szrimaging Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>This is a bit of a pie in the sky conversation as I am not buying a new system for a few months (maybe next summer?). But I am thinking of switching over to Apple for the next system (maybe) and I also want to buy a pre-built system instead of hassling with the build myself. As I look right now, a fairly well loaded Mac Mini with Core i5 is $1100 vs $1600 for a similar iMac. That leaves $500 to buy a new monitor/software. As far as I can tell, there is no real disadvantage to this idea. Am I missing a crucial difference between the Mac Mini and iMac other than a built in screen?</p><p>Use is 70% photo editing, 20% web development, and 10% video editing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szrimaging Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I should add, the only big selling point I see on the iMac is you can max out at 16GB RAM instead of 8GB. But the form factor of that Mini is appealing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_l. Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>One difference can be the graphics processors on either system. Some versions of the Mac Mini have discrete graphics cards and some don't. It looks like the graphics cards on the iMac line are better. <br> Also memory capacity might be different.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>Memory limitations and lack of an optical drive make the Mini less attractive for photography usage. The optical drive means another $75 off your monitor and the memory issue you can't fix.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szrimaging Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>That $1100 includes the optical drive and an the AMD Radeon HD 6630M. So yeah, the only issue would be being stuck at 8GB, but all said, 8GB is not too shabby, and more than enough for web development and photography. The only place it takes a ding is video editing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Also... MacMini CPUs are i5 dual core (i7 quad core for the Mini server) with 3MB of cache. iMac CPUs are i5/i7 quad core with 6MB of cache (and with faster speed options). In addition the iMac has faster graphics chips with twice (4X on the high end model) the graphics memory. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szrimaging Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>Didn't realize the Mac Minis were dual core. That is a very good point.</p> <p>Maybe I'll just stick to building a new PC on a micro-ATX platform instead.....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I wouldn't want to do without the optical drive. If I wanted something small and portable and didn't have too much CPU firepower need, I'd probably go with an Air and an external drive. But I'd rather have the iMac than the mac Mini and in fact I do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricklavoie Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>Zach, you also need to add to your mac mini price; mouse, keyboard, a super drive.. and a comparable monitor.. like at LEAST a Dell U2410 (around 500$ alone) .. in the end, you have it for the same price.. but less upgradable and less powerfull computer...</p> <p>You want simplicity? go with a Imac 22inch all in one solution.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>iMacs have pro displays, IPS panels that are simply superb and beat most cheap LCD monitors out there. I have a 2009 24" iMac and it is a superb computer for photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_burke3 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>It does become a bit more of an issue if you've already got the monitor, keyboard & mouse. I've been using a late 2007 15" MacBook Pro which is beginning to feel a bit sluggish - 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo & NVidia GeForce 8600M GT graphics, with an external graphics display, etc. I don't need a laptop professionally - I'm not a pro photographer - so I'm not planning on getting another MacBook Pro. For any casual mobile usage I may want, my iPad (1) will do just fine.</p> <p>I agree that the specs of the iMac are better, but the the new Mac Mini is a lot cheaper and would in any case be a significant step up from where I am now. There may well be a of of people in a similar situation. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I am a MAC addict. I run my business on Apples and have for many years. I have an iMac (full house with the 16GB of RAM and 2 TB drive. It all backs up through an X-serve to 24 TB of RAID 5 memory. I have a Mac Mini to manage my music and some of my images. I also drive three monitors with the two systems -- two 27s with the iMac (one native and the other next to it). <br> All of the Macs are wonderful, stable CPUs with long useful lives. The primary difference you will find between the iMac and the Mini for photography is in speed of processing. If you run CS5 and have large files (my typical RAW image is about 20MB) and you take a lot of pictures, you will soon run out of disk space on the Mini. You should get yourself an inexpensive external drive (1TB or larger) for both backup and to hold your images.<br> If you will be doing any stitching, you may have birthdays while the Mini is processing. I suggest watching for Apple to introduce the next generation and buy the previous one. You will experience some small savings, but it is all you will get from Apple. <br> Good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I just bought an iMac because I think at this point the price difference from other Mac systems make the iMacs in general give you the most bang for the buck.<br /> I had an 4-year old Mac Mini before with only 2 GB of RAM, but it ran Photoshop CS3 more than adequately. I installed CS5.5 on it before upgrading to the iMac, and everything seemed to work just fine. I think the newer Minis would do just fine and they do take up very little space on your physical desktop. Mine is still chugging away with Leopard for my older PPC programs, if I need them.<br /> The 27" monitor is an incredible improvement over my older, individual monitors, and for a while, I have more than enough desktop for everything.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_wilson Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I think the question you really need to ask yourself is "can I get a comparable monitor with the left-over ($500) money?" My experience is that, all told, the iMacs are a pretty smokin' deal for folks who want a "desktop" system with an IPS panel.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Just ordered a brand new (unopened box) mid 2010 Mac Mini 2.4ghz C2D with 320GB HD, 256MB shared VRam and built in optical drive with a Kingston 8GB Ram kit from Amazon for $611. I'm not looking for screaming fast processing of tons of images and other media. Already have the keyboard and mouse from my previous 2004 G5 iMac that recently died and still have my $300 Dell 2209WA IPS panel LCD I never used until now. <p> Guess I did what John Ellingson suggested and bought the previous generation Apple product. Don't know where Zach is getting $1100 for the Mac Mini. If you're running a business and need reliable and fast computer horsepower, I'ld think you'ld have to go with a used Mac Pro or new iMac. <p> I have no idea how fast the previous gen. Mac Mini's are but they've got to be a lot faster than my 2004 20" G5 iMac and I thought that was fast editing Raw 6MP files in CS3 Photoshop. I never filled up its 160GB HD. I've only accumulated a little over 20GB of images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I actually, buy my Macs for business from the top of the line new equipment, but for personal use I'm usually more than satisfied with the recent generation, but new equipment. I've done that for years. I have to say that for years I ran Apple and Windows equipment side by side, but in the long run the Apple products were cheaper to own over the lifecycle of the products. More expensive to purchase, but 50% longer life cycle and far cheaper to support with much more up time. I'm also in a secure environment and it is far cheaper and easier to keep the Apple system secure than the leaky Windows system ever was. No more patching once a week and my IT maintenance staff is down to 20% of what I had to keep on hand when I had Windows systems to support.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pholcus_phalangioides Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>Non-server minis have slow 5400 rpm hard drives unless you overpay in build to order (newegg is cheaper, and you get to keep the slower drive as a spare). The server version has 7200 rpm drives by default and is quad core, but has the integrated intel graphics (not as bad as it used to be, but not great). When working with large files such as video or even large raws faster drives can make a big difference. You can at least take minis apart and replace the hard drive/s. Memory is also easy to replace, and third party will be able take that up to 16 GB (otherworld computing already has some, but you really don't want to know the price). Drives are somewhat harder to get to for replacement but still possible (see ifixit.com).</p> <p>The iMac has faster drives, better video card (which, since Apple heavily uses the GPU for non-video things, makes for an overall speed up), an option for SSD, and a really nice monitor. But getting at the insides isn't for the faint of heart--it requires taking off the front glass of the monitor, which will likely let in dust and cat hair where you least want it. Worse, the hard drive can't (yet) be replaced with non-apple parts--it's a specially adapted one, which makes it probably worth adding in the cost of applecare.</p> <p>Since you aren't in a hurry, you'll have a chance to see what the new Mac Pros bring (as well as what price the older ones drop to). They are more expensive, but being able to have 4 internal drives saves some external enclosure costs (and a failure mode) if you have lots of stuff. You get a choice of much better video cards with plenty of dedicated video ram and can upgrade it later if you need to. You can add memory as you can afford it without having to toss the existing memory. It's easy to open up and vacuum out the cat hair, extending the life of the parts. You also get longer useful life from the beast because you can upgrade things if and as you need to. If you figure that you can keep a Pro going for 6-7 years, but will probably want to upgrade a mini or iMac in 3-4 years as video and raw files get bigger and more cumbersome, the price may not be as much more as it looks upfront. (I suppose you could consider resale value too, but, sell? an old friend, er, computer? When it could keep chewing through work units for folding@home? :-))</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobycline Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 FYI: The max ram for the new Mac Mini is NOT 8 gig but 16 gig. http://blog.macsales.com/11292-owc-announces-industry’s-first-16gb-ram-upgrade-for-latest-apple-mac-mini-models (Oops, beaten to the punch.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rothelle Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>I got my hands on a 2005 mac mini and upgraded it. Mostly just use it as a hd but took it on trips because I also had cs4 on it. It worked well and then I got myself an imac 27" and a 2010 mac mini and I mostly spend time on my mac mini. I love this little powerful computer. I took a look at the new 2011 and still think 2010 is a better unit. I build web site, stream music, videos, edit photos, CS5, dreamweaver and other edit software. It's fast and work with not only my 24" monitor but on my 42" flat screen. It make a mean entertainment center have the shits.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_l. Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>Zach (if you're still reading this): what's the interest in the small form factor? You've suggested either the Mini or a custom build on a micro-ATX board. Any particular reason? Might lend some insight to the discussion. My preference is always to custom build because:<br> a. I'm a nerd<br> b. It's the cheapest and highest quality way to go. <br> If you're set on Mac OS, then that's a different story...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 <p><em>"As far as I can tell, there is no real disadvantage to this idea. Am I missing a crucial difference between the Mac Mini and iMac other than a built in screen?"</em><br /> <em> </em><br /> You mean other than the fact that you won't be able to get a monitor as good as the one in an iMac for much if any under$500?</p> <p>Mac minis are meant for two types of people: those that already own nice monitors (and keyboards and mice) who want to pay the least possible for another CPU, or people who want a light-duty home server and don't care what sort of crap monitor they run it with. If you're planning on buying a new high-quality monitor with it, it's not particularly cost-effective.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 <p>The Mini is a fine small computer. It is truly a computer not meant to do any heavy lifting -- like image processing. It is great for music and media playback and management. It is fine for text and text editing. It has very limited internal hard drive and RAM. I like my Mini, but would never use it for large image processing and certainly not for stitching, unless I had a lot of time on my hands.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maciej_m__281_czy__324_ski Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 <p>Hi!<br> Mac mini is very good computer that you can easy tune-up yourself and spare more than this 500$ for e.g.very good non-glossy IPS screen. I work with 2009 late mac mini 2.26GHz added 4GB ram and external disc and I`m very happy. Hard disc could be faster, I work also on PC with similar specification and PC downloads photos faster but opens slower ex.RAW. You can put faster disk or SSD if you have planty money but I wanted quiet computer I could work at night and external disk with FW800 is ok for me. I work with tons of images and used Photoshop CS5 trial version it worked without problem. I opened and was working with very huge images about 600MB and more, and mini wasn`t fast but worked ok with it. If you want faster machine for bucks iMac is maybe better especialy for video but working with glossy screen isn`t nice for me. Besides upgrading Imac isn`t easy, imac got some problems with quality and it is not removable as mini.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_shimonkevitz Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 <p>I looked at the iMac's and was not convinced that you could lower the monitor luminance enough, I was tired of too dark prints from my MacBook Pro despite calibration. The glossy screens did not appeal to me either. I bought a duo core Mac Mini w/4GB memory (they ALL have an optical drive) and got a 22" Dell IPS monitor to go with it. The Mini was ~$700 from Apple's online refurbished store and the Dell was ~$250. The system does very well using Photoshop CS5, certainly not as fast as a Mac Pro (which we have in the lab), but I doubt an iMac would be noticeably faster. My Dell is essentially the same as the new 24" reviewed in Shutterbug recently, if you need more info.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricklavoie Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 <p>all metal framed Imac (22inch and 27inch) can have there luminosity down to 16. The too bright problem was on the older 24inch Imac.</p> <p>I have a mac mini at home, and a Imac 27inch Quad i7 16gig ram.. and i can say that the difference is noticable.. not just by a bit.. but the Imac is seriously faster.. specially when i export hundred of image from Lightroom.</p> <p>If you are not working with it as a production tool, i think the mini could do. The lower speed 5400rpm HD is not really a problem when working with file in Photoshop.. more for music and video people.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now