Decisions....Mac or Win?

cmason · February 11, 2007

Well I am really cheesed off, because my Win PC just died. This is my main machine, custom built by me, and the main system I do all my photo hobby work. I have done a pretty detailed diagnosis, and eliminated everything but motherboard and processor. Power supply, the main suspect, was confirmed working using the shorting trick. Now, this machine is no longer considered a fast or powerful machine, but has been very suitable for PS CS2, and Lightroom. This is an AMD 3000+ Athlon machine, 2GB memory, 3 harddrives, and 128M video card, so respectable, but not very exciting.

It appears that replacement motherboards and chips are very very rare, so I will have to upgrade no matter what, which isnt really a bad thing, aside from the cost :huh.

So, what to do? I can rebuild the machine, putting in AMD 64, 64 X2, or even Intel Pentium D/ Core Duo mobo and chips. I could also grab one of the Dell machines when there is a good web coupon.

Or I could try something different: Mac Mini. This is an option, because I could run all my XP software I already have under XP and Bootcamp (maybe virtualization too, not sure). Now, I am not looking for MacOS specifically, but, for what appears to be about the same $$, I can get effectively two PCs: a Mac and a WinXP machine. Now the Mac Mini is a decent processor, and the Intel graphics seems ok, but shares memory, so I wonder about that approach. Btw, a Mac Pro (too pricey) or iMac is really not what I am after, as I already have monitors, etc.

So anyone have experience using a Mac Mini to run either PS CS2 or Lightroom? What about dual boot WinXP running these apps? how about doing it with Parallels? This sound a reasonable approach, or an attempt to have cake and eat it too?

kini62 · February 11, 2007

Mac Mini- No, too slow, too restrictive.

Mac Pro- yes.

If you can't go with a Mac Pro then I would rebuild yours or grab a Dell box and stick your HDs in it.

Gene

rosselliot · February 11, 2007

now gene, hold on hold on.

yes, I completely agree - Mac Mini - - NO! done got for it, it's definitely too slow for your uses, I mean it's an impressive machine, don't get me wrong, but you need more POWER and that's something not even that mac can provide. so this is what I'd do. I got my mac a few weeks ago - LOVE IT! don't how I got along so well before I got it - but now life is just dandy - - - go for a mac! if you're into photography, you have no other choice!

once you customize your macmini with a huge harddrive and enough ram to make a difference and once you get a great screen to take advantage of all the processing power, etc...you're up to the price of the iMac! and with a discount (PM me) you can have an AMAZING machine for just under $2000 with a 20" screen! then, if you're crazy and you can afford about $500 more dollars or so, GET THE 24"!!! I hear it's amazing. but I've read GREAT things about the iMac, and I almost got one, but decided on the macbook Pro 17" since it would be convenient for college and all.

keep us updated!

- RE

Pupator · February 11, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

go for a mac! if you're into photography, you have no other choice!

Good grief. Over stating it just a bit, are we? I know you're pleased with your new purchase, and for that I'm glad, but this forum is becoming quite the "mac conversion" area.

you can have an AMAZING machine for just under $2000 with a 20" screen!

MY GOODNESS BATMAN! $2000??!?!?!?!? I have a Core 2 Duo with 2GB Ram, 740GB SATA HDD space and a 20.1" flat panel. There's no way I paid anywhere close to $2000! Admittedly, I got my OS for free, but still....

cmason - I feel your pain, but I would challenge the premise that replacement motherboards (likely your problem) and processors are hard to find for that system. That's not a bad machine at all and if I were choosing between Mr. Elliot's $2000 mac and spending (probably) $100 to replace the MB (or $200 to replace both) it wouldn't be a hard call for me.

cmason · February 11, 2007

Pupator wrote:

..challenge the premise that replacement motherboards (likely your problem) and processors are hard to find for that system.

As it happens, I looked online for Socket A motherboards, particularly one that has SATA support...came up surprisingly empty. My plan was to replace the mobo first, see if that was the primary culprit, but without a similar board for sale, that is difficult.

Thanks for the input all. I am just not in the market for a $2000 machine. I already have three other PCs in the house, one a new laptop for the wife purchased recently, so this is my pure hobby machine. Since I do not plan to ever make a living off of my hobby (then it would no longer be a hobby), I am not interested in the most hod-rod machine, and have been quite happy with my current PC. Windows/Mac? <shrug> I am not really all that worked up about it...its an OS, who cares? I do my work in the applications, not the OS, and for my hobby, the same apps ship on both platforms.

Since most newer PCs are Core 2 Duo, and many share the Intel graphics, it seemed to me that these would support PS CS2 just fine, given my 4 yr old PC does fine now...I am surprised to learn that Mac mini is so incapable a machine, given the fine specs they have listed. As mentioned, I can upgrade my machine to Core 2 Duo, or even AMD 64 X2 for less than a Mac Mini...remember I already have 3 Hardrives (primary, photo file and scratch disk, and backup), a 19" LCD monitor, DVD writer, etc etc etc, so I don't need to buy all that, which is why the Mini came to mind (Harddrives in USB enclosures seems viable as well).

colourbox · February 11, 2007

cmason wrote:

I am surprised to learn that Mac mini is so incapable a machine, given the fine specs they have listed.

The specs aren't that fine. Core Duo instead of Core 2 Duo, 2.5" HD instead of 3.5", low maximum RAM capacity, shared video, no capability for second monitor, no slots of any kind...I love all my Macs, and the mini is a good machine for my mom, but not for photo editing.

rosselliot · February 11, 2007

cmason wrote:

As it happens, I looked online for Socket A motherboards, particularly one that has SATA support...came up surprisingly empty. My plan was to replace the mobo first, see if that was the primary culprit, but without a similar board for sale, that is difficult.

Thanks for the input all. I am just not in the market for a $2000 machine. I already have three other PCs in the house, one a new laptop for the wife purchased recently, so this is my pure hobby machine. Since I do not plan to ever make a living off of my hobby (then it would no longer be a hobby), I am not interested in the most hod-rod machine, and have been quite happy with my current PC. Windows/Mac? <shrug> I am not really all that worked up about it...its an OS, who cares? I do my work in the applications, not the OS, and for my hobby, the same apps ship on both platforms.

Since most newer PCs are Core 2 Duo, and many share the Intel graphics, it seemed to me that these would support PS CS2 just fine, given my 4 yr old PC does fine now...I am surprised to learn that Mac mini is so incapable a machine, given the fine specs they have listed. As mentioned, I can upgrade my machine to Core 2 Duo, or even AMD 64 X2 for less than a Mac Mini...remember I already have 3 Hardrives (primary, photo file and scratch disk, and backup), a 19" LCD monitor, DVD writer, etc etc etc, so I don't need to buy all that, which is why the Mini came to mind (Harddrives in USB enclosures seems viable as well).

it sounds to me like you had your mind made up the minute your old computer died. I got the feeling that you wanted a knew a machine, and wanted to try something different, but if all you want is your current machine to work again, just pay whatever it takes to get it back up and running and do what pupator suggests. couldn't you just replace the mother board with whatever the heck you want since you customized the computer in the first place? make it strong enough so that you can run vista if you plan on staying with Windows....

- RE

P.S. - PLEASE don't call me Mr. Elliot, that's one of my professors name and he's kinda crazy...

jay · February 11, 2007

a mac mini will handle your needs and ull probably find it outperforms your pc many times over.i run a mini with 1 gig ram for my cs2 needs and it performs great even with 5 and 6 megabite files id get the 2 gigs of ram though and im sure itll perform even better

cmason · February 11, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

it sounds to me like you had your mind made up the minute your old computer died. I got the feeling that you wanted a knew a machine, and wanted to try something different

Hmm, I thought this thread was reasonably clear: this is a question about the suitablilty of the Mac Mini for photo editing. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post... I already know I can simply fix my existing PC but it will not be free. If I have to spend ~$400-$500 to fix my machine (if I wish to up the current spec, new memory,etc.), I can take that money and apply to perhaps the Mac Mini. The Mac is very intriguing, because I can use most of the components (monitor, keyboard, harddrives) that I have now, and has the flexibility of two OS. However, if a Mac Mini will NOT work as a photo-editing machine, I will simply take that same $$ and buy a mobo and processor for my existing machine.

jay wrote:

and ull probably find it outperforms your pc many times over.

That is what I expect jay, that even a Mac Mini will outperform my current Athlon XP machine, but I really don't have any experience with it. It isn't really clear how much PS CS2 relys on the video card anyway, as I have a ATI 9500 now, and the Intel 950 in the Mac is a very capable graphics card, as I run Vista Areo on my wife's laptop just fine.

rosselliot · February 12, 2007

is cs2 available in universaly binary yet? I have been anything but impressed with the way photoshop runs with benchmark tests done on the internet through Rosetta. if you really are looking for a great computer merely for photo editing, make sure you can get what you want for that computer. and if you have a version of photoshop taht's meant for windows, you can't run it on the apple computer (easily at least). so you need to take all of that into account. of course cs3 is coming out soon, surely they'll have one that works for intel macs. I use gimp, so I'm not all familiar with the adobe stuff...I just know lightroom comes out in april and I'm pretty freakin' excited!!!!

- RE

wxwax · February 12, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

is cs2 available in universaly binary yet?

It will be CS3, and it's only available as a beta demo. Rumor says it will be for sale late March, early April, possibly later.

jdryan3 · February 12, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

is cs2 available in universaly binary yet? ....of course cs3 is coming out soon, surely they'll have one that works for intel macs.
- RE

Per Adobe's website...
"Adobe is delivering a widely available Photoshop CS3 beta to enable customers to more easily transition to the latest hardware platforms, particularly Apple’s new Intel-based systems. The beta is available as a Universal Binary for the Macintosh platform, as well as for Microsoft® Windows® XP and Windows Vista computers. The final shipping release of Adobe Photoshop CS3 is planned for Spring 2007."

So the universal Binary of CS2 is...CS3!

wxwax · February 12, 2007

jdryan3 wrote:

Per Adobe's website...
"Adobe is delivering a widely available Photoshop CS3 beta to enable customers to more easily transition to the latest hardware platforms, particularly Apple’s new Intel-based systems. The beta is available as a Universal Binary for the Macintosh platform, as well as for Microsoft® Windows® XP and Windows Vista computers. The final shipping release of Adobe Photoshop CS3 is planned for Spring 2007."

So the universal Binary of CS2 is...CS3!

claudermilk · February 13, 2007

rosselliot wrote:

if you're into photography, you have no other choice!

You know, I was going to try to ignore this thread, but...I have to call the BS flag on this one: :bigbs

Keep in mind where this advice is coming from. I'd feel more comfortable with advice from a little more experience and someone who has spent their own hard-earned money.

Personally I'd just determine if it's mobo or processor, replace the broken part and move on. It will be cheaper and less disruptive.

DavidTO · February 13, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

You know, I was going to try to ignore this thread, but...I have to call the BS flag on this one: :bigbs

My preference is no secret, but you certainly have a choice.

cmason · February 13, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

You know, I was going to try to ignore this thread, but...I have to call the BS flag on this one: :bigbs

Keep in mind where this advice is coming from. I'd feel more comfortable with advice from a little more experience and someone who has spent their own hard-earned money.

Personally I'd just determine if it's mobo or processor, replace the broken part and move on. It will be cheaper and less disruptive.

Thanks for the input...I am certainly leaning toward replacement, as it will be the easiest in terms disruption as you mention.

From my pt of view, my question isnt about OS, but about hardware...remember, I am looking at running WinXP on the Mac hardware here...so the Apple responses just seem really odd to me... I typically build computers by spec-ing out parts, choosing the best for the job (and wallet). So when I look at Apple hardware, I see basically the same spec everywhere: aside from the Mac Pro quad Xeon monster, all other Mac's, laptops included, are Core Duo2, 1-2 GB, DVD RW, etc. The processor speed is a minor issue these days, esp with the new Core architecture, so having a 2.0 GHz vs a 2.2 GHz chip will be barely noticable in day to day living.

So MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini and all the flavors if iMac are all the same machine. The only difference between the Pro and higher iMacs? Dedicated graphics card. That's it from my view. Now the Intel 950 is no slouch, as it qualifies for the Windows Vista Areo support, which my current, dedicated ATI 128MB card CANNOT do today.

So is everyone really saying that to do photography editing on a Mac, you need a dedicated graphics card, or at least a 2.x GHz Intel processor? I can tell you this...you don't need that hardware for Windows XP....

DavidTO · February 13, 2007

Expandability. Drives, RAM, Cards, but for photography the RAM especially, that's what distinguishes the MacPro from the rest.

cmason · February 13, 2007

DavidTO wrote:

Expandability. Drives, RAM, Cards, but for photography the RAM especially, that's what distinguishes the MacPro from the rest.

OK got that, you are correct. the form factor of both mac mini and laptops is a factor here...the MacBook pro is no more expandable than the Mini I assume. I know I can get 2GB of memory for the Mini, are you saying other Macs (MacBook Pro, iMac, not the big Pro as that is way out of my range) can add more memory than 2GB?

DavidTO · February 13, 2007

cmason wrote:

OK got that, you are correct. the form factor of both mac mini and laptops is a factor here...the MacBook pro is no more expandable than the Mini I assume. I know I can get 2GB of memory for the Mini, are you saying other Macs (MacBook Pro, iMac, not the big Pro as that is way out of my range) can add more memory than 2GB?

Yes, but since there's only two slots, I think it's cost prohibitive. It uses a 2GB stick that is very expensive right now. Not Apple expensive, everywhere expensive.

rosselliot · February 13, 2007

DavidTO wrote:

Yes, but since there's only two slots, I think it's cost prohibitive. It uses a 2GB stick that is very expensive right now. Not Apple expensive, everywhere expensive.

and you can ONLY go up to 3 GB, the system's not able to run two 2 GB chips, only a 2 GB and a 1 GB MAX. of course, I don't forsee needing more than that...that's a TON unless you plan on doing some HUGE graphics movie editing from outerspace type of thing....

and I resent all of the comments about me, gah, what a flame fest this has become.

- RE

Dee · February 13, 2007

Ah Gee
I'm editing my photos on an OLD Mac G4, 500 Dual processor ..... and I have no problems. Surely a brand spanking new Mac Mini should do the trick?

If you have an apple store nearby or any place that has demo models of the mini available to play on, why don't you go there and try out the mini? That should answer your questions.

I'm so behind on all the recent additions to the Mac line I even hesitated answering this thread :-).

Until recently I was using Photoshop on a G3! I've handled multi-layered photoshop files on this G4 machine destined for huge floor to ceiling trade show graphics, dealing with my 10 megabyte photos from my camera is child's play in comparison.

I think if you already have monitors, keyboards and mice, and you know they will work with the Mac mini -- and you can have the option to have Windows on it too, you'd have the best of both worlds. It sounds like there are plenty of other Windows machines in your house to use for other projects.

So unless you are processing hundreds and hundreds of photos, I suspect you can get away with the Mac Mini and have another OS option in your arsenal.

DavidTO · February 13, 2007

Dee, you've got some good points there. People are obsessed with speed, however, and the mini just isn't as fast as the others. Would it do? Sure. It'd do fine.

thebigsky · February 13, 2007

If you have enough wonga, get a Mac Pro, you won't regret it, in fact you'll probably fall in love with it, like me.

Charlie

cmason · February 13, 2007

OK so did some spreadsheet work, and more investigation, and now it is a bit clearer in terms of specs, but aside from the 7xxx processors, which are quite a bit faster, there is not a huge gap in specs, even from Macbook Pro and iMac.

Clearly the Mac Mini running the slightly older Core Duo may be a bit of an issue, but I think I will try to find the Apple store as suggested and give it a try...Do you think they have Windows XP running on a Mini there?

Apple Macs
    

By Processor

Mac mini "Core Duo" 1.66      1.66 GHz Core Duo (T2300)      2GB Max

Mac mini "Core Duo" 1.83      1.83 GHz Core Duo (T2400)      2GB Max    

iMac "Core 2 Duo" 1.83 17"    1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo (T5600)   2GB Max
MacBook "Core 2 Duo" 1.83 13"

iMac "Core 2 Duo" 2.0 17"      2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo (T7200)    3GB Max
MacBook "Core 2 Duo" 2.0 13"    

iMac "Core 2 Duo" 2.16 20"     2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo (T7400)  3GB Max
iMac "Core 2 Duo" 2.16 24"        
MacBook Pro "Core 2 Duo" 2.16 15"     

MBook Pro "Core 2 Duo" 2.33 15"    2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo (T7600)  3GB Max
MBook Pro "Core 2 Duo" 2.33 17"

DavidTO · February 13, 2007

If you're going for the Mini, I would move slowly, as I suspect that they will be updated soon.

Decisions....Mac or Win?

Comments