Apple Announces Major Update to Mac Mini with up to 6 Cores, 64GB RAM, and 10GBE.

Batutta said:
Power users won't be happy until there is a tower style desktop that is easily serviceable and has room for expansion. Apple had one in the past and it was well regarded. They are rumoured to be working on a Mac Pro like that for 2019, although there's been no official announcement, only whisperings of a 'modular' system.
Click to expand...

I don’t really want a tower concept anymore. I prefer external components. They are all modular really and the act of opening up a case and using screws to plop in a card, chip or drive is also modular.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Huh? The test I’m talking about was a top iMac with the rx580 GPU and FCPX. You can’t use Nvidia with FCPX unless you do a hack to force a eGPU to work with Nvidia or have an old Mac Pro tower.

The PC had an Nvidia card to use with Premiere.

The test was not flawed at all and reflects what most of us have noticed for years. That FCPX dos some impressive stuff with modest specs.
Click to expand...
Yeah but if we're arguing about wether or not you could build a system that functions as well as the iMac for a lot cheaper, then a real test would be both sets of hardware running the same OS and program.
 
Batutta said:
I do, and I'm not the only one. I like servicing my own system. I don't want to rely on the genius bar, and then pay for labor when my system breaks and is out of warranty.
Click to expand...


Even IF apple comes out with a new "tower" MacPro, there's no way anything will be user replaceable.

Apple has gone the other direction with all of their other hardware.

Hard drives glued to motherboards, ram soldered to the mb, etc.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Even IF apple comes out with a new "tower" MacPro, there's no way anything will be user replaceable.

Apple has gone the other direction with all of their other hardware.

Hard drives glued to motherboards, ram soldered to the mb, etc.
Click to expand...

The old MacPros before the trashcan were pretty self serviceable, and expandable.
 
Also, Thomas, for the record, I am NOT a PC person, so I wasn't coming at this from that age old debate.
 
I'm all about apple and own a bunch of their stuff. I don't mind price gaps and different strokes for different folks.

I will say it's a little annoying when the complexities and cost of building a home PC are overstated though. The personalities of types to build this are also the types who understand price/performance ratios and interlinked parts. It's cheaper no matter how you slice it, often equivalent or faster, etc. etc. And it's nothing like building a car, it's more like building a lego set VS pre-built lego set - the car metaphor makes it sound much more complex.

It's certainly not for everyone, and it's not better or worse - just different. Even as a custom builder, I wouldn't flinch at buying a good mac for a number of reasons (and in fact, have!) :D
 
Thomas Smet said:
Yeah and I’m sure if I could buy all the parts I could build a car for less than a BMW as well. It isn’t just about components anymore but the overall user experience. 99% of computers owners even design and vid o professionals don’t really care what components a computer has. They buy a computer that gets the job done and creates as little of fricken to that process as possible.

Usability, less reliance on 3rd sofwatre, lack of bloatware, access to the real tools people use for low cost or free, hardware, repair and support options and so on are all things today that give users value when they buy a computer. That fact that most major cities have a well known and easy to access Apple store to get repairs is worth the extra cost alone. People don’t want to get hosed with repair costs like they do when they get their car repaired. Apple is honest and repairs only what is needed to repair and that right there adds tremendous value.

You also have to be very carefully to actually select the exact same kind of components. I frequently hear people say thy can build a PC fo less than the iMac a Pro and select desktop class CPUs and ram vs workstation class Xeon and ECC ram. They only look at the printed megahertz and publish ram speed and not what this server class components are designed for. Once you select similar parts for robustness the price gap shrinks considerably.

Even in the case of the IMac it isn’t that it is more expensive but that it forces you into specific parts. For example not everybody needs a 10bit p3 Color 5k display. So they could use a vastly cheaper 4k monitor with a PC and say it’s cheaper. It’s not th same thing however and spec for spec if you built a PC and added a 27” 10bit p3 color with 5k resolution I’m pretty sure the cost would get much closer. You also need to make sure you add speakers, a HD camera for video conferencing and so forth. You can’t just build a tower and not include everything else and say it’s cheaper. Well duh it is. So is the Mac Mini compared to the iMac because it removes all that extra stuff.

It also comes down to what hardware is needed is needed for the tools. Max Yuriv did a test between a monster PC and a top iMac where on paper the Pc should murder the iMac. It was also cheaper. Yet FCPX on the iMac handidly beat the PC and Premiere in almost every benchmark test that actually mattered. Not the synthetic tests but actually performing video related tasks. The reality is I can do more with a 4 core iMac than most can with a 6 core decked out PC and Premiere. I also find FCPX to perform better than Resolve on the sam system. So yes Resolve can do more when you give it a ton of hardware but sometim s a well made video editing experience can and should be about efficiency.

One also needs to factor in the cost of the tools used. Adobe users spend $600 per year while Apple users spend $400 for life. That adds up over time and many of us purchased FCPX and the other pro apps years ago. Even “if” we actually pay a couple hundred more for a comparable computer we end up spending much less over a 2, 3 or 4 year period. Premiere users spend $2,400 over four years while FCPX users only spend $400 in that same amount of time. Now who pays a tax? I’m still using FCPX on a 2011 MBP and a 2012 iMac both of which can edit 4k from my GH4. If I used Premiere I would have spent $4,200 over the seven years I have owneded the MBP.

Then there is the licensing fees for multiple systems. If a business has five editors they need to buy five subscriptions to Adobe at $3,000 per year. FCPX can be installed on up to five systems which makes that first year equal a $2,600 savings. Each year after that they would save $3,000.

There is absolutely no way no matter how much anybody skimps on specs, cuts corners or fudges the math that makes a PC with Premiere cost less than a Mac with FCPX. Resolve is a different story but you still need to buy a license for each system that uses Resolve and Resolve still requires more hardware to get the same effort done compared to FCPX.

We buy edit systems to get work done. That work entails timeline playback with effects without choking and rendering or outputting video for masters and delivery. FCPX can get all those tasks done with less hardware specs.
Click to expand...

You're putting a lot of effort into convincing yourself. :happy:
 
Glad to see we could maturely let people make their own decisions based on their own circumstances and comfort level rather than belittling people for making a decision we, personally, wouldn't make.

Wait, that's exactly the opposite of what happened.

On a thread aimed at discussing new Macs, why is it inevitable that the Windows people will show up and talk about one (or all) of the following:

1) Macs are overpriced vs. home-building your own Windows-based PC
2) Macs break down and Apple wouldn't repair my computer years out of warranty
3) I personally prefer PC, so I just don't understand why anyone would buy a Mac

People who buy and use Macs want to buy and use Macs. Nothing you do is likely to change that and in fact, the constant barrage of telling us how wrong we are is likely reinforcing our choice to use Macs. I use Macs because I use Final Cut Pro X and Sketch (a web design app). Neither are available for Windows at any price, so a Windows PC doesn't fit my use case no matter how much cheaper it is.

It's really tiresome that any mention of Macs on social media triggers the inevitable barrage of Windows people swooping in to tell us how wrong and misguided we are for continuing to buy Macs. It's boring and those of you who do it really should find a more productive use of your time.

Same with the "Final Cut Pro X is just iMovie Pro" people. Boring.
 
I believe that Apple has maintained, for some time, that the new Mac Pro will be a modular design.

Whether that means that it will be user upgradeable is a different question.
 
Thomas Smet said:
........One also needs to factor in the cost of the tools used. Adobe users spend $600 per year while Apple users spend $400 for life. That adds up over time and many of us purchased FCPX and the other pro apps years ago. Even “if” we actually pay a couple hundred more for a comparable computer we end up spending much less over a 2, 3 or 4 year period. Premiere users spend $2,400 over four years while FCPX users only spend $400 in that same amount of time. Now who pays a tax? I’m still using FCPX on a 2011 MBP and a 2012 iMac both of which can edit 4k from my GH4. If I used Premiere I would have spent $4,200 over the seven years I have owneded the MBP.......
Click to expand...

For your 600 bucks you will get Adobe Suite, which means a lot of apps. After Effects, Photoshop, Lightroom, Audition etc etc. Just saying
 
Thomas Smet said:
One also needs to factor in the cost of the tools used. Adobe users spend $600 per year while Apple users spend $400 for life. That adds up over time and many of us purchased FCPX and the other pro apps years ago. Even “if” we actually pay a couple hundred more for a comparable computer we end up spending much less over a 2, 3 or 4 year period. Premiere users spend $2,400 over four years while FCPX users only spend $400 in that same amount of time. Now who pays a tax? I’m still using FCPX on a 2011 MBP and a 2012 iMac both of which can edit 4k from my GH4. If I used Premiere I would have spent $4,200 over the seven years I have owneded the MBP.

Then there is the licensing fees for multiple systems. If a business has five editors they need to buy five subscriptions to Adobe at $3,000 per year. FCPX can be installed on up to five systems which makes that first year equal a $2,600 savings. Each year after that they would save $3,000.

There is absolutely no way no matter how much anybody skimps on specs, cuts corners or fudges the math that makes a PC with Premiere cost less than a Mac with FCPX. Resolve is a different story but you still need to buy a license for each system that uses Resolve and Resolve still requires more hardware to get the same effort done compared to FCPX.

We buy edit systems to get work done. That work entails timeline playback with effects without choking and rendering or outputting video for masters and delivery. FCPX can get all those tasks done with less hardware specs.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to Adobe/PC
editors who try to 'educate' me about the 'Apple Tax.' Truth
is, I save money by using Apple because they don't force you
to make a monthly 'subscription' payment. And FCP means I can use
an older computer (without having to upgrade the computer as
often) and still be able to do just fine. In all seriousness, my
main edit computer is a 2009 Mac Pro. Are there lots of
nine year old PCs out there in edit bays today? I dunno but I can
cut 4K with mine just great. My secondary
computer is a 2013 MacBook Pro.,..again works just fine
cutting up to 4K. So yeah, despite how much
some try and tell me Apple is 'ripping me off' I'm pretty happy
with them.
 
Last edited:
KrocanX said:
For your 600 bucks you will get Adobe Suite, which means a lot of apps. After Effects, Photoshop, Lightroom, Audition etc etc. Just saying
Click to expand...
Or you can get Motion, Affinity Photo and so on for $80 and have Adobe replacements.
I don't need Illustrator and InDesign and Dreamweaver and all those. It's like
cable companies forcing me to buy 200 channels when I only want ESPN,
TNT and AMC or something. I'm a video guy and don't want to pay for
other bloat that I will never have time to learn. Give me a AE alternative
(Motion) and a Photoshop alternative (Affinity) along with the NLE (FCPX)
and I'll jump off the subscription money train. And quite happy with my decision.
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
Or you can get Motion, Affinity Photo and so on for $80 and have Adobe replacements.
I don't need Illustrator and InDesign and Dreamweaver and all those. It's like
cable companies forcing me to buy 200 channels when I only want ESPN,
TNT and AMC or something. I'm a video guy and don't want to pay for
other bloat that I will never have time to learn. Give me a AE alternative
(Motion) and a Photoshop alternative (Affinity) along with the NLE (FCPX)
and I'll jump off the subscription money train. And quite happy with my decision.
Click to expand...

And in case you need it? For example if you need to have After Effects and Photoshop?
 
KrocanX said:
And in case you need it? For example if you need to have After Effects and Photoshop?
Click to expand...

If I absolutely need Photoshop I'll get one of the photography plans. Depending on how the pricing works out the Photoshop on iPad could also be a great option. At the Apple's launch of new iPad Pro Adobe demoed Photoshop on iPad working with zero lag on an over 3 gigabyte PSD containing 157 different 12,000×12,000 layers. I understand there are quite a few desktop Photoshop users who were jealous of that performance.

I own more PCs than Macs so this isn't a religious issue for me. I use the tools that work the best for me and at this point one those tools is FCPX. While I have no plans to start using After Affects personally, if it was the best choice for a project I wouldn't mind renting it for a couple of months for someone else to use. I can see adding Resolve/Fusion to the mix but if BMD chooses not to support ProRes RAW that becomes a bit less likely.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html?promoid=952G4WLC&mv=other

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/30/ap...it-a-3gb-psd-file-in-photoshop-with-zero-lag/


Can we get back to discussing the new Mac Mini? These Barefeats eGPU numbers for the 13inch MacBook Pro do seem promising. I would expect the new 6-core Mac Mini to do even better, perhaps in line with the 6 core MacBook Pro. Getting near iMac Pro performance from a Mac Mini seems pretty sweet! I can see a future where an eGPU moves from Mac to Mac depending what I'm doing on the machine.

https://barefeats.com/macbook-pro-13in-2018-with-egpu.html
 
groveChuck said:
Batutta, didn't you used to cut trailers on a Mac Mini? Like, studio stuff?
Click to expand...

I did indeed, up until about five years ago. They were still using dedicated graphics back then. I bought it as an emergency when my MacBook Pro crapped out on me and used it longer than expected. Once 4k came on the scene I needed more horsepower, and started experimenting with other options.
 
KrocanX said:
And in case you need it? For example if you need to have After Effects and Photoshop?
Click to expand...

That's why I mentioned alternatives to those programs....
because it means I don't need them. Obviously if there
was some reason, a person could always do a one time
subscription for a month. I haven't ran into any reason to
do that as I can do what is needed in the other programs.


I'm personally excited to see Apple releasing products.
And fairly powerful ones too. Intrigued to see what the
new Mac Pro will be like.
 
I've heard Affinity is a substitute for Photoshop. But what about Lightroom? What about my beloved and much used Niks plug-ins? My new iMac is limping along with PS 5.1 and Lightroom 3 because I don't want go into eternal indentured servitude to Adobe. All three programs are still working under High Sierra but when I update to Mojave, they probably won't. What is a photographer to do? I actually use PS more for video prep of stills, fixing little things with healing brush and clone stamp but Lightroom is where most of my work with stills takes place and I mostly use the Niks suite within Lightroom. I just don't know what to do, short of paying Adobe $240.00 per year ransom. Do the Niks plug-ins even still exist and can they be used within the new Lightroom? Is there any non-Adobe alternative to Lightroom?

I wish Adobe still gave you a choice, pay the monthly ransom OR even charge $1,000.00 flat for PS and Lightroom. I would pay $1k for the two if I owned them, I freaking HATE the idea of owing Adobe a monthly fee for the rest of my life. I can't believe that professionals have fallen for this, it is such a scam. Same with AVID and PT now. That's why I edit on FCP X and Resolve. One time fee is such a better value.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top