Suggestions on which iMac is better suited for me ...

I am stuck between two iMacs and was hoping I could get some input from you experts.
iMac A: 24" 2.93GHz C2D, 4GB, GT130 512MB
iMac B: 21.5" 3.33GHz C2S, 4GB, HD 4670 256MB
My main concern is Aperture 3's performance. I have about 40k images that are mostly JPG, though I'm now shooting RAW only (Nikon D50). My current iMac isn't all that speedy in Aperture to be honest.
Will the 21.5" be much of an upgrade for me? Its a faster CPU, but also less video memory. I haven't been able to find much about the GT130 versus the HD4670. Which one will be better for Aperture?

Tom, you have quite an investment in that current iMac A configuration. My guess is iMac B will be a better performer but I’m wondering why you wouldn’t consider a 27” iMac with i5 processor (or even i7) given you are not overly pleased with your current machine’s performance? Perhaps you are concerned that the 27” is just too big a screen, but if you have a place for it on your desk, you may be happier with it, especially in terms of performance on some tasks. Aperture doesn’t always use all the processors you have for every action, but it does for some of the major tasks that you may like to see speeded up. The i5 can match the speed of the 3.33 GHz C2D due to the Turbo Boost feature when it is only using one or two processors under light load; under heavy load, the GHz drops but you have two more processors to throw at the tasks. The i7 can exceed the speed of the C2D and i5 and adds Hyper-threading for even more throughput under load.
If your demands tend to be reasonably light, the iMac 3.33GHz C2D may be good, but given your investment, I’d recommend at least the i5 or i7 with more video memory.

Similar Messages

I am a sophomore in high school and i am between getting an ipad with a great quality keyboard case or an 11 inch macbook air. Which is a better suited purchase? I do not want to make the wrong purchase!

I would like some input on which might be better suited for a sophmore in high school because I do not want to make the wrong purchase. I have apple products so I know how they work, so I have no problem in that area!

The Apple Support Communities are an international user to user technical support forum. As a man from Mexico, Spanish is my native tongue. I do not speak English very well, however, I do write in English with the aid of the Mac OS X spelling and grammar checks. I also live in a culture perhaps very very different from your own. When offering advice in the ASC, my comments are not meant to be anything more than helpful and certainly not to be taken as insults.
The iPad does not do Java or Flash. So you may have issues using it on many websites. There are web browsers for iPad that try to be work arounds for this, there is mixed reviews as to how well that they work.

Which imac would work best for Graphic Design?

I am a Graphic Designer, currently using Creative Suite 2 (soon to be upgraded to CS3) and I need a new Mac for home. A Powermac takes up too much space, so I'm thinking about an imac with a 24" monitor and I have a few questions for the experts:)
Which imac would work best for graphics?
Is the monitor acurate for Pantone color matching?
Is the 24"monitor on the imac clear and bright?
Is Leopard a stable OS?
I also need an (inexpensive) color laser printer. Any suggestions?
Thanks a bunch!
Suzi (Machead since the beginning of Mac history)

Hello and Welcome to Apple Discussions.
The 24" iMac uses a superior LCD panel to the 20" model and so is certainly better suited to your purposes. I don't know how badly having a piece of glass in front of the display would affect you as a designer though.
The display certainly is clear and bright. I use it on it's lowest brightness setting.
Leopard is stable but it's worth checking that drivers for any devices that you currently rely on are available. For example I have to go back to my 10.4.11 iMac G4 to use my scanner. Personally I can't get iCal to alarm in Leopard but that's a fairly minor gripe.
As this is the forum for much older iMacs I'd suggest re-posting in the Intel iMac forum and even Mac OS 10.5 Printing forums for better informed opinion:
<hr width="200">
G4 (aka Flat Panel): Intel:
Click image to go to correct forum.
cheers
mrtotes

I do a lot of CAD work and 3D modelling on my aging HP. Which iMac would best suit?

I do a lot of CAD work and 3D modelling, (Sketchup), on my aging HP. Which iMac would best suit my needs ?

I agree with RRFS.
If you can afford it, Custom spec out and purchase the best components for your iMac.
Custom order the fastest i7 CPU, custom GPU (if you can afford it order the 2 GB VRAM GPU, otherwise get the 1 GB VRAM GPU), add the custom largest SSD.
Purchase 16 GBs of RAM or more (the new iMacs can take up to 32 GBs of RAM) from online memory suppliers like Crucial memory or OWC. They are cheaper to buy RAM from.
iMacs are not designed and are not user upgradeable for components other than RAM.
Purchasd the best you can afford now as it will be much harder to get what you really needed later.
Also, I highly recommend with whatever iMac purchase you make, you budget for 3-year extended AppleCare.
iMacs have, somewhat, a regular component failure history. I believe that these failures are due to how much warmer iMacs run than anything else. Purchasing and having extended AppleCare will give you peace of mind and free warranty service for three years.
Good Luck on whatever you decide.

In LSMW which method is exactly suits for Master Recipe Creation (TC-C201)

Hi All,
I am unable to find which method suits for Master Recipe Creation in LSMW.
Please send me in detail if any method suits.
Can any body help me in this.
Points will be awarded for correct answer which helps me come out of this problem.
Regards,
Shobha

Hi shobha,
if there is code u have to do before uploading go for BDC or BAPI,
it not go for LSMW (recording method) --> in this its very difficult to code.
Thanks

Which is a better source for an Indicator, physical or logical

Hi guys,
this is something I was wondering -
which is better for filtering out a value? (for example to Count measures with certain Indicator equal to Yes).
A) Logical (check "Use existing logical columns as the source") and the use something like CASE Logical table.Indicator Measure When 'YES' Then 1 END
or
B) Physical (create a column and in Data Type select the Column mapping and map as
CASE Physical table.Indicator Measure When 'YES' Then 1 END
Physical table is the same.
I know, it's always best to push things to DB back. But in this case, it'd be the same, it doesn't appear to me which option is better at this point.
By the way, both of them work.
Thanks
Message was edited by:
wildmight

Both should be same. You can verify this by checking the physical sql generated by using both methods. Most likely they would be same.

I am trying to identify which platform is best suited for creating a digital magazine?

HI, and thanks in advance for any help. I publish a digital magazine on Joomag, but want to move away from that platform and use adobe.
I simply don't know which platform within the suite is best suited for a novice user. I'm not a luddite, but not a wizard either.
Can someone recommend some solution?

If you only need to handle 2 clients, I see no reason why you
couldn't run your FMS on your Windows XP machine.

WHICH iMAC should I BUY FOR USING LOGIC 7 or 9?

Im debating between getting the 21.5 inch with 3.03 GHz, or upgrading to 3.33GHZ.
Is it really worth upgrading for $180?
WIll I see a big difference? Is there a vast difference in how these two machines would work?
WOuld it be better to invest that $180 into more memory or a faster hard drive?
Thanks.

Faster hard drive! 7.200 rpm is the way to go when using Logic, either internal drive or external Firewire. The 0.33 MHz won't make much of a difference. I work with Logic on a 2007' white MacBook with 2Ghz, and i've always found a workaround if CPU power was weak. Better go for the faster HD.
Fox

Which MAC better suited for Aperture ?

I've a budget around 1900-2000 euro (more or less the same price in US dollars for the US market)
The choice would be either one of the new iMac or a MacBookPro ...
In both cases there is some level of choice whether to invest money on:
1) either go for the model with more performing video card
2) either the model with more performing CPU or more RAM or (even) a solid-state disk
Just to make it clear: I'm not a pro, I've been able to use Aperture, till now, on a 2007 MacBook
and I didn't feel so bad as regards managing previews, while I'd like some more horsepower
while editing single images (as soon as the list of adjustments applied gets long, the spinning
beach ball takes home on my screen and I have to wait more and more time !)
... The time needed to zoom in at 100% is annoying to ...
So the question is: are these operations (adjustments, zooming into the image) demanding more
on CPU, or on GPU or ... what else ?
To make an example: would a MacBookPro be performing more fast than an iMac
(I don't care of the smaller screen size, since I'm used to adjust images at 100% zoom) ?
Is it worth going to the MacBookPro with Radeon HD 6750M and 1GB memory, or would
a Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB perform as well, investing the saved money in more
RAM ?
Speaking of photo applications I'd naively suppose it's better to go with a more performing GPU,
but probably most of the GPU power is reserved for film encoding/decoding, not for photo adjustments ...
Thank you for your help

Whatever you get you want an SSD. That makes iMacs relatively very expensive.
Mobility is a HUGE benefit. iMacs lack mobility.
Top 2011 MBPs with SSD are true desktop replacement boxes. Very strong performance and Thunderbolt removes the achilles heel of past laptops, i/o. Previously I had a Mac Pro plus Macbook Pro workflow and it worked. Now I have a desktop-replacement 2011 MBP and it is way better. If you sell your current laptop and apply the money to a new MBP + external display the MBP comparison price gets very attractive as compared to MBP plus iMac.
Aperture runs well on 8 GB RAM, and in any event 2011 MBPs will take 16 GB RAM. Currently prices are unacceptably high for the required 8 GB DIMMs but the capability is there when prices fall, which they will. As you do your analyses include RAM to 8 GB (post-purchase via third party, much cheaper).
iMacs have glossy-only displays. Many image pros including me find those displays unacceptable. MBPs have matte displays available. New Macbook Airs (MBAs) are glossy too, but seem to present less glare than iMacs do. Each individual needs to visually compare displays before purchasing.
MBAs are the low end for heavy graphics apps like Aperture, not recommended.
I own a 17" 2011 MBP with SSD and 8 GB RAM and Aperture flies on it. Adding SSD to a top 2011 MBP costs only +$100, and the optical drive can inexpensively be replaced with a third-party hard drive of up to 1000 GB (1 TB) when necessary. IMO an SSD is a necessity, not an option.
During desktop use fast external hard drives like Promise Thunderbolt RAID arrays can be added, as can quality non-glossy displays like the $300 Viewsonic VP2365wb or the better NEC 2490. I have the Viewsonic aligned above a 17" MBP and it is a nice combination. Two displays IMO is much preferable for graphics work.
SSD is a huge boost. I put OS, apps, Library and Referenced Masters on the SSD, then relocate the Masters to external drives when editing is complete. Aperture performance is essentially instant.
BareFeats.com has relative graphics performance tests up at:
http://barefeats.com/mba11_02.html
Insights from Rob Art Morgan at Barefeats:
"Though more than adequate for mere mortal tasks (Safari, Mail, etc.), the 2011 MacBook Air remains at the bottom of the Mac "food chain" when running apps that stress the CPU, GPU, and memory. This will be further illustrated with soon-to-be posted tests using After Effects, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc."
From an earlier post of mine regarding Aperture hardware:
Aperture is a hardware hog: GPU, CPU, i/o, RAM. Although many Macs will run Aperture, those intending Aperture as an important app will do far better with the strongest available hardware in a given category.
All new Macs have Thunderbolt, so as of 2011 we can scratch i/o as a performance limiter (except see SSD comments below).
Aperture (3.1.2, OS 10.6.8) seems to like about 4 GB of RAM all to itself. On 2011 boxes 8 GB RAM generally works well with multiple concurrent apps. From the standpoint of cost-effective upgrading, adding third party RAM to achieve 8 GB or more is something every Aperture user should do. By the time we reach v4 Aperture I would bet that having more than 8 GB RAM on board will be useful; it may be already with Lion, but I have not been running Lion due to known issues with Adobe apps.
Graphics in 2011 Macs vary widely, so IMO the graphics processing unit (GPU) may be the most important variable for comparing new Aperture boxes in 2011 . The GPU itself is important, but even more importantly evaluating the GPU strength turns out to be a pretty good way to compare 2011 Mac Aperture performance.
Relatively real-world 2011 graphics hardware test results on pro applications have been performed by well-respected testers, see below. I have not yet seen meaningful Aperture-specific tests, however experience since v1 Aperture has been that Aperture performance has been keenly dependent upon the strength of the graphics processor. E.g. a Mac Pro with lame graphics card will underperform on Aperture.
In my experience (2011 17" MBP) the benefits of SSDs are huge. I consider the fastest Aperture workflow to have both Library and Referenced Masters on SSD, then when work on a Project is complete the Referenced Masters are relocated to hard drives. I am doing that now and everything on the box is essentially instant.
Comparative Final Cut Pro test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
Comparative Motion test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others also are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g12.html
Comparative 2011 MBP Graphics test results at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/mbps04.html
INSIGHTS from BareFeats.com:
"1. The 2011 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz MacBook Pro with Radeon 6750M graphics (1GB GDDR5) is a 'different animal' from the 2011 2.0GHz MacBook Pro with the Radeon 6490M graphics (256MB GDDR5). Is it worth $300 more (comparably equipped). Yes, when you consider you are getting a faster CPU and much faster GPU.
2. The 2011 2.7GHz MacBook Pro with Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics does little or nothing to improve the 3D graphics performance compared to the GeForce 320M integrated graphics in the 2010 MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro."
HTH
-Allen Wicks

Which is the better lens for wildlife, sport action canon 70-200 is usm ii series L or Canon 100-400

Which would be a better for wildlife and sport action Canon 70-200 mm is usm ii serie L f/2.8 or Canon 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6?

On what camera? It makes a big difference depending upon whether you are using full frame or a crop camera.
Also depends upon the particular sports and type of wildlife most commonly involved, how much reach you might need. Outdoor, daytime sports vs indoor and nightime sports is another key factor.
On a crop camera a 70-200 is generally a lot more usable than it is on full frame, for sports and wildlife. An f2.8 lens and 70-200 might be ideal for indoor sports even with a crop camera. It also might be plenty for large game that can be pretty closely approacted. But for small and more shy wildlife, sports on a larger playing field, you'll more likely need the 100-400. But as an f4.5-5.6 lens that's going to be more of a daytime-only lens.
The 100-400mm is unusual in that it's a push/pull zoom. This can be particularly fast to use and makes the lens popular among photograhers shooting fast moving subjects such as birds in flight and air shows.
If you give serious consideration to the 70-200/2.8 IS II in combination with teleconverter EF 2X III, I'd suggest renting and trying them toghether first. The reason is that a stronger 2X teleconverter has more effect on image quality than a weaker TC. The specific combination of the 70-200 Mark II lens and the 2X Mark III TC is pretty darned good.... better than the combo earlier versions of each item. But whether or not it's up to your expectastions is a judgment call only you can make. So it might be wise to rent before you buy, just to be sure.
If instead you start to take a hard look at the 100-400mm, once again you might want to rent it and give it a try. Some people really like the push/pull zoom design. Some don't. (I'm one of the latter... but to be fair this is largely an old prejudice from trying to use that type of zoom in the past, long before IS. I always found push-pull zooms hard to get a steady shot with.... But the 100-400's IS goes a long way toward solving that problem.)
And those two really aren't your only choices.
Personally I use a pair of crop cameras (7D), most of the time one fitted with a 70-200, and the other fitted with a 300/4 IS, sometimes in combination with an EF 1.4X II teleconverter. Or, when I don't need to be mobile and can set up a tripod, I'll use a 300/2.8 IS, both by itself and with EF 1.4X II or 2X II teleconverters.
Another possibility is two lower cost lenses... such as a 70-200/4 IS in combination with a third party lens such as the Sigma 120-400 OS or 150-500 OS. Those lenses are considerably less expensive than the 70-200/2.8 II and the 100-400, respectively. You might be able to afford both and still find they meet your needs very well.
I use the 70-200/4 IS, as well as a copy of the first version of the 70-200/2.8 IS, and they are excellent lenses too. No doubt about it, the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II is top of the heap and exceptionally good... but rest assured those other 70-200s are no slouches.
If using a full frame camera, for large field sports and more distant, smaller wildlife.... better start saving up. You're going to need one or two of the super telephotos, such as the new EF 200-400/4L IS 1.4X that I'm saving up for!
p.s. By the way, if not already doing so you might want to try Back Button Focusing. It's a very popular technique among sports/action and wildlife photographers. I've been using it for years for virtually everything I shoot, and can't imagine using any other method now.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Nokia Beta Suite for Windows

I was very excited when I saw this was available as the MS supplied Outlook Connector does not do a complete job of syncing contacts.
http://betalabs.nokia.com/trials/nokia-suite-beta
I've tried via Bluetooth, and via multiple USB ports using my Nokia USB cable, and can't get the Suite to recognize my Lumia 710. I've seen multiple reports of similar situations, I'm wondering if anyone has actually been able to get this to work?

Now that the new Lumias have arrived, could Nokia confirm the following:
1. It is not possible to sync contacts and calendar between MS Outlook and a Lumia 820 or 920 directly via Nokia Suite and USB cable.
2. Nokia suite can be used to copy contacts and calendar from older Nokia phones to a Lumia 820 or 920, but only by using Skydrive. And when using this method, not all contact fields will be copied, e.g. contact notes and repeating calendar items will not be copied, and the contacts interface in Windows Live is infuriating.
3. The ease and accuracy of synchronisation of contacts using the "Outlook Connector" add-on is even worse.
4. It seems the mysterious "Windows Companion" or "Windows Phone" app, which supposedly allows direct local synchronisation of MS Outlook contact and calendar entries between a PC and a Lumia phone via USB cable, is only compatible with PC's running the Windows 8 OS. Anyone running earlier versions of Windows on their PC's will have to upgrade.
5. It seems impossible to obtain specifications as to precisely what the "Windows Companion" or "Windows Phone" app will do and how it will do it.
It is quite incredible that Nokia has allowed the above issues to remain unresolved since the release of the first Lumia phones, especially given the demise of its Symbian OS, which allowed effortless and ACCURATE local synchronisation between phone and MS Outlook via Nokia Suite. Given the amount of forum posts relating to these issues, one has to assume that MS is deliberately using them to force consumers to use its unsatisfactory cloud services and upgrade their PC OS to Windows 8 - all to achieve very poorly a synchronisation function that Nokia had provided perfectly well for years.
Michael

Which is the better converter for mts and mpg files?

Ok, I just have a quick question regarding conversion software. Does anyone know which is better...PAVTUBE or CLIPWRAP2? Besides the cost...pavtube is cheaper. Which one is faster and offers the best quality? OR is there even a better one out there? I have mts files and mpg files I'd like to convert for use in FCP 6.
Message was edited by: CJAZZY

ClipWrap2.

Which is a better choice for me? A Macbook Air 11" or 13"?

Hello! I am soon to be a college student and I am debating whether to invest in an 11" or 13" Macbook Air. I've decided that I wanted a Macbook Air because I want a lightweight portable laptop with long battery life. But which size? Through some YouTube reviews I've heard a lot of things, I heard that the 11" is better than the 13" just because everything is smaller and more portable, the screen saturation makes it looks better than the 13" and just the freedom to carry it around and hold it under one hand is the ideal college laptop. But I also heard that it's horrible for holding memory and RAM (which I am completely ignorant about.. and quite frankly not too anxious to get educated to), so the Macbook Air 11" is an excellent SECONDARY laptop. Which freaks me out because I was actually leaning towards the 11" rather than the 13"
I don't play any games, nor do I video edit much. I just want a laptop that can hold all of my pictures, hold documents for school purposes, and play Spotify while I do my work. I don't really care about the Retina Display, only because I didn't spoil my self with it. But that being said, whatever Air I'm going to buy, it will become my one and ONLY laptop and it will serve as a PRIMARY one. Given I don't do the complicating video editing (unless it's a college assignment), or gaming with it, which laptop do you think is right for me?
Thanks for reading everything!
Should I still be safe and just get the 13"?
Please put your input!

Forget everything you think you know. The MacBook Air, 11" or 13", is a very powerful computer that can be the sole computer for anyone who doesn't require extremely powerful graphics. (This is because these computers use Intel integrated video rather than discrete video cards which Apple puts only in its top 'Pro' computers.) For most college students the Air is a perfect computer and if you configure an 11" and a 13" MBA with the same amount of memory, same size SSD, and same processor the only difference between them is the size - which, by the way, will also give the 13" a slightly better battery life because its battery is larger.
The 11" has a 128GB drive and cannot be upgraded which for some people makes it a tight fit for some but roomy for others. I'd have difficulty making it my only computer but my wife probably could. This is one of three advantages the 13" model offers (to me). The second is the longer battery life. The third is that I found the 11" model to be too cramped. The keyboard is the same size as the 13" but somehow I felt terribly cramped and the screen was too small. That's why I walked in thinking I'd get an 11" and walked out with the 13" MBA. I'd strongly recommend 8GB whichever model you choose.

Which is a better buy for college a non-retina display 15 inch macbook pro with a 2.6ghz processor or a 2.9 ghz 13 inch non retina max specs macbook pro both with 8 gb of ram will be using to write papers basically for general use im a Science major

im a college student im studying to be a vet tech and i want this computer too last which a more sound investment the non retina macook pro 15 inch with these specs:2.6 ghz 1 tb ata hd with 8 gb of ram or a maxspec 13 inch mac book pro: 2.9 ghz 1Tb and 8gb of ram any help is appreciated thank you

Hi,
I am a researcher so I store a lot of papers, data, and use numerical software. I have had a 17inch high spec macbook pro for over a year now. I find that apart from the large screen, it was unnecessary to get the high specs. This is why. Firstly, the hard drive is easy to replace and upgrade, apple charge a lot for their own ones. Secondly, the ram in my one was upgradable (which i didnt know when i bought it) and i since upgraded to 16gigs from 8 and its amazing. Thirdly, the newer macbook pros run hotter than the previous ones.
The retina is overrated and the programs for retina need more memory and processing power, so what you find is that your hard drive will get taken over sooner, your mac will run hotter, and battery life lower.
I would say to you, dont worry about the processor speed, the normal speed offered is perfect, more than that is not necessary unless you are running highly demanding apps, the mac will run hotter too. Dont bother getting a large hard drive in the macbook. Get a flash SSD drive, and buy a good portable 2tb HD, like a WD one, and use that to store as much of your work as possible. I believe apple started soldering their ram cards to the motherboard or something so that people cant upgrade. Check in advance and see if the macbook you want can be ram upgradable, then get a lower ram model and buy good 8gb ram cards to make 16gig. Very very easy to install them, took me about two minutes to do mine, it will be much cheaper.
If I think of anything else i will post back. Dont forget to install GFX card status too and use integrated only when on battery, i get up to ten hours of battery life without wifi, around 8 with wifi.
edit. I forgot to mention that if you buy your mac and try to open it you will void the warranty.

Which iMac is better, the ME086LL/A or MD093LL/A?

These models appear to be exactly alike except the newer one (ME086LL/A) has the Intel Iris Pro graphics processor and the the older one (MD093LL/A) has the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M graphics processor. Is the Intel Iris better in any respect than the NVIDIA? Thanks.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M uses what is called CUDA. CUDA uses the graphic card to speed up graphics and video rendering... for example... Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X (I think) and 3d software like Blender. This can speed up rendering time by 4 times or more.
Intel Iris doesn't support CUDA.
I would go with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M card.

Suggestions on which iMac is better suited for me ...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for