Want to highlight a helpful answer? Upvote!

Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Advice on purchasing a new computer for print and web design on a budget.

Recently the hard drive on my late 2006 Imac failed. I am now trying to decide what to replace it with and can’t settle on a comfortable solution.


I am a print designer who works on catalogs and photobooks and also does some web design. Until it died, the Imac was adequate. Though it had only 1GB of ram and a 250GB hard drive I was running CS3 comfortably on the machine. I had about 100GB of data that I accessed regularly from an external drive and was using about 175GB of the machine’s internal hard drive.



I’m hesitant to spend $1299 on a new Imac because money is a bit tight and I have some reservations about working on a glossy screen. I was immediately attracted to buying the basic Mac Mini for $599 and a monitor, which I figured would cost me about $200, saving me around $500. I see that the Mini has a dual-core processor (same as my old Imac) and 4gb of memory (4x that of my old machine). This would be a step up, but will it be adequate working on modern browsers and new CS software 3-4 years down the line? Additionally, I’m rather clueless about monitor technology and, after some research, it seems I may have to factor more into my budget than $200 for one good enough to display accurate colors and render typography well.



If processing power and memory would be an issue, I could increase the memory of the basic Mini to 8GB for around $60 with aftermarket ram or buy the Mini with a quad-processor and 4GB of ram for $799. Add the $200 (or more) for a monitor and I’m creeping closer to the cost of the new Imac. I’ve all but completely ruled out the purchase of a Macbook Pro (which I desire for it’s portability) because the basic model is comparable to the basic Mini in terms of processing power and $600 more. I’m also considering buying a used machine where I could get a more power for less money.


Any thoughts that may help me come to a decision would be much appreciated.

iMac

Posted on Feb 4, 2013 3:50 PM

Reply
60 replies

Feb 6, 2013 10:37 AM in response to Dr. Benway

While the external drive may cost the same, drive storage sizes has increased.

External drives come in Terrabyte sizes instead of Gigabytes.

The most common sizes are 1,2 and 3 TB size drives.

There are larger Terrabyte size drives, but are more expensive.

If your iMac is a late 2006, 24 inch screen model, with a 2.16 or 2.33 Ghz CPU, these iMac models had one FireWire 800 port.

Purchasing an external FireWire 400/800 hard drive using the FW800 connection, the speed of data transfer to and from the computer is nearly identical to running from the iMac's internal hard drive

Feb 6, 2013 2:29 PM in response to Dr. Benway

If your iMac is a 24 inch screen model and has the FW800 port, then yes, this is an alternative.

No. The drive doesn't have to be a SATA drive.

Here's the external drives I use with my 2009 iMac.


http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10554


I have two of these. One is a 2 TB drive. The other is the 3 TB

I have these connected through FW 800 connections to my iMac.

Feb 8, 2013 11:05 AM in response to Dr. Benway

FW400 is much faster than USB 2.0. FireWire 400 will still be slower than your iMac's internal drive, though, for running OS X off of on a daily basis.

That's why I was hoping you had the later model 2006 iMac with FW800 ports.

FW800 will have throughput that is nearly identical to running OS X off of the internal drive.

You wouldn't really notice any type of lag or delay.

WIth FW400, they will be some slow down. The only way to test this is to buy a drive, plug it in, format the drive and install the OS to see how much of a delay there is and whether or not you can tolerate it.

Feb 8, 2013 1:35 PM in response to Dr. Benway

If you are referring to something like a wireless WiFi or Bluetooth drive? WiFi drive speeds are based on the speed of your router WiFi connection. So, maybe fast, maybe slower. Same with Bluetooth drives.

And you run the risk of loosing connection with the drive and crashing your system.

A Direct connected drive is a much better solution for everyday use.

FW400 may work for you, but you would need to purchase a drive and try it. Make sure it's a FW drive that has its own power supply and is not powered from the FW connector,,itself.

Self-powered drives have better throughput speeds than ones that are powered from the connector also called Bus-powered.

Feb 11, 2013 8:52 PM in response to ds store

I'm curious to know why you don't recommend using an external disk with greater than 750 GB capacity to boot an Imac from. I have borrowed a 3 TB external drive from a co-worker in order to try running my Imac from it before I invest in a new drive myself. There is about 750 GB of free space on the drive. Can I install the OS without formatting the drive first?

Feb 11, 2013 8:58 PM in response to Dr. Benway

Dr. Benway wrote:


I'm curious to know why you don't recommend using an external disk with greater than 750 GB capacity to boot an Imac from. I have borrowed a 3 TB external drive from a co-worker in order to try running my Imac from it before I invest in a new drive myself. There is about 750 GB of free space on the drive. Can I install the OS without formatting the drive first?

If you only have 750GB of data on your 3TB internal HD that means when you create a bootable clone it will only clone 750GB of data. Therefore buying a 3GB EHD would waste over 2.25TB of usable space.

Advice on purchasing a new computer for print and web design on a budget.

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.