iMac 27-inch Core i7 2.8GHz 8GB Ram 1TB HD OSX Mavericks + 1TB back up HD

wooky

wooky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
161
Name
Martyn
Edit My Images
Yes
As per the title would a 2011 still cut the mustard for photo processing and is it worth the £800 asking price or should I put the cash towards a new Windows machine?

The spec is:

27-inch 16:9 widescreen LED backlit display 2560 -1440 pixels.
2.8GHz quad-core Intel core i7 processor.
8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SD RAM it will support up to 16GB.
1TB serial ATA hard drive.
8x slot loading Super Drive.
ATI Radeon HD 4850 Graphics processor with 512 Mb of GDDR3 memory.
Built in iSight video camera.
Built in 10/100/1000 BASE-T Ethernet
SD Card slot
Firewire 800
4 x USB 2.0 ports
Built in Airport Extreme Wireless networking 802.11n
Bluetooth 2.1
Audio built in speakers
Integrated microphone
Mini Display port
Apple wireless key board
Apple wireless Magic Mouse

Thoughts and opinions please folks.
 
My 2009 iMac certainly does. Runs Photoshop, Lightroom and Final Cut Pro. I've got 12Gb RAM but that's easily upgradable. My machine has an i5 processor. The i7 processor should be quicker anyway.
 
Thanks John - never used a Mac in my life and the only thing Apple I use is my Ipod.
 
I run an i5 processor 27" iMac with internal Solid State Drive, 8Gb RAM, Adobe CS6 suite, Logic (highly intensive music recording), etc etc and the answer is that it's a no-brainer against a Windows machine. I run OSX Mavericks.
 
Well I was thinking of something like this

burj-dubai-window-cleaning-machine.jpg


or on a more serious note, something of a comparable spec, that I'll get 5 years out of.
 
neil_g said:
Depends what "windows machine" you were thinking of buying.
Click to expand...

....My point is more that the Mac OSX interface is far more intuitive and less complicated than Windows. However, starting a debate about which system is 'better' doubtless won't end well nor get resolved. In my opinion, Mac OSX offers a better and more enjoyable user experience. Processing power and performance is the subject of bench tests and of course Windows machines and Apple machines can match performance with each other according to what you want to build.
 
That's just personal preference. W7 vs ML have equally the same amount of good and bad points in terms of features and issues. I don't have enough time on 8/8.1 to form a reliable opinion and Mavericks we haven't touched with a bargepole for compatibility reasons.

If the op is going to go out and look at a similar spec windows machine with a second hand ips panel (may be tight on that budget but maybe doable without looking) then both systems should be pretty equally matched. Certainly neither system would be "better" or offer anything over the other for photography. Although the iMac is typically under specd on the gpu if you're using/needing acceleration.

So the questions to the op should be:

Do you prefer osx layout to windows?
Do you have software that is mac transferable?
Do you need gpu acceleration?
Do you mind working on a glossy display? (Personally they give me a headache )
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
That's just personal preference
Click to expand...

....Certainly. I have worked with both systems and have absolutely no hesitation in sharing my personal preference. At the same time I don't rubbish Windows - For example, if you launch the same version of Adobe Photoshop on both a Mac and a Windows, each having equivalent performance, you will hardly realise the difference in operation. However, the overriding OS (Operating System) of each gives a different user experience.

It's a bit like the difference between Canon and Nikon bodies - Both are very good but Canon's ergonimics and user interface have a very distinct edge.... In my opinion.
 
neil_g said:
Mavericks we haven't touched with a bargepole for compatibility reasons.
Click to expand...

....The same applies when any operating system software is first made publicly available whether Windows or Mac. There will be bugs and also third-party peripheral producers won't have got around to updating their products to be compatible. Epson are especially lazy in that respect, for example.

Btw, I mostly use a 27" iMac with what you refer to as a "glossy display" - Try positioning your work station so that there are no reflections and you won't see any glossiness at all but just rich colour and clarity. Apple displays are superb.

Anyway, I am unashamedly biassed! :)
 
RedRobin said:
I run an i5 processor 27" iMac with internal Solid State Drive, 8Gb RAM, Adobe CS6 suite, Logic (highly intensive music recording), etc etc and the answer is that it's a no-brainer against a Windows machine. I run OSX Mavericks.
Click to expand...

and

RedRobin said:
At the same time I don't rubbish Windows - For example, if you launch the same version of Adobe Photoshop on both a Mac and a Windows,
Click to expand...

Well... that's what you just did in your previous post ;)

RedRobin said:
Try positioning your work station so that there are no reflections and you won't see any glossiness at all but just rich colour and clarity. Apple displays are superb.
Click to expand...
When you are used to a matte display, glossy ones are highly annoying - even in a room of diffuse light.

As to the OPs question... you'll be fine with that spec machine (although I'd prefer an SSD - and 16G memory if you are going to use photoshop). I've no feeling for Apple second hand pricing, but for a PC a similar (although these are matte so better IMHO) monitor is something like the Dell U2711 or U2713 - a refurbished one of these is £360 on ebay, leaving you with sub £500 for a PC. I'd also go with an i5 to save a bit of money - the difference in speed is negligible as the i7 is a quad core processor and although it has 8 virtual cores, it is a quad core at heart and the 4 extra virtual ones don't add a lot for most apps (video encoding is the one where they'll add 15-25%). You can get PCs at this price, for example: http://www.ebuyer.com/570071-zoostorm-haswell-desktop-pc-7873-0484. You'll need keyboard/mouse and speakers as well and that PC is more expandable than the Apple unit.

If you've not tried a Mac, definitely head to somewhere like PC World/Currys and try one. You might be smitten, or - like me - hate the darned things as I think the UI is backwards. The key thing is to try it (and the glossy screen) for yourself. There's always a load of opinions on the internet ;)
 
arad85 said:
If you've not tried a Mac, definitely head to somewhere like PC World/Currys and try one. You might be smitten, or - like me - hate the darned things as I think the UI is backwards. The key thing is to try it (and the glossy screen) for yourself. There's always a load of opinions on the internet ;)
Click to expand...

....Agreed. The only way to decide is by going for a 'test drive'. But go to an Apple Store as well as PC World etc. You'll know immediately what feels right for you................


........................ Apple Mac Apple Mac Apple Mac :D
 
I bit the bullet and went to an iMac last April. What a difference it makes from 20 years of having to use a PC. There is nothing I miss about the PC. Personally I had 16 Gb installed.
 
The iMac spec you are looking at should give you 5 years or more of use. My iMac is getting on for 4 years old and handles Lightroom and Photoshop fine. A faster machine would help with Final Cut Pro with the final rendering as it tends to hog processor time. But I just queue the jobs up and let it run overnight. An i7 would make this about 25% faster but for the amount I do I don't think it justifies the expense.

Glossy screens are not a real worry for me. Mine is positioned in such a a way that I don't get loads of reflections. I also think there is a tendency to ignore them after a while. .

The only thing that may make you need a newer machine if suddenly some process occurs that makes you need a better machine, such as buying an camera with an 80Mb chip, that needs loads of processing power to get a result in a reasonable time. I've still got my 2008 MacBook Pro with a core 2 processor. Not fast but it will handle 5Dmk3 files in both Lightroom and Photoshop. Does take a bit of time opening in Photoshop and rendering out of Lightroom, but still works just fine, and still worth a few hundred pounds
 
you initially asked is it worth the £800 asking price ,if the seller still has it for sale BITE HIS BLOODY ARM OFF .you won't regret it
 
Hi i run a 24inch iMac it has cs3, aperture, elements 11 plus all the other bits and pieces as well, upgraded to OSX Mavericks. bought it new January 2007 so thats nearly 7 years old and still works perfectly .
Barry
 
If you want the best of both worlds Mountain Lion will allow you the ability to run either OSX or windows through Boot Camp.
I run a Windows 7 machine at work , i've got a Windows 8 machine at home along with a 27 inch i5 Imac - they all have their plus points and I love the Mac but- Apple is great with all things Apple but not quite so user friendly with non apple stuff. I find Windows 8 very frustrating after Windows 7 but OSX has it quirks too, particularly Safari which I don't particularly like, I'd rather use Chrome.
Ive used both Mac and PC, neither are perfect but the Mac does seem to handle images better.
That Machine is a good spec at a decent price - you could load it up with another 16gb of Crucial ram for £100 which would give you a very powerful machine which will be pretty time resistant too
 
Martyn

Mac or Windows debate to one side, the spec of the iMac is only lacking additional RAM which is an easy upgrade on the 27" as it is user accessible and can be bought from Crucial at a point in the future when funds allow or you feel it is needed.

The spec looks good for the money - I've seen these go for around the £1,000 mark so if it is in good condition, no faults and the seller is reputable then I would say it is a good deal. I'd certainly buy it if it was local to me!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top