I'd like a Mac recommendation

[Sal Collaziano]

Hey there. I'm currently using a mid-2010 17" MBP as a backup computer and a mid-2012 13" MBP as my main computer. I hook it up to a 27" monitor and pretty much use it as a desktop. I typically have a web browser with 15-20 tabs opened, an email client with about 5 accounts to pull from, and Pandora playing music. Throughout the day I'll need to use Photoshop for light editing, Dreamweaver and a separate FTP client. That's pretty much it...

I'll be looking to buy something new as my 13" MBP is really in need of more memory than can be had. I've been considering either a new 4 core 15" MBP or a 27" iMac. Would either suffice just as well as the other?

 

[Lunder89]

As long as you get the iMac with at least the 2TB fusion drive or pure SSD, there will be very little performance difference for you. Getting a 21,5" 4K iMac might be worth considering, if money is to be involved in the question. Since it offers the same performance, at a lower price point. The difference between the two is the dedicated graphics in the 27" iMac, which it doesn't sound like you need.

Now back to the question that was actually asked. Either will do well performance wise. But the iMac will offer a lot more room on the display for a lot of windows. Where the MacBook Pro has a little less room, but can be taken around.

So the question really comes down to, do you need to take things on the road know, or in the future?
If you can't think of a single need for a portable, go for the iMac, whichever you choose, you will be happy (as long as a 2TB fusion drive or pure SSD is involved).

I own a 5K iMac myself, and configured a 4K iMac for my boss, both are very nice machines and fast machines.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

As long as you get the iMac with at least the 2TB fusion drive or pure SSD, there will be very little performance difference for you. Getting a 21,5" 4K iMac might be worth considering, if money is to be involved in the question. Since it offers the same performance, at a lower price point. The difference between the two is the dedicated graphics in the 27" iMac, which it doesn't sound like you need.

Now back to the question that was actually asked. Either will do well performance wise. But the iMac will offer a lot more room on the display for a lot of windows. Where the MacBook Pro has a little less room, but can be taken around.

So the question really comes down to, do you need to take things on the road know, or in the future?
If you can't think of a single need for a portable, go for the iMac, whichever you choose, you will be happy (as long as a 2TB fusion drive or pure SSD is involved).

I own a 5K iMac myself, and configured a 4K iMac for my boss, both are very nice machines and fast machines.

Thank you. I'll be connecting to a 27" monitor so I'm not too worried about screen-size. I didn't consider a 2TB Fusion drive - but was planning on a 1TB. I've been assuming the 4 cores available in the new MBP would probably make a big difference. And if I'm not mistaken, 32GB of memory is possible. That should be good. I just wonder if the iMac would serve me better for any reason... It sounds like it won't...

 

[cynics]

Care to elaborate on "light photoshop" a bit?

Either option will work just fine. I would get the max ram for the MBP and be prepared to add more RAM for the iMac. You mentioned Dreamweaver so I'll assume your work is professional? Maxing out the RAM maybe unnecessary today however if you are operating on deadlines and your workload intensifies in the future it will be nice to have.

Personally I would go with the iMac. The 27" screen at 5k and its color depth makes photography work a much better experience. Or I would consider a 10-bit panel to dock the MBP to if you need mobility.

A little bit of elaboration on your use of photoshop can help us narrow down a GPU option a little bit. And as mentioned SSD option is a must. I would even forgo the Fusion altogether and get an external solution for storage.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Care to elaborate on "light photoshop" a bit?

Either option will work just fine. I would get the max ram for the MBP and be prepared to add more RAM for the iMac. You mentioned Dreamweaver so I'll assume your work is professional? Maxing out the RAM maybe unnecessary today however if you are operating on deadlines and your workload intensifies in the future it will be nice to have.

Personally I would go with the iMac. The 27" screen at 5k and its color depth makes photography work a much better experience. Or I would consider a 10-bit panel to dock the MBP to if you need mobility.

A little bit of elaboration on your use of photoshop can help us narrow down a GPU option a little bit. And as mentioned SSD option is a must. I would even forgo the Fusion altogether and get an external solution for storage.

In Photoshop, I'm creating logos and/or headers for websites. Sometimes I'm doing some minor editing to photographs - maybe removing backgrounds - or adding text... Nothing really complex.

Yes, I use Dreamweaver to build and maintain websites.

I recently did a build on a new 15" MBP but I didn't notice an option to upgrade memory. It looks like the most I can get is 16gb. I can configure 32gb on the iMac... What are your thoughts on that?

 

[cynics]

In Photoshop, I'm creating logos and/or headers for websites. Sometimes I'm doing some minor editing to photographs - maybe removing backgrounds - or adding text... Nothing really complex.

Yes, I use Dreamweaver to build and maintain websites.

I recently did a build on a new 15" MBP but I didn't notice an option to upgrade memory. It looks like the most I can get is 16gb. I can configure 32gb on the iMac... What are your thoughts on that?

For your use 16gb should be more than enough. If you order the iMac like that way (16gb) you can easily upgrade to 32gb yourself at a later date. BTW sorry I didn't check Apples page to see what the MBP offers or comes with.

Honestly this choice will come down to personal preference. I feel the iMacs display will benefit you and your clients more than the other hardware specs. This is the way I feel about all photo and video editors its literally the point of their job. While not impossible its unlikely the display you'll be plugging the MBP into is as good especially for your line of work (clearly I could be incorrect). And as long as mobility isn't a factor it seems like the iMac is the right tool for the job.

However like any tool its only as good as the person using it is comfortable with. Maybe you just work better, faster on laptops, or your workplace doesn't accommodate an iMac, etc etc....

When I'm doing photo editing (very important amateur stuff like editing obscene objects into my friends hands and/or mouths) I prefer a large display so I can minimize zooming so I can keep most of the image in few. But most importantly it needs to be on a very accurate panel so it doesn't look bad when someone on one views the image. I've burned myself using poorly calibrated panels.

I helped a bar owner friend of mine edit a photo of his bar. I edited out a bunch of stuff in the photo and it looked great, until I saw it on a 5k iMac and it was kind of embarrassing. I'm not a professional and he thought it looked great but I know I could have done so much better if I was working with better tools.

Which one are you leaning towards?

 

[Sal Collaziano]

For your use 16gb should be more than enough. If you order the iMac like that way (16gb) you can easily upgrade to 32gb yourself at a later date. BTW sorry I didn't check Apples page to see what the MBP offers or comes with.

Honestly this choice will come down to personal preference. I feel the iMacs display will benefit you and your clients more than the other hardware specs. This is the way I feel about all photo and video editors its literally the point of their job. While not impossible its unlikely the display you'll be plugging the MBP into is as good especially for your line of work (clearly I could be incorrect). And as long as mobility isn't a factor it seems like the iMac is the right tool for the job.

However like any tool its only as good as the person using it is comfortable with. Maybe you just work better, faster on laptops, or your workplace doesn't accommodate an iMac, etc etc....

When I'm doing photo editing (very important amateur stuff like editing obscene objects into my friends hands and/or mouths) I prefer a large display so I can minimize zooming so I can keep most of the image in few. But most importantly it needs to be on a very accurate panel so it doesn't look bad when someone on one views the image. I've burned myself using poorly calibrated panels.

I helped a bar owner friend of mine edit a photo of his bar. I edited out a bunch of stuff in the photo and it looked great, until I saw it on a 5k iMac and it was kind of embarrassing. I'm not a professional and he thought it looked great but I know I could have done so much better if I was working with better tools.

Which one are you leaning towards?

I'm thinking you're right about the 16gb memory being enough considering I'd be going from 1 core to 4...

Before right now I was beginning to lean more toward the MBP because the mobility is nice. However, you made a great point about your image editing not looking right on a high quality screen. I really don't want that happening to me. And it probably does happen to me now - I just don't know it...

Besides, I'll still have two perfectly capable MBPs to travel with. When I got my newer 13" MBP I deleted everything I didn't need on the older 17" and it worked much better than when it was fully loaded. I'll be doing the same with my newer 13" MBP so they'll probably both be fine for working on the road.

So now I'm leaning back toward a 27" iMac...

One thing I miss about Windows machines and Dell - is when I had a problem - somebody came to my home and took care of it. When I need something fixed on one of my Macs - I leave it at the Apple store... I don't like that. But that's why I keep my old Macs...

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I think you go from 2 cores to 4 cores....The difference in cores is not worth the cost. SSD you can upgrade your current machine and it will run from a feeling as fast as a new one. With that you save probably 3000$

 

[Sal Collaziano]

I think you go from 2 cores to 4 cores....The difference in cores is not worth the cost. SSD you can upgrade your current machine and it will run from a feeling as fast as a new one. With that you save probably 3000$

I have one ****** little core at the moment.

MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
2.9 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Macintosh HD
Intel HD Graphics 4000 1536 MB

You think installing an SSD would make all the difference?

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

One word .. huge!

 

[JamesPDX]

I have one ****** little core at the moment.

MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
2.9 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Macintosh HD
Intel HD Graphics 4000 1536 MB

You think installing an SSD would make all the difference?

Yes. Avoid Fusion Drives and try to transition away from spinners. Get the Quad-Core and max-out the RAM. You'll thank me later.

 

[cynics]

I have one ****** little core at the moment.

MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
2.9 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Macintosh HD
Intel HD Graphics 4000 1536 MB

You think installing an SSD would make all the difference?

There are several types of SSD's the two most common are SATA3 and PCIe. SATA3 is the interface you're current HDD is using and what you'll need to upgrade. PCIe are found in newer Macs and are much faster.

However a SATA3 SSD in your MacBook Pro will still make worlds of difference in day to day performance. It is by far the most noticeable upgrade you can do to any machine. Things will load in what will feel to be instantly. Within seconds of pressing the power button the OS will be up and ready to use. This is definitely a very good upgrade. Its one of those things that once you experience you can't live without.

Here is a craptastic video demonstrating the upgrade. But you'll want to do a lot more research on this forum with people that have first hand experience.

My only advice would be to not get too caught up in the benchmarks between SSDs. Just get 240gb or larger brand name with a good warranty. I have one systems with twp very similar OS's on separate drives one with a Samsung 850 Pro and another with a Sandisk SSD Plus and on paper that Samsung should destroy the Sandisk however in real world they are hard to distinguish between. This is because most of the perceived performance is from read speed and they are tooooo much different there. Just food for thought if you aren't try to drop a fortune.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I have one ****** little core at the moment.

MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012)
2.9 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Macintosh HD
Intel HD Graphics 4000 1536 MB

You think installing an SSD would make all the difference?

Oh yes I do think so. It will make a huge huge difference. Whereas the difference between the upgraded machine and any new one - not so much. I changed the drive on my MacBook from 2010. No need for any new Mac. It feels as fast as my MacBook Pro 2015 15" maxed out machine I got from work.....

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Thank you all for the advice. 77 years later, this is what I decided on:

27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display

• $3,229.00

Hardware

• 4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• 32GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 3TB Fusion Drive
• Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory

So I'll have my 5K iMac to work on images and browse the web with 961 tabs opened simultaneously, my 13" MBP from 2012 for Dreamweaver CS3, and my 2010 17" MBP for when something goes wrong with either computer and Apple needs to keep it for a year. I think I'm all set.

Finally, I'll be one of those nerds with two monitors on his desk (now that everybody else has 3 or 7). I'm planning on attaching my current Samsung 27" monitor that I got as a hand-me-down from John Wayne.

It hasn't shipped yet but I'm thinking about getting a last will and testament made-up just in case...

 

[alien3dx]

Thank you all for the advice. 77 years later, this is what I decided on:

27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display

• $3,229.00

Hardware

• 4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• 32GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 3TB Fusion Drive
• Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory

So I'll have my 5K iMac to work on images and browse the web with 961 tabs opened simultaneously, my 13" MBP from 2012 for Dreamweaver CS3, and my 2010 17" MBP for when something goes wrong with either computer and Apple needs to keep it for a year. I think I'm all set.

Finally, I'll be one of those nerds with two monitors on his desk (now that everybody else has 3 or 7). I'm planning on attaching my current Samsung 27" monitor that I got as a hand-me-down from John Wayne.

It hasn't shipped yet but I'm thinking about getting a last will and testament made-up just in case...

changed the 3TB fusion drive.. take ssd instead.

 

[maflynn]

27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display

Congrats on your new baby. Enjoy

changed the 3TB fusion drive.. take ssd instead.

There's several posts earlier in the thread recommending SSD, and the OP opted for a Fusion drive for his needs. It seems the OP has his reasons for opting for larger internal storage vs. faster storage.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"I hook it up to a 27" monitor and pretty much use it as a desktop."

Then...
...Buying a 27" iMac was the right decision!

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Thanks again, everyone. The reason I went for the 3TB Fusion Drive is for simplicity and storage capacity right out of the box - without any extras. I do still have to time to change the configuration if I'm convinced to do so. However, I'm very confident that the 128GB of SSD flash storage will work well for me on a daily basis.

Keep in mind that I'm currently using a mid-2012 MBP with a 2.9GHz i7 single core processor and only 16GB of memory. My daily chores consist of editing photos in Photoshop, running a web browser with 15-25 open tabs, email coming and going all day, and Pandora running for music. That's about it. More rarely I do some web editing and use FTP to transfer fairly small files.

I'm almost positive I'll be under that 128GB of flash storage most of the time. On very rare occasion I go through iPhoto - LOTS of photos - so I may run into issues there. However, it's very rare that I'm in there so if I see a "beachball", I'll be okay with it. Same goes for iMovie. Every so often I'll create a slideshow or edit a video I take with my smartphone and I imagine there may be an issue there. But I do this so rarely. It won't interfere with my daily activities.

Even so, if it became a more frequent exercise in the future - it'll have to be an improvement over what I'm working with now. I'm anxious to finally get a good screen so my photo edits will look great. I'll probably leave my old 27" Samsung screen for email duty as I'm currently always going back and forth between my browser and email...

I have a previous generation 3TB Time Capsule and I'll probably keep my current MBP hooked up as is other than removing some things I'll no longer need -- and I'll connect the new iMac to the same backup. As it stands now, I'm using about 1TB of the Time Capsule and figure I'll probably use about the same amount of space on the iMac - leaving me about 1TB of free space on the backup.

I feel pretty good about my backup situation. If something goes wrong with the Time Machine, I'll just go out and buy a new one that day, connect it to my computers, and back everything up again... Not sure what else there is. I just hope I get the iMac soon. My current MBP is constantly backing up 6GB to Time Machine and my computer crawls (choppy mouse arrow on the screen) driving me crazy. I don't know what the problem is but I've gone through a few steps I read about here and I never come to a resolution. No big deal. The new iMac will have a fresh start and should work as intended.

I wish there was a way to schedule Time Machine backups. I used to use an app for that but I'm stuck on El Capitan because I need to keep Dreamweaver CS3 working on this computer. So those apps no longer work. I have a feeling the hourly Time Machine backups won't be a problem on the newer, much more powerful iMac...

P.S. I love this site. The members here have always come through when I had an issue - either steering me in the right direction or providing the information I needed. It's a shame that some sites are so horrific with ads that I needed to install an AdBlocker. I felt bad last night after I realized I hadn't turned it off here. Of course, I have now. The ads here are non-obtrusive and I'm happy to support the site. I'd browsed a few hours with all the ads blocked. I think there should be a quick, simple message letting visitors know they can turn off their ad blocker here...

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Jeez. 5 days and the computer isn't even built yet. There's no way to get a good Mac computer quickly. It's the reason I waited so long to buy a new computer in the first place. My first few were fine to buy in the Apple store. But I need something a little better now. But the waiting...