Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
hate hackingtoshes and hate windows, so i guess mac pro it is for me.

I hate every hackintosh apart from one with a Quo motherboard which for a hack is fantastic. Mainly cos it's as maintenance free as a hack can get, and they do not have the time or money for me to support the standard hack mad maintenance hamster wheel.

Windows 7 is still a great OS, hopefully 10 will be and they both overcoming some hurdles that Apple put seemingly deliberately in the way run fantastic on Macs. I have sold more Mac Pro 6,1 systems for use in windows than OS X!
 
Depends really. I've got two 24" Cinema, a 27" Cinema and two 27" TB and use them all. My office is dimmed so gloss isn't an issue, and the glossy screens are beautiful and clear. Way better than any matte. I do software development so maximum real estate is what counts, not PPI. I have the three 27" on my nMP alone.

So sure they're packing in more pixels per inch but I doubt I want them. My text will look a little clearer - so what? I'm working on digital bits here, I don't need to make it look analog. I also have 16 spaces for all my different tasks, how will that perform with a 5k center monitor? Don't know, and not sure I want to find out. What about a 10k - will we ever need that many pixels? 5k is already out of visual acuity.

Further three monitors is ideal for me. I need many windows up simultaneously and those three 27" partition it perfectly. The only thing that might be better would be a continuous wrap around screen.

Anyhow I don't get the iMac at all. If that's all the computer you need, why don't you just use a laptop? If you could use more, then why not get a Mac Pro for a few hundred more? I can see where it makes sense for some use cases (total simplicity one monitor computer), but if you're serious I don't see the point.

At first, I had the same feeling as the OP. Realistically though, my 30" ACD (ancient, but works flawlessly) still has more real estate than the new iMac. My 5,1 has 48 GB of RAM, which you still can't get on the iMac. Granted, I can't get the same single core speeds, but I can stick 12 3.33 Ghz cores in for fairly cheap when I want to.

Furthermore, I currently have a 7970 card, and there's a pretty good chance I'll be able to upgrade that if the 'need' arises.

The bottom line is that the imac and MP remain very different machines. I'm impressed that they pulled off a 5k screen at 60 hz. I think we have to hand it to Apple for getting to that milestone first. Curious to hear whether there is lag or skipped frames, etc on the new iMac...
 
Is that the same for Lightroom? I thought it's all the GPU?

When I say sluggish, I mean that it drop crazy frames when I pan the photo when zoomed in.

GPU is irrelevant for Lightroom. It's equally fast with integrated graphics.

Lightroom is mainly CPU-bound, unless your catalog file is on a slow disk, or you're starved for RAM. It will also benefit from 4 faster cores rather than 6 slower ones, as it isn't particularly well-threaded.
 
Um ... best answer seems like ... you shouldn't have bought mac pro just for photo editing?

What?! Are you insane? Even the apple website and videos shows aperture as the main application for it. I don't use aperture but obviously photo editing is the target market
 
What?! Are you insane? Even the apple website and videos shows aperture as the main application for it. I don't use aperture but obviously photo editing is the target market

Hasn't Aperture been end-of-lifed? Lightroom is the future for pro photo workflows....
 
I do video for a living, go with at least the 8. We have the 6 in the office, it is not powerful enough to work comfortably.

Agree. I have the 8/D700, video editing is flawless in FCPX. 4K @ 30fps plays very smooth at least from a Pegasus 2 raid
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.