iMac as iTunes Server?

[Macaddict16]

I have been using my current 2009 iMac as an iTunes server for movies and tv shows for a long time now. I have it set to never let the computer go to sleep and to have the display go to sleep after a short period of time. I don't think the recent slowness I have been having is related to leaving it on all the time, but didn't know. I am going to be purchasing a new iMac here in the next month or so (unless new non-retina iMacs are close?) and was debating on also picking up a lowend Mac Mini to use as a server. The downside is I would have to lose some of the upgrades I was planning on putting into the iMac to be able to do this. All of my media is on an external 3TB HD and will be connected to whatever computer I use as the server.

Is there anything wrong with using an iMac or retina iMac as a server along with normal usage as I have been doing all along? Or should I get a lowend Mac Mini along with the iMac and lower the specs on the iMac to compensate for cost?

Thanks so much!
Macaddict16

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

THere should be no problems using the iMac. I don't get why you don't sleep your computers though?

 

[Macaddict16]

THere should be no problems using the iMac. I don't get why you don't sleep your computers though?

The Apple TVs need to be able to access the files from the computer and the last time I checked they couldn't be asleep and do this. Has this changed with newer versions of iTunes? To be honest I havent tried putting it asleep in a long time and and tried accessing the files through the Apple TV.

 

[cynics]

The Apple TVs need to be able to access the files from the computer and the last time I checked they couldn't be asleep and do this. Has this changed with newer versions of iTunes? To be honest I havent tried putting it asleep in a long time and and tried accessing the files through the Apple TV.

System Preferences > Energy Saver > Wake for network access / check

 

[Macaddict16]

System Preferences > Energy Saver > Wake for network access / check

Hmmm. That was already checked, but I could ave sworn that the last time I looked at that it said wake for Ethernet access and since my iMac connects via WiFi I didn't think it would work. Thanks!

Looks like I will probably go for a beefed up iMac then with no Mac Mini. I have seen a lot of conversation about SSD vs Fusion, but I don't think I can get by with just 256 in the computer and the 512 is pretty pricey. Is there a huge performance difference between the SSD and the Fusion Drive? As I stated before, by media is all on an external HD.

Also, besides the obvious screen resolution, will there be much performance difference between a 3.5 i7 iMac vs a 4.0 i7 retina iMac? I tried looking up some Geekbench scores, but I don't really have a frame of reference for the numbers. Coming from a Core i7 2009 iMac 2.8.

Thanks!
Macaddict16

 

[cynics]

Hmmm. That was already checked, but I could ave sworn that the last time I looked at that it said wake for Ethernet access and since my iMac connects via WiFi I didn't think it would work. Thanks!

Looks like I will probably go for a beefed up iMac then with no Mac Mini. I have seen a lot of conversation about SSD vs Fusion, but I don't think I can get by with just 256 in the computer and the 512 is pretty pricey. Is there a huge performance difference between the SSD and the Fusion Drive? As I stated before, by media is all on an external HD.

Also, besides the obvious screen resolution, will there be much performance difference between a 3.5 i7 iMac vs a 4.0 i7 retina iMac? I tried looking up some Geekbench scores, but I don't really have a frame of reference for the numbers. Coming from a Core i7 2009 iMac 2.8.

Thanks!
Macaddict16

It all depends on usage.

What are your normal task with an iMac?

With my usage I prefer storage capacity over speed. I also want a fast processor due to the amount of encoding I do.

So my systems are opposite of what most people prefer which is an SSD for access speed and normal processor since its virtually impossible to notice a real world performance difference there.

It all comes down to usage.

 

[Macaddict16]

It all depends on usage.

What are your normal task with an iMac?

With my usage I prefer storage capacity over speed. I also want a fast processor due to the amount of encoding I do.

So my systems are opposite of what most people prefer which is an SSD for access speed and normal processor since its virtually impossible to notice a real world performance difference there.

It all comes down to usage.

Besides using it as an iTunes server, I play some games on it. Nothing too hardcore though. I really like the Civilization games and Xcom type games. Not needing it to run Crysis. I do basic office stuff. I would like to do some basic photo editing as well. I plan on using BootCamp to run Windows in case I need it.

 

[driftless]

I have an older iMac that I thought about using as a media server as well. I ended up not using it as it just took up too much space and it was not an improvement on running iTunes etc. from my newer iMac. I know it is tempting to try find a use for a machine that still has life in it but, but for me, trying to use it as a media server was just redundant.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

From Lion and forward, there has been major issues with waking on LAN, which gets fixed, reintroduced, fixed, etc.

I suggest jo test your AppleTV again. It should in theory work as another poster described above.

 

[steve62388]

Don't forget about power consumption.

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

Also, besides the obvious screen resolution, will there be much performance difference between a 3.5 i7 iMac vs a 4.0 i7 retina iMac? I tried looking up some Geekbench scores, but I don't really have a frame of reference for the numbers. Coming from a Core i7 2009 iMac 2.8.

I don't believe this will be the definitive answer to your question. Back in November, Jason Snell (formerly of MacWorld) wrote a piece about his new 5K iMac that included GeekBench scores of his machine compared to other Macs. Since I have a similarly equipped non-retina I did the math (non- / 5K) and found my iMac to be:

• Single-core GeekBench score is 89.0% of riMac
• Multi-core GeekBench score is 90.8% of riMac

As Jason wrote, "That i7 non-retina iMac is clearly the second-fastest iMac out there!"

My point is that if you don't need the retina screen you won't be hurting yourself much in performance and you'll save almost a thousand dollars.