Mac Pro or iMac?

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by susue, Sep 20, 2007.

  1. susue macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    #1
    Hi All,

    I'm am a previous Mac user, but haven't used one in a while. I'm in a new job now, and am more comfortable using (and have more faith in the stability of) a mac for the types of graphic and boards I have to create (I mainly use Illustrator CS, and Photoshop CS for fashion design). The issue I'm having is that the new company I'm with is very small, and no one else uses a Mac. My boss is willing to get me a Mac, but I don't want to 'break the bank' and spend too much on a system, especially since I will be the only getting a new computer, and let's be honest, saving them some money will also help in the end when bonus time come up :eek:. I've been trying to compare the mac pro and iMac systems and pricing, but I'm a little confused on the pros and cons of each one. If I'm not doing MAJOR graphics, but need a system that can handle a lot of work on a daily basis, can I get by with an IMac for the next couple years, or should I just suck it up and go for the Pro, considering I also have to get the monitor??:confused:. Please let me know your thoughts, and if anyone has used both! THNX:D
     
  2. ivi7 macrumors 6502a

    ivi7

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #2
    If you dont want to splurge you should be fine with an imac. But if your boss doesn't care you could get the base model of the Mac Pro.
     
  3. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #3
    Here is a simple snap judgement question- How important is color acuracy, and your ability to reproduce it?

    The iMac will handle most everything for your needs in terms of computing power. The problem is that given the glossy screen, the colors will appear more saturated than what they are in reality. On the other hand, you can always strap on an extra monitor to the iMac and call it a day. Believe me, you don't need a MacPro.
     
  4. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #4
    Well the Mac Pro has got upgrade-ability on its side — and it can take anything you throw at it.

    However, in your situation I would go for the iMac… max it out and you will have a great machine.

    PS.
    But the Mac Pro is luuverly. :D:D
     
  5. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #5
    the whole imac is for "home" users is garbage. The new imacs are great computers and powerful computers *i think* for your needs. The top of the line 20" should be fine. Unless you want the 24" screen. The only concern is the screen. Some like it while other hate it. You have to make that choice on your own. But in terms of power. You should be fine.

    Edit - the only other things is that CS is not universal so it might be slow, you might want to think about upgrade to CS3.
     
  6. jellomizer macrumors 6502

    jellomizer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    #6
    I say the iMac.

    The MacPro is probably overkill unless you are doing heavy graphics all the time and rendering things that takes more then a minute. I use a MacBook Pro most of the time and my Wifes new iMac has slightly better specs then my 10 month old MBP. And I do some graphics stuff as well as programming and the like and it usually outperforms any PC that is around me at the time. Same with the iMac plus you will probably be happier it takes less desk space, and easier to setup.

    Reasons for using the Mac Pro.
    Heavy Rendering or compiling Jobs that can take over 5 minutes to complete on an other system... (Note multi-core/CPU Systems don't always have the application desigigned to work with them so you may still get the same speed but you can do other things at the same time faster)

    Virtualization, Running Parallels or VMWare With say Windows XP, Windows Vista, Linux all at the same time. but for only one an iMac should work fine.

    Need for expandability. You need to have a lot of stuff added to the system.

    Unless you really need these things I would say the iMac is good enough it really is a nice System it looks great and workd good.
     
  7. vanmacguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Location:
    Not where you live.
    #7
    If price is a concern, and it sounds like it is, you can get a base model Mac Pro for less than a 24" iMac though.

    True you have to buy a monitor so that'd tip the scales in the iMac favour initially.

    But as budget becomes more readily available you can upgrade the Mac Pro until the cows come home, not so with the iMac.

    Memory, cpu(?), graphics, drives, monitor, you name it are pretty much infinitely upgradeable on the Mac Pro and not the iMac.

    And I would say (and I'm very much prepared to be corrected on this as I don't use a Mac Pro), that the base Mac Pro would handle the same workload as the 24" iMac. I have a 24" iMac and love it, don't get me wrong, I'm just looking at the budget and comparing the ability to upgrade as more money is available.

    Cheers.
     
  8. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #8
    We have never used iMacs for our Illustrator and Photoshop work. Only Power Macs and now Mac Pros. 4GB of ram will probably be too little for anything meaningful.
     
  9. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #9
    Well, if you have the spare money more power to you!

    May I ask what kind of graphics you do? For regular vector work in Illustrator and layout work in InDesign I don't notice a difference between my 2,8 ghz iMac, my 1,67 ghz G4 pb and the 2,3 ghz G5 at work most of the time.

    As far as I know no CS3 application can even use the power of the 4 cores at once.

    And that 4gb ram is too little for anything meaningful is nonsense.
     

Share This Page