[daves666]

Hi everybody:

I'm an instructor at a big community college in San Francisco and we have the opportunity to upgrade one of our computer labs with new Macs. We're having trouble deciding clearly between 20" iMacs and comparable MacPro machines.

The argument for the iMac is essentially that we'd get a lot more computer for our money. If we go this route we could get extra ram, faster video card, beautiful big monitor.

The argument for the MacPro is that it is easier to maintain, and marginally faster. If we went this route we could only get 1gb of ram for each station.

We have about $2300 to spend per station. The computers would be used primarily for graphics work [Quark + Creative Suite].

So wondering:

• Any general thoughts/advice on this decision?

• How important is the difference between 1gb and 2gb of ram?

• Any Mac academic lab managers out there working in iMac labs? What has your experience with these machines in this setting been like?

Thanks so much for any input!

[ballzdeep]

imho imacs are better, take up less space, use less power and are perfect for what you're looking to do. they are also cheaper than mac pro + display, also look better, and have less cords and clutter to deal with. And if you run wireless you don't need 30+ ethernet jacks + 400 feet of cable to wire the room (mac pro isn't standard with wireless card, it's $80-$100 extra (with bluetooth)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by daves666 

The argument for the iMac is essentially that we'd get a lot more computer for our money. If we go this route we could get extra ram, faster video card

No you couldn't. The iMac's video card is non-upgradable.

The argument for the MacPro is that it is easier to maintain, and marginally faster. If we went this route we could only get 1gb of ram for each station.

We have about $2300 to spend per station. The computers would be used primarily for graphics work [Quark + Creative Suite].

So wondering:

• Any general thoughts/advice on this decision?

• How important is the difference between 1gb and 2gb of ram?

• Any Mac academic lab managers out there working in iMac labs? What has your experience with these machines in this setting been like?

When I was working in my school's Mac lab, we went with all iMacs and they were great. The catch? These weren't the Intel iMacs - they were the Rev. B iMac G5s where the back popped off allowing easy access to the internals. The thing is, that if you get a huge number of computers, you are going to have a few hard drives go bad, especially since the computers will likely have a longer life cycle than a computer generally would have due to it being for a school, which are never funded properly (education? who needs that? tax cuts for Bill Gates instead!). With the Rev. B G5 iMacs, it was a no-brainer, since the hard drive could be swapped easily. With the Intels it's a MAJOR BITCH. So that's definitely a consideration. On the other hand, those Mac Pros are so $@#%ing expensive, and those are the only machines where anything other than RAM can be swapped out easily. Apple desktop line really needs some work if you ask me.

On the other hand, the iMac has that nifty little camera, which means you can rig up a script that checks to see if the machine's IP address is different from what it should be, and if so, snaps a picture of the schmuck who stole it and is now using it, and e-mails that picture to you. We would have made use of this feature if we'd had it.

Originally Posted by ballzdeep 

imho imacs are better, take up less space, use less power and are perfect for what you're looking to do. they are also cheaper than mac pro + display, also look better, and have less cords and clutter to deal with. And if you run wireless you don't need 30+ ethernet jacks + 400 feet of cable to wire the room (mac pro isn't standard with wireless card, it's $80-$100 extra (with bluetooth)

Nah, do it right, use Ethernet cables. It's not like those machines are going to be going anywhere (well, you hope they won't go anywhere, anyway).

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

No you couldn't. The iMac's video card is non-upgradable.

Actually the 20" inch iMac's GPU is upgradeable by going the CTO route
iMac Tech specs

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by daves666 

The argument for the iMac is essentially that we'd get a lot more computer for our money. If we go this route we could get extra ram, faster video card, beautiful big monitor.
...
• Any general thoughts/advice on this decision?

• How important is the difference between 1gb and 2gb of ram?

My opinion is that iMac gives you more bang for the buck.

I think 2gb is the minimum you want, 1 gb is insufficient thanks to rosetta. Yes the macs will work with 1gb but performance will be an issue as OSX will spend a lot of time swapping.

[gnomexp]

I work in the computer labs at the University of Texas at Dallas and we have iMacs. They're great machines with few troubles if properly networked. My ONLY advice would be to purchase 5 or so FW400 drives with clones of your internal hard drives. If a computer goes bad, while waiting for a new drive to arrive, just OPT Boot that machine.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Actually the 20" inch iMac's GPU is upgradeable by going the CTO route
iMac Tech specs

You mean the 24" does... as long as you consider a non-standard port that no third-party cards exist for and is in a completely inaccessible place that you'd have to disassemble the whole computer to get to and which isn't intended to be used by anyone other than Apple "upgradable."

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

No you couldn't. The iMac's video card is non-upgradable.

He didn't say it was upgradeable, he said he could get (afford) a faster GPU. X1600 in the iMac is faster than 7300GT in the Mac Pro.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by daves666 

...The computers would be used primarily for graphics work [Quark + Creative Suite]...

Unfortunately "enough" is an open ended question when heavy graphics apps are involved. There is no sharp line above which performance is acceptable for everyone and below which performance is unacceptable for everyone. Basically, the stronger the box and the more RAM on board up to 8 GB (today) the better Photoshop and Aperture's performance will be.

However one buys such new boxes for the future, not for today. The OS and apps are evolving toward using more RAM, stronger GPUs, etc. and that trend will continue. To limit an academic (think future) graphics lab to the serious limitations (esp. RAM) of iMacs IMO would be a mistake. If money per box is a big problem you may need to buy a mix that includes some low end iMacs perhaps; at any given time not everyone is working on a heavy project. At UC Berkeley we had such a mix.

IMO in general an iMac or MBP with 2 (preferably 3) GB RAM is marginally adequate [/i]today,[/i] but heavier users will feel RAM starved as time goes on and the OS/apps evolve to suit newer stronger hardware.

Personally I consider iMacs to be poor choices for heavy graphics apps usage.

- Allen Wicks

[macmonkey]

Hi Dave,

I'm an Account Executive with Apple in Higher Ed, just came across this forum post from the MacNN homepage.

For your situation, with your budget, I would recommend iMacs, and if repairs are a sincere worry, add AppleCare. The Education price for AppleCare for an iMac is only $119.

iMacs are becoming the primary machines for graphic design classes, especially at the community college level. The places I see that still buy the Mac Pro in volume are Science Labs and Video labs, and typically it's more about card slots than power.

However, the caveat is replacement cycle. Is your replacement cycle every 3, 4, 5 years? For a 4 or 5 year cycle, you might want to give more thought to the Mac Pro. Most of my customers have finally seen the light of a three year cycle, but if not, the ability to boost that RAM way up for a 4th or 5th year might be worth it - but honestly, you'd be better off going with iMacs and quickening your replacement cycle.

You could also explore leasing options, which would make it even easier to move to a three year replacement cycle.

I would get in touch with your schools' Account Executive, Direct Account Executive, or even Systems Engineer and discuss your needs and wants in detail, talk budget, and see what can be put together for you. You'll want to have AMP on the order as well with Leopard coming soon.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by macmonkey 

Hi Dave,

I'm an Account Executive with Apple in Higher Ed...
...add AppleCare.
...iMacs are becoming the primary machines for graphic design classes...
...Most of my customers have finally seen the light of a three year cycle...
...better off going with iMacs and quickening your replacement cycle...
...You could also explore leasing options, which would make it even easier to move to a three year replacement cycle...

Agreed, iMacs are a good choice for 2006. I am sure Apple Sales likes selling AppleCare (gotta be Apple's highest profit margin sale) and shorter replacement cycles. And such cycles may indeed be better for college finances. But as a Photoshop/Aperture professional going in to 2007-08-09-10, Leopard, 64-bit boxes and PSCS 3&4 IMO limiting RAM to 3 GB in a graphics lab is not a good future choice.

I strongly recommend that the OP attend Mac Expo SF and ask the Photoshop and Apple engineers what they expect future RAM needs for heavy graphics apps to look like.

-Allen Wicks

[macmonkey]

Allen,

Take a look at my territory, the OP is in San Francisco, I'm in the midwest. Do you think that I care for one second what the profit margin or contribution percentage to my quota is?

He expressed worry about servicing the machines. AppleCare solves that issue. I guess Apple Sales just likes informing customers of opportunities to solve their issues. We're devious, aren't we? AppleCare is a much deeper program than most people realize, especially in the Education division. Talk to your local AE, and if you are a large CC, you may have resources on campus already that will drive down the cost of AppleCare by going with the AppleCare Repair Agreement or the AppleCare Parts Agreement. But Allen Wicks is a Pro Photoshop/Aperture user, so he knew all about those programs for Education, didn't he? Just as I'm sure he knows all about AMP, iTunes U, Campus Stores, Campus Reps, and a dozen other initiatives in Apple Education.

It's rather misleading to snip down my post to sentence fragments and pass judgment. But then, maybe seeing things in context is only for those involved in Education.

[badsey]

For your situation, with your budget, I would recommend iMacs, and if repairs are a sincere worry, add AppleCare. The Education price for AppleCare for an iMac is only $119.

-That is cheap insurance. I love the iMac form and function. For beginning photo and video work the iMac should be fine. I would maybe wait until the programs that you use are univeral binary (double-check and make sure with Adobe etc).

Get in touch with your local Apple Rep and see what deals they can offer your school. (Wise-est and maybe the best thing you can do...)

The iMacs are so nice because they take up so little desktop space (as said before). If it can be done on an iMac -I would go iMac. Sometimes you need that extra professional power and need the Mac Pro with all the add-on big-buck A/V professional cards. =Professional users will usually go MacPro.

[brlittle]

I maintain a group of academic labs myself, some of which are iMac, some of which are trickle-down PowerMacs/Mac Pros from other facilities.

Use the iMac. Better value for money. You'll never use the expandability of the Pros in a lab situation.

[CharlesS]

Unless you have to replace the hard drives, which we did regularly in our lab situation.

We also needed the expandability to hook up some pro audio equipment, so we had to keep around three old Power Mac G4s for that task.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by macmonkey 

... But Allen Wicks is a Pro Photoshop/Aperture user, so he knew all about those programs for Education, didn't he? Just as I'm sure he knows all about AMP, iTunes U, Campus Stores, Campus Reps, and a dozen other initiatives in Apple Education...

You are correct, I know nothing about Apple Education or its programs. And I did not in any way mean to imply that I was disrespecting those programs (that I never heard of).

I have said before that AppleCare is good value when it is cheap enough (e.g. $249 to insure a full $8000 Mac Pro setup) but a bad deal when AppleCare becomes the kind of 10-17% of system cost we see at the Apple Store for Macbooks and the like.

In do know about being a student at all levels as well as about teaching, including Photoshop and its ilk at the JC level. I know the results of folks who do not have thousands of hours of computer graphics experience building under-powered (specifically inadequate RAM) into student graphics labs.

What happens with inadequate RAM is app features fail, boxes bog down or crash or simply do not perform as expected. For a student such computer/application behavior is very debillitating. Learning is hugely impeded and the student fails to glean the true power of computer graphics applications.

Instructors waste large (50% or more of total class time is not uncommon) amounts of time dealing with "technical difficulties," and they are not IT folks so often do not even know why things are not working. All in all the bottom line is that graphics teaching on inadequate hardware is a bad lab-design decision. IMO a graphics lab is better off with less boxes if necessary to ensure adequate hardware.

Today 3 GB of RAM is just fine for teaching graphics. However the GPU and RAM demands of heavy graphics apps has been increasing at an apparent exponential rate - and we just recently entered full 64 bit computing. Also new boxes will be running OS 10.5, 10.6, etc.

My beef with iMacs for future heavy graphics applications usage is about RAM moreso than about overall expandability, but GPU expansion can also be an issue. Limitations of 2 or 3 GB RAM was typical of 2001-2002, IMO unacceptable for heavy graphics for going forward from 2007.

Originally Posted by macmonkey 

...But then, maybe seeing things in context is only for those involved in Education.

IMO the context is teaching heavy graphics apps like Photoshop 2007-08-09 and beyond. Not what sold well last year, but more importantly what will work well in the future.

The size and quantity of digital image files has been growing exponentially and so have the demands of heavy graphics apps on underlying hardware, especially RAM needs. E.g. Photoshop already shows improvement with up to 8 GB RAM on board - and that is the old PSCS2 version. Already today Aperture under OS 10.4 uses more than 2 GB of RAM with nothing else running. And that is just 2006!

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

My beef with iMacs for future heavy graphics applications usage is about RAM moreso than about overall expandability, but GPU expansion can also be an issue. Limitations of 2 or 3 GB RAM was typical of 2001-2002, IMO unacceptable for heavy graphics for going forward from 2007.

While I understand you've been on the RAM jihad for a couple months now, please stick to the facts.
For all of 2001 and most of 2002, even Apple's most powerful desktop only supported 1.5GB RAM. 3GB wasn't even available until the latter half of 2003.

If the OP is choosing between iMacs and base model Mac Pros, he doesn't have the money to throw 4-8GB RAM in every machine, and I think he's better off with a 3GB iMac than a 1GB Mac Pro.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

While I understand you've been on the RAM jihad for a couple months now, please stick to the facts.
For all of 2001 and most of 2002, even Apple's most powerful desktop only supported 1.5GB RAM. 3GB wasn't even available until the latter half of 2003.

If the OP is choosing between iMacs and base model Mac Pros, he doesn't have the money to throw 4-8GB RAM in every machine, and I think he's better off with a 3GB iMac than a 1GB Mac Pro.

Agreed with everything you said (my tower is still a 1.5 GB G4). I was not trying to be precise with historical RAM; just that it is evolving.

You are correct, today he is better off with a 3 GB iMac. Never any question about that. The question is whether an iMac with its limitations is preferable to the costly MP over the future life.

Although I argue the point of RAM-competent boxes I do agree it is not a black and white question for a computer lab. For pro usage it is black and white, we need the RAM.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. I have been on the RAM jihad for much longer than a couple of months... :-)

[mduell]

From the academic computing labs that I've seen (which is certainly not a comprehensive overview), their hardware schedule will go something like this:

2006: Better off with a 3GB iMac than a 1GB Mac Pro
2007: Better off with a 3GB iMac than a 1GB Mac Pro
2008: Better off with a 3GB iMac than a 1GB Mac Pro
2009: Better off with a 3GB iMac than a 1GB Mac Pro
2010: Yay money for new 8GB iMacs instead of 4GB Mac Pros

It has been disappointing over the last couple years to see memory density grow slower than memory demand; 2 slots is about all you can fit in a laptop, but even using super-expensive modules that's just 4GB. FB-DIMM was the solution for desktops and servers, but it has its own downsides.

[bishopwr]

I work at a private college and we use iMac's for about every mac lab, and they have been fantastic. Frankly for the money, especially when you negotiate a deal with Apple in volume, the iMac's are perfect. You get a lot of computer for not a lot of money with the iMacs. I would go with 2Gb of Ram. That way, you actually get what you want. Because you really can't get that from a MacPro at the same price point.

[daves666]

OP here [I'm assuming that means Original Poster?]:

Thanks so much for all the input, and especially to Macmonkey for the thoughtful reply. Interesting debate all around. One thing I've discovered over the course of this decision is that it can be quite complex to calculate your real computing needs.

Just for the record, I believe we are going to go with 20" iMacs [2gb ram] for our lab. One of the things that made the iMacs more attractive than the MacPros was that we would in fact be able to afford the extra ram right now: we really were looking at 2gb iMac vs 1gb Macpros. Loaded iMacs vs hobbled Macpros seems like a no-brainer to me.

Thanks again!

D.