August 01, 2014, 06:57:55 PM

Author Topic: Which iMac  (Read 17491 times)

RMC33

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2013, 12:29:36 AM »
Sure videos a full different ball game though. You look at intel with their quicksync dedicated on the CPU itself. It's much simpler and more standardized than RAW formats that are company specific. GPU only helps if the software can be coded to use it which as I said most RAW programs don't seem to be doing due to the complexity. I think another part is the quality also can suffer using these things so they're good for previewing but don't help with the final rendering or if they do, it's of lower quality than when rendered with the CPU.

Yes, this is correct.  GPU doesn't matter for images unless there is code written that talks to it, takes advantage of it, etc.  Otherwise it just passes the graphics information through at a fixed rate as it receives if from the OS.  Video isn't much different, it's just redrawing images faster but video isn't 3D rendering.  Games are written to exploit the graphics card, engine, etc.  That's why some graphics cards work better for some games.  Even Windows now exploits the GPU a bit to help render the Aero interface.  Adobe has begun to try to write some of their code to exploit the GPU on some cards but that's also pretty minimal at this point.  I have a nice middle of the road nVidia GeForce 8400 GS Graphics card.  Not top of the line but no piece of junk either.  Around $200 back when I bought it a couple years ago.  Win7 Pro Enterprise x64, i7 CPU, 32GB RAM.  SSD for the OS.  The preview pictures in Lightroom 4 still drag a bit.  Nothing I can do, Adobe did something with LR4 to cause some latency.  (It was faster in LR3.)  Exporting, photo tools, etc all do pretty well considering there is a lot of CPU being used then.

Bottom Line, if money isn't an issue, get the best video you can but if money is tight, don't bother.  Either way, it won't change the performance much if at all for photos.

BTW, I met an IT associate of mine today and eventually, the subject of his MacBook Pro came up.  We discussed briefly how much it helped him with some photo and web development things he works on all day but it did cost him $3200 + over another grand for the large display he uses with it.  And then there's the software, Parallels and Windows 8 he runs on it.  I mentioned this thread and we quickly agreed that the iMacs are essentially a waste of money for doing any serious work like photography, video, graphics design, web dev, etc.  Lower end CPUs, graphics, lower memory limits and slow 5400 RPM drives which he reminded me about.  Even the display isn't as good as what you could get other ways.  In essence, not worth the money compared to other (more expensive but capable) Apple mac alternatives.  Sorry folks but you're just not going to get a standout mac photo workstation for under $2000.  Adequate maybe but not exceptional.  Not new anyway.

Mind answering a question? My GF is looking for a new computer: She does web design, content creation and a little video editing. I cover all her photography and photo editing. She is dead set on an iMac and currently has an older MBP. I feel this would be a poor investment for her business (I use a retina / PC for my photo and CAD work) and as stated earlier in this thread there is no expandability. What could you recommend?

Depending on how old the mac book pro is, you can install a solid state drive and continue using that same computer. SSD are the best bang for the buck upgrade on the market for computers running mechanical hard drives.

Sorry RustyTheGeek, I saw that this question was intended for you, I just could not resist responding! What do you think about an ssd in an older MBP?

I have already done that. The laptop will last a while still but she is in dire need of a desktop. I have 6TB (really 3TB as it is RAID 1) on my network that we use for storage + both have 2tb Lacie drives that live with them (her MBP and my MBP retina).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which iMac
« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2013, 12:29:36 AM »

Niterider

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2013, 12:42:22 AM »
Sure videos a full different ball game though. You look at intel with their quicksync dedicated on the CPU itself. It's much simpler and more standardized than RAW formats that are company specific. GPU only helps if the software can be coded to use it which as I said most RAW programs don't seem to be doing due to the complexity. I think another part is the quality also can suffer using these things so they're good for previewing but don't help with the final rendering or if they do, it's of lower quality than when rendered with the CPU.

Yes, this is correct.  GPU doesn't matter for images unless there is code written that talks to it, takes advantage of it, etc.  Otherwise it just passes the graphics information through at a fixed rate as it receives if from the OS.  Video isn't much different, it's just redrawing images faster but video isn't 3D rendering.  Games are written to exploit the graphics card, engine, etc.  That's why some graphics cards work better for some games.  Even Windows now exploits the GPU a bit to help render the Aero interface.  Adobe has begun to try to write some of their code to exploit the GPU on some cards but that's also pretty minimal at this point.  I have a nice middle of the road nVidia GeForce 8400 GS Graphics card.  Not top of the line but no piece of junk either.  Around $200 back when I bought it a couple years ago.  Win7 Pro Enterprise x64, i7 CPU, 32GB RAM.  SSD for the OS.  The preview pictures in Lightroom 4 still drag a bit.  Nothing I can do, Adobe did something with LR4 to cause some latency.  (It was faster in LR3.)  Exporting, photo tools, etc all do pretty well considering there is a lot of CPU being used then.

Bottom Line, if money isn't an issue, get the best video you can but if money is tight, don't bother.  Either way, it won't change the performance much if at all for photos.

BTW, I met an IT associate of mine today and eventually, the subject of his MacBook Pro came up.  We discussed briefly how much it helped him with some photo and web development things he works on all day but it did cost him $3200 + over another grand for the large display he uses with it.  And then there's the software, Parallels and Windows 8 he runs on it.  I mentioned this thread and we quickly agreed that the iMacs are essentially a waste of money for doing any serious work like photography, video, graphics design, web dev, etc.  Lower end CPUs, graphics, lower memory limits and slow 5400 RPM drives which he reminded me about.  Even the display isn't as good as what you could get other ways.  In essence, not worth the money compared to other (more expensive but capable) Apple mac alternatives.  Sorry folks but you're just not going to get a standout mac photo workstation for under $2000.  Adequate maybe but not exceptional.  Not new anyway.

Mind answering a question? My GF is looking for a new computer: She does web design, content creation and a little video editing. I cover all her photography and photo editing. She is dead set on an iMac and currently has an older MBP. I feel this would be a poor investment for her business (I use a retina / PC for my photo and CAD work) and as stated earlier in this thread there is no expandability. What could you recommend?

Depending on how old the mac book pro is, you can install a solid state drive and continue using that same computer. SSD are the best bang for the buck upgrade on the market for computers running mechanical hard drives.

Sorry RustyTheGeek, I saw that this question was intended for you, I just could not resist responding! What do you think about an ssd in an older MBP?

I have already done that. The laptop will last a while still but she is in dire need of a desktop. I have 6TB (really 3TB as it is RAID 1) on my network that we use for storage + both have 2tb Lacie drives that live with them (her MBP and my MBP retina).

Right on! Im glad you gave the solid state a try!

If money is not a concern, a Mac Pro tower would be optimal due to the xeon processor and serviceability. But if money is a factor, how opposed would your gf be towards the windows or linux operating systems. I get the impression that you are good with computers, so why not a custom built desktop tailored to her needs? It would cost considerably less and you can choose the individual components.

Plus, if you are wanting a challenge, you could always throw mac os on a custom build!   

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2013, 12:51:27 AM »
No Problem Niterider!  And, yes I agree, SSD drives are a great upgrade.  I use them all the time and totally endorse folks getting all the time and ROI they can from their hardware, esp hardware as expensive as Apple.  The only thing to watch is that there isn't any compatibility problems with the mac in question and the drive.  It's not as common as it used to be but still a possibility.  Other World Computing is a great option because they are easy to work with, decent prices and support.  Get a copy of SuperDuper and that will make it even easier to migrate the drives.  And the mac in question must already be using a SATA hard drive which is pretty likely if it's less than 5 years old.

Keep in mind that the older the system, the slower the CPU, the older the chipset and graphics and the possibility that the battery is either dead or close to EOL.  An SSD improves a lot because so much performance is disk dependent but rendering and other CPU intensive tasks will still only run at the supported CPU speeds, etc.

RMC33, your question is likely answered in all the info that is already in this thread.  In general, my thoughts on macs is that iMacs aren't great for doing real work and all macs are too expensive.  A higher end MacBook Pro or Mac Pro are more ideal but they aren't cheap.  iMacs are less expensive but they are also less mac.  I just don't think iMacs are the best use of funds for more than casual use.

What concerns me is that you are doing the photo work but she is doing video.  The video is what will suffer come rendering time due to the older CPU.  If she doesn't mind waiting, so be it.

As an IT consultant, I have only had limited success convincing a would be iMac buyer to choose something else.  The Apple marketing and allure is strong and often people just want it no matter what.  But 3-6 months later I sometimes notice that they no longer use it much or that they complain that it's too slow or limited for their intended purpose.  Unfortunately, not much can be done because it can't be upgraded or modified enough.

If I ever get another mac, it will likely be a macbook pro due to its versatility and ease of resale.  In fact, if it's another year or more, I might get lucky and buy my IT buddies' tricked out unit for half of what he paid.  And it will still be too expensive!  (But at least it will have retina.)

Hope this helps at least a little bit.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #63 on: February 01, 2013, 12:56:52 AM »
Again, I agree with niterider, a mac tower would be best.  So would a Wintel box custom made.  I'm not a big fan of the HackinTosh FrankenMac only because Apple makes it hard to support so there can be weird quirks or issues after an update sometimes.  Fine for fun and hobby stuff but I wouldn't use it for business.

Regardless of what you decide, I still think the iMac should be the last choice, but that's just me.

Keep us posted on how it goes!
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

dolina

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2013, 12:58:18 AM »
I guess ignorance is bliss...

The marketing strategy of apple: Take a product that is in every way insensible for what they charge and make the consumer think it is a sensible purchase.

BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi and other lux car brands do the same thing. Yet no one whines about it as loudly.

Nothing bad about paying more for a better user experience and better design.
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

dolina

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #65 on: February 01, 2013, 12:59:17 AM »
daniemare: Just buy an iMac. No need for lengthy discussions.

I have almost an almost identical requirement as yours. I ordered a Build To Order rather than getting the standard config last December 6 and until now I am still waiting. If you are unwilling to wait that long go with the standard config.

Just buy RAM from NewEgg or any other 3rd party dealer. Apple RAM is stupid expensive.

Buy an ext USB 3 HDD instead of going with 3TB. I decided to go with a 1TB Fusion Drive as the blade-type SSD that Apple uses is still cheaper than those being sold by 3rd party dealers.

Any new computer in 2012 or 2013 will be more than adequate to do what you need doing. Heck even a tablet could do what you are asking it to do.

Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

RMC33

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2013, 01:09:21 AM »
Sure videos a full different ball game though. You look at intel with their quicksync dedicated on the CPU itself. It's much simpler and more standardized than RAW formats that are company specific. GPU only helps if the software can be coded to use it which as I said most RAW programs don't seem to be doing due to the complexity. I think another part is the quality also can suffer using these things so they're good for previewing but don't help with the final rendering or if they do, it's of lower quality than when rendered with the CPU.

Yes, this is correct.  GPU doesn't matter for images unless there is code written that talks to it, takes advantage of it, etc.  Otherwise it just passes the graphics information through at a fixed rate as it receives if from the OS.  Video isn't much different, it's just redrawing images faster but video isn't 3D rendering.  Games are written to exploit the graphics card, engine, etc.  That's why some graphics cards work better for some games.  Even Windows now exploits the GPU a bit to help render the Aero interface.  Adobe has begun to try to write some of their code to exploit the GPU on some cards but that's also pretty minimal at this point.  I have a nice middle of the road nVidia GeForce 8400 GS Graphics card.  Not top of the line but no piece of junk either.  Around $200 back when I bought it a couple years ago.  Win7 Pro Enterprise x64, i7 CPU, 32GB RAM.  SSD for the OS.  The preview pictures in Lightroom 4 still drag a bit.  Nothing I can do, Adobe did something with LR4 to cause some latency.  (It was faster in LR3.)  Exporting, photo tools, etc all do pretty well considering there is a lot of CPU being used then.

Bottom Line, if money isn't an issue, get the best video you can but if money is tight, don't bother.  Either way, it won't change the performance much if at all for photos.

BTW, I met an IT associate of mine today and eventually, the subject of his MacBook Pro came up.  We discussed briefly how much it helped him with some photo and web development things he works on all day but it did cost him $3200 + over another grand for the large display he uses with it.  And then there's the software, Parallels and Windows 8 he runs on it.  I mentioned this thread and we quickly agreed that the iMacs are essentially a waste of money for doing any serious work like photography, video, graphics design, web dev, etc.  Lower end CPUs, graphics, lower memory limits and slow 5400 RPM drives which he reminded me about.  Even the display isn't as good as what you could get other ways.  In essence, not worth the money compared to other (more expensive but capable) Apple mac alternatives.  Sorry folks but you're just not going to get a standout mac photo workstation for under $2000.  Adequate maybe but not exceptional.  Not new anyway.

Mind answering a question? My GF is looking for a new computer: She does web design, content creation and a little video editing. I cover all her photography and photo editing. She is dead set on an iMac and currently has an older MBP. I feel this would be a poor investment for her business (I use a retina / PC for my photo and CAD work) and as stated earlier in this thread there is no expandability. What could you recommend?

Depending on how old the mac book pro is, you can install a solid state drive and continue using that same computer. SSD are the best bang for the buck upgrade on the market for computers running mechanical hard drives.

Sorry RustyTheGeek, I saw that this question was intended for you, I just could not resist responding! What do you think about an ssd in an older MBP?

I have already done that. The laptop will last a while still but she is in dire need of a desktop. I have 6TB (really 3TB as it is RAID 1) on my network that we use for storage + both have 2tb Lacie drives that live with them (her MBP and my MBP retina).

Right on! Im glad you gave the solid state a try!

If money is not a concern, a Mac Pro tower would be optimal due to the xeon processor and serviceability. But if money is a factor, how opposed would your gf be towards the windows or linux operating systems. I get the impression that you are good with computers, so why not a custom built desktop tailored to her needs? It would cost considerably less and you can choose the individual components.

Plus, if you are wanting a challenge, you could always throw mac os on a custom build!

SSD or bust these days. I can go from post to CAD loaded with the files I was working on the day before in about 15 seconds on my PC. Money is not much of a concern. How much can one person mod the Mac Pro towers? I have ran the idea of a home built machine and the cost (she set on Apple displays which is fine I have two 23" Cinema HD and love them) but like I said she has never used windows. When she does use my CAD machine for PS or Illustrator work she gets very confused and frustrated due to not knowing the OS and how to access our NAS drive or some of the basic functions. It looks like we are stuck with a Mac Pro for now as I don't feel comfortable making a Hackintosh and she having never used windows would be at a huge business disadvantage.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which iMac
« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2013, 01:09:21 AM »

Niterider

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2013, 01:43:53 AM »
Sure videos a full different ball game though. You look at intel with their quicksync dedicated on the CPU itself. It's much simpler and more standardized than RAW formats that are company specific. GPU only helps if the software can be coded to use it which as I said most RAW programs don't seem to be doing due to the complexity. I think another part is the quality also can suffer using these things so they're good for previewing but don't help with the final rendering or if they do, it's of lower quality than when rendered with the CPU.

Yes, this is correct.  GPU doesn't matter for images unless there is code written that talks to it, takes advantage of it, etc.  Otherwise it just passes the graphics information through at a fixed rate as it receives if from the OS.  Video isn't much different, it's just redrawing images faster but video isn't 3D rendering.  Games are written to exploit the graphics card, engine, etc.  That's why some graphics cards work better for some games.  Even Windows now exploits the GPU a bit to help render the Aero interface.  Adobe has begun to try to write some of their code to exploit the GPU on some cards but that's also pretty minimal at this point.  I have a nice middle of the road nVidia GeForce 8400 GS Graphics card.  Not top of the line but no piece of junk either.  Around $200 back when I bought it a couple years ago.  Win7 Pro Enterprise x64, i7 CPU, 32GB RAM.  SSD for the OS.  The preview pictures in Lightroom 4 still drag a bit.  Nothing I can do, Adobe did something with LR4 to cause some latency.  (It was faster in LR3.)  Exporting, photo tools, etc all do pretty well considering there is a lot of CPU being used then.

Bottom Line, if money isn't an issue, get the best video you can but if money is tight, don't bother.  Either way, it won't change the performance much if at all for photos.

BTW, I met an IT associate of mine today and eventually, the subject of his MacBook Pro came up.  We discussed briefly how much it helped him with some photo and web development things he works on all day but it did cost him $3200 + over another grand for the large display he uses with it.  And then there's the software, Parallels and Windows 8 he runs on it.  I mentioned this thread and we quickly agreed that the iMacs are essentially a waste of money for doing any serious work like photography, video, graphics design, web dev, etc.  Lower end CPUs, graphics, lower memory limits and slow 5400 RPM drives which he reminded me about.  Even the display isn't as good as what you could get other ways.  In essence, not worth the money compared to other (more expensive but capable) Apple mac alternatives.  Sorry folks but you're just not going to get a standout mac photo workstation for under $2000.  Adequate maybe but not exceptional.  Not new anyway.

Mind answering a question? My GF is looking for a new computer: She does web design, content creation and a little video editing. I cover all her photography and photo editing. She is dead set on an iMac and currently has an older MBP. I feel this would be a poor investment for her business (I use a retina / PC for my photo and CAD work) and as stated earlier in this thread there is no expandability. What could you recommend?

Depending on how old the mac book pro is, you can install a solid state drive and continue using that same computer. SSD are the best bang for the buck upgrade on the market for computers running mechanical hard drives.

Sorry RustyTheGeek, I saw that this question was intended for you, I just could not resist responding! What do you think about an ssd in an older MBP?

I have already done that. The laptop will last a while still but she is in dire need of a desktop. I have 6TB (really 3TB as it is RAID 1) on my network that we use for storage + both have 2tb Lacie drives that live with them (her MBP and my MBP retina).

Right on! Im glad you gave the solid state a try!

If money is not a concern, a Mac Pro tower would be optimal due to the xeon processor and serviceability. But if money is a factor, how opposed would your gf be towards the windows or linux operating systems. I get the impression that you are good with computers, so why not a custom built desktop tailored to her needs? It would cost considerably less and you can choose the individual components.

Plus, if you are wanting a challenge, you could always throw mac os on a custom build!

SSD or bust these days. I can go from post to CAD loaded with the files I was working on the day before in about 15 seconds on my PC. Money is not much of a concern. How much can one person mod the Mac Pro towers? I have ran the idea of a home built machine and the cost (she set on Apple displays which is fine I have two 23" Cinema HD and love them) but like I said she has never used windows. When she does use my CAD machine for PS or Illustrator work she gets very confused and frustrated due to not knowing the OS and how to access our NAS drive or some of the basic functions. It looks like we are stuck with a Mac Pro for now as I don't feel comfortable making a Hackintosh and she having never used windows would be at a huge business disadvantage.

To my knowledge, Mac Pros are workstations and workstations cater to businesses. Because of this, the tower was built with an IT support staff in mind. In other words, the computer is very modifiable. Your main limiting factor is going to be the power supply and the connections on the motherboard. As long as you don't put a graphics card in that will exceed the psu, you should be fine. Without seeing a unit personally, I would imagine that you can upgrade RAM, hdd/ssd, optical drives, graphics cards (to an extent) adding soundcards and other pci cards and possibly the heatsink on the processor.

Where I work, we are given HP workstations that feature xeon processors, cuda graphics, etc. There are no compromises made when it comes to business and spending a couple extra grand can mean thousands saved in time over the life of the computer. If this computer is for business, I would go the route your gf feels most comfortable with regardless the cost (within reason of course). But when choosing an Apple machine, I would wait to see what apple will be unveiling with the new Mac Pro tower (coming out later this year). I cannot speak to how serviceable the new model will be though.

Niterider

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2013, 02:14:26 AM »
I guess ignorance is bliss...

The marketing strategy of apple: Take a product that is in every way insensible for what they charge and make the consumer think it is a sensible purchase.

BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi and other lux car brands do the same thing. Yet no one whines about it as loudly.

Nothing bad about paying more for a better user experience and better design.

I do apologize, my comment that you referenced was insensible and uncalled for. I definitely agree that those luxury car brands overcharge for what you get, but I see it slightly differently just because it is not possible to build yourself a car. If you want that sort of performance or luxury in a car, there is no (street legal) way around it. Unless I am forgetting something, then do let me know if that is the case!

I did exactly what the OP was trying to avoid, incite an apple vs pc debate. For that, I am sorry and will not make any future comments regarding the electronic rivalry. My intention was to ultimately convey some information about the iMac architecture and that alternatives do exist if money is a concern. BTW, If anyone is looking to build a computer and would like some help, I would be happy to do what I can!

dolina

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #69 on: February 01, 2013, 03:40:12 AM »
Your comments are not insensible or uncalled for but it does show an uninformed opinion about how most people do their computing.

It is possible to build yourself a car. All the parts to make one whole car are available for sale over the counter or over the Internet.

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13588649-homemade-lamborghini-replica-draws-admiring-glances-from-chinese-drivers?lite

It is just that very few people are inclined to build their own car. Too bothersome for a lot of people to do. Most consumers prefer to buy a Dell, HP, Lenovo etc etc and even an Apple. What sets Apple apart and not just another commodity item is the software and hardware design that is exclusive to the company. Thus they can charge more.

As for cobbled together desktops these are in decline and eventually be niche for DIYers and gamers. As for their out of the box counterparts these are also in decline. Both are yielding market share to mobile devices like notebooks, tablets and smartphones that are mostly bought pre-assembled.

I am not saying that you shouldn't be doing it but for most folks they just want to open the box, plug it to the wall, turn it on and start using it. Then completely replace within 2-5 years. Who wants to assemble a toaster, freezer, stove or microwave?

To make ever smaller and lighter computers manufacturers must solder parts together. This is the direction Intel is planning to take eventually by 2015.

In terms of supply chain cost desktops are much more expensive to move around and store because they take up more space and weigh a lot more.

I know everyone wants to save money on a deal so why aren't most people using m43rds and not SLRs? :)

I do apologize, my comment that you referenced was insensible and uncalled for. I definitely agree that those luxury car brands overcharge for what you get, but I see it slightly differently just because it is not possible to build yourself a car. If you want that sort of performance or luxury in a car, there is no (street legal) way around it. Unless I am forgetting something, then do let me know if that is the case!

I did exactly what the OP was trying to avoid, incite an apple vs pc debate. For that, I am sorry and will not make any future comments regarding the electronic rivalry. My intention was to ultimately convey some information about the iMac architecture and that alternatives do exist if money is a concern. BTW, If anyone is looking to build a computer and would like some help, I would be happy to do what I can!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 03:49:21 AM by dolina »
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

dolina

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #70 on: February 01, 2013, 03:50:42 AM »
Mac Pro's upgradeability is only useful for those who upgrade biannually or annually. Or else you must just end up getting a iMac or MBPro and expand via Thunderbolt.
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

Niterider

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2013, 04:26:39 AM »
Your comments are not insensible or uncalled for but it does show an uninformed opinion about how most people do their computing.

It is possible to build yourself a car. All the parts to make one whole car are available for sale over the counter or over the Internet.

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13588649-homemade-lamborghini-replica-draws-admiring-glances-from-chinese-drivers?lite

It is just that very few people are inclined to build their own car. Too bothersome for a lot of people to do. Most consumers prefer to buy a Dell, HP, Lenovo etc etc and even an Apple. What sets Apple apart and not just another commodity item is the software and hardware design that is exclusive to the company. Thus they can charge more.

As for cobbled together desktops these are in decline and eventually be niche for DIYers and gamers. As for their out of the box counterparts these are also in decline yielding market share to mobile devices like notebooks, tablets and smartphones. I am not saying that you shouldn't be doing it but for most folks they just want to open the box, plug it to the wall, turn it on and start using it. Then completely replace within 2-5 years.

To make ever smaller and lighter computers manufacturers must solder parts together. This is the direction Intel is planning to take eventually by 2015.

In terms of supply chain cost desktops are much more expensive to move around and store because they take up more space and weigh a lot more.

I know everyone wants to save money on a deal so why aren't most people using m43rds and not SLRs? :)

I do apologize, my comment that you referenced was insensible and uncalled for. I definitely agree that those luxury car brands overcharge for what you get, but I see it slightly differently just because it is not possible to build yourself a car. If you want that sort of performance or luxury in a car, there is no (street legal) way around it. Unless I am forgetting something, then do let me know if that is the case!

I did exactly what the OP was trying to avoid, incite an apple vs pc debate. For that, I am sorry and will not make any future comments regarding the electronic rivalry. My intention was to ultimately convey some information about the iMac architecture and that alternatives do exist if money is a concern. BTW, If anyone is looking to build a computer and would like some help, I would be happy to do what I can!



I am well aware of the attempts to replicate expensive exotic cars or even build tuner cars from kits (such as the ultima gtr720) that purely built for handeling and speed. Most of which are not street legal in the united states and have little practicality in the real world. Given that these are so different than luxury cars such as BMW, mercs, audi, etc., I still do not think the car example relates. On a side note, I build go karts for fun. They are definitely not street legal, the interior doesn't look anything like a 750LI, but damn it can drift around a turn. Not so sure I would be willing to do that in a $100k bmw haha. But hey if my go kart was street legal, I would drive it everywhere!

Anyhow, I build computers for fellow engineers along with people doing 3D rendering, audio engineering, video editing, etc. I guarantee you that computers are not just for the gamers and those who feel like giving building a try. In the custom computer world, home built computers utilizing raid controllers to control the flow of data to SSD's and overclocked processors have overpowered the 5k+ custom ordered computers from dell (or hp i cant remember). When professionals request a custom build, they are set up in such a way that factories cannot meet their expectations or would charge insane amounts to do so. That is the driving force behind why I build computers for others (i dont charge for my work either because I enjoy it too much  ;D)

I actually know quite a few engineers who work at intel (a major intel facility is just 20 minutes from my house) and are very knowledgeable about the 14nm integrated processor architecture. This is the way of the future, but is not going to cause custom build computers to cease to exist. Intel makes far too much money from the custom pc world to risk that. But it also will have a profound effect on advancing major computer companies (dell,hp,etc) 

I realize 95% of the computer market is just looking for a computer to turn on an preform basic tasks. I just find it astounding when they spend twice as much for an iMac than a custom build that I recently did for a client that has 2 to 3 times the processing capabilities. (not just the processor alone - this takes into account overclocking on the processor, ram, having an ssd raid array, motherboard to handle the sensitive current and high data flow, etc.) In the end, all that matters is how many floating-point operations per second is achieved.

But hey, if owning that beautiful aluminum computer is what makes you happy, more power to you  :)

dolina

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 969
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2013, 06:33:57 AM »
I am well aware of the attempts to replicate expensive exotic cars or even build tuner cars from kits (such as the ultima gtr720) that purely built for handeling and speed. Most of which are not street legal in the united states and have little practicality in the real world. Given that these are so different than luxury cars such as BMW, mercs, audi, etc., I still do not think the car example relates. On a side note, I build go karts for fun. They are definitely not street legal, the interior doesn't look anything like a 750LI, but damn it can drift around a turn. Not so sure I would be willing to do that in a $100k bmw haha. But hey if my go kart was street legal, I would drive it everywhere!

Anyhow, I build computers for fellow engineers along with people doing 3D rendering, audio engineering, video editing, etc. I guarantee you that computers are not just for the gamers and those who feel like giving building a try. In the custom computer world, home built computers utilizing raid controllers to control the flow of data to SSD's and overclocked processors have overpowered the 5k+ custom ordered computers from dell (or hp i cant remember). When professionals request a custom build, they are set up in such a way that factories cannot meet their expectations or would charge insane amounts to do so. That is the driving force behind why I build computers for others (i dont charge for my work either because I enjoy it too much  ;D)

I actually know quite a few engineers who work at intel (a major intel facility is just 20 minutes from my house) and are very knowledgeable about the 14nm integrated processor architecture. This is the way of the future, but is not going to cause custom build computers to cease to exist. Intel makes far too much money from the custom pc world to risk that. But it also will have a profound effect on advancing major computer companies (dell,hp,etc) 

I realize 95% of the computer market is just looking for a computer to turn on an preform basic tasks. I just find it astounding when they spend twice as much for an iMac than a custom build that I recently did for a client that has 2 to 3 times the processing capabilities. (not just the processor alone - this takes into account overclocking on the processor, ram, having an ssd raid array, motherboard to handle the sensitive current and high data flow, etc.) In the end, all that matters is how many floating-point operations per second is achieved.

But hey, if owning that beautiful aluminum computer is what makes you happy, more power to you  :)
People dont build their own cars because it requires skill, time and interest that they neither not have or are not interested in. The only difference between a custom car and a lux car like say a Pagani is that a car requires to pass govt regs to be sold legally while custom cars can be built but not operated in public roads.

I've seen custom cars fitted with pretty good interiors made from scratch. You just need to find the people with the parts or craftsmanship to do it properly. Again, some people enjoy doing such things while others rather fork out the money for something nice.

The software on the Mac is different than those on the PC. Hardware design is also different. End user experience is also different.

These are parallels of Apple products to luxury cars that I named earlier. Apple also follows the customer experience model of the Ritz-Carlton. Why else would people pay "double" for a Mac that does the same thing with a prettier case? Does Apple have to slather their products in leather and chrome to make the connection ever stronger?

People can go to the grocer and make themselves a pretty good meal for 1/10th the price of going to a 5 Michelin Star resto but people still get wait listed months in advance to get a table. Call them crazy for wanting to eat in a fancy place rather than the comfort and privacy of your own home.

There's a saying, you can fool some people some of the time but you cannot fool all people all the time.

Of course Apple and to some extent Dell et al cannot cater to the whole market like custom jobs as these are not economical or even profitable for them to do so. You did mention not charging anything for your labors.

Intel and other parts makers see this also as demonstrated by the declining sales of desktops.

The market will dictate when custom computers will cease to exist in the same way as Linux on the desktop/notebook has been a running meme since the 90s.

Remember, this is Canon Rumor forum and not Anandtech or HardOCP. We just want our pretty pictures (and maybe video) processed with little fuss.

Not putting down custom jobs or commodity PCs. I've seen my brother's gaming setup and it's insane for what he can do but for me I rather spend the extra as I am looking for an appliance more than a project within a project.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 06:37:38 AM by dolina »
Visit my Flickr, Facebook & 500px and see my photos. :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which iMac
« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2013, 06:33:57 AM »

RustyTheGeek

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2013, 09:13:09 AM »
At the moment I am picturing niterider, dolina and myself in the corner of the (CR) party having a nice little debate.   ;D

In general we are all right with good points, we all understand and we all need to raise our glasses and salute the fact that we live in a world where we have all these choices and in addition, we are all badass photographers and like to turn wrenches too!  Gee, what a great life!
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

Brand B

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Which iMac
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2013, 09:18:47 AM »
To my knowledge, Mac Pros are workstations and workstations cater to businesses. Because of this, the tower was built with an IT support staff in mind. In other words, the computer is very modifiable. Your main limiting factor is going to be the power supply and the connections on the motherboard. As long as you don't put a graphics card in that will exceed the psu, you should be fine. Without seeing a unit personally, I would imagine that you can upgrade RAM, hdd/ssd, optical drives, graphics cards (to an extent) adding soundcards and other pci cards and possibly the heatsink on the processor.

Where I work, we are given HP workstations that feature xeon processors, cuda graphics, etc. There are no compromises made when it comes to business and spending a couple extra grand can mean thousands saved in time over the life of the computer. If this computer is for business, I would go the route your gf feels most comfortable with regardless the cost (within reason of course). But when choosing an Apple machine, I would wait to see what apple will be unveiling with the new Mac Pro tower (coming out later this year). I cannot speak to how serviceable the new model will be though.

Right now is not a great time to buy a Mac Pro. The unit has not been refreshed significantly in years, and the rumors are something new is coming in the next few months.

A couple of other notes, there are only a few video cards that work in the Mac Pro, and none of them are that exciting.

I don't believe you can modify the processor heat sink.  The stock cooling configuration, however, is thought out very well.

On the flipside, some believe that the new release will not be a Mac Pro at all, but rather a thunderbolt box that allows expansion of an iMac into something with Mac Pro capabilities.  This is based on parsing Tim Cook's comment wherein he does not say a new Mac Pro is coming but rather that something that people who are waiting for a Mac Pro will like.  This would be consistent with Apple's movement towards eliminating optical drives and favoring SSDs.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Which iMac
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2013, 09:18:47 AM »