Which iMac, large or medium?

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A highly specced iMac comes out at about the same price as a Mini with a beautiful Eizo monitor. The iMac will definitely have a speed advantage but, depending on your priorities, this might be more than balanced by the subtlety of an Eizo monitor teamed with a Mini (which will still feel fast compared to what you've been using). I'd certainly check on Eizo availability before making your order.

 

Actually, a Mini will be roughly 1000NZ$ cheaper than a similarly spec'd 21,5". The 21,5" with i7 3.1GHz and 1TB drive (8GB standard) costs 2719. The Mini with i7 2.6GHz with 1TB drive and added 4GB costs 1569.

 

That 0.5GHz difference may seem like much but in actual usage I seriously doubt that you'd notice any difference. Check Geekbench's 64-bit browser (and before flak comes this way, yes, I know there are other more comprehensive testing suites out there, but Geekbench is good because it compares apples with apples and thus gives an idea). Also, note that the Mini's i7 will turboboost a whole Ghz to 3.1; the iMac's i7 will turboboost to 3.9. I still doubt one would notice that very much except, perhaps, when applying filters in Photoshop or other processor-intensive tasks. You've perhaps seen Barefeats's benchmarks of the i7 Mini vs the i5 iMac. The Mini does, however, suffer from integrated graphics so if that's important the iMac is better.

 

As noted above, it is possible to upgrade the RAM in the 21,5" (iFixit notes that one has to "unglue your screen and remove the logic board in order to do so") even though Apple says it can't be done. However, the 21,5 has only one HDD spot whereas the Mini has two (you'll need to buy a cable). So from the perspective of longevity - which in my world means future upgradeability - the Mini wins easily. Note, though, that neither can be upgraded beyond 16GB which is really pretty terrible actually.

 

I don't know much about Eizo monitors but what would be part of your consideration is to have whichever monitor you get properly calibrated. NEC monitors are supposed to be somewhat similar to Eizo's.

 

As for Fusion Drive, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to take the standard 1TB drive and add (in the Mini) a SanDisk Extreme 120 for the equivalent of 90€ (or 256 for roughly 150€). I used the Seagate Momentus on my Macbook before, which has 4GB of solid state memory to speed up application launches etc by saving frequently-used files. It did make things a little bit faster but not very much. A dedicated SSD for OS and applications will greatly speed up the computer. Then you could use the extra 1TB drive for storage. True it will be a 5400rpm drive but given the 6G bus that will be sufficient for almost all work on the computer.

 

Don't know if the above helps at all but it's just my take on these two models.

 

Try company `Other World Computing',

 

I know many people are very happy with OWC, and I was as well in the beginning. But as someone not living in the US I cannot recommend them any longer. Of three Mercury Extreme SSDs I have had, two have failed (including a replacement drive). Of the RAM sticks I've ordered for my Mac Pro over the years, half have failed. True, OWC does offer a lifetime replacement warranty which is very good but it becomes financially stupid to send SSDs and RAM sticks across the Atlantic for replacement as prices keep falling.

 

The Mercury Extreme was, say a year and a half ago, the very best drive one could have. But now with 6G there are plenty of other equally capable drives out there. Check Storage Review.com's Leaderboard. So for me, OWC is a no-go these days.

[NZDavid]

Thanks Philipus for your detailed and helpful comments. I think quite a few of us on this forum use Macs so the issue of upgrading and what to buy next will come up quite a lot.

 

The Mac Mini does indeed work out cheaper than iMac 21/5" but you have to factor in a keyboard and mouse. (I could se the old ones but the new aluminum "chiclet" keyboard looks much neater.) Monitors range from about $269 for a Samsung 24" to $11,000 -plus for the top Eizo (more than Leica M!).

 

Re chip speed, there are several choices: dual core or quad core, i5 or i7, and speed in GHz. I think you are right that for most purposes, the chip will make less difference than RAM, the more the better. Five years ago 2GB was good, now 87GB seems to be standard; how about in five years time? I wonder if anyone else has had an issue with third-party RAM? It is also available in New Zealand from Mac Ram | Mac Memory | iMac Memory | MacBook Pro Memory and Computer Memory, RAM, Dell, Inspiron, Apple, Mac Memory Upgrades - Upgradeable.co.nz.

 

Is the Fusion Drive worth it for an additional $NZ400? I am not going to install a third-party SSD, better to buy it pre-installed. I would expect all future Macs to have Fusion Drive, but probably not before the end of the year.

 

Specifying any extra features from Apple -- Fusion Drive, more RAM -- requires approx. three weeks waiting time.

[kdriceman]

David, a couple observations: first, the chiclet keyboard - I prefer, and have switched back to the wired keyboard that came with a previous IMac. From time to time there are communication issues with the wireless which can be maddening and the wired keyboard includes a number keypad which I find very useful. The wireless Magic Mouse, however, is a fabulous tool. Next, do not underestimate the power of the Thunderbolt port especially when coming up with hard drive strategies. It has essentially the same speed as the internal bus and multiple hard drives (as well as other Thunderbolt devices) can be cascaded from the single port. I have 2 Lacie RAID drives (one for my LR catalog and one for backup) connected to my Mini. Very powerful, very easy and very fast. You may not want to clutter your desk, but I have my desk clean with the mini and monitor and the hard drives tucked away behind the desk.

[-ph-]

I am running a new Mac Mini here - with 16gb of memory, fusion driven and the fastest i7 I could order. For Lightroom work this setup is very nice, the images open up almost instantly and the computer doesn't get into your way. I wouldn't buy anything new below these specs. The main reason to go for the Mini was that I already had a screen. If you are about to buy a screen anyway, the 27 inch iMac is great value. You should get the largest drive and processor you can afford, as they are difficult to impossible to upgrade later, and then see about the memory, which is the only easily accessible part of the iMac. Such a setup should serve you many happy years.

The other reason that I skipped the iMac was, that its only 27 inch . My current screen has 30 and I love it - especially when working with Lightroom. Though, if Apple made lets say a 32 inch iMac with 4k "retina" resolution, I would be in strong temptation...

 

Peter

[almoore]

Actually, a Mini will be roughly 1000NZ$ cheaper....

 

You're quoting me without apparently having read my words.

 

I stated that a Mini teamed with an Eizo comes to a similar price as a highly specced iMac. Of course the Mini is substantially cheaper than the iMac, but not if you factor in the cost of a high quality monitor.

[philipus]

Which Eizo would you recommend to use with the Mini in your example?

 

As for quoting, surely you realise I quoted you for also other statements you made. The speed advantage of the iMac is, as I showed, null(ish).

 

Philip

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which Eizo would you recommend to use with the Mini in your example?

As for quoting, surely you realise I quoted you for also other statements you made. The speed advantage of the iMac is, as I showed, null(ish)

 

My experience is with a CG275, although I understand that's about to be replaced by a 276. The 276 will undoubtedly be very expensive, so I'd suggest either it's 24 inch equivalent or the CX270. The CX monitors are, theoretically, a step down from their CG equivalents, but they're almost certainly a big step up from anything offered by Apple.

 

Regarding my "other statements", they were made with a highly specced 27 inch iMac in mind, which I'm confident will be noticeably faster than any Mini. Aren't the 21 inch models still crippled by slow hard drives?

[NZDavid]

My experience is with a CG275, although I understand that's about to be replaced by a 276. The 276 will undoubtedly be very expensive, so I'd suggest either it's 24 inch equivalent or the CX270. The CX monitors are, theoretically, a step down from their CG equivalents, but they're almost certainly a big step up from anything offered by Apple.

 

Regarding my "other statements", they were made with a highly specced 27 inch iMac in mind, which I'm confident will be noticeably faster than any Mini. Aren't the 21 inch models still crippled by slow hard drives?

 

Eizo 276 is a mouth-watering $NZ5,140. Roughly twice the price of a 21.5" iMac. And that is just the monitor. The CX270 is $NZ3,590 -- more than a 27" iMac.

 

"Crippled by slow hard drives?" By that logic how was anyone ever able to manage with computers even two years ago? Even the most basic new Mac Mini will be way faster than my old one for basic photo editing and word processing.

 

How fast do you actually need?

[almoore]

"Crippled by slow hard drives?" By that logic how was anyone ever able to manage with computers even two years ago? Even the most basic new Mac Mini will be way faster than my old one for basic photo editing and word processing.

How fast do you actually need?

 

Each generation of software tends to demand more power than the generation before, file sizes are getting steadily larger (although beginning to level out), and the current 21 inch iMac has a drive that's slower than its predecessor in order to fit in to a sleeker body casing. That might suit you fine, but I won't be satisfied with computer speed until every action is essentially instantaneous - I spend way too much of my life sitting at a desk editing my images.

 

As for the prices of Eizo monitors in NZ, that's your problem rather than mine. In the UK or the US a Mini and a CX270 is no more expensive than a highly specced 27 inch iMac. The choice is yours.

[A miller]

I upgraded recently and made the plunge for the 27" given the better resolution. It is huge and VERY bright, nearly blinding at full brightness power. I think this size and resolution is merely a "nice to have" and I really can't think of a scenario in which it would be a "must have" for anyone given the quality of the 21", which won't be so hard on the eyes. Either way it will be a pleasure to use. Good luck and have fun! Adam

[almoore]

David, a final comment from me...

 

I understand that decent monitors are surprisingly expensive, but in the scheme of things I find their cost justifiable because they make my life easier. Most of us have limited budgets and we prioritise according to our needs. While I fairly relentlessly upgrade my Macs on a four year cycle I'm using the same three Leica lenses (28mm Elmarit, 35mm Summicron, 50mm Summicron) that I bought new in my mid-20s. I'm pushing fifty now and have absolutely no desire to replace them with staggeringly expensive, state of the art, aspherical lenses. I would get no material gain from new lenses - they're all sharp enough for me and I can live with the inherent flare of the Summicrons (it makes as many pictures as it breaks).

 

Go for an iMac. It's an elegant solution and, from your comments regarding the price of Eizos, will almost certainly give you all the quality you need.

[NZDavid]

Thanks again, and I certainly don't dismiss other monitors, in fact it is really useful to find out what is available. Prices certainly do vary from country to country. I also appreciate the benefits of having good gear that stands you in good stead and lasts for years and years. It's the old value versus cost comparison. Which is why, I guess, we like Leicas! I can claim computer equipment as a business but don't want to spend more than I need to.

 

So, yes, the iMac does look good but the Mac Mini is also surprisingly powerful, especially if maxed out with RAM, Fusion Drive, and so forth. The graphics card on the iMac is supposed to be better but I don't know if that really makes any radical difference. I could also keep the present monitor as it works perfectly well and look at another one down the track. iMac is the easiest option.

[roguewave]

I am looking to replace my five-year old Mac Mini. I am veering towards an iMac with Fusion Drive and at least 16GM of RAM but am undecided about screen size, 21.5" vs. 27". As I work with text and pictures, sometimes both at the same time, the bigger screen may be useful, but often I'm just writing so perhaps the 21.5" is fine and I have heard some people find the 27" too large. Present screen is 19" ViewSonic which is still going strong. Thoughts?

 

David, I bought a new MacMini with 8GB of memory last year. I know that 8GB doesn't sound like much, but this MINI has a thunderbolt interface & this is by far the best value I have ever seen. All files derived from any RAW or DNG are processed at lightening speed. I have a second MacMini which I use as a server and resources several 3TB drives for archival storage. I use a Drobo for the final "vault".

 

The processing speed of this machine is amazing & the footprint is less that 1 Ft Sq. I never shut it down. Very low power consumption.

 

BTW, I have SyncMaster 305T plus, which I think is one fine large screen. I love being able to edit variations of images side by side. Good luck on your quest.

[iforum]

big mac

[NZDavid]

Still choosing, been too busy these last few weeks, but better get something soon.

 

Four choices:

 

1) Base model Mac Mini (with extra RAM) -- good value, save money, keep present display, get new 24" display later.

 

2) Top model Mac Mini with Fusion Drive; as above.

 

3) 21.5" iMac with 16GB RAM and Fusion Drive.

 

4) 27" iMac with 16GB or even 32GB RAM and Fusion Drive.

 

Difference between lowest and priciest options: about $2,000NZ.

 

Present Mac Mini is still going fine except for Airport card which keeps dropping out despite new Airport Express. Macbook is is good. Even lowly present setup is OK with pics. Slowest things are firing it up and MS Word -- I think perhaps I should go for Pages instead.

 

Hmm, Leicas are easier!

[robert blu]

Having to make a similar choice in a short time (before next summer) I'm very interested in your evaluation. Because I do not change my computers very oft (my i.mac24 is 6 years old) I would reject option 1 and 3 and go for an higher specs system as 2 or 4. More expensive but probably more "actual" in the long term. If the i.mac 27 had a matt display I had no doubt to go this way. No experience and unfortunately none friends of mine has a mini. Where I live in the Apple centers it seems me they suggest much more the i.mac than the mini, not sure why.

robert

[kdriceman]

Still choosing, been too busy these last few weeks, but better get something soon.

 

Four choices:

 

1) Base model Mac Mini (with extra RAM) -- good value, save money, keep present display, get new 24" display later.

 

2) Top model Mac Mini with Fusion Drive; as above.

 

3) 21.5" iMac with 16GB RAM and Fusion Drive.

 

4) 27" iMac with 16GB or even 32GB RAM and Fusion Drive.

 

Difference between lowest and priciest options: about $2,000NZ.

 

Present Mac Mini is still going fine except for Airport card which keeps dropping out despite new Airport Express. Macbook is is good. Even lowly present setup is OK with pics. Slowest things are firing it up and MS Word -- I think perhaps I should go for Pages instead.

 

Hmm, Leicas are easier!

 

All I can add is that I've been down this road with 2 iMacs. I have had a Mac Mini now for over a year and I would not even consider going back to an iMac. Notwithstanding the fact I have had problems iMac monitors, I would not want to give up the versatility of the Mini.

 

Good luck with your decision. All are fine options.

[NZDavid]

Well, I finally decided to pull the trigger on a 27" iMac with Fusion Drive. I'll add more RAM separately. Because it has to be custom ordered, it will take a week or two to arrive. I still like the Mac Mini, but the iMac should still be able to hook up to other computers in the future if necessary. The iMac looks like a sleek machine. I decided to get the Trackpad instead of the mouse.

[sanyasi]

+1 on the Mac Mini. I switched to it from the iMac because shipping it for repairs would be much easier than shipping the iMac.

 

I would always go with the larger screen space, unless the monitor is really close to your eyes. A big monitor may cause eye strain in that case.

 

But I am a big fan of dual monitors, so you might consider the 21 and then use your existing monitor as your second. That way you can put the image on one screen and the editing tools and palettes on another.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kdriceman]

Well, I finally decided to pull the trigger on a 27" iMac with Fusion Drive. I'll add more RAM separately. Because it has to be custom ordered, it will take a week or two to arrive. I still like the Mac Mini, but the iMac should still be able to hook up to other computers in the future if necessary. The iMac looks like a sleek machine. I decided to get the Trackpad instead of the mouse.

 

Congratulations. Let us know how you like the trackpad. I've been thinking of getting one.