How Good is an iMac?

Darryn said:
17" MBP screen res is the same as a 24" iMac ;)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but in my opinion a 17" laptop isn't much use. To heavy and large for any real portability and not ergonomically enough for long term desktop use. Also old men like me find 1920x1200 on a 17" screen a little too small! :)

OzyOly said:
Because I will be moving about quiet a bit for the next 3 years, plus I'd like the idea of a smaller solution to my iMac.
Click to expand...

OK. Cool. Sell me your iMac for a bargain price then!

Adrianr said:
For anyone who has half a clue about computing and keeping one ticking over (Anyone likely to be asking on 'Overclockers UK Forums' :D) the money saved for a better spec machine would be considered the better investment.


The previous example i mentioned with the Mac Pro was based around the time it took a computer to complete the "Retouch Artists speed test"

Now the problem you have with the iMac of course, is in spec terms it doesn't exactly match up well to the MacPro or a PC, yet you're still paying more for it. Even when you take into account resale value.


What it boils down to for me every single time, is Adobe Photoshop.
So if someone ever asks me what do i reccommend for running Photoshop, I can't reccommend an iMac, because I know i would be telling them to spend more money to do something slower.

Phew :D
Click to expand...

1. I am an IT Professional and after eight or nine hours I don't want to tinker with hardware, software or squeeze extra frame per second or 3DMark scores out of my computer. I want the computer to be ready to do what I want it to do when I want it to do it. My MacBook fits that bill and my games consoles fit the need to headshot badguys without worries about drivers or framerate.


2. Right tool for the right job. Whilst a Mac Pro may not be the cheapest or fastest workstation you can buy it is that - a workstation. Nobody with an ounce of sanity would buy a Mac Pro just because it is a Mac. You need to have a reason or have far too much cash to waste. Despite what may come across here an Apple product isn't always the right product to do a job!

3. The iMac. Simple really. It is a powerful computer in a very attractive design with a very small footprint. If you just want as much CPU or GPU horsepower as possible an iMac isn't for you. If you need a computer that looks good, takes up little space and has power and OS X then the iMac makes sense.

4. Photoshop is Photoshop on PC or Mac but don't forget that it is 64Bit on Leopard. Suggesting a Mac just to run Photoshop alone of course makes no sense. However that is not the be all and end all. An Apple is more than Photoshop.

What it boils down to is choice. If you are more productive on a PC then that's the right tool for you. I am far more productive on a Mac!
 
You buy macs for mac osx. If you don't like windows and don't want to pay money for a mac, just buy normal pc hardware and stick another unix based os on there such as linux and watch it fly. :D
 
OzyOly said:
You buy macs for mac osx. If you don't like windows and don't want to pay money for a mac, just buy normal pc hardware and stick another unix based os on there such as linux and watch it fly. :D
Click to expand...

...and have zero manufacturer support, heaps of fun finding drivers and be unable to natively run photoshop or office, umm, no thanks.
 
LordSplodge said:
1. I am an IT Professional and after eight or nine hours I don't want to tinker with hardware, software or squeeze extra frame per second or 3DMark scores out of my computer. I want the computer to be ready to do what I want it to do when I want it to do it. My MacBook fits that bill and my games consoles fit the need to headshot badguys without worries about drivers or framerate.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I had this same conversation at the weekend with a mate of mine who is anti-mac for no particular reason. The irony was, we had the conversation whilst he was re-installing Windows XP :D

I spent many-an-hour as a younger man building my own PCs, water cooling and overclocking them, testing 6 different sets of drivers to squeeze out every last fps. Now I just want a computer that I can use with the minimum of tinkering. My MBP does that quite nicely.

Panzer
 
Some funny arguments being made in here lol.

Funny how PC poeple keep coming back to hardware being the ansewer, its not, it how the resources of the compoents are best used for the tasks.

IE, Mac dont use GPU power running their OS system, leaving it to work 100% of graphics applications, same can be said to ram to a point.

My job is in print, and now working with Aftereffects/ Editing as well as music production, so after years of custom building a PC, i went for a 24" 2.8 8800 iMac, it has so far **** all over any PC mark in term of work flow, real day in day out large multipage fomats, it hasnt missed a beat.

Another thing, the screen quality you get in the 24" in terms of gamme, colour spacing and clarity and tru to print colouring is second to none, to get this in a PC is a hell of a lot more work, and if you REALLY got £ for £ on that alone work out cheaper.
 
LordSplodge said:
Best tool for the job. Full stop, and you don't base what is the right tool for the job on stats alone.

Sometimes the PC crowds obsession with stats baffles me. :(
Click to expand...

Mac crowds obsession with ignoring stats is what baffles me.. At least stats are a factual basis from which to form an argument.. Read this thread, the only justification so far has been "Well it feels better".. Using a Mac is placebo effect to the far end. I would love to see all these people who have claimed it has improved their workflow to do some average day to day editing and see if it's saved them any time, or if it's really just in their head :rolleyes:

And yes, CS4 is 64bit only in windows. Though i presume now that's the case it's no longer a good point for argument :D:p

Like i said before, OSX isn't a miracle cure to system operation. It can't change that dual core 1gb ram system into a quad core 4gb ram system. Anyone citing massive workflow improvements whilst working in Adobe is nuts, to be frank (And do remember, this is the point im arguing.. Not once have i brought in general work, the OP said he works in photoshop quote "a lot", it just so happens my point holds true for pretty much the entire Adobe Creative Suite - If not all of it)

1. I am an IT Professional and after eight or nine hours I don't want to tinker with hardware, software or squeeze extra frame per second or 3DMark scores out of my computer. I want the computer to be ready to do what I want it to do when I want it to do it. My MacBook fits that bill and my games consoles fit the need to headshot badguys without worries about drivers or framerate.


2. Right tool for the right job. Whilst a Mac Pro may not be the cheapest or fastest workstation you can buy it is that - a workstation. Nobody with an ounce of sanity would buy a Mac Pro just because it is a Mac. You need to have a reason or have far too much cash to waste. Despite what may come across here an Apple product isn't always the right product to do a job!

3. The iMac. Simple really. It is a powerful computer in a very attractive design with a very small footprint. If you just want as much CPU or GPU horsepower as possible an iMac isn't for you. If you need a computer that looks good, takes up little space and has power and OS X then the iMac makes sense.

4. Photoshop is Photoshop on PC or Mac but don't forget that it is 64Bit on Leopard. Suggesting a Mac just to run Photoshop alone of course makes no sense. However that is not the be all and end all. An Apple is more than Photoshop.

What it boils down to is choice. If you are more productive on a PC then that's the right tool for you. I am far more productive on a Mac!
Click to expand...

Whilst you conviniently chopped some of my quotes to seem more in your favour :p your last point is completely correct. It does boil down to choice, and it is what you are more productive on. So i will ask one simple question that i'm almost sure still hasn't received a decent reponse..

Q: If the program in question (Photoshop) is the same on both platforms (Which it is - give or take a shortcut or two) how could you possibly be 'more productive' on the slower system (iMac)? Because that's what it is, the slower system, fair, square, banged to rights.

And i don't want any of this placebo effect rubbish, because feeling faster doesn't actually make it faster :D
 
cu3ed said:
IE, Mac dont use GPU power running their OS system, leaving it to work 100% of graphics applications, same can be said to ram to a point.
Click to expand...

But that's not true, Macs use the GPU acceleration for OSX; they've been doing that for quite a while.
 
@Adrian

While I acknowledge that mac users are often over zealous in their enthusiasm, that Windows works pretty much ok, and PC's are cheaper than Macs, I really fail to see why you're so adamant in making this point if not for just enjoying stirring things up.
 
likwid said:
@adrian

While I acknowledge that mac users are often over zealous in their enthusiasm, that Windows works pretty much ok, and PC's are cheaper than Macs, I really fail to see why you're so adamant in making this point if not for just enjoying stirring things up.
Click to expand...

No no, honestly, i'm not here to just stir things up. Though it is a common theme to be trashed upon speaking out against Apple.. We're not all here to burst the mighty bubble. Really, it is only an internet forum. I'de hope no-one is taking what anyone is saying with any severity.

Just wondering why people consistently recommend products based on a fallacy that many moons ago may have rung true, but doesn't anymore. You don't need to own a Mac to be creative nor in being creative need to own a Mac. Yet the general consensus would have you believe otherwise. And when pushed no decent answers seem to ever emerge.

Mac should make a smaller Quad-core tower that has room for upgrades. People always aim them at photographers yet if you actually examine the product line they don't make a desktop actually suitable for the purpose! The iMac has no room for upgrades and every photo program i know of doesn't come close to utlizing the power of the Mac Pro. It's such a monumental step-up in performance (And price) and there is just no middle ground.

Why not make a standard tower, using desktop components, quad core, room for upgrades.. You could have that all-in-one quiet package with OSX, all the good things associated with owning a mac (And rightly so), and just flog it as a box only (ala MacPro) for £800. You're not forced to buy a screen with it, you can upgrade it as time goes on (Albeit again at a hiked price.. Mac 8800GT's?! Hah! give over!), and it will have enough power to properly distribute without having to pay for a sever board, 8 cores and daft fully buffered ram.

I'm not the only one thinking this, surely?
 
Yeah, it's a pretty wildly held criticism that there's no middle ground between home mac desktops and 'professional' systems. Especially when people want to upgrade aging systems. Apple market the mac mini, imac and macbook for home users with the Mac Pros for the vast majority of cases bought by businesses.

You are right that PC hardware is cheaper however a lot of people don't want to use windows and enjoy the design aesthetic that comes with Apple systems. I don't see a problem with that the same as I don't have a problem with people buying branded clothes. Also I hate as much as anyone the irrational young 'fanbois' but it's not exclusive to Apple, AMD v Intel or ati v nvidia being prime examples.
 
Another thing. The original poster came to an apple forum asking whether an iMac would play games. This to me suggests they are interested in buying an Apple system, he did not ask for a comparison with PC hardware.

Oh yeah and photoshop... Photo editing and needing quad core machines really depends on what is meant by photo editing. If you're using photoshop for editing your digital camera shots then anything with 4gb of ram will pretty much be ok.
 
Last edited:
TheVoice said:
But that's not true, Macs use the GPU acceleration for OSX; they've been doing that for quite a while.
Click to expand...

As far as I could make out of specs, they retro fittied an almost but not quite onboard graphics to the mainboard to deal with all the OSX stuff, leaving the GPU to do everything else.

Think this is what they where trying in the new Books as well.
 
cu3ed said:
As far as I could make out of specs, they retro fittied an almost but not quite onboard graphics to the mainboard to deal with all the OSX stuff, leaving the GPU to do everything else.

Think this is what they where trying in the new Books as well.
Click to expand...

Not as far as I'm aware, all Macs until recently have only had one GPU (aside from multi-GPU Mac Pros etc). The new MacBook Pros do indeed have two GPUs (a rubbish one and a decent one), but only one is ever active at any one time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom