[Dell Switcher]

My iMac G4 is being sold and I wish to replace with iMac G5 with large screen. My concern is should I delay the purchase inasmuch as Apple is switching from IBM processors to Intel.

[only120xs]

I was having the same debate with myself about a month ago... I opted for the iMac now

My reasoning was that I wasn't going to NEED that extra power the Intels *will* have. Plus, we don't really know if it's going to be 6 months or 18 months before the iMac gets Intel.

So, if you're an uber power user, maybe you should wait (if you can hold off that long), otherwise, buy now!

[andreas_g4]

2.0 GHz iMac G5 will perform very well, even in years to come. The GPU is also very good (fast and 126 MB), so an iMac is a very good buy, now. The most important thing is that you don't regret it just because an Intel iMac will be faster. And who knows when there will be Intel iMacs in the first place?

Go and get it.

[P]

The Intel transition isn't even going to begin for almost a year yet, and the iMac is not going to be the first machine out the gate. Personally, I think we'll see the first x86 iMac sometime in January-March 2007. Are you really going to be without a computer for 18 months?

Also remember that Apple's record for version 1.0 isn't the best. I'm staying far away from the first IntelMAcs myself.

[Krypton]

Get it now, waiting a year or more will be both unbearable and impact the amount of work you could get done now.

[Telusman]

I went through this same dilemma. I was 3 days to buying when the Intel announcment was made and it made me wonder. I for one couldn't pass up the amazing deal the 2.0ghz iMac is. So i bought it, and i don't regret it at all. I went from a 667Mhz PowerBook G4... This machine 2.0 ghz, 1gb ram... this baby is gold.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by P

The Intel transition isn't even going to begin for almost a year yet, and the iMac is not going to be the first machine out the gate. Personally, I think we'll see the first x86 iMac sometime in January-March 2007. Are you really going to be without a computer for 18 months?

Also remember that Apple's record for version 1.0 isn't the best. I'm staying far away from the first IntelMAcs myself.

Seconded.

[osxrules]

I would go for a G5. I personally don't like the imac G5 because of the limited display. If they made a Mac Mini equivalent of the G5 then I'd get it but so far, I'm sticking with the G4 Mac Mini. I prefer CRT monitors.

The other reason for not waiting on the Intels apart from the wait itself and the quality of the first batch is the software side. How long did it take developers to make OS X versions of their software? Now they have to make new versions again.

I admit this time it should be less trouble given that some developers have the kits and xcode can already make intel binaries on a ppc platform but most of the software won't have been tested on the platform and I don't think it will for a while.

The advantage with the OS9/OSX switch was that OS X ran on existing hardware. Now, pretty much everyone will have to buy a new machine eventually. At least the developers anyway.

That's another reason why I'm sticking to the cheaper hardware - when the intels are released, I can see the value of ppcs dropping. After all, although Apple have said they will still be using ppcs, their future roadmap is all about Intel.

[Grrr]

Originally Posted by P

Personally, I think we'll see the first x86 iMac sometime in January-March 2007

LOL! i do enjoy a good 'Nostradamus wannabe' post

[P]

Originally Posted by Grrr

LOL! i do enjoy a good 'Nostradamus wannabe' post

Yes, but it's easier to be Nostradamus now that the Apple has gone Intel, because those roadmaps are available all over the place. There is even an RSS feed from Intel for roadmap news.

OK, so my thinking is this: The one machine that really needs a new CPU is the Powerbook. It's so far behind the curve now that it isn't even funny, and Jobs confirmed that power consumption was the big reason for the Intel switch (it can't have been the only one, but still). For this reason, I think the Powerbook will be the first Intel-Mac - using Yonah, the first dual-core Pentium M.

The second and third is likely to be the iBook and the Mac mini, in whichever order you prefer. The Mac mini because Apple can cut the cost by using an Intel CPU and chipset - with built-in graphics - and the iBook for the same reasons as the Powerbook. Expect the iBook to be ready for the back-to-school season, and the Mac mini a little later - well in time before Christmas.

That leaves the iMac, the Powermac and the Xserve. The iMac is likely to be the first of these for several reasons. Mainly, the iMac has most interesting cooling situation, and most likely it won't be updated all that far on the PPC side because of this - I can't see a dual-core G5 in it, and I doubt there will even be very large clockspeed boosts. However, the iMac has already gone 64-bit, and it's going to be a tricky sell for Jobs to explain why that feature just went away. Since the Pentium M-derivatives are going to get EM64T - Intel's name for AMDs 64-bit technology - soon enough, it would be silly to do one revision without 64-bit support. No, I think the iMac will use Conroe, the first Pentium M-derivative (a new architechture, but based on Pentium M) that has EM64T, and allowing for some schedule slips for everyone, I'd say an MWSF launch is likely.

Rounding out the speculation, look for an Intel Powermac around WWDC '07 and an Xserve even later - if ever. The Xserve is the one line Apple really doesn't have to move, because there are lots of x86 1U servers out there, and the G5 can really kick some a s s when it comes to FP performance.

[Chinasaur]

Do it. Pull the trigger. Jump.

[pete]

Just do it. I did am very happy. You will too for several years by which time you'll want to get another computer anyway. In the meantime, the current crop of imacs will keep you happy. Live in the present and enjoy it!