[jamesl]

Hi

I am a student, looking to study media and video editing at a University, and am looking to replace my old pc. I currently also have a G3 ibook.

I was wondering, which would be the best machine for me to buy?
The new imac g5 with dvdrw?
or The emac g4 with Dvdrw?

bear in mind that It will be needed for video editing under final cut express, as well as running things like sound track and garageband.

Look forward to hearing from you

james

[Commodus]

For what you're going to do, iMac - no question. FCE, GarageBand, and Soundtrack all stand to immediately benefit from there being a G5 in the equation.

Also, if money permits I would strongly look into getting the 20" iMac. All of the above apps love having large amounds of screen real estate, and you'd get a bigger hard drive as part of the stock configuraiton (160 GB versus 80 on the eMac and 17" iMac).

[Luca Rescigno]

Definitely iMac. The eMac is not suited to the task. It's pretty much just a web/email/iApps machine.

[the_glassman]

Despite what the others may say an eMac is a very capable machine. The new eMacs are easy to overclock to 1.5 GHz, except up to 2 GB or memory and support dual monitors.
You can get a refurbished eMac with Superdrive (which is twice as fast then the iMac model) for $749 and spend the rest of the money on a second monitor or memory or upgrade the hard drive or get an external firewire or usb drive. There are also utilities to beef up the video card in the eMac. Obviously the specifications on the new iMac are nice, is it twice the machine for twice the money? Hardly.

[jamesl]

Thanks for all of your replys. maybe I should give a slightly bigger overview of what ill be needing the computer for.

I would also be using the ilife package as well, but from what I understand, the software to be used at the Univsrsity is Final Cut Pro / Express, so feel that it would be of great benefit to have this package on my mac.

What exactly makes the imac g5 so much better for my course than the emac? I am very tempted to go for the imac for its size,. if nothing else, but would really appriciate your advice.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by jamesl:
Thanks for all of your replys. maybe I should give a slightly bigger overview of what ill be needing the computer for.

I would also be using the ilife package as well, but from what I understand, the software to be used at the Univsrsity is Final Cut Pro / Express, so feel that it would be of great benefit to have this package on my mac.

What exactly makes the imac g5 so much better for my course than the emac? I am very tempted to go for the imac for its size,. if nothing else, but would really appriciate your advice.

For FCP and iLife the eMac with a ton of ram would be fine, for things such as motion the eMac won't work and the iMac would barely meet those requirements, it all really depends on what programs you are going to use and how much you can afford. While the new iMac is in deed a nice machine, if you need something with serious power and with some upgradability I would look at PowerMac tower instead. The eMac is the cheapest, while the Power Mac tower the most expensive, use your student discount wisely!

[Dex13]

Well FCP Express comes for $100 when you buy any mac computer, I don't believe FCP Express is G5 optimized, so when that happens and when Tiger comes out we should all expect to see the true strength of the 64 bit processing power of the G5. Bigger Lv2 Cache, better graphics, better upgrading (for that bigger hard drive/ memory) bundled LCD screen vs. CRT [(17-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1440 x 900 pixels, millions of colors,20-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1680 x 1050 pixels, millions of colors) vs. (1280 by 960 pixels)]

so much more ...

[Krusty]

Well, the iMac is definitely more "future proof" as its graphics card supports Core Graphics in Tiger. The 20" is a good bargain as well.

However, eMacs are still a killer deal and a lot of bang for your buck. The Apple Store has refurb eMac superdrive machines for $849 right now. Spring for a some heavy duty ram (a 1gb stick is < $200 now and, yes, eMacs will support 2gb ram if you are careful to buy the right type).

So ... $849 + $200 for a 1gb stick = $1049. Plus they are built like tanks (and weigh about as much as one ) and would probably survive drunken (or just stupid) college antics a little better than the iMac. Not a bad trade-off, IMHO. Unless you're making money using a machine, you can afford to wait a little bit longer for your machine to finish things to save several hundred bucks. Plus, though LCDs are pretty, very sharp, and flicker free. CRTs will still generally last longer, have better color, and not be tied to a "native resolution" for optimal performance the way LCDs are.

Just my 2 cents,

Krusty

eMac 1.25, 8x SuperDrive, 160gb. internal BT, 1.5gb ram -- waiting to see what a rev B iMac looks like (sorry, I'm a sucker for the magic 2.0 number and don't see any reason why they couldn't make a 23" iMac at the price of the old G4 20" now that the big 20 intro'd at < $1900 )

[toti]

Sorry to step on your two cents Krusty, but it's actually the other way around...

LCDs last longer as CRTs generally burn badly enough in 2-3 years. The CRT then looses its sharpness, the colours become muddy and the image runny. This does not happen with TFTs. The only edge the CRT has is durability. This applies to the cheap CRT which is in the eMac.

For film production, the iMac would be a safer bet, and it would last longer than the eMac.

FCE actually runs fine on almost any machine. I'm running it off my iBook G4 12", but due to screen size, I can't wait to get my 20" iMac to get up to speed

[Krusty]

My understanding was the "burn-in" was a problem with older CRTs but that with ones made in the last few years, it is no longer an issue.

Anyway, found this: Pretty comprehensive and its actually a pro LCD site though it gives credit where due to a few advantages that CRTs still hold.
http://www.cheap-lcd-monitor.com/lcd...t-monitors.htm

[storer]

iMac

[macaddict0001]

imac.

[jamesl]

I am seriously vonsidering the emac, as i have been given the following list of software by the univsrtity that I am going to:

Macromedia MX Studio (Flash, Dreamwever, Fireworks, Freehand) Macromedia Director MX 2004 3D Studio Max Adobe Suite including : Photoshop, Premiere, AfterEffects, Encore , Audition QuickTime & Final Cut Express.

Paintshop Pro

What out of the aboge software would actually run well on an emac?

Would i really benefit from having an iMac?

Also, take into account that I am only a student, so cannot nescersaily afford to buy the most expensive machine on the market!

[brickcam]

It seems to me that given your dual concerns of performance and cost (hmm, like all of us) it probably would be better for you to buy the eMac. They are perfectly capable of running said applications, if occasionally more slowly. If indeed you have hundreds of dollars more to buy the spiffier thing, than do. But if your question is, "Is it necessary?" the eMac will serve you just fine when you upgrade the RAM.

[deboerjo]

iMac, for the following reasons:

You're getting into video editing, which probably means it's just a matter of time before you're going to start using Motion. Maybe not in the next couple semesters, but a couple years down the road, almost certain. Motion will not run on the eMac due to the relativly weak video.

The G5 processor is much more powerful than the G4. It's not just higher clock speeds, even if you could overclock a G4 to 1.6GHz, the 1.6GHz G5 would still leave it in the dust. Motion aside, even programs like AfterEffects and Final Cut want all the processing power they can get, and the G5 delivers.

You're a college student, and that likely means a cramped dorm or apartment where the iMac's small size and low power consumption are especially valuable. Cathode ray tubes in tiny dorm rooms without air conditioning makes for a miserably hot April thru September, even here in Michigan.

-Jon

[Rychiar]

imac hands down...
ya cant say an emac cant handle big tasks tho, i wish i had 1.5 ghz i mean most of us graphic designers are usin photoshop CS on our powermac G4 450mhz

[deboerjo]

Just wanted to post my 2 cents about LCD vs CRT.

LCD pros: low power, low heat, don't wear out or burn in

CRT pros: brighter, better contrast, better color matching, less prone to accidental damage from pokes and dings, faster refresh (good for games), cheaper

Burn-in is still a problem for CRTs, but not nearly as bad as it used to be. CRTs also contain very high-voltage analog electronics that wear out over time.

[jamesl]

Heat from the eMac wont be a problem as such in England! Is never that warm, well only occaisionally!

Anyhow, Is it likely that the iMac would be lowered in price in the coming future?

ANd would you advise me to get a mac with a dvdrw druive or, buy an external one. I ask because one of my mates said the apple super drives are old drives?

[PBG4 User]

Originally posted by jamesl:
Heat from the eMac wont be a problem as such in England! Is never that warm, well only occaisionally!

Anyhow, Is it likely that the iMac would be lowered in price in the coming future?

ANd would you advise me to get a mac with a dvdrw druive or, buy an external one. I ask because one of my mates said the apple super drives are old drives?

If you want to burn DVDs with iDVD you'll need an internal DVD burner.

[iREZ]

Get the 17" G5, it'll last much longer than an eMac performance wise and although I only own G4's eventually G5's are going to be standard and you're going to wish you had got the iMac. $900 to $1200 is alot for us college students but trust me when I say it's probably worth it. See if you could swing one for cheaper through your school, I know UCLA gives huge discounts to their students.

[jamesl]

The cheapest I can get the G5 imac 1.8 ghz with educational discount is £986.

The cheapeast I can get the emac with DVDR is £656 including the educational discount.

What do people think I should go for, considering the big price difference?

Maybe the answer is to wait for the g5 emac, and hope it isnt overpriced?

[macaddict0001]

imac because it will offer good performance, which is required by this.

[the_glassman]

If you can wait for a month, I'd wait and get the eMac G5.

[jamesl]

Yeah, Im thinking of waiting, as Im not desperate. My pc and ibook g3 do what i need at the moment, just wont do in the future.

So maybe the best option all round is to wait for a g5 emac! WHat do poeple think?

Is the wait only likely to be a month then for a g5 emac, and would there be a major price difference between the two?

[Rychiar]

I just got the 20 inch imac, def the better decision. why spend less now to pay more later when you need a new computer in 2 years instead of 4

[iREZ]

Next eMac is gonna be a G4 still, I'm almost certain of this prob 1.5 GHz and that's it. Apple doesn't want a machine to eat in to its, suprisingly high, iMac sales. If you get the 1.8 now chances are the iMac will be pumped to 1.8 and 2.0 by the mid of next year and 2.? to 2.5 by the start of next year and you'll still have a capable machine that's easier to upgrade (RAM, HD, Optical) without voiding your warranty. Not to mention the gorgeous displays they have.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by iREZ:
Next eMac is gonna be a G4 still, I'm almost certain of this prob 1.5 GHz and that's it. Apple doesn't want a machine to eat in to its, suprisingly high, iMac sales. If you get the 1.8 now chances are the iMac will be pumped to 1.8 and 2.0 by the mid of next year and 2.? to 2.5 by the start of next year and you'll still have a capable machine that's easier to upgrade (RAM, HD, Optical) without voiding your warranty. Not to mention the gorgeous displays they have.

Apple would have not waited this long to revise the eMac if it was going to simply be another G4 revision. The truth of the matter is, G5 chips are cheaper for IBM to produce and cheaper for Apple to purchase. There's going to be plenty of 1.5-1.8 GHz G5 chips sitting around waiting to go into something especially when the Powermac gets updated.

[iREZ]

Yeah, that's what everyone is saying about the Powerbooks too but I just don't see it. If apple did introduce a G5 eMac I know I'd be in but I find it highly unlikely, here's hopin your right.

[cla]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
CRT pros: /.../ faster refresh (good for games)

How much of an issue is this on the iMac G5 LCD?
I want to play Quake 3 at at least 125 fps...

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by cla:
How much of an issue is this on the iMac G5 LCD?
I want to play Quake 3 at at least 125 fps...

You realise that the human eye can't see anything over 30fps?

[macaddict0001]

So true, not only that but at a movie theatre movies are only played at 24 frames per second.

[cla]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
You realise that the human eye can't see anything over 30fps?

Fps in computer games has little to do with the actual fps - any eye can see the difference between 30 fps and 130 fps in a game such as Quake.

[macaddict0001]

Ok but the imac's lcd maxes out at 60 hertz

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by cla:
Fps in computer games has little to do with the actual fps - any eye can see the difference between 30 fps and 130 fps in a game such as Quake.

Only if you're talking about a game's average FPS. So long as the framerate consistantly stays above 30fps or so, there is no preceptible difference going any higher. In fact, Halo has a "30fps" setting that restricts maximum frame rate to 30FPS, because anything beyond that is just a waste of clock cycles. But frame rate varies wildly throughout game play, varying from minimum to maximum usually by a factor of at least 4. To ensure minimum frame rate stays above 30fps, your average frame rate (which is what most people benchmark) in most games usually has to be at least 60fps. It varies from game to game.

I tested this some time ago with Quake and UT on a PC, switching video cards and adjusting the CPU clock speed in the motherboard setup screen to vary frame rates. There really is no difference whatsoever between a minimum frame rate of 30fps and 100fps. Also, while frame rates less than 30fps do appear "unsmooth", they really don't affect playability (your ability to react and aim) unless frame rates drop below about 15-20fps.

-Jon

[ApeInTheShell]

You might consider flood insurance if you live in England

Get an iMac, it'll make you look and sound cool even if your movies are ghastly

[MrKlin]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
Ok but the imac's lcd maxes out at 60 hertz

So?

LCD has no phospors. The transistor is either on or off for the liquid crystal so refresh rate is meaningless metric when used to describe LCD displays.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by MrKlin:
So?

LCD has no phospors. The transistor is either on or off for the liquid crystal so refresh rate is meaningless metric when used to describe LCD displays.

my point was that quake can't exceed 60 fps because the display won't show other frames.

[jamil5454]

I went to the apple store the other day and I must say that OS X truly shines with big, high-res displays. It will make your work much more efficient and generally offer a sense of relaxation when you sit down to do <i>anything</i>. Considering that you're going to be doing video work, I would suggest a 20" eMac. But since that doesn't exist, I would go for the 20" iMac w/ 2 GB of RAM (not from Apple of course). The G5 will not only save you time with its speed, but your big display will let you work without having to scroll everywhere and opening/hiding windows all the time. Expose can work wonders for a small display, but it can't do miracles. Plus, you'll get a faster SATA 7200 Hd (which in fact is only a little faster than an IDE 7200) but disk speed is really important in video editing. Also, the 5200 ultra, while not necessarily the best card at the moment, is miles ahead of the eMac's 9200. Plus you get double the video memory, which will come in handy if you do ANY type of 3D whatsoever (gaming, modeling...etc). But, the best thing about the iMac is its small form factor. If you have a relatively small desk, the eMac's screen will be sort of "right in your face" but if you had an iMac, you could push the computer back a little and regain some desk space. I am graduating this year and (hopefully) going to Texas A&M and I already made up my mind that I'm going to use my $3000 graduation present for an iMac/iBook combination. If I got a job I could earn enough money to get a DP G5 w/ 30" cinema display and a 15" powerbook, but since I'm only going to be doing Computer Science work, that's a little overkill. If you read this whole ramble and managed not to fall asleep I salute you.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by jamil5454:
I went to the apple store the other day and I must say that OS X truly shines with big, high-res displays. It will make your work much more efficient and generally offer a sense of relaxation when you sit down to do <i>anything</i>. Considering that you're going to be doing video work, I would suggest a 20" eMac. But since that doesn't exist, I would go for the 20" iMac w/ 2 GB of RAM (not from Apple of course). The G5 will not only save you time with its speed, but your big display will let you work without having to scroll everywhere and opening/hiding windows all the time. Expose can work wonders for a small display, but it can't do miracles. Plus, you'll get a faster SATA 7200 Hd (which in fact is only a little faster than an IDE 7200) but disk speed is really important in video editing. Also, the 5200 ultra, while not necessarily the best card at the moment, is miles ahead of the eMac's 9200. Plus you get double the video memory, which will come in handy if you do ANY type of 3D whatsoever (gaming, modeling...etc). But, the best thing about the iMac is its small form factor. If you have a relatively small desk, the eMac's screen will be sort of "right in your face" but if you had an iMac, you could push the computer back a little and regain some desk space. I am graduating this year and (hopefully) going to Texas A&M and I already made up my mind that I'm going to use my $3000 graduation present for an iMac/iBook combination. If I got a job I could earn enough money to get a DP G5 w/ 30" cinema display and a 15" powerbook, but since I'm only going to be doing Computer Science work, that's a little overkill. If you read this whole ramble and managed not to fall asleep I salute you.

Just get another CRT for the eMac that will give you all the real estate you need.

[cla]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
You realise that the human eye can't see anything over 30fps?

Also, in "pro gaming", there are other advantages to high framerates. A high framerate will for example let you exploit bugs in the Quake 3 engine, allowing you to jump higher than players with low framerates.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by cla:
Also, in "pro gaming", there are other advantages to high framerates. A high framerate will for example let you exploit bugs in the Quake 3 engine, allowing you to jump higher than players with low framerates.

That's not exactly true. The bug in Quake 3 is roundoff error, and it simply becomes more pronounced at higher framerates, but the effect can actually go either way. For example, 125fps will lower gravity (a downward acceleration of gravity of 6.4 units per frame is rounded off to 6.0), but 142fps will INCREASE gravity (gravitational acceleration of 5.6 u/f is rounded up to 6.0). As frame rates vary, so does the effect. I actually prefer to play quake at LOW frame rates so this effect is not noticable; that way, when I jump, I know exactly where I'm going to land. High framerates in Q3 just screws up my instinctive ability to eyeball a jump distance.

[jamesl]

Well i seem to be getting two conflicting v iews here!

However, I am tempted to just wait anmd see what the next emac revision brings, and take it from there.

My next issue is should i get a mac with a cdrw drive or a dvdrw? From whgat i understand, the superdrives in macs are incredibly slow compared to most pc alternatives. Would i be better getting a superfast dvdrw external drive?

All advice is much appriciated!

[PBG4 User]

Originally posted by jamesl:
Well i seem to be getting two conflicting v iews here!

However, I am tempted to just wait anmd see what the next emac revision brings, and take it from there.

My next issue is should i get a mac with a cdrw drive or a dvdrw? From whgat i understand, the superdrives in macs are incredibly slow compared to most pc alternatives. Would i be better getting a superfast dvdrw external drive?

All advice is much appriciated!

If you want to burn DVDs using iDVD, the burner will have to be an internal model.

[the_glassman]

Originally posted by PBG4 User:
If you want to burn DVDs using iDVD, the burner will have to be an internal model.

Not true.
http://homepage.mac.com/geerlingguy/...dvd_other.html

[jamesl]

Can DVD studio Pro be used too using an external burner?

So would I have any prblems using an external burner with iDVD?