24" iMac good enough for graphic design?

I'm looking into getting a Mac so I can work from home for the next few months (back surgery). I use the Adobe CS as well as other graphic related applications. While I know getting a Mac Pro would be the best option it's also a very expensive option (I need the 23" monitor as well). Would the top config. of the iMac be suitable for moderate graphic design use? Currently at the office I am using a Dual 2.5 G5 so I'm not expecting top of the line performance. Just something that would work as well as my work computer. I do realize it is not expandable however after a few months it will just become a computer I use for typical home use. Thank you in advance.

Hi Barry, I did as you said and searched on the forum. What I found was this entry that pretty much sums it up. It's pretty much identical to my situation. Turns out CS2 runs at about half speed under Rosetta. Even the oldest G5s seem to out perform it. I guess that's it, I start looking for an old G5. Thanks for all your help and suggestions. Below is the entry I found that says it all.
Re: Intel iMac and Adobe CS2
Posted: Mar 24, 2006 3:30 AM in response to: Sam Anderson
I've been using a 20" Intel 2 GHz iMac with 1 GB RAM now for just over a month and use Adobe CS2 on it and I'm incredibly disappointed with the performance of the software under Rosetta. So much so that I regret buying the Intel version and wish I'd bought a good old G5 processor model.
The main issue is speed. I upgraded from a Dual 866 mHz G4 and am encountering slower performance with CS2 on my new iMac than I did on that. Illustrator is especially excruciating to use. Another issue is that I can only run two CS2 apps at the same time never three. If I try, one of them randomly crashes. Reinstalls haven't cured it either.
I've called both Adobe and Apple in order to resolve the problem and neither have a solution. Adobe's view on it is that CS2 and earlier were not written to work on the Intel machine and so they cannot address any support problems with patches or updates. Their only solution is waiting until CS3 is released in Autumn which will be Intel compatible.
Based on this experience my advice would be to wait until CS3 is released before you buy one. Otherwise just grin and bear it if you have to have one now!

Similar Messages

  • IMac G5 suitable for graphic design?

    OK, here is my situation. I am graphic design student in the UK about to start my third and final year. I use photoshop and indesign A LOT, and can have big image files, biggest I have go to is 300MB though this is very rare, and is normally 150 - 200MB maximum. I am considering getting either a Power Book with 2GB RAM as I am student so chances are I will be moving sometime within the next year, though I would not carry it around with me after when at college though chances are I would have to sometimes, or I am considering getting a iMac G5, with 2GB RAM, which would stay here in my flat, and also get a small cheaper iBook, load that up with 1GB RAM and a 100GB hard drive, and use that for any work on the go, as chances are these will be much smaller files or will require little editing. I also like the fact that the iBook is much sturdier and will last longer, something which I need from all machines as chances are I wont be able to afford to buy a new one in a year or two's time. So I am looking for either a Power Book maxed out, or an iMac and an iBook. I have considered a Power Mac but they are too large and probably too powerful for what I will be doing on it, and I would like at least an option of taking worth with me. What would you recommend for a Graphics Student?

    I have an 20inch imac g5 with 1gb of ram and it is really fast for adobe CS2 and quark 6.5. I have no problems with big files or having several applications / files open at once.
    I also have a G4 ibook with 756mb ram - its a bit slow for graphics and the screen is a bit small for graphics work Its great for surfing the web or short term graphics work away from my desk.
    If portability isnt a requirement then i would suggest you get a 20inch imac!
    Dont forget to visit the apple education store (on your uni network) and i'll get really good discount! Also if you need software adobe cs2 is £200 for students, and quark is £150 (office is £100 which is always handy to have to get those windoze uses compatible.).
    As far as bumping up the ram...its always cheaper to add ram from places like cruical. I got a single dimm of 1gb when i ordered the imac, but in a year or so i will add another 1gb.
    If you live in halls or a 'not so secure' student house then dont forgot to get insurance! all apples have security slots for around the house - i just have the imac chained to a desk (cant see it as its behind so not spoiling the aesthetics!). Portables aren't always covered when away from home.
    You might want to look at portable hard drives rather than bumping up the internal hard drive - this will offer you some portability to take work (big files) to uni from home etc... i think students can get a ipod cheaper so that would be one option (if the student loan stretches that far!)
    Good luck with your final year... i am sure whatever you invest in will serve you well in the big wide world of graphics! enjoy!

  • Is $1299 entry level 21.5 inch 2013 iMac good enough for a novice to learn Logic Pro?

    I am wondering if the standard entry level iMac is good enough to learn Logic Pro. From what I have researched the top of the line 2012 Mac mini is more power full than the entry level 2013 iMac and I would end up paying more for the iMac. But I am also thinking about how the new 2013 iMac has the new haswell processor which is supposedly better than the ivy bridge on the 2012 Mac mini (I do not really know about any of this I am just going off of what I have been researching) so the 2012 Mac mini may be more powerful than the 2013 entry level iMac technically but maybe the iMac will run more efficiently because from what I hear it does not get as hot and uses less power or something. Also, should I wait for the Mac mini to come out with a refresh with the has well processor or will I be fine with the current 2012 Mac mini with the ivy bridge processor. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. P.S. Does anyone know exactly just how much better if at all the haswell is than the ivy bridge because if it is not that big of an improvement I would just get the current top of the line 2012 Mac mini, as I really would like to get started on learning Logic Pro.

    The latest top of the line Mac Mini is much more powerful than the latest bottom of the line iMac..
    It is much easier to add your own memory to a Mac Mini than an iMac... and much cheaper!
    More memory = better performance
    Mac Mini 2.6GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 + 4GB RAM = $799
    Add 16 GB RAM from Amazon for $160
    Total = $959

  • Is the 3.06 GHz iMac good enough for gaming? How good is the performance?

    The primary difference between the two cheapest iMacs is the graphics card and the 500 GB hard drive increase. The hard drive upgrade can be ignored for a moment, since the worst case scenario is I buy an external 500 GB hard drive for $50. For the graphics card, though, how big of a performance boost would I get from upgrading to the next graphics card, which would be going from the ATI Radeon HD 4670 with 256MB to the ATI Radeon HD 5670 with 512MB? Is the 256MB probably going to be sufficient to last at least four years, or should I just pay the extra $300 or so to upgrade to the 512 MB? The market price difference between the two models is about $50 at the moment.
    I have a MBP right now as you can see in my signature; as it's four years old already, gaming-wise, it can't really play the latest games anymore. It's capable of playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (not the sequel) at the lowest graphics settings and only getting 30 FPS or so when there's little action, but that can easily drop to 15 FPS or less when there's stuff happening on the screen.
    I don't play video games all that much (let's say five hours a week), but I'd at least like a computer that doesn't need to be replaced too soon, either, so I'm currently on the fence between these two models. I definitely don't want to go the next step and get a 27" iMac, though, since I already have a 21" monitor and so getting an extra 21" iMac would fit best with it, and I'm happy with the size as it is as I usually use my computer for programming and such.

    Not even the top end card included in the 27" models is going to last 4 years, so you may as well rule out the iMac right now. You're going to want something a bit more user-friendly on the upgrade front. So, that limits you to the Mac Pro if you want to stay with Apple products. Otherwise, you're going to want to build your own PC so you can build in some modularity.

  • 24" iMac for Graphic Design studio workstation?

    Hi there, I've been using macs since the early 90s for graphic design and have always bought their "professional" models, ie towers. These days it seems the line between iMacs and towers is getting a bit blurred... iMacs are pretty darn powerful. So I need to add a workstation to the design studio and am considering just getting a 24" iMac instead of a tower + apple display. I use Adobe CS2 apps (photoshop, indesign, illustrator, etc.) Rarely, I deal with 500meg layered photoshop images, but I don't do any sound/video stuff.
    So my big question... is the iMac good enough for a full time graphic designer's workstation or should I stick with a tower? The difference is over a $grand.
    G5 tower Mac OS X (10.4.8)

    The 24" iMac is a perfect match for a graphic designer.
    On the plus side, the large screen is actually 4 inches larger than the smallest Cinema Display (20"), meaning great value. Secondly, you have the small form factor and the conveinience of an all-in-one unit, and the RAM is extremely easy to upgrade, with a ceiling of 3GB; plenty to run Photoshop or Aperture. The Nvidia graphics card is very potent as well; a must for people working with high-res images.
    On the downside, you still won't get the sheer performance that a tower such as the Mac Pro will offer. You also won't get the expandability. You can't upgrade the graphics card in the iMac. You also can't upgrade the hard drive easily, and USB and firewire card upgrades (necessary to keep up with todays latest connection methods for digital cameras) are out of the question.
    The 24" iMac is superb. It will give you the horsepower to run even a small graphics design business. But if you are serious about graphic design as a career, still go for a tower. You will be glad you did. I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself selling the iMac and upgrading your system 3 or 4 years from now. However, if you expect to upgrade in that time anyway, the iMac is a better value.
    Good Luck with your decision. I know you will be happy no matter which machine you choose!

  • I think to bye imac for graphic design use purpose. kindly guide me. Is iMac best for me ?

    i think to bye imac for graphic design use purpose. kindly guide me. Is iMac best for me ?

    Hello artistsagar,
    The word best is always subjective.   It is all a question of your needs, your working practice, your available space; I could go on.
    A Mac (probably a 27"one) may well be perfect.  Good size screen, easily understood basic functions and a huge number of recommended programs.   Just Google Mac graphic design to see what is available.

  • Will specs on an iMac 24in 2.8ghz be good enough for video prod-Mac Newbie?

    Hi guys, I do pretty high end editing in Sony Vegas but wanted to move to Final Cut Pro and Mac workflow. I've been a life time windows user and have been thinking about taking the plunge for about a year now.
    I finally just purchased an iMac 24inch. The related specs are the standard 2.8 ghz, 2 GB ram, and ATI radeon 256 mb. It's still in the box. On my way home I kept wondering about the specs especially since I'm new to Mac. On a windows, those specs might not be that great. Will this be good enough for workflow in FCP. I'm going to upgrade the memory in the near future.
    I was concerned about the graphics card? Will I see slowness or stuttering while editing with a lot of footage, rendering, etc. Thanks so much! I want to take it out of the box so bad!

    It'll be fine for DV and HDV...footage imported from tapeless systems like P2 or XDCAM EX.
    The graphics card doesn't come into play much with editing...only certain filters really use the GFX card...otherwise it is not important.
    It is limiting in that you are only able to use Firewire drives, and since the computer only has one firewire bus, you might run into issues capturing this footage from firewire cameras...the drive and the camera will be using one firewire bus. But I haven't had too many issues with that...daisy chaining works for most of us.
    Shane

  • Integrated graphics (9400M) good enough for keynote?

    I'm thinking about buying a new MBP 15 with only the 9400M card. Will this be good enough for keynote presentations (with some heavy graphics and embedded movies etc) hooked to an external projector?
    (I have an 2006 MBP 15 which is dying (those pixelated horizontal lines) but that had discrete graphics Ati x1600 which had some problems with keynote transitions)
    Thanks!

    It should be able to handle Keynote with no problem.
    But since this particular applications performance seems to
    be very important to you, why not just put a Keynote presentation of yours on
    a CD or flash stick and take it into an Apple Store. They will gladly let you try your
    file with their new Macbook Pro's. If there isn't an Apple Store near you then go to an authorized Apple reseller.
    That is the only way to be totally sure.

  • What is the best wide format printer to use for graphic design?

    Hello all, I recently upgraded to a new iMac and am looking for the most suitable colour tabloid or super tabloid printer. I am willing to pay as much as $3000 and have read excellent reviews of the Phaser 7500, but the size and weight are too much for me in my home office. I would also consider inkjet models but want something crisp and clear for graphic design and have heard there are problems with compatibility with Snow Leopard and Lion. Am now considering the OKI C830 series. Any experience with this or recommendations? Many thanks!

    Had 2 Phaser 7700's - excellent print quality - large footprint, overpriced and consumeables are expensive
    Currently have a Konica Minolta Magicolor 7450 - print quality close to the Phasers, large footprint, good price, consumables much cheaper than the Phasers - Noisy, not great in a small office.
    No FHE with the OKI but it looks like a nice machine. Best to find a dealer and check out print quality and if you have small space watch out for the fans humming it can get overwhelming intrusive.

  • Best monitor for graphic design?

    Hi -
    I am thinking of buying a mac mini to use for graphic design and I just wanted to get some opinions from any other designers using one. Whilst I'd love to be able to afford an iMac it's just out of my price range at the moment. I was thinking of buying the basic mini along with an Eizo Foris FS2333 23 inch monitor which I've read good things about. Does anyone else use the mini for InDesign, light Photoshop work and Illustrator? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
    Thanks

    Hi, no experience with them, but Eizo monitors seem to always be praised, if the Mini+Eizo is cheaper than the iMac, I'd go that way.

  • Hi, I planned to purchase a laptop for me to use for graphic design ..could let me know which laptop would be the best for me to use ? Thank you!

    Hi, I planned to purchase a laptop for me to use for graphic design ..could let me know which laptop would be the best for me to use ? Thank you! Pro or Air

    Someday - and no one knows when that day will come - maybe all applications will be able to take advantage of the Retina display. But for the present, not many do: including all Adobe applications. There was a demo of Photoshop at the Apple World Wide Developers Conference of Photoshop running at native Retina resolutions but no one at Adobe in marketing is saying when, if or how the upgrade may be coming. It could be a week, it could be a year, it could be 2-3 years. No one knows. And only Apple app's (for the main part) are really utilizing the native Retina display.
    I've seen some demos of some applications (Apple's) that take advantage of the Retina display and they're awesome. But in actually working in the here-and-now I've heard quite a few gripes, particularly on the Photoshop forum, of menus looking pixelated and/or 'blurry' so I'm not quite ready to jump into the Retina display boat just now. Don't get me wrong - others have ad are very, very pleased with their selection. But until Retina displays are available on larger monitors, the maximum work area that you're going to be able to use is 15" - and that's simply not enough room for full-blown graphic design. Then there's the cost factor - for the $4,000+ you spend for a completely full-blown Retina kit, you can get a standard MacBook Pro, 16 GB of RAM, a fast SSD and even the Apple Thunderbolt Display for the same amount.
    The standard MacBook Pro isn't better than the Retina display: it's just different. And I think (and this is only my opinion - other graphic designers should feel free to jump in here) that it's the best computer that you can get for your specific purposes. And, towards that goal, I have to recommend a very good external monitor (there's nothing more annoying than having to use InDesign in a single-page mode rather than side-by-side because your monitor isn't big enough).
    Remember that this is only my opinion and that others might jump in with their own. But I was in the electronic pre-press business for more years than I care to admit and we always - always - worked with at least 19" monitors (and that's back when dinosaurs actually ruled the world).
    I hope that others will jump in with their comments. I'm going to follow this thread and see!
    Good luck,
    Clinton

  • Is (4770 3.5 i7 qouad core 8 mb cach) good enough for premier and after effect?

    Hi guys,
    am buying the new imac 27" with its maximum features: 32 GB, 1 TB ssd, NVidia gtx 780 with 4GB, but I am worried about the cpu (4770 3.5 i7 qouad core 8 mb cach) is it good enough for premier and after effect?

    Thanks John, but I've already read that page. I have just a simple question about the performance of "4 core" and "6core" if anyone had already tried both of them.

  • Mac Pro buying advice for Graphic Design

    I am going to be purchasing a Mac Pro and was hoping I could get some advice on the right set-up for what I do. I use CS4 heavily on the Mac for graphic design spending a good amount of time in Photoshop working with files that can easily go over a few gigs (when working on convention booth displays, etc.). I also use my Mac for casual video editing in iMovie, and use Apple's other great offerings like iWeb, iPhoto, etc.
    My main questions are:
    - I'm leaning towards the Quad. I keep my Macs for at least 5 years. Is that a good decision?
    - If I do go with the Quad should I opt for the 2.66 or 2.93?
    - At the moment I am running 8 Gig on my current Mac, should I configure this new one with 8 Gig?
    - Is the Radeon the correct card choice for a heavy Photoshop user?
    I hope these questions aren't ones that have been asked a thousand times. It's a lot of money to spend (especially right now) and I want to make sure I configure it correctly for what I do.
    Thank you in advance for your input.

    Hi hatter,
    Thank you again for your responses. That really helps clear up the RAM situation. I think that is part of what swayed me towards the 8-Core as opposed to the Quad. Please correct me if I am wrong, but looking at prices of RAM on Crucial I see that if I wanted today to put 16 Gigs of RAM in a Quad-Core it would cost me $1200 (for 4 4-Gig chips using all slots). However if I was going to put 16 in the 8-Core I could do it for $400 (8 2-Gig chips using all slots. Actually it would only be $200 more since I configured my Mac with 4 2-Gig chips from Apple for an extra $100). Seems like having more slots open will save me money when I want to upgrade ram since I don't have to go for the 4-Gig chips. That coupled with the theory that Snow Leopard is around the corner and will take advantage of the 8-Core it seems like opting for a low end 8-Core vs a high end Quad is worth the $300 difference.
    Side note: Are there any reports that say running more 2GB chips is worse than running fewer 4GB chips? Just curious.
    Even though I understand that the processor speed makes a difference I am hoping that the advantages of more RAM slots and future benefits of Snow Leopard, CS5 and other apps that will take advantage of the 8-Core in the near future will make it the right decision. If I could afford a faster 8-Core obviously I would opt for that but with a jump of $1,400 to the next processor speed I am afraid it is out of my reach.
    Regardless I'm sure I will feel very spoiled as soon as I unwrap this beast and get it up and running. Then in a year I'll give into the temptation of slipping a SSD in for the boot drive and I'll have to find a way to contain my excitement. I have a SSD on my laptop and WOW what an amazing difference it really is.
    Wow, these forums are great. I can't believe how helpful all of your responses have been. I feel much more informed and was able to order my Mac today not feeling like I was shopping in the dark.
    Thank you all again!

  • Is Pages Good Enough For Professional Printing?

    I'm looking to do an Large Format Brochure (11" x 17") single fold and I've been using Pages for the mock up and layout. I was thinking that I would need someone to recreate the design in Quark, or Pagemaker, but now I'm wondering if I can do it all in Pages.
    The printer that I plan on using is PSPrint (http://www.psprint.com/) and according to their offset printing specs and template, I just have to provide them with a 300dpi PDF. From what I've tested, exporting to PDF with quality set at "Best" I get a 300dpi file.
    I haven't tested my output with photographs yet since we haven't purchased the final images and are using comps, but am I wrong in thinking that Pages is good enough for this project?
    Template: http://www.psprint.com/DOWNLOAD/templates/brochures/brochurehalffold_11x17front.pdf
    Thanks in advance!

    There is no way to save out of Pages to pdf without flattening the transparency.
    Proposition: In any save path, transparency is flattened in saving.
    Test of proposition: Apple Pages '08 and Apple Mac OS X 10.4.11 as platform.
    1. Launch system software and application software.
    2. Insert first composition frame, select Apple Hoefler antiqua at 24 US pt, enter 'Type', leave default colour, leave default opacity.
    3. Insert second composition frame, select Apple Hoefler antiqua at 24 US pt, enter 'Transparency', change default colour to rubrication red, change opacity to 50%.
    4. Select e.g. File > Print > PDF > Save as PDF, name file 'Test', and select folder.
    5. Launch Acrobat Professional 6 (first version with ISO 15930 PDF/X-3 verification), check the PDF version (: 1.4), check at high magnification (: no rasterisation), check that the source character string can be synthesised (: it can).
    As posted previously, if transparency is applied, PDF 1.4 is automatically configured unless the path is ISO 15930 PDF/X-3 that does not support transparency (PDF 1.3 has an opaque imaging model, not a transparency imaging model). This is a simplistic test, but it is nonetheless a test.
    Because Apple Quartz has applied transparency since 2000, and because there the matrix of system versions and application versions is somewhat monstrous, the notion of testing is somewhat notional .
    /hh

  • I Want to buy the new mackook air (2013) .Will it be good enough for ios app development as i will be installing xcode.Is 1.3hz processor good enough.

    I Want to buy the new mackook air (2013) .Will it be good enough for ios app development as i will be installing xcode.Is 1.3hz processor good enough.

    The MBA is so small and thin many people can't help thinking it is like a Windows netbook - an underpowered toy. It isn't. There's nothing I do on my top end iMac that I can't - and don't - do on my MBA. Of course the iMac has a faster processor, bus speed, and a discrete video card so it is much faster than my MBA. Then again, my computers spend more time waiting for me to do something than I wait for them - and this includes using Photoshop and compiling code.
    If I were writing large programs - something like Word for example - I'd want a very fast processor to speed up the compile/debug/compile cycle. But for iOS development your codebase will be much smaller. Frankly I can't see that much difference between a 13" MBA and a 13" MBP for development purposes. Now a top of the line 15" MBP is a different matter with its much faster CPU and separate video card.

Maybe you are looking for