Intel iMacs for Adobe work


Status
Not open for further replies.

Visuals

New Member
Sep 7, 2006
68
0
0
#1
Hi all.

Just need some feedbacks from experienced Mac users.

1. Are the new desktop Intel iMacs good enough for Adobe Photoshop; Illustrator and InDesign types of work? Assuming that we run the upcoming CS3 which runs natively on Intel chips.

2. Will there be any significant differences between the standard 128MB versus 256MB of video ram on the ATI Graphic card?

3. Will 2G of RAM (Patriot is what most Mac dealers recommend) sufficient? Upgrading to 3G is ridiculously expensive!

4. Is it worth paying extra for the 24 inch models? I think its around $800 more. A dealer felt that the 4 extra inch isn't worth for Photoshop kind of work.

I look forward to feedbacks from Macintosh users.

With thanks.:)
 

VR Man

New Member
Nov 21, 2005
357
0
0
#2
I am also thinking of the same question.

My main concern would be is the screen good enough for Pro DI work? My gut feel tells me no:think:

Just like you can never too much money, the extra memory, VRAM and screen space would always be good :bsmilie:
 

antitrust

New Member
Sep 25, 2004
317
0
0
#3
not a very experienced mac user, a recent convert as well, but if you guys are earning professionals and need the performance, give the iMacs a miss. just go for the Mac Pro.
 

Parka

Senior Member
Nov 18, 2005
1,067
5
38
Singapore, Singapore
plus.google.com
#4
I'll get an iMac most probably if I don't have already a monitor.
At work, I'm on a dual 2ghz G5. I figure the iMac running non native CS2 to be as fast.
Native CS3 is going to be even faster.

Look at macworld.com benchmarks.
 

mm63

Member
Oct 26, 2005
440
0
16
#5
If you can afford it, get the biggest display you can. You will definitely appreciate in Photoshop, Illustrator etc....especially when you have multiple windows and palettes open.

The 24" iMac is actually very price-competitive vs. a equivalent PC with separate 24" monitor.

The video RAM on the ATI card will not really affect the performance in your listed apps.

The more RAM the merrier for Macs but buy according to your budget. Mac OS X makes use of RAM much more efficiently than Windows.
 

Slivester

Deregistered
Nov 9, 2004
1,028
0
0
Woodlands
humors.deviantart.com
#6
Yeah, stability-wise, Mac OS X (esp. Tiger) is much reliable for professionals, especially those who are used to work long hours and only save once every while. Theres a very possibility that Windows may just corked up and everything reboot, losing all unsaved changes.

CS 2 is currently running on Intel Macs with Rosetta, so its not natively supported, dynamically translated. Difference in performance is insignificant, but for users who operates all the creative suite programmes at once, the slowdown will be significant. You can however install Windows XP onto your Intel Mac and run CS 2 natively on Windows, much faster, but it defeats the point of purchasing Mac isn't it?

CS 3 is universal, so yes, run on both PowerPC Macs and Intel Macs.

2GB is more than enough to run all CS 2 programmes at once, I tried it, its fairly satisfying.

24" gives 540000 extra pixels, so you can roughly gauge from that, although I think 24" looks more promising.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#7
really, the question depends on what are the sizes of the files you would handle...eg. for photoshop, would you handle files in the tens of MB, or hundreds of MB or more?...

for those in the tens of MB, an iMac should be good enough...

also, whether something is worth paying for also depends on what you are going to do with the work produced with the computer...if you are doing stuff for fun, maybe you should watch your budget closer unless you are loaded...if its a working computer, then you have to see how long it would take to recoup the investment...
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#8
Photoshop CS2 can make use of a maximum of 4GB of ram, so if you wish to push the speed to the limit, that's as far as it goes. I'm not sure about CS3 though.

Personally I think you'd need a MacBook Pro or MacBook rather than an Imac or MacPro if you're working as a pro photog. You may also get another Imac or MacPro for home/office usage. If you don't own your own studio you'd definitely need a portable solution for tethered shooting or processing at the shooting location. If you do events, there might be occasions when you need to process immediately on the spot(wedding highlights at banquet?), hence you definitely need something that can be moved around with you.

If you're a graphic designer, or you're opening up a printing/DI outlet, by all means get an Imac/Macpro. I'd doubt you need to overload on the RAM though. Generally 2GB will be sufficient if you're in such a line.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#9
If you're a graphic designer, or you're opening up a printing/DI outlet, by all means get an Imac/Macpro. I'd doubt you need to overload on the RAM though. Generally 2GB will be sufficient if you're in such a line.
actually, for industrial strength DI, 2GB is not enough...but I'm talking about the big files...and if you have to open and adjust multiple files while your client is sitting beside you and dithering on which way to go:

("I think we should try a bit warmer", "oh can you push that dress in a bit", "but this image should be darker than the other"...etc)

you would be silently praying for CS3 and whatever amounts of RAM it can excess;)
 

jOhO

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2003
6,485
0
0
42
Singapore
www.expressivelyjoho.com
#10
agree with most that i wouldn't go for the imac. but it really depends on your type of photography. for a hobbyist that can't afford more time to process photos, the imac is great and cheaper.

otherwise, it's the mac pro for me. every second counts, and every inch of screen space counts even more! ;p
 

Feb 20, 2004
497
0
0
33
#11
agree with most that i wouldn't go for the imac. but it really depends on your type of photography. for a hobbyist that can't afford more time to process photos, the imac is great and cheaper.

otherwise, it's the mac pro for me. every second counts, and every inch of screen space counts even more! ;p
So you are waiting for the new MacPro with the new OS to be out .. ?;p
 

Visuals

New Member
Sep 7, 2006
68
0
0
#13
First of all, thanks for all the feedbacks posted here :D

Pesonally, my Mac experiences comes from computer labs in school (evening classes).
The machines are Power G4 and Power G5 desktop. Therefore, my experiences are limited as an occasional user.

There is one point which me and my classmates dislike about Mac:
Why is it that every time we click the (+) symbol to expand the working window, it just DOESN'T fully expand to occupy the whole screen like Windows does? Is this due to the OS or Adobe software, and is there a way to change this 'irritating default'? We always have to manaully drag to expand the window :sweatsm: !

I'll let my classmates know if there is a work-around to this 'problem'.

Visuals
 

frenchbean

New Member
Jan 12, 2005
286
0
0
41
Singapore, Bedok
#14
There is one point which me and my classmates dislike about Mac:
Why is it that every time we click the (+) symbol to expand the working window, it just DOESN'T fully expand to occupy the whole screen like Windows does? Is this due to the OS or Adobe software, and is there a way to change this 'irritating default'? We always have to manaully drag to expand the window :sweatsm: !

I'll let my classmates know if there is a work-around to this 'problem'.

Visuals

Well, I think the Apple developers feel that there is no need to waste desktop space to make the window full screen, so when you press the (+) button, it just expands the window big enuff to fit whatever it is showing. I think it's just the way of managing the desktop and I think most of us have been "brainwashed" into the Windoze way of managing the desktop (which is definitely not the most efficient way IMO). If you use a Mac long enuff you will come to appreciate why it's like that and with stuff like Expose and Spotlight to help, the Windoze way is really far off. Haven't seen Vista yet, hopefully they'll improve it. :)
 

Slivester

Deregistered
Nov 9, 2004
1,028
0
0
Woodlands
humors.deviantart.com
#15
First of all, thanks for all the feedbacks posted here :D

Pesonally, my Mac experiences comes from computer labs in school (evening classes).
The machines are Power G4 and Power G5 desktop. Therefore, my experiences are limited as an occasional user.

There is one point which me and my classmates dislike about Mac:
Why is it that every time we click the (+) symbol to expand the working window, it just DOESN'T fully expand to occupy the whole screen like Windows does? Is this due to the OS or Adobe software, and is there a way to change this 'irritating default'? We always have to manaully drag to expand the window :sweatsm: !

I'll let my classmates know if there is a work-around to this 'problem'.

Visuals
Yeah, what frenchbean said is simply true to dedicated environment of Mac OS. Its significant wasting of space if you expand the web browser to fill the entire widescreen if the site is designed for 800x600 resolution. Thats the way Mac OS works, and you are just not used to it yet. For users who practically live on the Mac platform, expanding the entire window is weird.
 

#16
i bought a iMac g5 2.1G duo 2 core 20" recently... display is fantastic.. spectacular!

but working on the iMac after spending so many donkey year used to the window.. is a pain. the key strokes are all different, and imac seems to have much lesser short cut key stroke than window... and imac mouse movement isn't that responsive, for one who is so used to higer speed mouse movement, this need a bit more patience.
 

frenchbean

New Member
Jan 12, 2005
286
0
0
41
Singapore, Bedok
#17
i bought a iMac g5 2.1G duo 2 core 20" recently... display is fantastic.. spectacular!

but working on the iMac after spending so many donkey year used to the window.. is a pain. the key strokes are all different, and imac seems to have much lesser short cut key stroke than window... and imac mouse movement isn't that responsive, for one who is so used to higer speed mouse movement, this need a bit more patience.
On the contrary, I think Mac got more shortcuts than Windoze if i'm not wrong. Here's a link for the shortcuts for your reference.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75459
 

mm63

Member
Oct 26, 2005
440
0
16
#19
haha......I share your thinking about the fullscreen thingy. It drove me nuts when I first moved from PC to MAC. Now, I am used to it, more or less. It's really part of the Mac workflow. There isn't even a keyboard shortcut for Maximise Window!


First of all, thanks for all the feedbacks posted here :D

Pesonally, my Mac experiences comes from computer labs in school (evening classes).
The machines are Power G4 and Power G5 desktop. Therefore, my experiences are limited as an occasional user.

There is one point which me and my classmates dislike about Mac:
Why is it that every time we click the (+) symbol to expand the working window, it just DOESN'T fully expand to occupy the whole screen like Windows does? Is this due to the OS or Adobe software, and is there a way to change this 'irritating default'? We always have to manaully drag to expand the window :sweatsm: !

I'll let my classmates know if there is a work-around to this 'problem'.

Visuals
 

mm63

Member
Oct 26, 2005
440
0
16
#20
i bought a iMac g5 2.1G duo 2 core 20" recently... display is fantastic.. spectacular!

but working on the iMac after spending so many donkey year used to the window.. is a pain. the key strokes are all different, and imac seems to have much lesser short cut key stroke than window... and imac mouse movement isn't that responsive, for one who is so used to higer speed mouse movement, this need a bit more patience.
You can set the mouse tracking speed to higher in Preferences or you can get a Razer Pro mouse like me!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom