Mac People - what would you buy now?

[Netdewt]

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

So, with the disappointing news that no new iMac or Mac Pro models are coming out until next year, I am still trying to figure out what to buy next. I need a home machine that will run Adobe software well. Ideally I'd like a Mac Pro, but I'm not going to spend $3000 on a 3 year old computer (WTF Apple).

My current machine is a October 2006 MBP with 2.16 Core 2 Duo, 3 gb RAM, and I recently put a 500GB HDD in it. I am thinking I might just go with a new MacBook Pro, and when something new comes out for the Mac Pro, I'll pass the laptop on to my wife. Do you think the new 13"-er would run Adobe software well? Here are the basic specs:

Code: [Select]

2.9GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM — 2x4GB
750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm

[bavman]

Y no PC?
[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 52897[/ATTACH]

Seriously though, if all you care about is running Adobe software, a cheap pc can easily do that at less than an imac/mbp would cost.

[Netdewt]

No, don't care about PCs.

[metafour]

I've heard good things about the new retina display Macbook though. Supposedly the geekbench scores are not that much off from the Mac Pro. I believe this was discussed on this week's Build and Analyze.

No, don't care about PCs.

I hear you on this one.

Plus you can mention running Adobe software on PC hardware but if you've already purchased the software for Macs there's going to be a significant price to switch to PC's.

[Netdewt]

I am sure the Retina is awesome, but I wouldn't invest that much into a laptop screen. I'd rather put that money into a real wide gamut graphics monitor that isn't tiny.

I dunno, I'm sure anything out now is going to be "fine". I just really like my stuff to run well. I work in Photoshop 40+ hours per week, so I don't have a lot of patience for slow machines (including my current home machine).

[metafour]

You get more than just the screen upgrade for the price though. $2399 for the Retina Display MacBook Pro gets you 16 gigs of RAM plus a 256 gig SSD. For the same price in the MacBook Pro without the Retina Display you only get 8 gigs of RAM but same size SSD.

I'm comparing the 2.3 GHz i7 models here.

[Netdewt]

Right, but the Retina also has no DVD, no FW800, no ethernet port. I'd get the "hi-res" display for the regular 15.

Would you rather have a 2.9 dual or a 2.3 quad for Adobe stuff? My understanding is that Adobe products can't use more than 2 cores anyways. The L3 cache is bigger in the quad though too.

[metafour]

If you use DVDs, FW800, and ethernet then having to use the adapter to get FW800 and gigabit ethernet I guess could be a dealbreaker. I however wouldn't purchase any computer with a 5400 rpm drive. Not sure whether the dual versus the quad core is going to show you a bigger benefit for Adobe products but with the quad core you can have 16 gigs of memory and a much faster storage device.

It's definitely a tough call whether to buy a first-gen device. But for me, if I was making this purchase as a business decision today I would go for the Retina Display MacBook Pro with the 16 gigs of RAM. But this is coming from someone who is able to use the MacBook Air as a remote device. So I probably don't have the same demands as you.

[kps]

Code: [Select]

2.9GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
That's a 3250M; Ivy Bridge is really nice (disclaimer: I work for Intel). Googling tells me that Photoshop can use OpenCL and that Intel's OpenCL supports the HD 4000, but I don't see anything online that tell me whether or not Apple's version does.

Code: [Select]

8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM — 2x4GB
You'll probably want 16GB sooner or later.

Code: [Select]

750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
Meh. Swap your old drive in if it's faster, or get an SSD (not with Apple markup if you can avoid it) if you want speed.

This assumes you're not put off by the ongoing iOSification of OS X, and actually believe there will be another Mac Pro. (I have a really nice bridge in the classifieds....)

[metafour]

This assumes you're not put off by the ongoing iOSification of OS X, and actually believe there will be another Mac Pro. (I have a really nice bridge in the classifieds....)

All the signs I've seen point to Apple not killing off the Mac Pro. Even Tim Cook said expect a larger update in late 2013.

[kps]

My bet is that they'll pull another FCP and slap the "Pro" label on something that's a downgrade from the current models — i.e. desktop processor, non-ECC RAM, etc. There's no reason not to ship a Sandy Bridge E5 today if they're keeping the line alive.

The 17" MBP got canned too, so for the first time ever, the Mac has no high-end machines at all. That's not something a half-trillion dollar company does by accident.

[Netdewt]

Who needs a 17" laptop anyways? I always thought it was silly...

For the record, Windows is trying to go mobile-like with their OS also.

On the 5400 RPM, I agree. I don't understand why they still use them. I would probably stick a non-Apple SSD in it, keep the HDD, and get rid of the optical drive at some point. http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/DDAMBS0GB/

The FW800 is an issue because some digital backs use FW800. I don't use these often, but it's annoying. DVD gone is not really an issue, I'd get an external for the few times I use it. No ethernet is stupid though. I like to have the fastest network possible when I need it and wireless doesn't cut it.

[nthn]

I'd say an iMac. Yes, there will probably be a new revision around the corner, but how much faster do you need it? And how much faster is a speed bump going to actually be? I've a 2012 21" iMac fully spec'd (2.8 i7, 16gb memory - cheap from Amazon, and the 256gb SSD) and it's a beast. I got mine refurbished from Apple (just like my MacBook Air) and I'd say that's the way to go, if you're needing a home machine that runs Adobe Products well.

I use Photoshop often and rendering large files is handled well.

Lastly, unless you absolutely have to be on the cutting edge (which is nonsensical, to be honest) of computing, then having last years model won't hurt. I use all my Apple products until I absolutely can't. That's my computing philosophy.

[Netdewt]

Having last year's model doesn't bother me. What bothers me is paying today's prices for last year's model. I will look into the refurb ones!

One thing I was hoping to wait for on the iMac is the anti-glare screen option that has been rumored. I REALLY hate glossy screens.

[itznfb]

I'd say an iMac. Yes, there will probably be a new revision around the corner, but how much faster do you need it? And how much faster is a speed bump going to actually be? I've a 2012 21" iMac fully spec'd (2.8 i7, 16gb memory - cheap from Amazon, and the 256gb SSD) and it's a beast. I got mine refurbished from Apple (just like my MacBook Air) and I'd say that's the way to go, if you're needing a home machine that runs Adobe Products well.

I use Photoshop often and rendering large files is handled well.

Lastly, unless you absolutely have to be on the cutting edge (which is nonsensical, to be honest) of computing, then having last years model won't hurt. I use all my Apple products until I absolutely can't. That's my computing philosophy.

Every bit of speed counts IMO. I have large photography work flows utilizing CaptureNX2, Lightroom and Photoshop. I can't stand waiting for files to load or waiting for edits to be applied. That's the main reason I switched to PC was for the performance benefits. It's gotta be worse for people who work with video.

[nthn]

Every bit of speed counts IMO. I have large photography work flows utilizing CaptureNX2, Lightroom and Photoshop. I can't stand waiting for files to load or waiting for edits to be applied. That's the main reason I switched to PC was for the performance benefits. It's gotta be worse for people who work with video.

Well put. As a photography hobbyist, I play around with photos so I understand. I did overlook the video people out there. My mistake.

[HeavyArms]

Dude, build a hackintosh. Its the best way to go if you want a relatively powerful computer with OSX as the OS. It isn't very hard, and there are tons of sites that can guide you. I recommend you look at http://tonymacx86.com/. And to make things even easier, amazon has everything you will need, plus it will be significantly cheaper.


EDIT: and yes it is safe.

[metafour]

Dude, build a hackintosh. Its the best way to go if you want a relatively powerful computer with OSX as the OS. It isn't very hard, and there are tons of sites that can guide you. I recommend you look at http://tonymacx86.com/. And to make things even easier, amazon has everything you will need, plus it will be significantly cheaper.


EDIT: and yes it is safe.

Having done this and currently using a hackintosh as my main machine I personally don't make this recommendation to anyone. It is safe however, it is not as stable as just buying the hardware from Apple. You never know if a Software Update is going to cause issues and I get kernel panics every once in a while. Not often but it's still there. I've had some issues with 3rd party drivers as well.

[itznfb]

If only Adobe would make software for linux/bsd!!! Argh.

[Frenden]

I just sold my MacPro (3.1, early '08). It still benchmarked stupid-high on Geekbench, but I need to be more portable. I've given the retina Pro a solid look and think waiting a year for a revision 2 model, and for devs to retina-ify their apps, might be a good idea.

In the meantime, I'm going to fully load a 13" Air. Dual core i7, 256GB SSD, 8GB DDR31600. That's pretty stout for something so portable.

It's a weird time to buy. Everything is in transition and whatever you get this year will probably look old and rickety by the next.

[metafour]

It's a weird time to buy. Everything is in transition and whatever you get this year will probably look old and rickety by the next.

You could say this about every year! I bought the new 13" Air last year shortly after it came out. Now I feel this way about mine. But I said the same thing as soon as they started talking about notebooks in the keynote, "time to feel disappointed about the Air I purchased a year ago."

[Frenden]

Totally. I think, if anything, the eventual Retina-ization of everything makes this year seem even more transitory and weird though!

[Wildcard]

Just to note, the new MBP is not very user serviceable. The ram is directly soldered to the motherboard, so what you get is what you get.

Looking at some of the 3rd party thunderbolt doc options out there you could easily solve your DVD, External HD, Firewire, Ethernet, etc.. issues with just one dock (see here). Also, in the previous MBPs you were able to daisy chain up to (2) 27" cinema displays to the laptop.

Edit: ram, SSD uses proprietary connector

[Frenden]

Yeah. There are almost no user serviceable parts on either the Airs or next gen Macbook. The memory is soldered on, but the SSDs just use a proprietary connector (there's at least a possibility a third party might produce drives). At least, I think that's what the iFixit teardown said. I'd have to read it again.

[Wildcard]

Actually look at the teardown of the new MacBook Pro. The SSD memory is soldered directly to the board.

Yeah. There are almost no user serviceable parts on either the Airs or next gen Macbook. The memory is soldered on, but the SSDs just use a proprietary connector (there's at least a possibility a third party might produce drives). At least, I think that's what the iFixit teardown said. I'd have to read it again.

[Wildcard]

Yep was just reading the teardown here. I see that special connector now. Still an impressive design in such a small form factor.

[Malphas]

Who needs a 17" laptop anyways? I always thought it was silly...

People who basically want a desktop but with limited space or occasional need for portability, obviously. I don't think anyone was really using 17" laptops as something for carting around to coffee shops or anything, more something that stays put like a desktop most of the time, but minus the clutter. Although with all-one-ones like the iMac it's become more or less redundant for that purpose.

[mkawa]

i'd get the higher-specced mbp 13 unless you absolutely need 4 cores. the current high res display isn't really worth paying for, since you can't get more than 1920x1200 on it in macos. i suspect they'll change this when they release the next high-res machine and have a proper variable scaling feature working in software. also, the high-res displays are going to get significantly cheaper over the next 6 months or so.

[hexomega]

I have a 13" macbook pro and I love it. I wouldn't upgrade until the 13" had a retina display, though. I love mac laptops because they're pretty good for editing photos and vidos when on vacation, they're relatively sturdy, I find the OS more pleasing than Windows as a laptop platform, and dat trackpad man. Sadly nothing really appeals to me in the mac line right now, and my desktop will always be a windows/linux dual boot since am picky about hardware and don't want any prebuilds.

[Findecanor]

It is silly to call the 220 PPI display - MacBook as Pro when it is basically an upgraded MacBook Air with bigger battery.

[Wildcard]

It is silly to call the 220 PPI display - MacBook as Pro when it is basically an upgraded MacBook Air with bigger battery.

And a quad core I7, and an option to add even more ram, and better graphics, and an option to upgrade your storage higher then 256GB. Really it's not an Air, but only a thinner MBP. Apple has been wanting to move away from optical drives for a while and more towards the vision of online an app store. While I'll miss having optical storage, I can make due without it.

Edit: But I agree, waiting for the next gen with these new screens might not be a bad idea. I'll probably pick one up in the next release.

[Netdewt]

Yep was just reading the teardown here. I see that special connector now. Still an impressive design in such a small form factor.

Lame about the RAM especially. But I am not surprised. Is the RAM for sure soldered on for the regular MBPs? They are kind of a totally different design.

I was thinking of doing the refurb iMac 21", but my wife doesn't want that. She wants me to get a 13" MBP so that I can pass it on to her when the new MacPro comes out (hopefully they don't solder the RAM onto that). Now because of the RAM I am thinking of maybe a refurb MBP:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0M1ELL/A

I sure wish I could like Winblows. I would love to build a Hackintosh, but I like Macs for their stability and simplicity, and Hackintosh ruins that.

[itznfb]

I sure wish I could like Winblows.

Why don't you like Windows? I go back and forth about liking Windows. I use it because it does everything I need but I find it incredibly boring... which is why I switch up various linux distros for a daily machine.

[sth]

Why don't you like Windows?

Compare the interior of a Kia (even a newer, 'nice' Kia) to the interior of an Audi or whatever we consider to be a nice car these days. Both get you from point a to point b just fine and probably within the same amount of time, but one feels nice and the other feels chintzy.

[Netdewt]

Reasons to not like Windows (my experience from 3.1 to XP):
1. viruses and spyware
2. not stable (BSODs, having to wipe machine every year)
3. UI is junk
4. supporting a company I dislike
5. constant driver issues
6. no Applescript
7. Internet Explorer
8. proprietary junk pre-installed (if you buy pre-built)
9. ah yes, the networking
10. no color labels in the OS

Reasons to like Windows:
1. build your own machine

I wish I could do the Linux thing, but it won't do Adobe software.

[sth]

The overall user experience is sloppy in Windows compared to OS X. Networking is weird as hell still (I will never understand windows networking). There are like thirty goddamn versions of the client OS. THE REGISTRY.
 I won't speak to the security aspects because security thru obscurity is BS, but pragmatically there is a lower threat level using a Mac than there is using a PC.

[Netdewt]

Looking at some of the 3rd party thunderbolt doc options out there you could easily solve your DVD, External HD, Firewire, Ethernet, etc.. issues with just one dock (see here).

Yes, I'm on board with this now. I'd get the Lacie dock. $200 but looks awesome and rated well.

Data doubler, and 240GB SSD
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/DDMBS6E240/

Maybe I should do the 13" 2.9ghz MBP and just do this right away... although I assume is voids warranties?

[Wildcard]

Well only if you leave it in there when you send it in for warranty repair.

So your going for the dual core 13" vs the 15" with the quad? Remember the 13" MBP doesn't have the best graphics performance and can only drive one monitor. Considering you're already at $1,799 with the ssd, wouldn't you rather spend a few hundred more and get these specs:

2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
256GB flash storage
Intel HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
Built-in battery (7 hours)

Plus dual thunderbolt ports and USB 3.0

[Wildcard]

Actually the hand-me down aspect is a good point if you're going to get a MacPro eventually when the real refresh comes out. BTW, the 15" non-retna model is upgradable just like the 13" is. Only the new retna display MBP got the new form factor with tightly integrated components. I do like the new MBP however, even without he option of doing my own upgrades.

[Malphas]

Reasons to not like Windows (my experience from 3.1 to XP):
2. not stable (BSODs, having to wipe machine every year)

Not really the case anymore.

3. UI is junk

I would have agreed prior to Windows 7, now I think it's pretty reasonable.

1. viruses and spyware
7. Internet Explorer
8. proprietary junk pre-installed (if you buy pre-built)

Easily avoidable. Rest of your reasons are legit.

[Netdewt]

1. viruses and spyware
7. Internet Explorer
8. proprietary junk pre-installed (if you buy pre-built)

Easily avoidable. Rest of your reasons are legit.

True, I didn't have many issues when I did have a PC with spyware, but I did once get something that I was able to fix with a little hassle. I never ran any anti-virus because it tanks the performance of the system.

My IE beef is pretty closely related to #4. I can't stand that they would make and continue to make such a piece of garbage browser. And you can't delete it.

For the proprietary junk - yes you can just build your own tower, but it takes a lot more work. I'd be up to it if I liked Windows. It would be nice to be able to buy something all set up that didn't have tons of garbage on it, though. For a laptop, you're screwed.

Oh, #10 no color labels in the OS (well, as of XP, not sure about now). I can't live without those.

[Netdewt]

Well only if you leave it in there when you send it in for warranty repair.

So your going for the dual core 13" vs the 15" with the quad? Remember the 13" MBP doesn't have the best graphics performance and can only drive one monitor. Considering you're already at $1,799 with the ssd, wouldn't you rather spend a few hundred more and get these specs:

I don't know... the 13" + OWC Data Doubler would have a 750GB HDD and a 240GB SSD. That's kinda awesome, isn't it? I'd have to move the OS onto the SSD, but I've done that before with SuperDuper and it worked perfectly. The 15" Retina would only have the SSD and nothing else. Speed with no on board storage and possibility for a second drive in the future. Or I could get the 13" with no Data Doubler and with the money saved, get a Drobo. My understanding is that Photoshop likes to have a separate drive for scratch.

Also, the 13" has a 2.9 ghz proc (dual, 4MB cache) vs the 15" 2.3 ghz proc (quad, 6MB cache). I have a hard time understanding all of those specs, but 2.3 seems slow to me, given that my 5 year old MBP is a 2.16. I'll start searching for benchmark scores. Also, I just noticed there is a refurb 13" 2.8 sandy bridge for $1200. http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro/13

I don't care much about the graphics. I turn off all graphics stuff in Photoshop because it simply runs faster without it - and there are no silly frills. Animated zoom = lame. The laptop itself is a monitor, so if I need a second, there you go.

I could get a refurb Mac Pro for $2200... and just sell that if I want the new one. That can take 4 internal drives and 64GB RAM. http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC560LL/A

[itznfb]

True, I didn't have many issues when I did have a PC with spyware, but I did once get something that I was able to fix with a little hassle. I never ran any anti-virus because it tanks the performance of the system.

My IE beef is pretty closely related to #4. I can't stand that they would make and continue to make such a piece of garbage browser. And you can't delete it.

For the proprietary junk - yes you can just build your own tower, but it takes a lot more work. I'd be up to it if I liked Windows. It would be nice to be able to buy something all set up that didn't have tons of garbage on it, though. For a laptop, you're screwed.

Oh, #10 no color labels in the OS (well, as of XP, not sure about now). I can't live without those.

Having IE pre-installed isn't any different than having Safari pre-installed. Both browsers are crap. PCs are coming with less and less junk pre-installed. My dad just got an IvyBridge Lenovo Thinkpad delivered this past Saturday. He gave it to me to setup for him and to my surprise the only thing I had to do was remove McAfee and install MSSE. ASUS is a great brand for a clean setup.

Microsoft Security Essentials is pretty much the best anti-virus you can get and it's incredibly light weight and free.

I don't really mind the Windows UI.... I actually liked XP better than 7. Either way I just find the user experience very boring in Windows. I much prefer a customized OpenBox. I'm even coming around to the new gnome and Unity. As cartoony as they are.

I'd agree that stability issues are pretty much gone as of XP SP2.

Networking is overly complex but you begin to understand why once you've been a systems administrator for a while...

[mkawa]

It is silly to call the 220 PPI display - MacBook as Pro when it is basically an upgraded MacBook Air with bigger battery.

if they could shove a quad core in the 13" mba with a bigger battery i'd be perfectly happy with them calling that a pro too

[Netdewt]

Having IE pre-installed isn't any different than having Safari pre-installed. Both browsers are crap.

Maybe I drank the kool-aid, but I like Safari. It's well integrated, well designed, pretty good @ W3C compliance, and I haven't had many issues with it crashing. Firefox is better, but it crashes on me, not sure why.

Networking is overly complex but you begin to understand why once you've been a systems administrator for a while...

That's the problem.

[Amr0d]

I use both, Windows and OS X and everytime I need to use Windows I feel like I am doing one step more than on OS X.

What I like about a Mac is that it is working out of the box with lots of software. All the iApps like iPhoto etc. are awesome for private users and all the little features like expose etc. are pretty cool. Sad to say but Windows doesn't offer anything of these without using third party software which needs to be bought & installed.

Windows is getting better with every version but will always be behind Apple

[Wildcard]

When I work in Photoshop I find I'm lost without 2 monitors, and as you said if the 15" isn't usable the 13" won't be much better, unless you're just going to use it as a secondary for your Photoshop tools. The non-retna 15" MBP includes a graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M vs just the integrated Intel 4000 graphics, I'm assuming this card is CUDA capable and Photoshop can take advantage of it for hardware acceleration when performing certain tasks. Additionally, you have the ability do use two large external monitors, vs the 13" which limits you to only one external monitor.

Regarding clock speed, even though the clock speed shows lower cycles per second you're effectively doubling the number of cores available to process instructions. Depending on the application, you will most likely see a significant jump in performance going to 4 cores vs 2. Check a few benchmark sites for the CPUs in each and see how they compare.

Additionally the non-retna 15" MBP leaves you with the same options as the 13" for upgrading to an SSD for the OS & large platter HD for storage. You also get to keep your optical drive.

However, if you decide to go the MacPro route then all this becomes moot anyways

I don't know... the 13" + OWC Data Doubler would have a 750GB HDD and a 240GB SSD. That's kinda awesome, isn't it? I'd have to move the OS onto the SSD, but I've done that before with SuperDuper and it worked perfectly. The 15" Retina would only have the SSD and nothing else. Speed with no on board storage and possibility for a second drive in the future. Or I could get the 13" with no Data Doubler and with the money saved, get a Drobo. My understanding is that Photoshop likes to have a separate drive for scratch.

Also, the 13" has a 2.9 ghz proc (dual, 4MB cache) vs the 15" 2.3 ghz proc (quad, 6MB cache). I have a hard time understanding all of those specs, but 2.3 seems slow to me, given that my 5 year old MBP is a 2.16. I'll start searching for benchmark scores. Also, I just noticed there is a refurb 13" 2.8 sandy bridge for $1200. http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro/13

I don't care much about the graphics. I turn off all graphics stuff in Photoshop because it simply runs faster without it - and there are no silly frills. Animated zoom = lame. The laptop itself is a monitor, so if I need a second, there you go.

I could get a refurb Mac Pro for $2200... and just sell that if I want the new one. That can take 4 internal drives and 64GB RAM. http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC560LL/A

[Netdewt]

When I work in Photoshop I find I'm lost without 2 monitors

Yeah, I just use my 2nd monitor for email/finder/whatever. I don't like the extra mouse work it takes to use 2 monitors in photoshop. I map my Wacom to just one monitor and I trackball over to the other when needed.

Some benches from Geekbench.

My current MBP @ home: $2000 when purchased (actual score)
3gb RAM
500gb 7200RPM
= 76.1˘/bench

MacBook Pro
Intel Core Duo T2600 2160 MHz (2 cores)
2945

2.7 refurb iMac: $1250
+ eSATA $250
+8gb RAM $60
4gb RAM
1tb 7200RPM
= 20.0˘/bench

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2500S 2700 MHz (4 cores)
7806

27 inch iMac we have at work: $1700
(which I felt was quite fast with 12gb RAM)
+ eSATA $250
+ 8gb RAM $60
= 25.7˘/bench

iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2500S 2700 MHz (4 cores)
7807

13 inch 2.9 MBP: $1500
+ 240gb SSD $300
+ eSATA $250
8gb RAM
750gb 5400RPM
= 26.2˘/bench

MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3520M 2900 MHz (2 cores)
7833

current 2.66 Mac Pro @ work (actual score):
8gb RAM
640gb + 1tb 7200RPM

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon W3520 2670 MHz (4 cores)
8138

2.8 4-core refurb Mac Pro: $2100
+ eSATA $50
+ 8gb RAM $70
3gb RAM
1tb 7200RPM
= 25.6˘/bench

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon W3530 2800 MHz (4 cores)
8662

3.2 4-core "new" Mac Pro: $2500
+ eSATA $50
+ 8gb RAM $70
6gb RAM
1tb 7200RPM
= 26.6˘/bench

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon W3565 3200 MHz (4 cores)
9839

2.8 21.5" iMac: $1700
+ eSATA $250
+ 8gb RAM $60
4gb RAM
1tb 7200RPM
= 19.9˘/bench

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2600S 2800 MHz (4 cores)
10089

15 inch 2.3 MBP: $2000
+ eSATA $250
+ 8gb (total) RAM $60
4gb RAM
750gb 7200RPM
antiglare hi-res
= 21.3˘/bench

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10827

refurb 15 inch 2.5 MBP: $1800
+ eSATA $250
+ 240gb SSD $300
+ 8gb (total) RAM $60
4gb RAM
750gb 5400RPM
antiglare hi-res
= 20.4˘/bench

MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011)
Intel Core i7-2860QM 2500 MHz (4 cores)
11759

15 inch 2.6 MBP: $2350
+ eSATA $250
8gb RAM
750gb 7200RPM
antiglare hi-res
= 21.8˘/bench

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11905

15 inch 2.7 MBP (fastest quad core listed): $2600
+ eSATA $250
8gb RAM
750gb 7200RPM
antiglare hi-res
= 23.2˘/bench

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
12309

I wish this told me more about Photoshop performance specifically, but I'm glad I looked for this.

[Netdewt]

Information overload...

13" NEW 2.9 laptop:
Smallest, but about 2/3 the power of the 15" laptop. New. 3x faster than current laptop. Same as work computer.
$1600 - http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD102LL/A
$300 on top of that cost to get eSATA, and dual drives (data doubler, Apple 128gb SSD, reuse 500gb Momentus XT).
-$100 discount
=$1800

21.5" 2.7 NEW iMac:
Still very fast, cheaper than laptop. 4x faster than current laptop. 1.2x faster than work computer.
$1700 - http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC812LL/A
$500 on top of that cost to get eSATA, dual drives (keep 1tb HDD, OWC 128gb SSD), and 8GB RAM.
-$100 discount
=$2100

15" refurbished 2.5 laptop:
Best performance in price range. 4.5x faster than current laptop. 1.5x faster than work computer.
$1800 - http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0NM5LL/A
$500 on top of that cost to get eSATA, dual drives (data doubler, OWC 128gb SSD, Apple 750gb HDD), and 8GB RAM.
=$2300

15" NEW 2.3 laptop:
Can configure some things, similar to refurbished. 4.1x faster than current laptop. 1.3x faster than work computer.
$1900 - http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD103LL/A
$500 on top of that cost to get eSATA, and dual drives (data doubler, OWC 128gb SSD, reuse 500gb Momentus XT), and 8gb RAM.
-$100 discount
=$2300

MacPro refurbished tower:
Easiest to self-service. Most dated technology. 3x faster than current laptop. Same as work computer.
$2100 - http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC560LL/A
$400 on top of that cost to get eSATA, dual drives (256gb SSD), and 8GB RAM.
=$2500 (+$300 for same performance as iMac)

[Malphas]

My IE beef is pretty closely related to #4. I can't stand that they would make and continue to make such a piece of garbage browser. And you can't delete it.

I don't think IE really qualifies as an unequivocally bad browser anymore, it's not for me but it is pretty much on par with the competition now in terms of standards compliance, performance, etc. It's not like the IE6 days where it was just indisputably awful.