Imac or Mac Pro?

[lynnic]

Hi everyone,
We currently have 2 workstations with iMacs in our Graphics Department. I need to add another workstation and wondering if another Imac is the best answer. Graphic files seem to be larger and larger all the time and I've recently had a few jobs where I couldn't get them to trap (PC Server Intel Xcon E5410 2.33 GHz). Some say it's the processing power of the server not the imac that is most likely the issue. The imacs offer more memory than the mac pros..... any thoughts?
thanks!
Lynn

 

[EZPower]

We have iMacs as well, the problem I'm seeing is the screens are starting to show weird cloud pattern. With mac pro you can always change the monitors, drives, much easier.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Haha everything moving to the cloud even the monitors But seriously how long have you had them till they show cloud pattern? Also it's not difficult to connect and external to an iMac (You can easily run email, imposition, workflow management and webrowsing even with an older monitor) In my experience you normally want to upgrade the computer at about the same time that the monitor becomes unreliable anyway.

 

[Magpie]

If you want a very expensive mirror in your office, then go with the new Imac. You will definitely see clouds on it from day one if there is a window behind you.

 

[Alith7]

How old are your current Imacs?

We use Imacs in our prepress and copy centers, and I actually work on a macbook pro plugged into an apple monitor (I have to hop shops a lot and work from home). IMHO, Imacs are the way to go, they have great processing power, and as long as you get the slightly higher end version with the independent graphics card, processing is pretty smooth. The one we run on are currently 4 years old and still going strong. It also comes down to one HUGE factor, cost. you can get a nicely built Imac for around $2k give or take a bit depending on options, and that INCLUDES a beautiful Apple screen. I haven't priced Towers in about 5-6 years, but there is a reason Apple is phasing them out except for the heavy video processing. They just cost too much.

As far as your RIP and trapping problems, that's totally your server, and your mac has nothing to do with it. (unless your mac stations are doing that actual processing of the TIF files) One thing that we have started seeing is a problem with too much vector. Just last week I did a booklet for a company that had a map of kansas city with little Google-like tear drop pins for all the hundreds of locations they served. The pins had full shadow/highlights on them as well as drop shadows. and each and every little piece was a separate vector. My RIP basically flipped me a rude finger and said no way on trapping. I rasterized the map (you can stop cringing, trust me, it was a last resort), and everything was VERY happy.

So, long story short, for RIP problems, look to your RIP server, AND your software. And, for general prepress work, I'd just get an Imac, just don't forget to make sure that it has an independent graphics card, or you'll have all kinds of problems.

 

[pacart]

Your ram argument doesn't hold water. You can put more ram in a Mac Pro than an iMac. While an iMac will do just fine, we buy our machines with the future in mind, meaning that a Mac Pro should last you a lot longer than an iMac. A Mac Pro is also a lot easier to repair and you can use parts off the shelf in most cases to fix it.

I vote Mac Pro.

BTW, I've been using a 3.33 GHz 6-core intel Xeon Mac Pro since 2010 and before that had a dual 2.0 GHz G5 that we got a long time ago. We currently run the G5 headless and use it as general storage, accessing it with Remote Desktop when needed.

 

[jerrythemacguy]

I just took a 2008 iMac in for repair that also had the weird "cloud pattern" thing going on with the display. The authorized Apple dealer wanted $500 to replace the LCD. Since it was not a prepress unit and it was showings its age, we bought a new Mac Mini instead; I have spare LCD monitors to hook up to it.

Personally, I would go with the Mac Pro tower rather than the iMac. It is more expandable, not just in RAM, but it also has space for FOUR internal hard drives as well as graphics cards. They also seem to be more dependable (knock on compressed wood). We had G5 towers that ran great for 7 years; we only upgraded to new Mac Pros in 2011 because Adobe Creative Suite 6 required Intel processors. The other two G5s are still in use.

Apple just unveiled a radical revision to the Mac Pro. It will be extremely fast, but much less expandable than the current "digital cheesegrater" towers. It may also be more expensive. This would be a good time to do some research and decide whether the current or new model will be best for your workflow. It all comes down to expandability.

 

[Alith7]

Your ram argument doesn't hold water. You can put more ram in a Mac Pro than an iMac. While an iMac will do just fine, we buy our machines with the future in mind, meaning that a Mac Pro should last you a lot longer than an iMac. A Mac Pro is also a lot easier to repair and you can use parts off the shelf in most cases to fix it.

I vote Mac Pro.

BTW, I've been using a 3.33 GHz 6-core intel Xeon Mac Pro since 2010 and before that had a dual 2.0 GHz G5 that we got a long time ago. We currently run the G5 headless and use it as general storage, accessing it with Remote Desktop when needed.

just curious, but what do you consider "thinking of the future"? Much past 5 years and the hardware can become iffy anyways, as well as no longer be supported with current versions of software. The mac pro your running now cost, what? $4k, or $5 depending on if you added a monitor? We are running mid-level 21.5" late 2009 build iMacs, and they are still running fine. I got them as refurbs with the standard 3-year apple care at about $1,500 each. So I still have gotten the same life, but at a fraction of the price, and, even if I replace mine next year with top of the line new, I'm still ahead and have newer more up to date tech. I went the route of the $5k quad core G5 Power Mac, at 4 years old, it had catastrophic board failure and has been a door stop ever since. The other Dual Core G5 had the coolant spring a leak at 4.5 years old and shorted out the power supply and took the whole computer with it. another $3k doorstop. yes, the iMacs are not easily user fixable, but for a 3-year guaranteed life at a third of the price, and plenty of power and processing power for prepress, I guess I just don't see how to justify the cost.

 

[steppy]

...and don't forget

...and don't forget

Don't forget the Mac mini!

iMac is a terrific, cost-effective solution. I've purchased MANY. Mac Pro is killer (especially video work) and very pricey for prepress.

Issue for me with iMac is that when it comes time to upgrade I feel like I've wasted a good flat-screen monitor. So now I'm thinking an investment in a high-quality monitor (should last through at least one upgrade cycle) paired with Mac-mini will give me good long-term payback. Price with similar i7 proc, 16GB ram, 27" Apple display, keyboard, mouse and cables is VERY comparable. When monitor lasts through next upgrade...WINNER!

BUT you get the onboard video (not too shabby) NOT the nVidia cards so this is an area that needs some scrutiny and the graphics may be slow for gamers.

It may be worth a look for many applications. (I'll be taking a real good look for next home purchase).

Jus sayin'

stephen


ps-AppleCare has paid off for us. Sticky keys, flakey mice and iMac display screen replacements with zero hassle. annual pm alone is nice service and they always treat you better with AppleCare.

 

[pacart]

Future, meaning running the darn thing into the ground! As I said, we have still have G5 machines running in our office, these machines were purchase in 2003, that is 10 years ago. Sure they cost more upfront, but end up costing less in the long run. Had you bought applecare for your Power Mac, it would still be around and working probably, lesson learned I guess. I personally run a G4 Power Mac at home for my backups from 2 - 2011 Macbook Pros.

And yes we did invest in the 27" Cinema Displays, why? Because they are pretty damn good monitors, but we bought refurbs.

My point is that we buy the more expensive machines upfront because the intent is to trickle them down to other workstations that don't need so much power later on in their lifespan, this way prepress always has the fastest and most upto date equipment to get the job done.

 

[kaiserwilhelm]

I hate to say this, but we went with Mac Minis. I bought eight in the past 120 days. A brand new Mac Mini with 16 gig and a SSD drive actually out performs my Mac Pros that are 2.5 years old - even with SSD drives in them.
If you get a Mini, I would suggest paying OWC to put in a data doubler and SSD drive. Complete cost of the mini with 16 gig ram, 256 SSD, and 500 gig normal drive $850. Add $99 for OWC to do the installation if you are afraid to. (I did the installation 8 times. Got it down to about 30 minutes. The data doubler comes with fantastic instructions)
I can run 2 monitors from my minis

 

[Alith7]

Future, meaning running the darn thing into the ground! As I said, we have still have G5 machines running in our office, these machines were purchase in 2003, that is 10 years ago. Sure they cost more upfront, but end up costing less in the long run. Had you bought applecare for your Power Mac, it would still be around and working probably, lesson learned I guess. I personally run a G4 Power Mac at home for my backups from 2 - 2011 Macbook Pros.

And yes we did invest in the 27" Cinema Displays, why? Because they are pretty damn good monitors, but we bought refurbs.

My point is that we buy the more expensive machines upfront because the intent is to trickle them down to other workstations that don't need so much power later on in their lifespan, this way prepress always has the fastest and most upto date equipment to get the job done.

We had apple care. it's only good for 3 years, both the macs died just outside of that. I don't buy computers PC or mac without some kind of extended coverage. I was just curious what you considered "future". I consider 5 years out of a comp a pretty good life. I have dinosaurs for back-ups, that's just good planning. But if a $5k tower can get me 7-8 years with "upgrades", say, over the years RAM, HD, maybe a graphics card, and I'm into it for maybe $6k after I nurse it out. The math still doesn't make sense when I can be into an iMac for maybe $2.5k and still get 4-5 years out of it, with lower upgrade costs to stay on top of the technology, instead of trying to drag the life of older tech.

Except the Superdrive. it's the SAME damn drive and speed from 10 years ago... WTF apple?!?

 

[Alith7]

I hate to say this, but we went with Mac Minis. I bought eight in the past 120 days. A brand new Mac Mini with 16 gig and a SSD drive actually out performs my Mac Pros that are 2.5 years old - even with SSD drives in them.
If you get a Mini, I would suggest paying OWC to put in a data doubler and SSD drive. Complete cost of the mini with 16 gig ram, 256 SSD, and 500 gig normal drive $850. Add $99 for OWC to do the installation if you are afraid to. (I did the installation 8 times. Got it down to about 30 minutes. The data doubler comes with fantastic instructions)
I can run 2 monitors from my minis

I've been thinking about trying one on the next upgrade round. They seem to have gotten a lot more stable. and with the SSD drives that should help with the overheating. Have you used them before?

 

[pacart]

Well I think your values are a bit inflated. Our 6-core Westermere 3.33GHz, 6gb Ram, x2 1tb drives was only $3800 new. And exactly what needs to be upgraded?

We only purchased a new machine because of CS6, now that everything is moving to the cloud, that reasoning for a new machine is out the window probably - we'll see.

There is a multitude of problems when changing up your equipment, we like to keep these instances to a minimum. Our approach works best for us.