The key is what cpu the iMac has. Intel Core Duo cpus can't run 64bit OS X, where Core 2 Duos can.
That said, since even older Macs have good resale value if they are in decent shape, swapping it out for a newer system is often a big win for photo and video editing. I changed my Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz MacBook Pro 13 for a Mac mini with i7 quad-core 2.6Ghz ... the difference in rendering speed is pretty astonishing. Personally, I prefer to have a separate display and cpu unit. The Apple Thunderbolt 27" display and Mac mini are a dynamite pair. I have 16G ram with the 2.6Ghz in the mini, currently running a spinny 1T internal drive. I'll replace the internal drive with an SSD of similar capacity ... I'm just hoping the price will get down to $600 or so by the end of the year. Right now, it seems a little stuck at just over $1000. G On Aug 31, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:01:40PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote: >> Larry, are you absolutely sure it can't be upgraded? Your specs "24" >> iMac, 2.4Ghz core 2 duo, 6GB ram" sound _exactly_ like mine (except >> mine's a 20") and I'm happily running 10.8.4. The key thing is you >> need at least a Core 2 CPU. > > Interesting. When I first looked It said something like you needed > one from late 2008 or newer, and mine was from 2007. I forget the exact > dates, but that mine was from just before the cutoff. Now, it looks > like it might actually work on mine. > >> >> To open it up you need two small suction cups (dollar store) and a >> couple of Torx drivers (T8, T6). And about 3 hours spare. :-) You also >> need a way to attach the HDD externally later after you install the OS >> and need to copy your old account and apps back into the SSD. That >> copy will run overnight (at least 8 hours). > > Yup, I ran into that with the macbook, it took something like four hours > to transfer the contents. > >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 05:36:22AM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote: >>>> Put an SSD in your iMac. You won't regret it. >>> >>> Yeah. I'm definitely going to end up with an SSD in my main photo >>> processing machine. The question is whether that'll be my current >>> iMac (which is a pain to open up) or some other machine, because with >>> this one, I can't upgrade OSX, and without a newer OSX I can't upgrade >>> Lightroom. >>> >>> So, if I decide for a newer box, where do I get the most bang for my buck? >>> >>> Or, if I keep the iMac, do I replace the flakey DVD with another DVD, or >>> with a 4TB spinny drive? >>> >>> in any case, I think finances will dictate waiting a couple of weeks. >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I just finished putting an SSD and more memory in my macbook. >>>>> >>>>> I did a very rough, informal benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> So, my two photo systems are: >>>>> 24" iMac, 2.4Ghz core 2 duo, 6GB ram, catalog on internal spinny drive, >>>>> raw files on network mounted drive, via gigabit ethernet (much faster than >>>>> the USB 2 setup) >>>>> 13" macbook, 2.2GHz core 2 duo, 6GB ram, catalog and files on SSD drive. >>>>> >>>>> 11 freshly imported files, processed to 1:1 previews >>>>> macbook 1:27 - 87sec >>>>> imac 1:54 - 114sec >>>>> >>>>> So, the two systems are very similar except for storage, the iMac has >>>>> about a 10% faster processor, even so, heavy processing of files was about >>>>> 30% faster. >>>>> >>>>> Catalog intensive actions like backing up a catalog, seem a lot faster >>>>> on the macbook. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't compared processing the same files mounted on the network drive. >>>>> >>>>> At four times the screen area, the iMac is a lot easier to work on though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
