Mac Pro Refurb specs

O

OnStage

Guest
Hi Guys,
First of all - I am loving this forum! I've been using LR since Beta 1 but only recently discovered the forum.
I am currently running LR (68,''' + images) and CS3 on (don't laugh) a 15" 1.67 PB and lots of external drives. I need a Mac Pro but it will be a budget crippling purchase.
I am looking at apple refurbs and the 2.66 quad and 2.8 octo both look like great values. I will be pairing either one with a refurb 23" ACD and adding drives/RAM. The $4'' price difference would allow me to go for 8 gigs of OWC RAM instead of 4 and still come out somewhat cheaper.
Either machine needs to last at least 5 years (I will be going back to school starting next year and photography will be my only paying gig!). I don't do video, at least not yet!
I don't mind the idea of a future processor swap (potentially upgrading the quad 2.66 to a 12 core 3.x)
Thank you for any insight you can give! I am also open to other solutions, but wary of the iMac....
cheers!
john
 

rcannonp

Active Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
467
Location
Atlanta, GA
Either machine will be ridiculously faster than a Powerbook. If you really plan on using it for five years, I would go with the better machine. 4GBs of RAM isn't a measly amount and you can always add more later.
 
O

OnStage

Guest
Thanks for the prompt reply! I kinda figured that might be the case, the price just hurts! I see you are using the MBP. How responsive is LR? Is it your primary machine?
john
 

rcannonp

Active Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
467
Location
Atlanta, GA
OnStage;14'65 said:
Thanks for the prompt reply! I kinda figured that might be the case, the price just hurts! I see you are using the MBP. How responsive is LR? Is it your primary machine?
john

The MBP is my main machine. It does a reasonable job. I would rather have an 8 core machine, but I needed a portable computer and didn't have the budget for both.

Back when I bought my G4 tower there was a $75' difference between the top and middle of the line. The higher end machines are often better in other ways such as graphics cards, bus speeds and such – not just processor power. I used that computer almost every day for five years. I knew other people who had bought lesser machines around the same time, and they weren't viable for as long. An 8 core machine may seem like a beast right now, but software developers design software to use all that's available them. In four years, you'll appreciate having more power. If you do use the machine for five years, the price difference will be less than $1'' a year.
 
O

OnStage

Guest
I am hoping that the PB won't die just yet, and when it does a MacBook will be perfect for my portable needs, assuming that I have more horsepower available at home!
The software is what finally drove me to stretch my budget to the Mac Pro. (I was looking at an iMac + ACD) I've been studying projected software architecture for Adobe and the trend seems to be towards better utilization of multiple cores, rather than dependance on higher clock speeds. Not to mention that I am really non-linear when I'm working on a project so that I'll have Lightroom, PS, InDesign, and Illustrator all open at once (the PB hates that).
You are quite right about amortizing my investment over several years, it reduces the sting.
cheers,
john
 
Top