New to Mac: Mini? Pro? Macbook?

N

NyteBlade

Weaksauce
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
121
Hey guys, I'm a recent convert to the dark side of Mac. I've been using a MacBook Pro (primarily in clamshell mode) at work, and am looking to convert to a Mac at home too.

Right now I'm using a AMD Athlon X4 620 desktop with 8 gigs of RAM and a SSD (not exactly blazing fast by today's standards). I'm a software developer and amateur photographer, so my requirements are pretty much coding and Photoshop, and I think almost every Mac on sale today is faster than my desktop.

I'm not much of a mobile guy. Honestly my iPad or iPhone does pretty much whatever I need to do, so portability isn't much of a concern.

I'm debating between a really beefy Mac Mini, a Macbook Pro, or a Mac Pro. I'm not sure whether anyone has much experience with the Mac Mini as an always-on desktop type replacement, I'm not sure about running the Macbook Pro almost always in clamsell mode, and I'm not sure I want to sell my car to afford a Mac Pro :)

A beefy Mac Min is currently my favorite option, but just wondering what you guys think. My desktop PC right now does pretty well, so I'm not in a rush, so maybe I should wait for the WWDC too to see if anything new and shiny is announced?

Thanks in advance!
 
If you do decide to shell out for a Mac Pro, than just wait a bit until they release the new one.
 
If you have a nice monitor, keyboard and mouse then a MacMini would be the way to go.
If I was in your position, I would do a new thunderbolt monitor and thunderbolt hdd for photo storage and continue to use the MacBook Pro.
 
I love my Mac Mini (Late 2009) and it's been an awesome machine. It's been running 24/7 since I bought it (Server duties, etc). The big trade off with the Mini is lack of future expandability. For example, in order to get USB 3.0 I would have to get a new Mac Mini (It's kind of a non issue to me since it has FireWire 800). If you are just going to be using it for a few years and replacing it, future expandability isn't that much of an issue. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
 
timta2 said:
I love my Mac Mini (Late 2009) and it's been an awesome machine. It's been running 24/7 since I bought it (Server duties, etc). The big trade off with the Mini is lack of future expandability. For example, in order to get USB 3.0 I would have to get a new Mac Mini (It's kind of a non issue to me since it has FireWire 800). If you are just going to be using it for a few years and replacing it, future expandability isn't that much of an issue. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
Click to expand...

No Mac, other than the Mac Pro has any sort of expansion abilities.
 
NyteBlade said:
Hey guys, I'm a recent convert to the dark side of Mac. I've been using a MacBook Pro (primarily in clamshell mode) at work, and am looking to convert to a Mac at home too.

Right now I'm using a AMD Athlon X4 620 desktop with 8 gigs of RAM and a SSD (not exactly blazing fast by today's standards). I'm a software developer and amateur photographer, so my requirements are pretty much coding and Photoshop, and I think almost every Mac on sale today is faster than my desktop.

I'm not much of a mobile guy. Honestly my iPad or iPhone does pretty much whatever I need to do, so portability isn't much of a concern.

I'm debating between a really beefy Mac Mini, a Macbook Pro, or a Mac Pro. I'm not sure whether anyone has much experience with the Mac Mini as an always-on desktop type replacement, I'm not sure about running the Macbook Pro almost always in clamsell mode, and I'm not sure I want to sell my car to afford a Mac Pro :)

A beefy Mac Min is currently my favorite option, but just wondering what you guys think. My desktop PC right now does pretty well, so I'm not in a rush, so maybe I should wait for the WWDC too to see if anything new and shiny is announced?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

If you're at home, as has been mentioned, by far the best bang for the buck is the iMac. It has a significantly faster video card than the Mini, is capable of having 32GB of Ram, a much faster processor (clockspeed wise), and if you get the 27" model the capacity for a 2.5" drive and a 3.5" drive allowing the usage of an SSD and an HDD (I'm not sure if this has been removed from the new super thin version however...)

The Mac Minis main advantage is of course its size. In so far as the rest of the hardware, it's pretty similar to an MBA, so much so that I would almost recommend getting an MBA over the Mini since the way I see it, you might as well get the display, and if for whatever reason you do want to move it or use it on the go, it's easy (I know you mentioned it probably won't get used on the go much). The air of course is more expensive than the Mini, so pros and cons there. However you did mention getting an MBP, and that is faster still in comparison with the Mini and Air.



The Mac Pro is of course a power user option but you pay for it. However it should be noted that Mac's option is very similar in price to a similar workstations from either Dell or HP, so going Mac is no major loss. All workstations are expensive.

Like others have said in the thread though, if you're going to go this route, it would be best to wait for the new version. It might be a while, but it's ostensibly a better option that purchasing a workstation with 2+ year old hardware. The current Mac Pro is long in the tooth at best, is missing SATA 3, USB 2, Thunderbolt, and faster video cards.


miadavies said:
But it's a vague day. Just like iPhone 5s or iPad 5, no one knows when it will come out, of course we all know it's a this-year event.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's better to wait for the significant upgrade rather than pay top dollar for non-new hardware. Cook has promised an updated Mac Pro this year, I think it's reasonable to expect he'll deliver.
 
Consider an iMac. The Mac Mini plus a comparable IPS screen, mouse, and keyboard will cost you more than an iMac but it will have worse specs to boot. The Mac Pro was always overkill for almost anyone since it uses Xeon, ECC RAM, server grade mobo, etc, but it makes even less sense now given how long since its been updated.

27" iMac is the best choice, honestly. Its display is excellent, but if it is out of your budget then the 21" model is also very good. Check for refurbs as well, they're like new and come with a full warranty.
 
If you're generally happy with your setup and want something faster, a spec'ed out Mac Mini would be a good option. Especially for coding and Photoshop.

I use an i5 13" Retina Macbook Pro and use it as a server 24/7 in clamshell mode and then as a coding / Photoshop machine when I'm on the go. It works really well for this. If you don't care about mobility, you can get a much more powerful Mini for less money.

The current Mac Pro is extremely outdated and overpriced. The new iMacs are nice, but if you like your existing monitor then why pay extra? The Macbooks are very expensive and if you don't care much about being mobile, then you're just paying more money for less hardware.
 
actually, you CAN expand a Mac Mini, It's just gonna be really expensive...
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/xmacminiserver.html

Because thunderbolt is External PCI Express, you can have a mac mini with PCIE slots in a 1U rackmount case, but it's over $1000 for the enclosure so if you aren't actually putting it in a rack and/or carrying it around all the time, stick with the MacPro if you really need expandability.
 
Do you need the screen? If so, iMac.

If not, Mac Mini.

Need portability?

MacBook Pro. Seriously LOVE my 17" Late 2011 MBP, and would love to see a Retina 17" if Apple ever decided to make one.

I'm parting out my gaming rig on eBay to get a Mac Mini, since I already have 3 25" 1080p monitors on my desk.
 
Doward said:
Do you need the screen? If so, iMac.

If not, Mac Mini.

Need portability?

MacBook Pro. Seriously LOVE my 17" Late 2011 MBP, and would love to see a Retina 17" if Apple ever decided to make one.

I'm parting out my gaming rig on eBay to get a Mac Mini, since I already have 3 25" 1080p monitors on my desk.
Click to expand...

Why would you get a Mac Mini? Sell the MBP and get a MacBook Pro Retina. It can drive 3 monitors. The Mini can only drive 2.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The Mac Minis main advantage is of course its size. In so far as the rest of the hardware, it's pretty similar to an MBA, so much so that I would almost recommend getting an MBA over the Mini since the way I see it, you might as well get the display, and if for whatever reason you do want to move it or use it on the go, it's easy (I know you mentioned it probably won't get used on the go much). The air of course is more expensive than the Mini, so pros and cons there. However you did mention getting an MBP, and that is faster still in comparison with the Mini and Air.
Click to expand...

The 900$ Mac Mini has a QuadCore i7 processor boosting to 3.6GHz, much, much faster than any Air configuration.
 
My issue with a Mac Mini is that tiny case offers little option for any cooling. While not extreme amounts more, the iMacs are large enough to offer a bit more cooling.
 
mac mini. so you have 2 computers. I am going to get my second mac mini, I like to have it next to my pc and use it as my 2nd computer next to my main monitor.
 
The 27" iMac screen is really glorious to see in person; working in photoshop you'd really appreciate the screen real estate. I'd suggest going with the "fusion" drive as well, which combines a separate SSD and HDD into one logical drive
 
Refurb iMac for sure. Everything in one package and you'll be happy with the speed and screen size. Mac mini would work to, but if you are like me, I'm all for less clutter and the iMac is seriously just a power cord; everything else is wireless and could easily be put away.

good luck!
 
iMac 27'', space-saving, great-looking, and with an awesome display.

Or you could save some $$$ and build a Hackintosh.
 
NyteBlade said:
Hey guys, I'm a recent convert to the dark side of Mac. I've been using a MacBook Pro (primarily in clamshell mode) at work, and am looking to convert to a Mac at home too.

Right now I'm using a AMD Athlon X4 620 desktop with 8 gigs of RAM and a SSD (not exactly blazing fast by today's standards). I'm a software developer and amateur photographer, so my requirements are pretty much coding and Photoshop, and I think almost every Mac on sale today is faster than my desktop.

I'm not much of a mobile guy. Honestly my iPad or iPhone does pretty much whatever I need to do, so portability isn't much of a concern.

I'm debating between a really beefy Mac Mini, a Macbook Pro, or a Mac Pro. I'm not sure whether anyone has much experience with the Mac Mini as an always-on desktop type replacement, I'm not sure about running the Macbook Pro almost always in clamsell mode, and I'm not sure I want to sell my car to afford a Mac Pro :)

A beefy Mac Min is currently my favorite option, but just wondering what you guys think. My desktop PC right now does pretty well, so I'm not in a rush, so maybe I should wait for the WWDC too to see if anything new and shiny is announced?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ - use this when making Apple purchases.

IMO - Macs are great at everything except gaming. Noway around it, don't listen to what anyone says otherwise. If you are going to game on a Mac, get enough HDD space to install a copy of Windows, DirectX just gets so much more coding love when games are being made.

If you aren't worried about gaming and money is an issue, go Mac Mini. You will get OS X on the cheap.

If you aren't worried about gaming or money, get an iMac. Though I think the 27" is way too much screen for me :eek:

If you do want to game on your mac and you want to go iMac - I would highly suggest not getting a 27" and then choosing the upgraded CPU option. That actually has the best gaming performance of the iMacs - even over the 27" with it's more powerful GPU - running in OS X. Windows may be different, here is why.

OS X doesn't utilize the GPU like Windows does, OS X uses the CPU for most graphics processing - it's kind of weird.

All in all if gaming is a thing you want to do on a Mac - just install Windows. Unless you are playing World ofWarcraft only and don't care about Ultra settings.

My wife's new iMac 21.5" with the upgraded CPU runs wow on Good. Ultra is just too low FPS in raids.

Sorry for the lengthy response...
 
I'd get a Retina Macbook Pro.

Hands down the best laptop I've ever owned.
 
mikeblas said:
Do you know when that might be?
Click to expand...

No, Tim Cook said something that would lead you to believe but didn't verify 2013. I've also seen rumors for this or next month but I would take that with roughly a dump truck worth of salt.
 
Last edited:
Metrocall said:
No, Tim Cook said something that would lead you to believe but didn't verify 2013. I've also seen rumors for this or next month but I would take that would roughly a dump truck worth of salt.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I haven't been able to find or confirm anything, so I don't know how to plan my purchase. This is a typical problem with Apple products, of course, so I'm trying to get used to it.

Jonesyy said:
The obvious option is the 27" iMac.
Click to expand...
It can't be upgraded, and is perhaps one of the most wastefully constructed computer products available in the world. Why do you feel it is the obvious choice?
 
mikeblas said:
It can't be upgraded, and is perhaps one of the most wastefully constructed computer products available in the world. Why do you feel it is the obvious choice?
Click to expand...
The Mac Mini is a novelty in my eyes, the Macbook Pro is a portable device but could be ideal (still overpriced) and the Mac Pro is disgracefully expensive for what he needs. The iMac is the only one left, if he really insists on going Apple.

Still can't beat a high-specced Windows based PC for the same price for all of the OPs requirements other than which operating system.

- Cheaper
- Easily upgradeable
- Games
 
Any all-in-one is going to be relatively wasteful due to the screen being tied to the guts. So when it comes time to upgrade your iMac, you're not only retiring the guts but also giving up on arguably one of the best displays out there.

I think Target Display Mode helps to mitigate this somewhat, however.
 
TESLA said:
Any all-in-one is going to be relatively wasteful due to the screen being tied to the guts. So when it comes time to upgrade your iMac, you're not only retiring the guts but also giving up on arguably one of the best displays out there.

I think Target Display Mode helps to mitigate this somewhat, however.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you do things. If you are a constant upgrader, wanting to have every refresh, one can easily sell their iMac for at least 75% of what they paid for it and simply pay the difference for a brand new machine.

Before you argue that this is inefficient, it is significantly more efficient than having to sell each individual PC part. On the Hardforums as an example, no one wants to purchase a pre-built PC, and usually the first demand if anything like that shows up, is a request for part out or a request for price of a particular price. As a result, flipping a Mac, and in particular the iMac is quite simple in practice.

Granted, in the PC world you could end up saving certain parts with and for your upgrade like say your PSU, harddrives, or possibly video cards, but if we did a comparison on what you're doing when you're selling an iMac, then I could argue that in the iMac scenario, I'm selling all of those things and gaining brand new ones every iteration whereas you're keeping old parts. This is particularly meaningful when Apple updates its lines. As in product lines like the iMac, there is always a video card upgrade, and within the past few years or so, HD upgrades have been farily consistent (whether its larger sizes, or from magnetic to SSD, or now with the fusion drive). In other words, it can be argued that not keeping parts so that everything is updated is an advantage. Whether having new parts vs old parts is better or not is of course subjective.

In summary, I wouldn't say that buying a new iMac is wasteful at all. It's is certainly no different than selling and buying a laptop every year and there are plenty of PC users that would have to admit that they do that.
 
That's fair. My intent was to show how some could consider it wasteful.

As for myself, honestly I've never really thought about it one way or the other until now. I don't sell old machines as I have a backlog of family members with aging hardware chomping at the bit for my hand-me-downs. :D

And anything that is too old to pass along I tend to either turn into a server or appliance or I donate it.
 
450 said:
How is it wasteful?
Click to expand...
Because the iMac can't be upgraded. And because a monitor outlasts a machine 4:1 or 6:1 or so, but the iMac makes them inseparable. Everything you buy for the iMac (except for memory, to a limit) is going to be external. Most parts for a machine are reusable -- the case, the PSU, the monitor -- so when you upgrade you put lots less of the machine into recycling. For an iMac, the whole rig goes -- period, including the monitor. A 24- or 27-inch monitor isn't a trivial investment, and you should be able to reuse it at will instead of chucking it out with the motherboard.
 
Last edited:
mikeblas said:
Because the iMac can't be upgraded. And because a monitor outlasts a machine 4:1 or 6:1 or so, but the iMac makes them inseparable. Everything you buy for the iMac (except for memory, to a limit) is going to be external. Most parts for a machine are reusable -- the case, the PSU, the monitor -- so when you upgrade you put lots less of the machine into recycling. For an iMac, the whole rig goes -- period, including the monitor. A 24- or 27-inch monitor isn't a trivial investment, and you should be able to reuse it at will instead of chucking it out with the motherboard.
Click to expand...

Please read my post (two posts up).
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Please read my post (two posts up).
Click to expand...
I did. You're arguing efficiency for the seller. Nobody cares about reselling parts; I just use them until they depreciate then take them to the recycling center. It isn't simple to sell a computer; you've got to save the packaging, find a buyer, agree on a price, and mail it off. Finding a buyer for out-dated equipment is hard. Even if you do, they're just as unable to upgrade the equipment as you were.

Sure, you might replace the video card or PSU when you upgrade anyway. But most people buy a nice monitor and use it for years. The construction of the iMac mandates they throw away the most valuable and persistent part of their purchase when they upgrade their machine. It's an example of Apple allowing form to trump function in a foolhardy way.

Since most (that is, non-Apple) laptops are user serviceable, comparing them to iMacs is nonsense. You don't have to unglue the screen of a laptop in order to add memory or upgrade the hard drive, for example.
 
Last edited:
mikeblas said:
I did. You're arguing efficiency for the seller. Nobody cares about reselling parts; I just use them until they depreciate then take them to the recycling center. It isn't simple to sell a computer; you've got to save the packaging, find a buyer, agree on a price, and mail it off. Finding a buyer for out-dated equipment is hard. Even if you do, they're just as unable to upgrade the equipment as you were.

Sure, you might replace the video card or PSU when you upgrade anyway. But most people buy a nice monitor and use it for years. The construction of the iMac mandates they throw away the most valuable and persistent part of their purchase when they upgrade their machine. It's an example of Apple allowing form to trump function in a foolhardy way.
Click to expand...

I take it then that you've never tried to flip any Apple machine. Apple's hold their value and are in demand. It is extremely easy to sell your old Mac every year and buy a new one. There are plenty of people who do this.

You've just mentioned how "hard" it is to sell outdated equipment, but there are still plenty of people willing to spend cash on "old, outdated" 2008 Macbooks and the like. I see it constantly. This argument might be an issue on the PC side, but it doesn't work that way when dealing with Macs. It just doesn't. Additionally who said you even have to mail it? Have you used Craigslist? There is tons of Apple products on Craigslist, and I personally sold two Apple laptops through it and had excellent exchanges and was happy with the price I sold it for.

Additionally, you're not throwing away anything! You're selling it, which means you're getting money back. To term it "throwing it away" is blatantly false, and patently untrue. Do you make these same sorts of arguments about laptops? Do you say: "man, laptops are terrible and inefficient and make no economic sense. You buy them with keyboard and trackpads as well as screens and every time you want a new one you have to 'throw away' the display, trackpad, and keyboard. How terrible, I have to get rid of the most valuable and persistent part of the machine."? Or do you realize and recognize that they way the devices are, you get your money back for those items that you put in with some degree of depreciation, buy a new (or used) one and there isn't an issue with that? Seriously, are you really missing this?


mikeblas said:
Since most (that is, non-Apple) laptops are user serviceable, comparing them to iMacs is nonsense. You don't have to unglue the screen of a laptop in order to add memory or upgrade the hard drive, for example.
Click to expand...

Laptops being user serviceable isn't even the point of what we're discussing or what I was saying. You're switching arguments. What I was saying is that laptops similar to the iMac are not user upgradeable. Serviceability is an entirely different metric. You can't argue with me that you can upgrade a 4 year old laptop every year with a new video card or buy a higher wattage PSU for it when said video card requires more power. You may have the opportunity to replace parts as they break, but good luck on upgrading it. (But even if things do break, that's what Apple care is for).

In this sense it is exactly like purchasing and selling a laptop every year. Because guess what, you're selling everything including what you refer to as being the "most valuable and persistent" part of the machine, that is to say the monitor.

But in addition to that you didn't even really directly argue against my main point, which is even though you sell it all, you get it all back! So who cares if you sell a machine with a screen when you're going to get a machine with a screen back anyway. Which is once again why it relates directly to how laptop sales are done. No one takes a part laptops and tries to piece them out, or does the reverse and tries to piece laptops together (yes, you can make an argument for this, but the group and population that does is far below 1%, and it would also be 0% of general consumers). Similarly the iMac is bought and sold as a unit and is significantly less of a hassle to buy and sell then parting out any PC machine.

How do I know this? Because I've done it on both sides. I sold my 2009 iMac for close to what I paid for it a year later. I've also bought and sold 2 Mac laptops with much less depreciation than I ever did on the PC side.


I get your point about Apple's policies specifically relating to HD and Ram, but you're also painting the bleakest of pictures. The 27" iMac has a second bay which you can put in anything you want (which is noted in that linked article) and also the ram in the 27" is upgradeable as well. The 21" iMac is really the one with the issues, but on the other end of the spectrum, they're relatively cheap to buy for what you get, and they start with a minimum of 8GB of ram which is plenty for a vast majority of users. Yes, paying for more through Apple isn't the best, but those that need 16+ GB of ram will probably end up getting the 27" anyway.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Before getting my used MacBook pro 13, i has a Shuttle SX38 with 8GB ram (max mobo supported) and did a hackintosh with it.

To be honest, it ran like a dream and besides the extra steps needed to install OSX, it was a very reliable system.
Just consider that option, since you seem to also consider the option of upgrading a new iMac, which is, in my book, a way more difficult process.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I take it then that you've never tried to flip any Apple machine.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have.

UnknownSouljer said:
Additionally, you're not throwing away anything! You're selling it, which means you're getting money back. To term it "throwing it away" is blatantly false, and patently untrue.
Click to expand...
If you want to sell your used great, that's great -- but saying that people who don't sell their used gear are "patently untrue" is nonsense. You've assumed I'm talking about equipment that's only a year old; I'm not. You've assumed I'm talking about equipment that's still got value; I'm not.

The reason I'm not talking about selling equipment that's a year old is because it's a wasteful practice. Buying new equipment after selling non-depreciated assets doesn't recovering enough value to justify the depreciation on the new purchase. The equipment probably hasn't been owned long enough to provide any ROI on the original purchase, as well.
 
I believe it's all personal preference. I used both Mac and PC and they both are great. Sure you can do more with pc, tinkering and upgrading down the line but it just doesn't have that mac look to it; maybe that is why Mac products hold their value really well.
For example, I bought my Imac in 2010 for 1800, 3 years later i sold it for 1000; whereas for PC if i were to spend 1800 last year i'd be lucky to make it back 1000 one year later. So in a way, mac is a better investment so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top