing it differently. ;)
Ben Syverson
30-Oct-2009, 21:58
What puzzels me is that I have been told that you never need to upgrade a Mac besides a simple ram or disk upgrade... I wonder why they just don't upgrade to the new OSX?
10.6 and future versions of MacOS X won't run on a PowerPC (he has a G4). So that alone is a reason to upgrade to a newer Intel-based machine.
However, if your computer is working well for you, you should always question the "need" to upgrade. We've gotten to the point where even older computers are perfectly capable of handling huge files in Photoshop, etc.
I have a friend who still uses a Powerbook from around 2001. It works perfectly well for web browsing, downloading files, watching videos, etc. He's running 10.5.
What puzzels me is that I have been told that you never need to upgrade a Mac besides a simple ram or disk upgrade. It seems that only Windows or Linux machines need to be upgraded.
That is silly. Who told you that?
Paul Kierstead
31-Oct-2009, 08:03
What puzzels me is that I have been told that you never need to upgrade a Mac besides a simple ram or disk upgrade.
I've been told that if I keep frowning, my face will stay that way. I've also been told that you get a cold because you got a chill.
Most of us don't believe everything were told.
percepts
31-Oct-2009, 12:17
I've been told that if I keep frowning, my face will stay that way. I've also been told that you get a cold because you got a chill.
Most of us don't believe everything were told.
These people didn't beleive it either and now look at em...
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=gurning&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=oozsSu7JOdeZjAeb_o2YDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQsAQwAA
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.