View Single Post
Doug b

Doug b's Avatar
Member Since: Jun 22, 2008
Location: Forest Hills, NYC
Posts: 3,343
Doug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond reputeDoug b has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5

Doug b is offline
Originally Posted by IWT View Post
Hi Doug

I'm with MacDude on your need for so much RAM capability.

I too run Aperture 3 and have a 100 GB Library. I do some modest video editing and run the OsiriX Work Station.

All of this runs fine on my 21.5, 3.33 GHz, Core 2 Duo with 8 GB RAM.

Sure, I also have the 27 core i7 iMac with SSD; but that's because, like many folks, I crave speed and I like "toys". Nothing wrong with that, but I don't NEED the extra bits & bobs. I want it. That's different.

Your current requirements are met with a modest processor and 4 GB RAM. So why not forsake the large Monitor real estate and go for the top-of-range 21.5 iMac.

Better still, if you are prepared to be patient, wait till mid summer and see what the new 21.5 offers. SSD & i7 maybe??

Oh, I'm certainly waiting on the next lineup, that's for certain. While it's true that Aperture or LR are ok-ish on their own with memory for the most part.. 4 gigs really isn't enough. OS X's memory management could use a bit of an look over AFAIC. I understand how it works, but it doesn't always work perfectly. Specifically, in how it handles inactive memory. I know why it holds on to memory, but it also does so for far too long, which causes memory to be cached to the HDD, as well as lots of page ins/outs. This makes other apps act sluggishly, even if they receive said inactive RAM. But that's an whole other rant...

I often have Photoshop open at the same time as LR or Aperture, and this is a necessity, not just because I want to. This is also very memory intensive. Lightroom really loves memory, and behaves much better with more of it, so 8 gigs would be the least I'd put in at this point with a new machine. And yeah.. I do also "want" it. It would be nice to have lots of reserve.

Originally Posted by trademark View Post
There's plenty of reason not to include quad cores in the lower end models, an that's cooling constraints. You're talking about adding an additional 30-40tdp on lower 21.5 inch iMacs, which might be too much for their cooling systems. The iMacs already run on the hotter side as it is.

Wait for the sandybridge update to the iMacs that's going to happen in a month or two, and you will most likely see quad core options for lower end iMacs.
I had thought about cooling as a reason, but it just didn't register to me that the smaller frame would make that much more of a difference. I don't buy that, personally speaking.

As for the optical drive thing, you can replace it for your own aftermarket SSD.
I know, but that wasn't my point. Having the option to negate the Superdrive should technically bring the price down a little bit, which would go towards purchasing an aftermarket SSD.

You CAN install 16gb of ram in the 21.5 inch models. You can in fact install up to 32gb of ram on the iMacs.
I think that's technically impossible for the time being. The iMacs only have 4 slots, and as far as I know, there's no such thing as an single 8 gig memory module. Furthermore, if someone is purchasing an iMac online, Apple only states 8 gigs as the maximum amount supported in the configuration table. Only when you select the 27" does it give you the option for 16 gigs.

Of course I know that the stated maximum support is likely different... but that's not the point either. Heck, I wish you could get one without memory all together, given how much they rip you off with their memory prices...

QUOTE Thanks