Drawbacks of the iMac 20-inch?

[garrison_k.]

<p>It is about the OS and is why I almost always insist others get a Mac when consulted. 99% of the users out there don't go beyond the web, email, and word doc's. And most of these users are ignorant of the pitfalls a Windows machine has. Mac is the safer route for these types.</p>

<p>I wish Adobe would port for Linux.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>@Garrison..Good points for the kind of work you do. However, it's a matter of the right tool for the job. One of the most successful photo reproduction firms in O.C. where people come from all get old photos repaired and reproduced, attorneys come for their photographic and line art blow-ups and developers and other businesses come for him to print very large advertising and other artwork for large displays. His work calls for a lot of fine tuning, image clean up and color correction on very large files (not the highway size signs) but many several feet long and wide on large Format continuous feed Epson printers, and some really long stiched pieces, does all his work on a White 24" iMac and says he wouldn't trade if for the world. Now, he's not doing large wedding or product shoot conversions etc. where he has to organize, sequence, batch process and batch convert hundreds or thousands of images at a time, several times a day, it's more of several images in different phases of his process open at a time, which is more how I work as well. Absoulute speed isn't a neccessity for him, but reliability and interoperability with his studio equipment is. He is at his computer doing nothing but working with images, many of them quite large about 10-14 hours a day. So there you go, whatever makes your life easier. go ahead and use. This isn't a contest. If you batch process hundreds to thousands of images a day, and the speed of conversions etc. is critical, then by all means get mac pro or whatever equivalent or even faster PC works for you, that kind of brute force is good thing and why it's there. It's just that any professional I know isn't going to switch platforms and all that entails because they get fairly minor incremental speed increases over a leap frogging technology. Mac and PC are now using many of the same parts. Intel processors, standard hardrives and videocards etc. So it's not really a big equipment difference, it's a system difference. I'm pretty sure the soon to come Mac Pro is going to include the latest at the time, stuff from Intel, that's just the way the industry is. <br>

Small businesses have to be very careful about where they put their financial resources. For instance, the individual I'm talking about will uprgrade his multi-thousand dollar printer's before he does his computers because the business is more contingent on what he can output and the computers are working great.<br>

I myself will will scan 10-20 gigabytes in a week but I don't need to batch process very often, though I have without a problems, basically exporting a couple hundred images out of LR or Apeture to full size tiff's and it worked fine, I was able to keep working on other images in PS while LR exported, and though I didn't time it, it seemed like it happened faster than I expected. If I was doing that all day, yes I could see wanting a more powerful system or even connected systems, one to batch process and print, one to work on individual images. <br>

Again, apples and oranges is an apt statement, where the original poster can decide what his work load is going to be. What you are talking about is the difference between a Peterbuild truck for long haul heavy loading as opposed to a F150 for daily load carrying. The OP should have a better idea of what his needs are going to be. If I was a truck salesman, I wouldn't be trying to convince a construction worker who needs a good strudy 3/4 ton pickup to buy a Freightliner etc. ]<br>

@Patrick, my first white iMac 20" was a G5 with a 2gb limit. My current is a CD2 White 24" model that can hold 4 but effectively a smidge over 3 (the last model with the matt screen.)<br>

@Kelly, so the first 20" Intel iMac only held 2Bs? All the White iMacs from the G5 PPC processor to the Intel CD2 before the Aluminium models looked pretty identical, but the internals were different.<br>

For the OP, I would hold off on buying an iMac at this very moment, because a new update is supposed to be immanant. I'd wait if you can.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> 99% of the users out there don't go beyond the web, email, and word doc's. </p>

<p>Plus anything relating to the creative arts, as just one of many other disciplines, where productivity, rather than geeking hardware/software/virus-protection, is important...</p>

[jdean1]

<p>If Mac had a Visual Web Developer Express and SQL Server Express at the price Microsoft offers it I might switch as my Lightroom will run on either. Actually when cloud computing gets more efficient it won't make any differance what OS we use.</p>

[fjdelvalle]

<p>Mac doesn't have as many games as PC's do, that's my reason to stay with PC's! Yipee!</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>"Mac doesn't have as many games as PC's do." You're right Fernando and I have to say that the only-and I mean only-thing that I miss from my PC days is Train Simulator! cb :-)</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>With an iMac aren't you limited to a single hard drive? I don't think you can cram a raid card in there, so your data won't be very secure. Of course you can back up everything to external hard drives, but there is no security like Raid 5.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>I own PCs and a loaded MAC Pro, used mostly for video editing and some Photoshop. The MAC has an advantage with large files and I create large files. That said, the MAC is a pain in the ass. It has not improved my work flow, it crashes more often than my PCs and contrary to what MAC apologists say, you do need utility programs to 'clean up' the caches and other areas if you leave the MAC on all the time. Some housekeeping functions occur while the MAC is off but you have to remember to turn it off instead of putting it to sleep. But you can find free software that does the same thing for PCs. For the most part any thing you can do with a MAC you can do with a PC and then some, plus save some cash. The MAC laptops and smaller desktops are out of line in pricing, in my opinion. The gloss display on the iMac and the laptops can drive you nuts with reflections. And while not directly related to still photography, Apple's video editing programs are a mess with major changes in functionality, features from one version to another and now several PC video editing programs more than give Final Cut Pro a run for the money for far less money.<br />And forget the argument you can run Windows programs on a MAC. You can but if any of the programs involve inputing data from a firewire based hard drive or capturing video from a camcorder via firewire, Windows on a MAC won't recognize the firewire source, if you're using VM Fusion to install Windows on the MAC. So much for that. Your mileage could possibly vary.<br />Your mileage may vary.</p>

[gulfbeach47]

<p>Hey- It’s me the original poster. Is there a limit to how many words you can type or are you not allowed to copy/paste? I keep trying to ask a couple of questions but keep getting Problem with your input</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Keith, raid is simply not needed for photo work. 800 FW is plenty fast to get your photo data on and off and is even fast enough to stream DV realtime. I beleive even the 400FW port will stream DV real time. If you are doing heavy video or music production, I can see setting up in RAID. In OSX, if you really want raid, you can set it in software for your external drives. I just don't get why people feel a need for Raid for these applications. I just think it's one more thing to deal with. You can daisy chain drives on FW 800 and have 2 or 3 backups plus a working data drive, and then your Internal harddrive for Programs. It works great.<br>

And now, in newer systems than mine, Leopard has this timeline which is a back-up system that is supposed to be very good. I can't really comment on it because I've never used it. I have had raid systems before, and didn't see any real value to if for what I was doing.<br>

But then again, if you dig having a raid array go ahead.</p>

<p> </p>

[ihasphotos]

<p>If you want stability get the mac. It is built on a UNIX platform. I have never had any problems working on anything. No lockups, no rebooting without my permission, updates are not every week, no blue screens, no registry - so programs actually will uninstall without leaving garbage behind, low risk for viruses, so easy to use, great work flow.<br>

I have used them all, Windows 9x - Vista, many Linux flavors, and MAC. I have to honestly say that MAC's have won my heart. <br>

I know they are expensive, but I do not understand the point of getting the latest, fastest hardware, and putting a clunky OS on it like windows.</p>

 

[jdean1]

<p>Your experience with Unix sounds similar to my experience with Vista, I have never had any problems working on anything.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p><a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1463">To ALL: here is a link to indentity the EMC number on the foot of the iMac; so one can KNOW what model one has. Ours has EMC no 2105; plus it says iMac 20"/2ghz/512meg too. This spec shows that our imac 20" was built in 2006;and has an Intel dual core processor; and it is NOT a G5 processor model Imac 20". Our model holds 2 gigs of ram; and has this now; it came with 512 when built in early 2006.</a></p>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>One last point about Mac's in general is that they usually have a good resale value, even after a few years usage, whilst most PC's of that vintage are worth very little. I see a lot of fairly new PC's and laptops going through local auctions fairly inexpensively. I know that Apple do charge a substantial premium on their products compared to PC's with similar spec's, but the standard software on every Mac is very good and so easy to use. I have used PC's other than those made by Dell and have never really liked any of them too much; OS X is much more stable than any version of Windows that I've ever used. I'm not interested in resetting software or adding on new hardware, I just want a computer that is reliable and enjoyable to use; end of story.. I used my last iMac for nearly 6 years with no real issues and you can't really complain in this day and age if you can get that much use out of a computer. Obviously, a computer is just a tool to help us store and work with our images, it doesn't really matter which brand you use as long as you are happy with it and it works properly, some of us like Mac's, some don't.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>I'm surprised, maybe I missed it, that nobody has mentioned the iMac screens, which are high gloss. I can't work with them. Too many reflections, and calibration seems to be affected, as well.<br>

Beyond that, I love the Mac OS, as long as you can get the SW you need, it's a great choice. but I'd get the tower so I could use a matte finish screen. Damn shame there is no mid-range headless Mac.</p>

[lookitsanthony87]

<p>i personally use a powerbook G4 with upgraded memory, i used to own a Dell much like you did, since switching to the to MAC things have been a lot easier although i do still feel a little foreign. i tell my friends that i feel lost cuz i dont know all the shortcuts and how to fix things if it breaks, but they simply say "theirs nothing to fix" their are no shortcuts" thats the magic of a mac. my suggestion would be to go for the mac, its a common known fact that why it lacks some features of a PC its a steady workhorse for photography.</p>

[dgilson]

<p>If I had to get a laptop right now it would be a MAC. I develop low level computer software (firmware and such), so I beat the crap out of systems. The reason why I made the 1st statement is one can put a lot of memory on the MAC then run VMWARE and have the MAC OS (which runs on top of BSD), Windows and Linux all running on the same system at the same time. The best of all worlds.</p>

<p>There are a lot of things a MAC just does better like going into Hibration mode when you close the screen. It just works.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>I know u were asking about the opinions about the Mac but just to argue the opposite for a moment. I am a hobbist photographer and I use my toshiba Qosmio 17' Laptop to do all of my photoedits. Ive worked with 800meg files in PS CS3 and the computer didnt even realize it was moving a large file. I mean honestly I think a computer...mac....m/s w/e is only as good as the specs of the comp and the software ur running. This system has 4gb o memory its a intel duo Core 2 ... running VISTA ...and for the record...I have seen very little wrong with vista...except their backwards compatability....Vista doesnt like to run older programs but seeing as most of what im running is 07+ it is not a problem for me. The only issue i have with vista is its internal secruity....Its a royal pain in the a$$ becuse it requests ur permission for quite alot but, that asside....I have no complaints and for photo editing... a good Bright LCD + 4gb Memory + CS3 ....the sky is the limit...not matter ur platform.</p>

<p>And jsut a quick comment... the mac's being more used for photography/graphic arts etc.....that used to be the truth whole heartedly, but that is a thing of the past... Mac/PC are now seeing = amounts of use in the fields of graphic arts/photo rendering/edititing....etc....</p>

[gulfbeach47]

<p>Hi Gang, Original Poster back again. hope the forum lets me post this time. In reply to post that suggested to wait for new models coming soon, I am in a program that will help me with cost but they want me to make decision weeks ago and I am worried that program may end due to budget cuts.<br>

1. Anyone have any connections on when the new models are comig out or just the rumors?<br>

2. Any word on another choice of screen since there is much discussion about the glossy finish?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>That's great Kelly. No disputes here. Like I said, the G5 imac through The Core duo iMac to the Core2duo white Imac all look pretty much exactly the same. With the Core2duo, white version, the ram limitation went to 4gb with only 3 and a smidge usable. With the Aluminum imacs, the Ram limit went to 4 usable GBs. You have the first version of the intel imacs. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>The big "mac rumor" site called Mac Rumor was surprised they didn't announce it at the big convention last week. Google Mac rumours. They have a buying guide. Or Google "Mac Buyers guide" and you'll get it that way.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>I've been reading this thread with interest because our Dell computer is in the process of 'dying', and I'm going to need to replace it soon. I have an iMac laptop, and I like it, although I'm still more comfortable in the Windows format. Many of you have stated that Dell and HP desktops are lousy, but nobody has suggested which PCs ARE decent. Do you have any specific recommendations? Although we've seen a decline in Dell in the past 8-9 years, they have served us well, and I thought they were still one of the top companies with regard to customer service (though they can't beat Apple). Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[gulfbeach47]

<p>Barry Fisher- Thanks, what an original name "mac rumor" site:) Well, I saw rumors that the new imacs would be shipping this month. Hmmmm....Wish there was some confirmation on when and what changes. I did see on the news that Steve Jobs is now thinking Liver transplant, but everyone probably knows that by now.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>The whole, when is the release going to really happen, is an arcane affair. These "rumour" sites get tips, somtimes from "insiders" etc. Generally speaking they are fairly close, but it could be tomorrow or next month. </p>

[mcquade.kevin]

<p>As someone who owns a 20" iMac, and worked for Apple for several, I think I can provide some good insight that will truly help you.<br>

First of all, if you are looking at the iMac, the screen size will be the biggest decision to make regarding the purchase. The price obviously goes between $1199 up to $2199, plus any kind of customizations will raise that number. I have to admit, that the size of the 24" model is almost overwhelming. Sure, it's a big screen and if you're doing photo work it can be nice, but I really do see it as overkill. I would recommend sticking with the 20" 2.66 GHz model, with 4gb of RAM. It gives you a nice graphics card (not the amazing 512, but pretty darn nice) and that RAM boost will greatly help. A comparable Macbook Pro will put you close to $3,000, so the desktop iMac is tight.<br>

Also, stay away from the VMWare Fusion and Parallels. If you absolutely need to run Windows (which I didn't read everything from above, so I don't know if you need to...) use Parallels and try and get a copy of XP. Vista is so faulty and problematic that staying away from it is a great idea...also, do not use the internet on the Windows side. IT opens it up to the virus bit. In addition, don't necessarily believe all the rumors you hear...look at what people thought would happen for MacWorld SF 2009: no Mac Mini, iMac, or "iPhone Nano". The ones you've got now are bangin', so just hang in there if you're waiting for an update chief; it could be a while.</p>