Posted by Buck Ward on November 3, 2008 at 7:45 PM
My 3-year old PC has died. I'm thinking of replacing it with a Mac, specifically a Mac mini. I've never used a Mac before. I have most of my data files on an external RAID 1 drive, so I should be able to simply plug it into the Mac's firewire connection, overcoming the mini's small harddrive size.
The Mac mini is maxed-out with 2Gb RAM. With a PC, I'd get 4. Is 2Gb enough?
I will have to install my PhotoShop CS3 for Windows. Apple says I can run windows programs on a Mac. Will I need to buy a copy of Windows to install in the Mac? When I upgrade PhotoShop, will Adobe allow me to switch from a Windows version to a Mac version?
Is there a real difference between the performance of a Mac and a PC? Or is it Ford Chevy, Coke Pepsi, Canon Nikon?
Posted by Keith Bauer on November 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Hi Buck:
I won't be able to answer your specific questions on a Mac mini, but I can add some insight on your conversion of Photoshop from PC to Mac. If you call Adobe and tell them that you are going to switch platforms, they have an option to get you the media for the Mac at a very reasonable cost (something like $20) and they will send you a form that you sign that says you won't be using your PC licensed version. You don't have to wait to upgrade your version of Photoshop to make the switch. If you chose to run Windows on your Mac, yes you will need to buy a copy of Windows and install it. You have 3 options that I know about..... 1) A separate partition for the Windows side and dual boot to get to it. 2) Run Parallels that runs on the Mac and provides a way to run Windows as a virtual machine in Parallels, 3) Run VmWare Fusion and do the same thing as Parallels.
I can't speak directly to the performance comparison between the PC and the Mac since my switch wasn't really a fair comparison. I switched from a 5 year old PC with 1gb of ram running Windows XP to an 8 core Mac Pro with 10gb of memory. Obviously my Mac Pro performs incredibly well in comparison, but as I said, not a direct fair comparison. I can tell you that now that I've made the switch to the Mac, I have absolutely no desire to go back to a Windows Platform. Good look with your decision. I'd spend time at your nearest Apple store and run a Mac Mini with the demands you intend to place on the machine as far as Photoshop goes. I did that. I took some of my large (1.5gb) images down to the Apple store and worked on them on a machine similar to the one I bought to see what the performance was like.
I use a Mac Book Pro with 2gb of ram. My work flow consists of a Epson V700 and Photoshop CS2. My 4x5 film scans come in at around 500 mbs each. I find very little slow down while working on images. You may want to consider an Imac from the refurbished apple store. If you keep an eye on the store you may see an older white Imac for a great price.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 3, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Hi Keith. Thanks
Thats good news about the PhotoShop conversion. That's one of my big concerns. I'll check with Adobe.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Thanks Andrew
I hadn't considered an IMac beacuse I have a high quality 24" monitor that I don't need to replace. When you pay for an Imac, you also pay for a monitor. I was assuming that a Mac mini is similar in perfomance to an Imac without the built in monitor.
Keith covers the Windows part. I use Parallels to run my Windows apps but run Photoshop natively on the Mac OS X.
On the 2Gb limit, I run an iMac with 2Gb memory and Photoshop, Capture NX2 and BibblePro run fine. I would have preferred to have the option to go with more memory but when I got my iMac, 2Gb was the max. As Keith mentions, I would also recommend you get the Mac version from Adobe.
Have you considered getting the $999 Macbook instead? It can go to 4Gb and you can take it on the road with you, if need be. For firewire, only the white Macbook has it now. The new aluminium Macbooks only have USB, make sure you look at the right one.
Not sure which RAID drive you have but confirm with the manufacturer that it will run on Mac OS X. It should be just a plug-n-play but make sure first.
HTH,
André
Posted by John Mumaw on November 3, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Is 2Gb enough?
No.
That's a bare minimum of RAM in my opinion. You're crippling your present, and certainly your future capabilities right out of the gate with a limit of 2GB of RAM.
Is there a real difference between the performance of a Mac and a PC?
No again, and nobody can prove otherwise using two computers with the same specs.
I recently purchased a new HP computer with 2.7 GHz Quad Core processor, Vista 64 bit OS, 8 GB of RAM and 2 500 GB RAID hard drives for $1100, and it just flies with zero problems. There's no way I could buy a comparable computer from Apple for anywhere near that amount of money, and this machine will be ensured to keep up with future developments for many years ahead.
Save your money....now is a good time to have cash reserves anyway.
Posted by David Taylor on November 4, 2008 at 12:43 AM
I am a rabid mac fan, however I would highly recommend AGAINST a mac mini for your purpose. As others have stated, you will be limited on RAM (nowadays 4 gigs is a minimum for new computers), and the Mini was really created for people who use computers strictly for word processing/iTunes/internet. It really is a bare bones computer. Although I like the concept and idea behind the Mini, it is very handicapped in its current iteration.
I'd recommend getting a MacBook or MacBook Pro instead of a Mac Mini. They offer better performance and more room for upgrading, plus they're mobile. Also, buy refurbished. They're as good as new, cheaper, and mine even came with upgraded RAM as a nice surprise.
I've been too busy to really play around with my new MBP to get a feel for it (especially with photo stuff), so I can't really weigh in on the Mac vs PC debate. I've always been pleased with my PC (no Vista...), so initial impressions don't have me swooning over my Mac as if it's my saviour.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on November 4, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Like Dave and John, I don't think a Mac Mini is adequate to the task at present. You'll spend a lot of time thrashing the hard drive with just 2 GB and Mac OS 10.5. A Mac Book Pro might be a better solution, and it can use your existing display.
One other note: Apple is upgrading the Mac Mini later this month. You might wait and see the specs on the new version. If it has the ability to manage 4GB of RAM and a faster CPU, it might be adequate to the task. Current versions of Photoshop are pretty demanding.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on November 4, 2008 at 3:21 AM
Save your money till you're in a position to buy a MBP or one of the new MBs. The Mini is not geared towards graphic performance.
Posted by Wayne Nicholas on November 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Something that hasn't been addressed here and, perhaps the most significant consideration, is the graphics card on the different models noted. The Mac Mini and the basic Macbook use Intel's onboard graphics card, which, for everyday use, is just fine. However, apps like Aperture and Photoshop may take a noticeable performance hit since the graphics card uses relies heavily on the main processor an system RAM. You'll have to jump to $1299 minimum for a Macbook to get a graphics card with a dedicated GPU, but its still sharing RAM with the processor; again, performance hit to PSCS2,3,4 or Aperture.
For $1299 you can get a refurbished 20inch iMac with 320 GB HDD, 2 GB RAM (cheap to upgrade at www.macsales.com, and a dedicated graphics card with 256MB memory. You may even want to compare the price to new. The iMac will run an additional external monitor, allowing you to use a dual monitor setup.
Any of the new Macbook Pros will also afford you adequate performance and will allow for critical editing when connected to external monitor.
As far as a comparison to a Windows machine, they're different systems. My opinion; I switched in 7 / 2006 and haven't looked back. I'm willing to bet that you won't either.
If you have access to an Apple Store, I recommend going in and letting them show you what your options are, keeping in mind that the new models are a little faster, but the previous generation will give you years of reliable service.
Email me if you have any other questions.
2 Macbook Pro 15in. (1 is refurb) $3600, Mac Pro 2.66 w / 8 gigs - $2499, AEB routers $300, Mac experience - PRICELESS.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on November 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Reality check time. I've got two Mac Minis running CS3, Lightroom and Painter X in my studio. Never had a problem with performance. It's not as quick as the Pros, but they are fine for retouching, painting, etc. Their Lightroom catalogs have tens of thousands of images, and they open just as fast as the Pros. I put 23" Apple Cinema displays on them and they calibrate up just fine.
Posted by Phillip Noll on November 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Beware of luminance problems with the displays on iMacs. See this thread.
I never said the programs wouldn't run. I said there would be a hit on performance. Sure, you can do basic conversions and editing. But, if you plan to start working with layers, HDR comps, etc., you'll be tapping your foot a lot while you wait for the program to complete the task. Been there, done that.
My info is based on the info given, or lack thereof. There is no information on what type of photo work Buck plans to do. I also never inferred the Mac Mini wouldn't handle two monitors. I am just suggesting the best bang for the buck. With RAW files getting larger and larger, it will be more necessary to have a dedicated video card and RAM to handle the job without taking resources from the processor.
I love the mini. It just has certain limitations that a new switcher needs to be aware of. I believe in spending as little as you can get away with, but getting enough to do the job beyond just today.
On the issue of the luminance problem with iMacs, that hasn't shown up as a widespread issue, but one worth noting. The rememdy...use the iMac as the everyday / program monitor and use the second to view images. Just my $.05
Hi, Buck,
Mac vs. PC? Yeah, to some extent, it's like the Pepsi-Coke thing; a lot of it has to do with what you are most accustomed to using. I have always used Macs at home, while having PCs at work. It was always a chore for me to use the PC/Windows platform, even as I became more familiar with the PC. Purely a personal experience, but I sure find Macs easier to use. Performance is probably a non-issue to some degree; again a lot depends on how experienced you are with the system and your workflow as well as your computer setup (whether Mac or PC) as to the performance you can expect. I agree totally with what others said about your choice of Mac. I, too, believe you will be ahead, $$-wise, in the long run by getting a Mac with more RAM. I use the MacBook Pro and absolutely love it. For use at home doing lots of CS3 photo editing, it is paired with a 23" Cinema display. Then, it's wonderful to be able to just unplug the MBPro and take a highly capable machine with me on my photo trips. Time for shooting and for the business side of photography is so limited, I just hate to waste time fussing with software and/or hardware performance problems. To me, it is money well spent to able to work easily, quickly and with a minimum of equipment fussiness/downtime. Hope this makes sense and that you will consider getting the most you can afford + plus a little more! As time goes on, I'd also consider getting your essential applications to run on Mac as native. Again, just cuz fewer ops for glitches. You can tell, I hate wasting time on glitches! Best of luck making the switch. I think once you get used to the Mac and its OS, you'll be smilin' a lot!
Posted by Phillip Noll on November 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
On the issue of the luminance problem with iMacs, that hasn't shown up as a widespread issue, but one worth noting. The rememdy...use the iMac as the everyday / program monitor and use the second to view images. Just my $.05
I've seen quite a few frustrated iMac owners on various forums (including the Apple help forums) regarding this issue. Nonetheless, the point is well taken, however I opted for the iMac for budgetary reasons and don't have another $2k to spend on a separate monitor. If I had the money I would have purchased a Mac Pro and 23" Cinema Display to begin with. Bottom line is that the new iMacs have a luminance problem that a potential buyer should be aware of--especially if trying to establish a color-managed workflow.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on November 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Wayne, my daughter does paintings with 20+ layers in Painter X, with file sizes in the hundreds of megabytes. They are slow to open and save, but they are slow on our Pros, too. You're gonna tap some foot no matter what the platform with files like that.
I don't know if I would ever upgrade from CS3 on these machines. CS3 just "fits" these machines. I'm not sure if 2 Gig RAM would be sufficient for CS4 and later releases. It's like being stuck in time.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 4, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Thanks for all the input evryone. I knew I could count on you. I'm sure everybody is familiar with my problem. I need to replace my computer now, and now is not the best time for cash to be flowing out, since it ain't flowing in. I do need a computer that will perform resonably well. Based on the advice I've gotten above, I'm shying away from the Mac mini. I can configure a PC that will do what I need, and that I can upgrade if I want to, for the same ballpark of expense as the Mac mini,
Still, I'm intrigued by the Mac mystique and gee, the Mac mini seems so affordable. I'll investigate the MacBooks and maybe a refurbished one, but for a new computer, it seems like I can get more machie for the buck with a PC. Wouldn't it be nice if cost weren't such an important consderation. I definietrly don't want to get stuck with an underperforming computer, especially considering the needs of future software.
Thanks again all you great NPNers for all the good advice, Very much appreciated
Discussion
18 repliesThe Mac mini is maxed-out with 2Gb RAM. With a PC, I'd get 4. Is 2Gb enough?
I will have to install my PhotoShop CS3 for Windows. Apple says I can run windows programs on a Mac. Will I need to buy a copy of Windows to install in the Mac? When I upgrade PhotoShop, will Adobe allow me to switch from a Windows version to a Mac version?
Is there a real difference between the performance of a Mac and a PC? Or is it Ford Chevy, Coke Pepsi, Canon Nikon?
I won't be able to answer your specific questions on a Mac mini, but I can add some insight on your conversion of Photoshop from PC to Mac. If you call Adobe and tell them that you are going to switch platforms, they have an option to get you the media for the Mac at a very reasonable cost (something like $20) and they will send you a form that you sign that says you won't be using your PC licensed version. You don't have to wait to upgrade your version of Photoshop to make the switch. If you chose to run Windows on your Mac, yes you will need to buy a copy of Windows and install it. You have 3 options that I know about..... 1) A separate partition for the Windows side and dual boot to get to it. 2) Run Parallels that runs on the Mac and provides a way to run Windows as a virtual machine in Parallels, 3) Run VmWare Fusion and do the same thing as Parallels.
I can't speak directly to the performance comparison between the PC and the Mac since my switch wasn't really a fair comparison. I switched from a 5 year old PC with 1gb of ram running Windows XP to an 8 core Mac Pro with 10gb of memory. Obviously my Mac Pro performs incredibly well in comparison, but as I said, not a direct fair comparison. I can tell you that now that I've made the switch to the Mac, I have absolutely no desire to go back to a Windows Platform. Good look with your decision. I'd spend time at your nearest Apple store and run a Mac Mini with the demands you intend to place on the machine as far as Photoshop goes. I did that. I took some of my large (1.5gb) images down to the Apple store and worked on them on a machine similar to the one I bought to see what the performance was like.
Thats good news about the PhotoShop conversion. That's one of my big concerns. I'll check with Adobe.
I hadn't considered an IMac beacuse I have a high quality 24" monitor that I don't need to replace. When you pay for an Imac, you also pay for a monitor. I was assuming that a Mac mini is similar in perfomance to an Imac without the built in monitor.
Keith covers the Windows part. I use Parallels to run my Windows apps but run Photoshop natively on the Mac OS X.
On the 2Gb limit, I run an iMac with 2Gb memory and Photoshop, Capture NX2 and BibblePro run fine. I would have preferred to have the option to go with more memory but when I got my iMac, 2Gb was the max. As Keith mentions, I would also recommend you get the Mac version from Adobe.
Have you considered getting the $999 Macbook instead? It can go to 4Gb and you can take it on the road with you, if need be. For firewire, only the white Macbook has it now. The new aluminium Macbooks only have USB, make sure you look at the right one.
Not sure which RAID drive you have but confirm with the manufacturer that it will run on Mac OS X. It should be just a plug-n-play but make sure first.
HTH,
André
No.
That's a bare minimum of RAM in my opinion. You're crippling your present, and certainly your future capabilities right out of the gate with a limit of 2GB of RAM.
No again, and nobody can prove otherwise using two computers with the same specs.
I recently purchased a new HP computer with 2.7 GHz Quad Core processor, Vista 64 bit OS, 8 GB of RAM and 2 500 GB RAID hard drives for $1100, and it just flies with zero problems. There's no way I could buy a comparable computer from Apple for anywhere near that amount of money, and this machine will be ensured to keep up with future developments for many years ahead.
Save your money....now is a good time to have cash reserves anyway.
I've been too busy to really play around with my new MBP to get a feel for it (especially with photo stuff), so I can't really weigh in on the Mac vs PC debate. I've always been pleased with my PC (no Vista...), so initial impressions don't have me swooning over my Mac as if it's my saviour.
One other note: Apple is upgrading the Mac Mini later this month. You might wait and see the specs on the new version. If it has the ability to manage 4GB of RAM and a faster CPU, it might be adequate to the task. Current versions of Photoshop are pretty demanding.
For $1299 you can get a refurbished 20inch iMac with 320 GB HDD, 2 GB RAM (cheap to upgrade at www.macsales.com, and a dedicated graphics card with 256MB memory. You may even want to compare the price to new. The iMac will run an additional external monitor, allowing you to use a dual monitor setup.
Any of the new Macbook Pros will also afford you adequate performance and will allow for critical editing when connected to external monitor.
As far as a comparison to a Windows machine, they're different systems. My opinion; I switched in 7 / 2006 and haven't looked back. I'm willing to bet that you won't either.
If you have access to an Apple Store, I recommend going in and letting them show you what your options are, keeping in mind that the new models are a little faster, but the previous generation will give you years of reliable service.
Email me if you have any other questions.
2 Macbook Pro 15in. (1 is refurb) $3600, Mac Pro 2.66 w / 8 gigs - $2499, AEB routers $300, Mac experience - PRICELESS.
I never said the programs wouldn't run. I said there would be a hit on performance. Sure, you can do basic conversions and editing. But, if you plan to start working with layers, HDR comps, etc., you'll be tapping your foot a lot while you wait for the program to complete the task. Been there, done that.
My info is based on the info given, or lack thereof. There is no information on what type of photo work Buck plans to do. I also never inferred the Mac Mini wouldn't handle two monitors. I am just suggesting the best bang for the buck. With RAW files getting larger and larger, it will be more necessary to have a dedicated video card and RAM to handle the job without taking resources from the processor.
I love the mini. It just has certain limitations that a new switcher needs to be aware of. I believe in spending as little as you can get away with, but getting enough to do the job beyond just today.
On the issue of the luminance problem with iMacs, that hasn't shown up as a widespread issue, but one worth noting. The rememdy...use the iMac as the everyday / program monitor and use the second to view images. Just my $.05
Mac vs. PC? Yeah, to some extent, it's like the Pepsi-Coke thing; a lot of it has to do with what you are most accustomed to using. I have always used Macs at home, while having PCs at work. It was always a chore for me to use the PC/Windows platform, even as I became more familiar with the PC. Purely a personal experience, but I sure find Macs easier to use. Performance is probably a non-issue to some degree; again a lot depends on how experienced you are with the system and your workflow as well as your computer setup (whether Mac or PC) as to the performance you can expect. I agree totally with what others said about your choice of Mac. I, too, believe you will be ahead, $$-wise, in the long run by getting a Mac with more RAM. I use the MacBook Pro and absolutely love it. For use at home doing lots of CS3 photo editing, it is paired with a 23" Cinema display. Then, it's wonderful to be able to just unplug the MBPro and take a highly capable machine with me on my photo trips. Time for shooting and for the business side of photography is so limited, I just hate to waste time fussing with software and/or hardware performance problems. To me, it is money well spent to able to work easily, quickly and with a minimum of equipment fussiness/downtime. Hope this makes sense and that you will consider getting the most you can afford + plus a little more! As time goes on, I'd also consider getting your essential applications to run on Mac as native. Again, just cuz fewer ops for glitches. You can tell, I hate wasting time on glitches! Best of luck making the switch. I think once you get used to the Mac and its OS, you'll be smilin' a lot!
I've seen quite a few frustrated iMac owners on various forums (including the Apple help forums) regarding this issue. Nonetheless, the point is well taken, however I opted for the iMac for budgetary reasons and don't have another $2k to spend on a separate monitor.
I don't know if I would ever upgrade from CS3 on these machines. CS3 just "fits" these machines. I'm not sure if 2 Gig RAM would be sufficient for CS4 and later releases. It's like being stuck in time.
Still, I'm intrigued by the Mac mystique and gee, the Mac mini seems so affordable. I'll investigate the MacBooks and maybe a refurbished one, but for a new computer, it seems like I can get more machie for the buck with a PC. Wouldn't it be nice if cost weren't such an important consderation. I definietrly don't want to get stuck with an underperforming computer, especially considering the needs of future software.
Thanks again all you great NPNers for all the good advice, Very much appreciated