Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New thought on Mac Mini being phased out (for new one/redesign) ?
- Thread starter Architect4122
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"A photographer" is a broad term encompassing print, digital, amateur, pro. One size does NOT fit all.
A photographer produces on and for a medium that his or her client most appreciates. The digital medium for viewing photos is now most commonly a glossy display, ergo it would be wise to prepare your photos to appear best on a glossy display. No hardware colorimeter is needed to do that.
Just a thought.
If you want accurate colors, on displays or prints, you have to use a colorimeter. The human eye simply is not capable of discriminating the hues, temperatures and brightnesses necessary for proper display output. You can "eyeball" it, but you'll never get it correct.
In the "old days" our colorimeters were color swatches on paper, to which we had to make test prints to cross-check color accuracy. This was an inexact science (more art, than anything), was time-consuming and expensive. Worst of all, you had to do it every day you used your color enlarger, since bulb intensity and temperature fluctuated.
Just a thought.
open safari on the mini, and safari on the imac, that delay on the mini should get frustrating, depending on which is your main machine, my friend has the SAME EXACT imac as me, only difference is that i have a 500GB seagate barrucuda and a panasonic matshita, and he has a western digital caviar, his HD, is slightly slower than mine, he got it from apple like me, he got it from the store, didnt customize it, same here, and its too slow for me, his 2.8 is somehow slower than mine, so that 1.66 vs 2.1? i dont believe that you dont notice a difference
i just said i had a colorimeter, i used the mac system preferences on my imac to calibrate the screen, to make it even better
the colorimeter is a totally seperate thing, i had one for my PC, in which the screen LOOKED SO BAD, i did not use the colorimeter on my mac
i know, turning from the mac mini being phased out, to a fight about how we like to calibrate out screens, and if the mac mini is good for photowork
i know, turning from the mac mini being phased out, to a fight about how we like to calibrate out screens, and if the mac mini is good for photowork
Yes, let's review how we got to this point:
but the power of the mini is very weak
i do have a colorimeter, used it on a display that really matters
Which has no relevance to photo work on the Mini.
I never said there was no difference. I said the difference wasn't that significant. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills and learn a bit about the use of adverbs and adjectives, both of which you seem particularly fond.
Calibration is qualitative, not quantitative. Why is it that you have a colorimeter, but do not use it on your iMac? You have one of the few that actually works reasonably well with glossy screens. It's a good thing you don't have a Huey, because then you wouldn't be able to use it. Visit the Apple Discussion forums and you'll see how much trouble the glossy screens are.
I realize that you are only 14 years old and kids your age often have trouble following complex dialogs, but it's apparent that you have very little experience in digital photography. There's much more to it than just taking pictures and printing them out on your printer (or screen). I'm sure you'll catch up in a few years.
Duh... but you're missing the point. The point is "accurate" color and producing for your audience aren't the same thing. When an everyday consumer takes her film or digital media to Wal Mart or Target, the last thing the Kodak or Fuji machine does is produce "accurate" color. The process has been altered to make the colors "pop" (the purpose of glossy screens), the contrast to be more rich, etc. It's not whether a photo looks real but whether it looks fake enough that people think it's a better photo than it actually is.
I'm well aware of the color correction process, I've worked in a graphic design and print shop.
Point is, not all photographers want color accuracy, therefore not all photographers (particularly amateur) care whether a screen is glossy or not. In fact, it may even be desirable to use a glossy screen.
--Chris
i was talking about the speed difference there
i beg to differ the $300 plus difference
my father is a photographer, he isn't pro, he's been doing it for 4 years now, he does studio work
They're not that great.. I was on a Mac Pro couple days ago with 5GB of Ram and my god... That thing blew my mind.. I am ready to sell my iMac this coming January while the price is still high
My what a bunch of spec whores some of us have become. The Mac mini is a computer that really screams compared to computers of just a couple of years ago. It will do everything you throw at it, with the exception of high end 3D games which demand better graphics power. Sure there are faster computers, but let's keep things in perspective.
That said, I'd love to see the mini redesigned with a few improvements. I don't think it will be though, at its current price. The mini is a good way for Apple to get rid of left over parts from the MacBooks. Because (of its small size?) it's perceived as being underpowered by people like bluedoggiant, it's not real competition for Apple's more profitable iMacs. I'd take a mini over an iMac any day of the week. Fortunately for Apple, that's not the way most people see it.
i guess you are correct, the mac mini has the power of last years mbp's, and those were pretty powerful, no doubt, thing is, technology advances, the mbp when from last years high end 2.33, to this years high end 2.6, and future applications demand on powerful computers, so the mac mini gets phased out quickly, compared to PC's though, 2.16ghz is s&*t, you need a quad core 2 extreme for vista to run at 2.33ghz speed on mac osx!! so mac mini's are good computers, but for people that do basic things, trust me, the future safari would barely take up more RAM as today's, but but photoshop as Cave Man has mentioned, on the newest mac mini, would be dreadfully slow by CS4, it already has a slow startup (i know from my dads 2.16 mbp, 2 gigram), and most people on mac mini's wont get 2 gigs, most people who have them aren't pros went it comes to computers, some are though, im just saying the majority. But compared to the apple's high standard computers, the mac mini gets the least attention, the imac being the most attractive, powerful for its price range, at a decent price, though it is a LITTLE overpriced. though apple products dont have any competitors, PC's have their own standards, so its hard to compare. my friend got a HP pavilion m8100n, it has many pluses compared to my imac in the sig, but is $1200 cheaper
LONGEST RUN ON SENTENCE OF THE YEAR GOES TO: BLUEDOGGIEi guess you are correct, the mac mini has the power of last years mbp's, and those were pretty powerful, no doubt, thing is, technology advances, the mbp when from last years high end 2.33, to this years high end 2.6, and future applications demand on powerful computers, so the mac mini gets phased out quickly, compared to PC's though, 2.16ghz is s&*t, you need a quad core 2 extreme for vista to run at 2.33ghz speed on mac osx!! so mac mini's are good computers, but for people that do basic things, trust me, the future safari would barely take up more RAM as today's, but but photoshop as Cave Man has mentioned, on the newest mac mini, would be dreadfully slow by CS4, it already has a slow startup (i know from my dads 2.16 mbp, 2 gigram), and most people on mac mini's wont get 2 gigs, most people who have them aren't pros went it comes to computers, some are though, im just saying the majority. But compared to the apple's high standard computers, the mac mini gets the least attention, the imac being the most attractive, powerful for its price range, at a decent price, though it is a LITTLE overpriced. though apple products dont have any competitors, PC's have their own standards, so its hard to compare. my friend got a HP pavilion m8100n, it has many pluses compared to my imac in the sig, but is $1200 cheaper
1st off you're wrong. Last year's MBP would run circles around the top of the line Mini's not to mention the GPU. Also the 2.33 to 2.6 isn't as big as you would think. Quad for Vista? Hardly.. Actually most of the comments you make are just pulled out of your ass.. Please only say things which are factual. Rereading your posts I don't understand what you're trying to say??
ALSO LEARN TO USE SENTENCES!
My ONLY gripe about the Intel Mini is the integrated graphics, every other aspect of it is far better than the G4 Mini (Except the CoreSolo model).
I bought a 1.42GHz G4 mini new for $650, I sold it last month for $450. Barely 30% depreciation on a 2 year old computer, try getting that out of a Dell.
I bought a 1.42GHz G4 mini new for $650, I sold it last month for $450. Barely 30% depreciation on a 2 year old computer, try getting that out of a Dell.
LONGEST RUN ON SENTENCE OF THE YEAR GOES TO: BLUEDOGGIE
1st off you're wrong. Last year's MBP would run circles around the top of the line Mini's not to mention the GPU. Also the 2.33 to 2.6 isn't as big as you would think. Quad for Vista? Hardly.. Actually most of the comments you make are just pulled out of your ass.. Please only say things which are factual. Rereading your posts I don't understand what you're trying to say??
i know
, i have trouble with my sentences, either way, its winter break, im not thinking. im not pulling any thing outta my @$$, i see what my friends have, top of the line processors on their PC's, and their not that expensive, and not so fast, may be all my friends were supposed to get duals but HP and Dell ripped them off, i did a mistake by saying quad, i was thinking of cores$450? whats up with all these rip offs, you get a PPC for just $150 less than the new one, and some other guy on the other side of the forums gets himself a 17 inch imac for $850.. and that's CD
i know
Let's hope that's just it.
You did not do a thorough review of that HP PC or you simply don't understand computer hardware, otherwise you'd see that it doesn't have near the abilities of your iMac. You seem to think that the processor is sole importance of a computer.
Depends on the model. If it is an XPS, I could see them advertising an new GPU.
Further, just because they tell you the CPU is the most important through advertising doesn't mean you have to believe and proclaim that the CPU is the most important thing in a computer.
well, i think its the 3rd important thing in BUYing a computer, HD is upgradable later, so is RAM