pinetar Posted February 10, 2010 Share #1 Posted February 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Aperture 3 is something I would like. Should I consider a refurbed mac mini or imac so that I can upgrade or would I miss the horsepower. I just added a raid card and drives to the G5 pci x. Is there some way to integrate the g5, raid and mini in the workflow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 10, 2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Hi pinetar, Take a look here Non-Intel G5, what to do?? I want Aperture 3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Eoin Posted February 10, 2010 Share #2 Posted February 10, 2010 Forget the G5, Aperture 3 needs an intel mac. I understand where you're coming from, I've recently retired my PPC G5 and replaced it with a Mac Pro. There are a couple of 24" iMacs I've tried with Aperture and to be honest they were really no faster than the G5. Aperture is still reliant on a good graphics card so that should be top of the shopping list. Now with Aperture 3 being 64bit an i5 or i7 iMac should really take advantage of those cores. I've been stress testing Aperture 3 on my Mac Pro and it's working great. Consuming about 2Gb of real memory and 7Gb of virtual memory and never stressed the 8 core 2.66 more than 200%. I'm running a GTX285 graphics card with 1Gb of ram and everything is flying. This is all running on Snow Leopard 10.6.2. So providing you'd be happy with the iMac screen, the i5 / i7 would be the obvious choice. However, I prefer the tower format and a quality display and they don't come cheap The Mac Pro can do raid 0 or 1 with the 4 internal drives as standard, other raid options require an Apple raid card and from what I hear you'll need to use the Apple SAS hard drives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 10, 2010 Share #3 Posted February 10, 2010 That is one of the reasons my two most recent computers have been iMacs rather than towers - around 2005 as I entered digital photography seriously (RAW processing, not just jpegs and film scanning - massive HD storage rather than PrintFile sleeves or CD-ROMs) I realized that: 1. A constantly up-to-date computer was going to be almost as critical to my work as my camera. The interconnectness of changing operating systems, processors, imaging programs, connectivity options, HD capacity/technology - and cameras - meant that "up-to-date" meant not more than a couple of years old. 2. The most cost-effective way to be up-to-date was to just plan on a fairly cheap new iMac every 3-4 years rather than trying to nurse a more expensive tower along with hardware upgrades. In 3 years or so it would STILL hit a wall and need replacing overall, no matter how flexible the bays and such. If you really want or need the extra ummph of the extra cores that come in the towers, or choice of screens, that's fine. But still plan on a whole new machine three times a decade. Personally, I am losing some confidence in the hardware used in the "laptop pretending to be a desktop" concept of the iMacs (or the Minis). The slot-feed DVD drives are troublesome, and the internal heat build-up puts the operating temperature at the ragged edge for some of the other components. The design parameter seem to be "they are cheap and fit in a tight space" rather then "they are reliable". So next time I may bite the bullet for a Mac Pro. But I'll still assume it is a "3-year machine" - just a more powerful, reliable and flexible one - and budget accordingly. FIW my "top-end" Intel iMac with 2 cores is definitely faster/more powerful than my "top-end" PPC G5 iMac of 2006. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted February 10, 2010 Share #4 Posted February 10, 2010 ...FIW my "top-end" Intel iMac with 2 cores is definitely faster/more powerful than my "top-end" PPC G5 iMac of 2006. I'll just qualify my comment, I was referring to Aperture performance on G5 / iMac. I do agree the iMac is somewhat faster for everything else..... but that's not to say that the G5 was unusably slow either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 10, 2010 Share #5 Posted February 10, 2010 Sure. My (iMac) G5 started to creak a bit only when I began feeding it 18Mpixel M9 files (Bridge CS2/ACR 3.4/Photoshop CS2). Otherwise it was good enough for most things. But once I needed Final Cut and ACR 5.6 and CS4 and other 64-bit Intel-only programs, it had to retire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon42 Posted February 10, 2010 Share #6 Posted February 10, 2010 Snow Leopard is Intel-only. Road closed for Motor rollers. Rgds Ivo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted February 11, 2010 Share #7 Posted February 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) That is one of the reasons my two most recent computers have been iMacs rather than towers - around 2005 as I entered digital photography seriously (RAW processing, not just jpegs and film scanning - massive HD storage rather than PrintFile sleeves or CD-ROMs) I realized that: 1. A constantly up-to-date computer was going to be almost as critical to my work as my camera. The interconnectness of changing operating systems, processors, imaging programs, connectivity options, HD capacity/technology - and cameras - meant that "up-to-date" meant not more than a couple of years old. 2. The most cost-effective way to be up-to-date was to just plan on a fairly cheap new iMac every 3-4 years rather than trying to nurse a more expensive tower along with hardware upgrades. In 3 years or so it would STILL hit a wall and need replacing overall, no matter how flexible the bays and such. If you really want or need the extra ummph of the extra cores that come in the towers, or choice of screens, that's fine. But still plan on a whole new machine three times a decade. Personally, I am losing some confidence in the hardware used in the "laptop pretending to be a desktop" concept of the iMacs (or the Minis). The slot-feed DVD drives are troublesome, and the internal heat build-up puts the operating temperature at the ragged edge for some of the other components. The design parameter seem to be "they are cheap and fit in a tight space" rather then "they are reliable". So next time I may bite the bullet for a Mac Pro. But I'll still assume it is a "3-year machine" - just a more powerful, reliable and flexible one - and budget accordingly. FIW my "top-end" Intel iMac with 2 cores is definitely faster/more powerful than my "top-end" PPC G5 iMac of 2006. I agree. A Mac Pro with all bells and whistles hits + full loads of memory hits the 10000' easily. An iMac i7 stands under 3000'. And after 3 years, the MacPro is out of warranty… Regarding heat, it's not really a concern, unless you keep it for years, which is not the game you're in on the first place. If it is a concern, there are some neat third party fan controllers. Download smcFanControl for Mac - Control Intel Mac fans to make it run cooler. MacUpdate Mac Software Downloads Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.