I will be looking into getting a new computer soon and Im thinking of doing the switch and getting a Mac. I was looking at getting one of the Intel dual core mini Macs and just wanted to know if anyone has had any experience with them. How are they for upgrading (meaning how easy is it to get into the case)? Has Adobe fixed that problem yet where PS wasnt running up to snuff on the new intel platform? Are there any heat problems with the mini?
The Mac mini is not customer servicable, at least, for the most customers that is. You still need to open the box with two putty knives, and that's quite scary the first time ;-) Also the Adobe Photoshop version suited for Mac on Intel is planned for Q2 2007. But the Mac mini is an awesome small powerfull computer, and you can also run XP on it, if you want that. Aperture from Apple runs not well on it though, since it has no dedicated video.
i always recommend macs to anyone who asks... however, the Mini is one that in this case wouldnt be a good idea... as jacob has pointed out, it has an on-the-mobo graphics chip that isnt that great, and its a biatch to upgrade... ram is about the only thing you can do... you can add external storage, but you can do that with any computer...
the new iMacs however might be a great choice for you... i guess without additional info, i would have a hard time helping you pick a mac for your needs.
I have built a few PCs so Im not scared of any hardware, but I was afraid the case was like that. Im surprised about the onboard graphic not doing so well with PS and Aperture. Niether of these are graphics intensive, most of the work falls on the CPU and memory.
But just to be on the safe side, maybe I should just invest in a tower. Do they have the intels in the towers yet?
Apple's Aperture IS graphics intensive, since it does all the RAW rendering live on screen, it uses all the GPU force it can get. The Towers are expected to be replced real soon now, and at last at the Apple Developer conference in the 2nd week of august.
I will second Jacco comment. Aperture is very graphics intensive. I would recommend checking out a computer that can handle Aperture. I just switched and I am really impressed by it.
aperture runs OK on my powerbook g4... its only 1.33Ghz and has 1.5GB RAM, so its aging but still a very very good computer... it certainly would take anything else i could give it... and i'll echo jacco that come mid august we'll see in intel based macpro's...
So if Aperture is sucking so much of the GPU does it use as much of the RAM and CPU as PS?
Posted by Bryce Flory on July 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM
yes, its definitely a hog... but i would venture to guess that running it alone on a g5 or intel mac would be just fine, even snappy... dont get me wrong, its not crawling on my powerbook, its just not snappy.... but neither is lightroom at this time either.
Lightroom may be another option for me, and Im not sure if I'll wait till Adobe fixes Photoshop, but it will be a while till I get a Mac
Posted by Bryce Flory on July 11, 2006 at 12:20 PM
lightroom is in beta now (version b3), and its really stable... it hasnt crashed once... but it does run a bit slow, as i mentioned. but it is a free download so its worth checking out...
i really think that both apple & adobe are on the right path with a great idea... both apps really fit my needs and workflow... as they mature as apps they will become everything i need. i'll continue to need photoshop less and less... it will probably never leave my workflow just because it so powerful, but the in program features and abilities of either aperture or lightroom will be all i'll need for most photos.
I'm running PS CS2 on an iMac 20 fully loaded with a second 20" monitor. PS runs non-native on this platform but it still runs circles around my Wintel version. I can't speak to the mini platform but the iMac system is a screamer where PS is concerned. Aperture is the cat's meow where workflow is concerned. Once you have a version of an image you like in aperture, you can open it in PS from the aperture application and make any changes you can't do in aperture. The PS'd version can be saved again in aperture and it can be used for several types of output.
For perspective, I've made my living managing database servers on Unix and Wintel systems for the last 20 years. I've never had a Mac system in all those years until June of this year. Now that I've made the leap, I'll never look back. iMac is 'spensive but it is the Disney World of computer systems.
Discussion
11 repliesany help or input would be appreciated.
The Mac mini is not customer servicable, at least, for the most customers that is. You still need to open the box with two putty knives, and that's quite scary the first time ;-) Also the Adobe Photoshop version suited for Mac on Intel is planned for Q2 2007. But the Mac mini is an awesome small powerfull computer, and you can also run XP on it, if you want that. Aperture from Apple runs not well on it though, since it has no dedicated video.
- jacco
the new iMacs however might be a great choice for you... i guess without additional info, i would have a hard time helping you pick a mac for your needs.
hope that helps...
But just to be on the safe side, maybe I should just invest in a tower. Do they have the intels in the towers yet?
Apple's Aperture IS graphics intensive, since it does all the RAW rendering live on screen, it uses all the GPU force it can get. The Towers are expected to be replced real soon now, and at last at the Apple Developer conference in the 2nd week of august.
- jacco
I will second Jacco comment. Aperture is very graphics intensive. I would recommend checking out a computer that can handle Aperture. I just switched and I am really impressed by it.
Bob
i really think that both apple & adobe are on the right path with a great idea... both apps really fit my needs and workflow... as they mature as apps they will become everything i need. i'll continue to need photoshop less and less... it will probably never leave my workflow just because it so powerful, but the in program features and abilities of either aperture or lightroom will be all i'll need for most photos.
I'm running PS CS2 on an iMac 20 fully loaded with a second 20" monitor. PS runs non-native on this platform but it still runs circles around my Wintel version. I can't speak to the mini platform but the iMac system is a screamer where PS is concerned. Aperture is the cat's meow where workflow is concerned. Once you have a version of an image you like in aperture, you can open it in PS from the aperture application and make any changes you can't do in aperture. The PS'd version can be saved again in aperture and it can be used for several types of output.
For perspective, I've made my living managing database servers on Unix and Wintel systems for the last 20 years. I've never had a Mac system in all those years until June of this year. Now that I've made the leap, I'll never look back. iMac is 'spensive but it is the Disney World of computer systems.