MacBook Pro as Desktop Replacement?

[mistymoon]

My MacBook Pro and Mac Mini desktop both date from about 2012 and have been reliable the whole time. They are, however, slower than I need in working with tens of thousands of photo files in my catalog. I was wondering if I could get a new MacBook Pro, maxed out in terms of specs, that could substitute for both prior computers, effectively working with large external monitors and a RAID? For anyone with experience in trying this, what are the potential downfalls? I would still be using the MacBook Pro on long photographic trips, and I use Backblaze as an online backup. Thank you for any insights you might have.

[Joe Towner]

You'll be fine, but I'm not sure you need to max it out.  The external drives could need a bit of a cleanup (since newer/faster/larger).  TB3 is much faster than the earlier USB3 stuff.  Only thing is how long are your trips - the Backblaze has certain timeframes it wants between plugging in disks, and turning extended version history covers for it. Check out https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217664898-What-happens-to-my-backups-when-I-m-away-or-on-vacation-

-Joe

[kimballistic]

4 years ago I upgraded from a crufty 2011 iMac to a 2016 13" MacBook Pro with 2 cores, 16 GB RAM, a 1TB SSD, and no discrete GPU.  That was maxed out at the time for the 13" model.  I now process D850 raws (sometimes stitching panos and focus stacking, resulting in DNGs of up to 1GB) and it's still acceptably fast.  I wouldn't call it a speed-demon, but it's also not frustratingly slow.  I'm happy saving my money right now and not upgrading.  The only bad part is I've run out of SSD storage, so I'm having to put my LR Catalog on an external SSD and make Smart Previews for when I'm mobile.

If you can afford the new 16" MBP you'd have 8 cores, 64 GB of ram, potentially 4+ TB of SSD, and a much more powerful discrete GPU.  It should blow my system out of the water.  I've heard the 16" rivals the iMac Pro in single core speed.

It ABSOLUTELY is a desktop replacement, unless "desktop" for you is a $10-20K workstation.

No comment on the RAID setup.  How much storage are your photos taking now?

[digitaldog]

It ABSOLUTELY is a desktop replacement, unless "desktop" for you is a $10-20K workstation.

+1.

[armand]

Funny, I've been contemplating to start an identical thread for the last week. The reason I didn't post it is that for me it's still much more cost effective to just upgrade my DIY desktop and end up with more powerful stuff at a much lower cost (~ 1900 vs 4800-6100) and I'm Windows habituated.

I would also aim for close to max or max specs, the rational being that if I would go with the larger internal SSD I can keep and edit most of my stuff on it vs using an external drive. An external drive that would be fast would likely cost the difference between the various internal SSD capacities anyway while one that I can just use for backup would be cheaper/larger.

A laptop would make life much simpler though and the new MacBook Pro 16 seems to as powerful/more powerful than desktops just a couple of years older. I was comparing and reading reviews and if you don't need the screen of iMac, the MacBook Pro I think it's preferable to the iMac. The processor is close, RAM the same, video worse but likely won't matter that much for photo, and you can get a bigger SSD than the iMac (go figure).

[mistymoon]

You'll be fine, but I'm not sure you need to max it out.  The external drives could need a bit of a cleanup (since newer/faster/larger).  TB3 is much faster than the earlier USB3 stuff.  Only thing is how long are your trips - the Backblaze has certain timeframes it wants between plugging in disks, and turning extended version history covers for it. Check out https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217664898-What-happens-to-my-backups-when-I-m-away-or-on-vacation-

-Joe

Good point, I hadn't thought about the backups and Backblaze's time limits. I really don't like that limitation to Backblaze.

[Joe Towner]

Good point, I hadn't thought about the backups and Backblaze's time limits. I really don't like that limitation to Backblaze.

It's $2 per month more to push it from 30 days to 1 year.  Totally worth it, plus I appreciate everything else that Backblaze is & does.

[Jonathan Cross]

This is very interesting, as we have a windows desktop and new macbook air.  We have sandisk external portable ssds formatted to run on both machines.  We are thinking of changing the desktop for a Mac and this thread is drawing us to the new MacBook Pro.  It seems to me that external ssd like sandisk is cheaper than extra internal ssd, so probably would go for 512GB internal as I do not do much video and then only simple clips.  When I tested the ssd on the MacBook Air  47GB of images transferred in less than 2 minutes.  This is fast enough for me.

I would look to have all my LR classic files on ext ssd and then could run LR on both the pro and air.  I am biassed against the cloud as it needs internet and is much slower than ssd.

Am I missing something?

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[armand]

How big is your current catalog + photos? If it fits now and in foreseeable future on a 2TB drive, your are right, it's cheaper than the internal storage if you don't need top speed. For the top MacBook Pro 16 you start with 1 TB.

If you need something remotely as fast as the internal SSD and is bigger than 2TB, than you have to go with bigger/more expensive DAS/NAS in which case the difference is much smaller.

The higher you go on the internal storage the better the value:
+ 1TB - 400
+ 2TB - 600 (300/TB)
+ 4TB - 1200 (300/TB)

So if you go for the 4TB you pay extra 333/TB while for the 8TB is extra 314/TB. The newer Samsung X5 @ 2TB  is ~ $700 and with TB3 it's close enough speed wise not too feel the difference, so 350/TB.

[Jonathan Cross]

In the UK a Sandisk 2TB portable ssd as I use is the equivalent of about 400 USD (on Amazon), so much cheaper than internal ssd.  I am happy as my images, LR catalog etc are just over 1TB.  It depends, of course, on individual circumstances, and if a photographer's needs are for more than 2TB on one ssd, then a different solution is needed.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

[Joe Towner]

One thing to keep in mind is external SSD performance is dependent on the type - there are lots of USB3/C ssd's that are SATA styled, and there are TB3 NVMe SSD's that blow the doors off those SATA SSD's.  The internal drive on the Macbook Pro's is of the NVMe style.

[mistymoon]

Thank you for everyone's comments. It looks like the MacBook Pro would be a great computer for what I need.

[jeremyrh]

It's $2 per month more to push it from 30 days to 1 year.  Totally worth it, plus I appreciate everything else that Backblaze is & does.

But if you set it to backup only when you click "back up now" you can be away up to (IIRC) 6 months before you start losing files.

[Joe Towner]

But if you set it to backup only when you click "back up now" you can be away up to (IIRC) 6 months before you start losing files.

Honestly, I wouldn't trust myself to remember to click at the most ideal time.  Plus, the extended loop also lets you backup while you're on the road (if the hotel has descent wifi).

[Joel Haskell]

Some supplemental advice...

I just purchased a fairly loaded 16" MBP. It's great in many regards, but I would suggest you to take stock of all your legacy software needs before you make the jump. I can't tell you how many things broke:

64 bit version of Spectraview doesn't support my older sensor - I'll need to replace it;
MS Office,
My accounting software company simply refuses to make a 64-bit version so it is effectively end-of-life.
The list goes on and on...

Also, be aware that many people are having issues with external displays via Thunderbolt since Catalina's release. I finally got my situation straightened out, but there is no universal fix. If you are hanging on to one of your 2012 computers, you can probably manage the transition better. If I had been attempting a 1-for-1 computer upgrade and needed to part with the old one in a hurry it would have been a lot more fraught.

[BAB]

Oh I recently purchased the 16" MBpro w 64gb ram yes its way faster than my mid 2014 MBpro w 16gb when doing heavy lifting the fans in the 2020 MB pro do run quite a bit. Sliders in several programs work as expected in other words as you move the slider you see the results to the image faster that's really nice that the new machine is helping crunch the changes. I kept my older machine up to date so when I run into compatibility issues I not pulling my hair out trying to work thru them.
what i have noticed is the old machine wasn't that bad it still works fine just not as fast as the new one. I have all my image files on external disks and backed up I rarely put files directly on the MacBook Pros hard drive because the drives are getting faster and after culling a shoot Im usually working on only a very few images so time isn't a issue.
all the other upgrades with the 2020 MBpro are great and in time I'm sure I will let the old machine go completely. I dont see any change in thinking from 10 years ago hardware is always outpacing software at least newer versions of software aren't going to run light speed but they (most) run faster.
In closing waiting 6 years to upgrade was a bit long but Im sure glad I didn't upgrade in 2019.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I just purchased a fairly loaded 16" MBP. It's great in many regards, but I would suggest you to take stock of all your legacy software needs before you make the jump. I can't tell you how many things broke:

64 bit version of Spectraview doesn't support my older sensor - I'll need to replace it;
MS Office,
My accounting software company simply refuses to make a 64-bit version so it is effectively end-of-life.

Joel, consider running Mojave in a virtual machine under Parallels / VMWare / some other virtualisation software. There was a thread about it on TidBITS recently.

Jeremy

[Joel Haskell]

Joel, consider running Mojave in a virtual machine under Parallels / VMWare / some other virtualisation software. There was a thread about it on TidBITS recently.

Jeremy

Thanks, Jeremy.  It's a good thought. I've never waded in, but VM has always seemed a little high on the pain factor. I'm getting tired of working for my computer instead of the other way around. It's too bad that Apple didn't make the 16" MBP in 2019 BEFORE Catalina.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thanks, Jeremy.  It's a good thought. I've never waded in, but VM has always seemed a little high on the pain factor. I'm getting tired of working for my computer instead of the other way around. It's too bad that Apple didn't make the 16" MBP in 2019 BEFORE Catalina.

From what I've read, it shouldn't be particularly painful, once the initial setup has been done. I've run Windows 10 under VirtualBox and while it's not been a hugely pleasant experience, it hasn't proved difficult to get things done. When I get my 16" MBP, in the next month or so, I'll get it running and report back.

Jeremy

[vjbelle]

Windows is essential for anyone who is serious about computing just as the Apple operating system is.  I just wish that there was a way to virtually emulate/use Apple in a Windows environment.  The only solution for me so far is to have both native systems. 

Victor