Stan, I use a Thunderbolt Display 27" interchangeably with MacBook Air 13" (2011 generation), MacBook Pro 13" (2013 generation), and Mac mini. It's an excellent display, IMO slightly better than the one in the 2011 iMac 27" I have at the office. The two laptops above belong to the office too, the mini is my personal system (2.6Ghz quad core, 16G RAM, 1T internal drive, linked to a five disk array for storage and backup) which I do all my image processing with. It works great.
A new Mac Pro would be neat and higher performance, but it is FAR more expensive and I'm not convinced I need all that processing power as yet. This system seems to handle everything I'm throwing at it (from 5Mpixel Olympus E-1 raw files to 140 Mpixel raw file film scans from the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED) with more than adequate performance. And when I want a new cpu, even if I want to update to the Mac Pro, it's just a matter of plugging it in and cloning the contents of the mini onto it, which will reduce my system cost. I doubt Apple will switch to a different display connection protocol any time in the near future. Thunderbolt has at least the next half-dozen years comfortably in hand with respect to performance, I suspect. ;-) G On Nov 30, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Stan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote: > My 7-year old iMac just keeps on working, but it really struggles with large > image files, etc. My dilemma is not whether to buy a new computer - that is a > given. My dilemma is about what to buy. > > Note: I am well aware that I can certainly find cheaper alternatives than > those discussed below. However, I have had enough experience with MS-DOS and > Windows systems over the last few decades to be 100% certain that I have zero > interest in going that route. And within the Apple lineup, the Mac Mini, > tricked out and paired with the 27" Thunderbolt Display, is about what I > would get in an iMac all-in-one for about the same price. With some sacrifice > in expansion ports with the Mini. So the Mini is not off the table, but > pushed well to the side while I look at other options. > > Specifically, short version: > a. all-in-one (iMac) vs. desktop Mac Pro + display. > b. If desktop+monitor, then Apple Thunderbolt display vs. other good > display vs. display with wide (Adobe RGB) color gamut. > > WRT the monitor - I have read several magazine articles and blog comments and > other material (including this interesting piece from EIZO: > http://www.eizo.com/global/library/basics/lcd_monitor_color_gamut/ ) and I am > not sure what I would gain from a wide-gamut display. If web images and > printers are stuck with sRGB, then for me to see a "better" image on my > desktop isn't really going to do anything except to further increase the load > on my credit card. > > And if the iMac or Apple Thunderbolt style monitor is good enough, then do I > need a desktop at all? > > A current quad-core iMac with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M GPU with 4GB graphic > memory plus some system memory and drive upgrades would be about $2900. > > The quad-core base version of the new Mac Pro will start at $3000, including > 2 AMD FirePro D300 GPU's with 2GB on each. Some TBD added cost of memory > upgrades, cables, etc. > > So, is there sufficient value added with the desktop and its option to go for > a wide gamut display? Am I gaining other intangible benefits from the (to me) > inscrutable differences in processor and GPUs between the iMac and Mac Pro? > Should I save some money on the computer system and buy a 20-40 lens? > > > I welcome any comments or opinions, informed or otherwise. > > stan -- 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.
