iMac vs Mac Mini?

bwcolor said:
AL:

You are suffering from a poor choice of glasses and not a screen size. Get some professional advise on that one. There are lots of products that work great. I'm viewing a 27" screen with lined trifocals without any issues at all. Glasses are a tool, but you need the right tool.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I did have a pair made for work that allowed me to use larger screens, but then I had to hold the newspaper at arm's length to read it. (Books too) I ended up with 2 pairs, one for work and one for home.

I'll stick to the tools I have for now.

Now, a 13.3 MacBook would fit the bill quite nicely, as the 14.1" Toshiba I'm on now fills my lined bifocals perfectly when on my lap here in the coffee shop...
 
I'd go for the imac, less cables. I updated my g4 pudding basin to a 20" 5 months ago due to the bigger files coming out of the D700. All the Nikon software works great and CS4 with plug ins. A word of warning though, use Leopard and not Snow Leopard. Nikon have just updated so should be fine now but my Macbook pro came with Snow and it wouldn't work properly. In CS4 also, certain plugins ie Alien Skin and Dfine also wouldn't work so I've installed Leopard on it until everyone gets their act together with Snow!
 
What is your budget?

What is your budget?

IF you can afford $1,400, then the iMAC is a no brainer. I bought one (24") from MacMall.com with a $300 rebate! The Mac Mini is cute, but it is NOT a desktop! It is a scaled down laptop without the screen, mouse and keyboard (the motherboard and internals are the same as the Macbooks). by the time you add a decent monitor, memory, etc,, you are at $1,400, so get the iMAC. I bought mine for the display, and will never go back! My colors are right on with my Epson 3800 printer.
 
Mac Mini for sure.. the IMAC screen is glossy (cannot get it in a flat matte) and way to contrasty for post in my opinon.. Save money and max out a mac mini.. use the savings to buy an external Drobo drive and a higher end monitor (Lacie, Eizo).
 
Hackintosh is perfect for folks who like tinkering. I've had 30 years of tinkering with different systems from a Singer System 10 to a zSeries and lots of stuff in between. I've got the last Macbook I think I will need for many years. Give me simple and working for me and my family. We have two in our family and a MacMini (first dual core). I'm thinking that when we get another it will be a Mini because I can do remote processing of stuff (remote control) and use the laptop or pad for browsing and low power stuff. I like the cloud computing model and think it can work well on a smaller scale.

The biggest draw back to the Mini is the lack of built in dual monitor support. I'd go iMac for what you've described for what you do. It's easy to plug in a second monitor to an iMac. If you find the slick too bouncy for you, get an extra, it rocks.

B2 (;->
 
Well I pulled the trigger and ordered a base model mini with 4GB RAM.
My current Samsung 19" monitor will continue to suffice and I can put the money saved towards a higher end matte display. I already have a LaCie 1TB external drive for backup and I can boot from that if the mini's 5400 RPM drive proves too slow. I already have keyboard/mouse although I can see picking up a magic mouse in the future.
I'm sure this machine will be sufficient for my needs because almost everything about it is faster than my G5 PowerMac, which is still pretty fast anyway.
BillBingham - the current minis do support dual monitor!
Thanks for all the input everyone!
 
I've been following this thread for a bit, noting the comments. I spoke yesterday with the Apple consultant (he works for Apple) at Best Buy. And I looked at the iMac. Yes, the screen is very reflective! He said that after awhile you don't notice this. I don't think I agree. But then I saw that you can adjust the angle of the screen. By pulling the top towards me, I could eliminate the reflections. I wonder if others have this a satisfactory workaround for the shininess of this screen? The man said that an advantage of the shiny screen is that it makes the colors more saturated. Any observations on that?

Another thing he told me is that the mini is no more powerful than the laptop versions, where the iMac is a lot more powerful. It does seem like a lot of computer for $1500. That's if I can get past the shiny screen. Really, he'd like to sell me the MAcPro. And I might like to buy it.

Another thing, related to comments in previous posts. Someone sai they would not like the iMac because if the screen goes, you lose the whole computer. He showed me that the screen pops off and can be replaced. (There would still be down time though. I gues with a Mini or Macpro you can just hook up another monitor, if you have one.) Also claims the iMac can be upgraded.

So, I'm deliberating. I'll use it mostly for photography (as well as chatting on RFF!)
 
Rob, if you're near an Apple store, it might be worth a trip there just to get another perspective.

The shiny screen concerned me before I bought my iMac. But, it really has not been an issue. Tilting the screen, and not necessarily very much, works. However, it is rather reflective if there's light coming from behind you.

A comparison of the specs of both the iMac and the Mini at apple.com ought to resolve the "which is more powerful" question. Pay particular attention to drive speed. I'm also not sure what video card is inside a Mini these days.

Good to know you can haul your iMac into an Apple store and get the screen replaced if it ever dies. (If you get one, do save the box. Makes it much easier to haul around.)

One thing you cannot do with either the iMac or the Mini is upgrade the hardware. If that's in your thinking, going for the Mac Pro might turn out to be a smart move.
 
An aftermarket for matte overlays for glossy screen surfaces (iMac/MacBook) has sprung up, so that's a possibility. (These are not to be confused with the anti-snooping screen overlays that have come and gone.)

The fact that the glass front of the iMac is held by magnets probably hints at why the newest iMac screens are now relatively easy to replace. The one question mark concerns the heard drive: the first iMac G5's hard drive (and power supply, and logic board...in fact, damn near everything) was almost ridiculously easy to get to and replace, then became ridiculously difficult to replace in subsequent models. (Apple, for some reason, goes through cycles like this.) Towers, of course, are sheer goodness in terms of upgradability, which is why I still have, and love, my last-generation (FireWire 800, dual-mirror doors) Power Mac G4. Haven't had need to upgrade yet, and it sees heavy scanning/Photoshop/printing duty.


- Barrett
 
I tend to think of my iMac as just an overgrown laptop. Likely not literally true, but not by much. Certainly it's very similar in the amount of stuff crammed into a small space. Mini and iMac owners need to resign themselves to taking their machine into an Apple store for just about everything. I remember trying to add memory to my G5, something that ought to be dead simple. From my perspective, the screw holding the little door on the memory compartment had stripped threads. Couldn't remove it. So, I lugged it into the nearest Apple store. The threads weren't stripped. I just lacked the special little magic Apple tool needed to remove it.

If I needed the horsepower of a tower, I'd get one in a heartbeat. But, I don't, so I won't. A rare victory over rationalization.
 
wgerrard said:
Rob, if you're near an Apple store, it might be worth a trip there just to get another perspective.

The shiny screen concerned me before I bought my iMac. But, it really has not been an issue. Tilting the screen, and not necessarily very much, works. However, it is rather reflective if there's light coming from behind you.

A comparison of the specs of both the iMac and the Mini at apple.com ought to resolve the "which is more powerful" question. Pay particular attention to drive speed. I'm also not sure what video card is inside a Mini these days.

Good to know you can haul your iMac into an Apple store and get the screen replaced if it ever dies. (If you get one, do save the box. Makes it much easier to haul around.)

One thing you cannot do with either the iMac or the Mini is upgrade the hardware. If that's in your thinking, going for the Mac Pro might turn out to be a smart move.
Click to expand...

I took this advice and went to the Apple store. I was open to getting any Mac as long as it was the right one for my needs. Here's what they said: The Mac Pro is too much computer: overkill. He made the observation that it is hard for laptop users to adjust to a desktop, since you lose the portability. The mini, he said, is not powerful enough to use with heavy duty photo processing software, and not very portable. I want to use Aperture. The Macbook Pro has all the power I would need and can be ordered with a matte screen for $50 extra.

So I think it will be the 17" Macbook Pro. The iMac looks like the best runnerup if I don't need portability (well, it's sort of portable). I see a lot of members here seem fond of the iMac so I haven't completely ruled it out.
 
Remember the iMac has a better GPU, which for Photoshop work, Lightroom work or Aperture work will really improve things. The iMac also has the faster HDD.
 
Hmm, I have no idea what GPU or HDD mean. I do have a Shutterbug article here from September '08, in which the author says he tested Aperture by running it on the 17" Macbook Pro. He said that Aperture runs best and fastest on that one; and that certain features of Aperture are available only on the Macbook Pro. But of course this article is now 14 months old. Has anything changed since then?

What do GPU and HDD mean?
 
GPU=Graphical Processing Unit
HDD=Hard Disk Drive

Both the GPU and the HDD will have a significant impact on real-world performance. Hence, iMac>Mac Mini for photographers.

But MacPro is even better, but $$$ more than iMac.

For me, iMac was the best combination of performance and value for the money (now especially true because of the new 27" LED LCD)

Rob-F said:
Hmm, I have no idea what GPU or HDD mean. I do have a Shutterbug article here from September '08, in which the author says he tested Aperture by running it on the 17" Macbook Pro. He said that Aperture runs best and fastest on that one; and that certain features of Aperture are available only on the Macbook Pro. But of course this article is now 14 months old. Has anything changed since then?

What do GPU and HDD mean?
Click to expand...
 
Talex said:
GPU=Graphical Processing Unit
HDD=Hard Disk Drive

Both the GPU and the HDD will have a significant impact on real-world performance. Hence, iMac>Mac Mini for photographers.

But MacPro is even better, but $$$ more than iMac.

For me, iMac was the best combination of performance and value for the money (now especially true because of the new 27" LED LCD)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! The MAcPro is out of the question for me because of its size and bulk. But would the comments about the MacPro being even better, also apply to the Macbook Pro?

Thanks,

Rob
 
Rob, the MacPro and the Macbook Pro aren't comparable. That doesn't mean the Macbook Pro is a weakling. It isn't. The MacPro line is the top-of-the-line for Apple in terms of capability, performance and expandability.

If portability is a requirement, then the Macbook Pro is the best alternative.

If you do not need to haul your computer around with you, then I'd look at an iMac. While they are not expandable, they can be tricked out with upgrade options at the time of purchase. I use Photoshop and Lightroom on last year's model with no problems. (The MacPro is really the only Apple machine that is truly expandable after purchase. The density of hardware inside an iMac or laptop precludes easy homebrew upgrades. Opening the case also voids the warranty.)

There's another option if the screen thing is a sticking point. Get the Macbook Pro and use it with an external monitor of your choice. In other words, when the Macbook is home on your desk, it uses another monitor for the display.

Whatever your choice, I strongly recommend maxing out the memory and video card at the time of purchase. Those two things will reap the most apparent performance rewards. Hard drives are relatively cheap so there's really no reason not to go for the largest. Images consume lots of disk space, especially if you start saving RAW files. So much so that you might want to remind yourself to buy an external drive down the road.
 
Thanks, Bill. I didn't mention that I can order the 17" Macbook Pro with a Matte screen for an extra $50.00. Not available on the iMac. But then, I do like the 20.5" screen on the iMac. I just don't like the glossy screen. I did notice that I can tilt the screen forwrd a bit, to reduce reflections. But then I would not get to look at the screen head-on.

The main question is whch machine is actually better for running the photo applications: MAcbook Pro, or iMac? What if cost isn't a factor? Also, how do people find it to type on that tiny iMac keyboard? OK, or not? Also, I kind of like the touchpads better than a mouse. But the main question is which machine will run Aperture and Photoshop or Photoshop Elements the best? I may or may not eventually get Lightroom.
 
For the record, after two weeks with the mac mini I find it was exactly what I was looking for. Photoshop CS operates just as fast as it did on my PowerMac G5 tower, and I can try out Lightroom and Aperture now.
Anyone who says you can't do photo editing on one of these simply hasn't tried it.
 
Last edited:
I'm running an iMac G5 2.1 Ghz. Great machine. Lightroom also runs great.

At the time I bought it, I had to make the same choice. The weak point at that time of the iMac was that the screen was only able to be calibrated by software. A software and hardware profiling would be better.

In spite of that I went with the iMac and I'm not sorry. It's been good.

JP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top