Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jollyrancher · Jan 14, 2007, 02:30 AM

I'm thinking about buying my 1st Apple computer this year and I have 2 computers in mine.Does anyone have one of these computer.

1. Apple 17"imac computer 2.0 ghz
2. Apple 17"imac computer 1.83 ghz

tomrock · Jan 14, 2007, 04:48 AM

Yes, people here have those computers.

Best thing for you to do is read some threads here until you have some real questions. There's lots of information floating around.

P · Jan 14, 2007, 12:14 PM

There are two big differences between them:

1. The size of the display
2. The speed of the graphics chip.

The size of the display is something you'll have to judge for yourself. I think 17" is really big - a lot of people think that I'm crazy and find 20" the minimum they can bear. YMMV, so I recommend that you take a look at them in person.

The graphics chip has been debated endlessly, but the short version is that if you want to play games on it, you want one with a real discrete graphics chip - the 20"er in this case. If games is not a priority, the other one is fine.

If you tell us what you want to do with them, we can help you better.

MichiganRich · Jan 14, 2007, 12:26 PM

Uhm, there's really no difference between the size of the display, maybe read the post once again there P.

I do agree with you, where the 17" is plenty big for me at desktop viewing distances. My landlord has one in her office downstairs and I sat down behind it the other day to see if it would be something my mom would like, and I think it would be ideal. Also the most affordable one, and that helps a lot.

Personally, I would get the 2.0 since it has the more powerful video chip, which would help in pretty much everything you do (GUI, etc). I would also strongly consider just having Apple put in the 2gb of RAM as opposed to putting it in aftermarket and having two 512 chips sitting there doing nothing.

I have a Dell UltraSharp 20" widescreen on my G5, and I'm currently typing this on my 17" PowerBook. I find myself much preferring the 1440x900 17" display for my day to day use. It is much easier on the eyes and the text and interface elements are just more 'correctly' sized. I've never used the 24" iMac, so I'm not sure how small the text gets at that size and resolution. At work, I use the 23" Apple aluminum display. That's for Photoshop though, so the readability of text isn't an issue.

Mrjinglesusa · Jan 14, 2007, 01:13 PM

I have the 17" 2.0 GHz C2D iMac. It is a great computer. I used to have a 20" iMac G5 but sold it to buy this one. I think the 17" is plenty big for most users. The C2D iMac screams - it's fast enough for everything you will want to do with it. I don't think you will be disappointed with either one.

Like someone else said, post specific questions if you want specific answers.

MichiganRich · Jan 14, 2007, 02:12 PM

Hey mister jingles- do you use iPhoto much? I'm curious because you have the exact machine I'm thinking about getting for my mom. I want to make it more fun for her to get into photography and scanning, but the current sluggish iPhoto performance she has to put up with is not adding to the 'fun' in any way. I'm completely against XP, but the fun level for a novice using even a low-level PC with Picasa as their photo program would be much higher than the molasses-like iPhoto 5 experience on my G5 PowerMac.

macintologist · Jan 14, 2007, 02:32 PM

Dude, 17" is just a perfect size for a display if you're not a creative professional, which I'm assuming you're not.

P · Jan 15, 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by MichiganRich

Uhm, there's really no difference between the size of the display, maybe read the post once again there P.

Nah. Reading DULL.

OK, so just disregard that part, I probably need to sleep more. The only real difference between them is the GPU and a minor clockspeed difference. The upgrade is worth it if you intend to game on the machine, not otherwise.

Z's Mac · Jan 22, 2007, 11:03 PM

I have a 17" 2.0 with 1GB RAM and it runs plenty fast for me. I'm not a professional anything on the computer though, depends on what you're going to use it for. If you go with a 1.83 you'll end up without a DVD writer (which doesn't matter to some) and a slower graphics card.

The 1.83 only comes with 512MB of RAM, but it's about $125 cheaper to get a 1.83 and upgrade to 1GB than to get the 2.0 if you don't think you'll need the graphics and DVD writing capabilities.

Eriamjh · Jan 23, 2007, 06:17 PM

After you buy your computer, why not get laid?

wubrew · Jan 23, 2007, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

After you buy your computer, why not get laid?

No dinner no movies?

wubrew · Jan 23, 2007, 09:57 PM

Seriously, jollyrancher go for the highest you can afford and you will cherish it longer. Either one you decided on you will probably not see the difference once you have it set up at home. No more V word around here. Gets everybody excited.

Eriamjh · Jan 24, 2007, 06:27 AM

My only regret with my 20" CD iMac is that a 24" model came out! Now I suffer from big-screen envy.

peterthorn · Jan 24, 2007, 02:51 PM

I would say rather the 1.83 machine with lots of ram (and yes, order directly from apple with more ram as it is cheaper to buy it with the machine), than the 2.0 with less ram (or better yet - the 2.0 upgraded to a 2.16 machine with 3 gig of ram or the 24"....)

Enjoy!