[jeff k]

I have G5 Tiger, and may finally upgrade, maybe.
The most powerful app I use is PHotoshop.
Any reason to get a Mac Pro?
With Imacs so powerful now and 27" screen, wouldn't that be best bang for buck?

In fact, even a Macbook pro and buying a screen ala carte could work. I could use it at home as a "desktop" and take it on occasional business trips too.

If my most intensive usage is Photoshop with a handful of 100mb files open and a couple of other softwares running in the background, is there any reason to stay with a Mac Pro (tower) anymore?

[imitchellg5]

No reason for you to get a Mac Pro at all. Unless you want a portable, I'd get the 27" iMac.

[jeff k]

Imith,
expand a bit. why not mac pro -- devils advocate, are there ports or any thing I'll miss?
LIkewise, why the 27" -- would the laptop be just as fast with most ports and you could add a screen?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

i mac

Dude, seriously.

-t

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Imith,
expand a bit. why not mac pro -- devils advocate, are there ports or any thing I'll miss?
LIkewise, why the 27" -- would the laptop be just as fast with most ports and you could add a screen?

The 27" is faster than the base Mac Pro in some tests... the 27" iMac has plenty of ports for whatever you need. The laptop wouldn't be as fast as the iMac. I use my 15" MacBook Pro with an external display, and it's quite nice. Portable when I need it, but fairly powerful desktop when I don't. If you'd like portability, get a MacBook Pro. If you don't really need it, get the iMac.

[jeff k]

thanks Imitch that's help a lot.
For someone who is used to a 5 year old dual 1.8 G5, would I notice the difference in performance between the brand new imac or MacBook Pros? -- lets say dealing with a few 100mb photoshop files, a filter here and there and safari running in the background?
What about ports with the laptop?

[P]

RIGHT NOW, the answer is a Core i5/i7 iMac. Both the MBP and the MP are due for updates after Christmas, though. The current Core i5 iMac beats any current MBP by a mile, but it might not beat the next version by as much.

The question is really what your needs are. The only reason for an MP these days is the expandability, unless you need the massive performance of the maxed octocore (and you don't, for Photoshop, unless your files are ginormous). It doesn't look like you need expandability, so it's out. The MBP vs. the iMac is easy: portability versus performance. Right now, that is a massive performance advantage, but even after the upgrade it's likely to be significant. If you're unsure and would like a laptop, wait until January-February and see how fast they are and we can give you a better answer. If it's just a "nice to have", I'd say pull the trigger on a maxed iMac. It's a gorgeous machine, and very silent.

EDIT: Forgot about the port question. The iMac and the MBP have almost the same config, the only difference being that the iMac has more USB ports. The iMac has 4 RAM slots though, lifting the RAM ceiling to 16 GB.

[Simon]

Jeff, you should be aware that compared to many games and other pro apps, PS is fairly lightweight in terms of demand. It used to be different, but by today's standards PS isn't that special. A Core i7 iMac will be more than powerful enough for PS use. At least as long as PS doesn't embrace stuff like OpenCL/GCD more making the GPU and may physical cores more critial. And with Adobe's history we know it will be quite another while until they do (if ever, considering this technology is not available under Windows).

Bottom line, an iMac should be fine for your use. However, if you don't have to buy now I suggest you wait till we get the new MPs after Christmas. Then you'll be able to make a direct price-performance comparison between the iMac and a hopefully reaosnable MP. Right now the low-end MP is a joke in terms of both performance (comparable to the high-end iMac) and price (totally overpriced).

Maybe the more interesting question is how much benefit you'd get from a mobile computer. Granted a MBP plus external screen at the desk is more expensive than an iMac, but it offers so much more flexibility. If you can make use of your Mac 'on the go' or you'd like to be able to work in different locations on the same system, a MBP plus extra screen is a very nice solution. After Christmas we'll likely see a new Core i5 Arrandale MBP launch and again that should be more than adequate for most PS work. If you hook that up to a decent screen/KB/mouse when you're at the desk it should be an excellent PS workstation. Obviously this isn't the cheapest solution, so you should consider how much added value mobility is for your type of use.

[jeff k]

THANKS P & Simon, great replies!

Funny enough, I got PS4, but returned it becuase it didn't work well with the G5 .
and that was precisely becuase of the OpenCL/GCD issue. -- or something to that effect, I think that was it. There was a big lag in mouse action.
But I'm sure current imacs and MBPs could handle it though no?

It's great I don't have to fork out for a tower again.

I could definitly wait for a few months and see if the newer MBPs are comparable to the imacs. Who would have ever thought imacs could be comparable to the Towers?

POrts: it is nice to have as many as possible no? I'm using all the USB and Firewires from my G5, they all go into the 4-5 hubs I have -- I've go so many printers/scanners.

Right now I don't have much use for traveling with a computer. I may start doing "some" traveling from LA to NY, but it's not definite. Always thinking ahead -- so that where that idea came from.
Also, Con Edison, the utility company shut down the electricity to the apartment for two full days a couple of weeks ago and that got me to thinking it would be nice to have the "base" mobile. I have a 1year old basic macbook, but it does not have the my home folders and configuration and power.
That said, should I be thinking of using a MBP for the home unit over an imac for an electricity loss that only happens once every few years or for trips that are once in a blue moon? It has to be debated, but maybe not necessary. The cost of the MBP is about same as imac right? and then if you want a larger killer 27" monitor that would be how much extra (and are there any non mac brands that are cheapers and as good as the mac 27")

[imitchellg5]

Anything Intel will handle CS4 just fine. I run all CS4 apps on my last-rev MBP very smoothly.

As far as ports go, any portable is already limiting, and the MBPs don't have a ton of selection. The iMac has a good amount of USB, but of course no FW400.

27" is a pretty rare size for an external monitor. You'd probably have to get a 24" or 30". There are a TON of decent offerings in that range, you can pretty much spend as little or as much as you'd like. Personally, since you don't travel much, I'd go for the iMac... you said you have a 1 year old MacBook. That should be able to take care of you for short travels. Really it just comes down to your personal preference. I have a MacBook Pro with an external monitor and I love it. But if I didn't need to be portable so often, I'd have the iMac. It's just a beautiful machine.

[jeff k]

Mitch, others, Ok, went into Apple store today, leaning towards the 27".
Great deal when think that the 30" monitor alone cost $1700.
Question:
3.06 ghz, 2 core is about $1700,
2.66 quad core is about $2000. (has bit more graphic memory)
Is it worth $300 more for the quadcore. Remember I'm mostly PHotoshop, but plan to keep this computer hopefully 3-5 years.
How come the quadcore has less Ghz than less expenseive duo core. is that odd?
No 400 FW ports on imac? Why not?
I have about a dozen peripherals that are on FW 400. what will I do?

[imitchellg5]

If you plan on keeping it for 5 years, I would say go for the quad. As a rule, more cores equal lower clock speed (Mac Pro lineup is the same way). Apple's pretty much phased FW400 out totally. You'll have to get a FW800 to 400 card, or upgrade your devices. (This will go for any new Mac you buy).

[jeff k]

thanks MItch, Got a $1000 Nikon Scanner that is FW 400 only. also other burners etc.
I guess I could take it to my local Mac store and they can add these FW 400 cards.

[imitchellg5]

Sorry, I didn't mean cards, I meant to say cable adaptor... I'm not sure about the availability of Firewire hubs, but that could be an option.

[jeff k]

Mitch, still curious, why is more expensive 4 core have less Ghz than less expensive 2 core?
there is i5 and i7. suppose 7 is better.

Ok, has one FW 800, but I really want --also -- two FW 400 on their own buses. Can a shop put that in for me?

What about ethernet? don't see that listed. My model/router is ethernet.

Geez, will most of my apps work? this is reason don't upgrade that often anymore

[imitchellg5]

That's just the way that the industry works... I don't know a technical reason for it. Maybe somebody else can chime in here.

You can't really expand the iMac's ports internally, you'd have to buy hubs.

All Macs have ethernet built in.

What apps do you use besides Photoshop? Most apps that work with 10.4 work with 10.5, which should work with 10.6 unless under very specific circumstances.

[olePigeon]

Jeff, I would wait until next year for several reasons. One, there will probably be new computers as mentioned by other users already which means the current computers will be even cheaper (assuming the new computers aren't really worth the extra money); and two, Adobe CS5 will be coming out next year. Rumor has it that CS5 will finally be 64-bit and it'll only run on Intel Macs. However, Adobe has been pretty reckless in terms of Creative Suite for Mac. In the event that CS5 isn't 64-bit, I wouldn't even bother upgrading your computer.

However, to answer your questions, the current Mac Pro has:

Two FireWire 800 ports (which can also be used for 400)
Two ethernet ports
If you need/want more FireWire ports, you can buy a PCI Express FireWire card. This a trivial task, you should be able to install it yourself.

Your apps may or may not work, we don't know. Your PowerPC-native apps may work in Rosetta, but there will be a significant speed decrease. Some of your apps may already be Universal binaries, and they'll work just fine. If you still have any apps that require "Classic" (Mac OS 9), they will not work.

[jeff k]

MItch,/ Ol Pidgeon, hello:
Right now I have two FW 400 hubs each go into it's own port/bus. If they daisy chain, things get a bit unstable no? I wish they made a hub with a dozen ports but they don't. You are saying a converter will made the FW 800 port 400. Will it be unstable to then have two 6 port hubs crammed with peripherals going into it?

It doesn't list ethernet in specs, but that port is there--I assume then?

Pidgeon:

I'm thinking of going with imac, not Mac Pro. MItch just wrote that one cannot put more cards /ports, so same question to you on that issue ie... I have two FW 400 hubs full of stuff.

I got a laptop a year ago which is leopard/intel and office 2004 works perfectly. I notice no speed decrease. that is on Rosetta I assume?

Of course, there will be a slew of stuff: Tech Tool Pro, Disc Warrior etc, that will require upgrade I suppose.

And there may be printers/ scanners etc that may have new driver headaches/issues.

And some apps. Toast 7 -- maybe wont do so well will Rosetta.

This is why I stopped upgrading OS and computers to frequently.

This site say buy now!: (ie, new imacs just released)
Mac Buyer's Guide: Know When to Buy Your Mac, iPod or iPhone

You are saying that CS5 wont run like a charm on the new quad core imacs?

and if it's not 64-bit, you would just stay with the G5 until it is? ( I respect that if that's your opinon) I could wait. G5 is still solid.

[imitchellg5]

As far as drivers, Snow Leopard automatically downloads new drivers, so no problem there.

CS5 would run just as well on the new iMacs as anything else. What olePidgeon is saying is that if CS5 isn't 64-bit, it won't take full advantage of the processors. It WOULD still be faster than your G5, but not as good as it COULD be.

The cable that I was referring to is something like this or this.

[jeff k]

thanks MItch,
Boy I can't even imagine as OS getting the correct new drivers for old periphials like Brother lasers and Canon printers etc, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if it all works. Usually a total nightmare.

the converter will work, of course, but still curious: 10 -12 peripherals operating from a single FW bus, is that nuts?

If CS5 is 64 bit, the current imacs will match that capibility? and of course is CS 5 is not 64 bit, then CS 6 will be a year and a half later. So you don't think there is any reason to wait?
Of course, whatever cost $2k now will probably be less and less and years go on, right? the more your wait, the better deal you eventually get.

btw : didn't I read that CS4 was 64bit for windows machines?

[Simon]

Jeff, don't rush such an investment. If you're planning on keeping this computer for 3-5 years you will have to wait to see what the new MP offers. In five years from now you will probably have had to add ports or drives which you can really only do on the MP. The iMac is a buy and forget computer. IOW you replace it every 2-3 years or it becomes entirely outdated. Personally I rather buy mid-range and replace every other year than having to keep a computer for five years. But in your case, if you want to hold onto it for at least three years, you seem to require a computer that can be upgraded.

Regarding the current MP vs. iMac comparison, what you are seeing is the result of the last totally lame MP update which happened a long time ago and the latest iMac update which happened only weeks ago and was actually quite awesome. If Apple gets their act together and releases a new dual Gulftown MP at a decent price the performance gap will again be restored. Even the high-end Core i7 iMac won't hold a candle to a Gulftown MP. Now considering what you do now the iMac sounds like it would be just fine. But the real issue is that you plan on keeping the computer for such a long time. I doubt in five years from now the iMac - even if you buy the very most expensive model right now - will be a decent workstation. Just consider USB3. It's around the corner and in five years from now pretty much every peripheral will use it (or if not maybe something like Light Peak). No chance using USB3 or Light Peak or any other new bus on the iMac because of lack of expansion.

An excellent 24" screen is the Dell U2410. It will run you about $650. Apple's 30" is old and overpriced.

Both iMac and MP come with Gigabit Ethernet ports. The MP actually has two.

The C2D iMacs have a higher CPU clock than the quad-core models only if you stress all four cores (nominal clock). If the quad-cores are running less than all four cores at once they clock up the running cores (Intel Turbo-Boost). In the case of the i7 iMac this means it can run a single core as fast as 3.46 GHz or two cores at 3.33 GHz. Note also that at the same clock the Core i5/i7 iMacs will run much faster than the C2D models thanks to a much more efficient CPU and memory bus.

The iMac only has a single FW800 port. The MP has four FW800 ports plus three free PCIe slots for tons of additional FW ports. On the iMac all FW devices need to share the bandwidth of that one single port. I'm not sure if adding a FW400 device to the chain will drop speeds for all connected devices. It used to be that way. You can connect your FW400 devices to any FW800 port with either a 6pin-9pin cable or with a 6pin-9pin dongle.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

If CS5 is 64 bit, the current imacs will match that capibility? and of course is CS 5 is not 64 bit, then CS 6 will be a year and a half later. So you don't think there is any reason to wait?
Of course, whatever cost $2k now will probably be less and less and years go on, right? the more your wait, the better deal you eventually get.

64-bt is going to matter that much if you're working with 100 mb files. I sometimes have 250 mb files open in InDesign, and it's just fine. Unless you're dealing with 1gb file sizes, I don't think it matters tremendously. But if you're going for a Mac Pro (which it sounds like you need to because of your FW400 devices), then I'd still wait for the next revision which is probably just around the corner.

[jeff k]

Simon, great post, thanks Mitch.
Interesting or maybe sad that the imacs dont have ability to add new cards or ports, real drag becuase for performance I really don't need to spend the $2700 plus the $650 for monitor.

For imacs, I could run about 7-8 FW 400 periperals through the one bus with two FW hubs. It would probably be ok.

Who would have ever thought that USB2 would be so prevelant after just a few years.
Maybe you have a point, get a Power Mac and be set for maybe 10 years....

[Simon]

Jeff, I don't believe a MP will last for close to ten years either. I think though you should sit back and relax until the MP sees an update (Jan/Feb). Then compare both the new iMac and the new MP in terms of price-performance ratio and in terms of longevity. If you come to the conclusion that the iMac is good enough go for it. If not at least you'll know why you're spending extra.

[imitchellg5]

I agree with Simon. 10 years is too long to expect from any computer though....

[jeff k]

Simon,
great point. Just thinking if they could get the entry level MP at more like $1500, and large monitors at $600, we could be talking.
Curious is you have a MP and a new connection speed is invented (USB 4), and you add that port, do you get the true USB4 speed?

[imitchellg5]

Yes, that's the nice thing about the Mac Pro. With PCIe you can pretty much add anything.

[Simon]

$1500 is not going to happen. But $1999 should be possible. And by then that nice U2410 should be down to $500 or below through special sales.

[Eug]

For Photoshop and the like, I might recommend the 21.5" base model dual-core (with integrated graphics), and a second 21.5" monitor, and another 4 GB of 3rd party memory.

iMac - $1199
Monitor - $189
memory - $89

Total: $1477

However, if you use other apps that might make significant use of the GPU, then you might want a different setup. It sounds to me though that a Mac Pro might be complete overkill for you.

[jeff k]

Interesting, so many trade offs.

What is PCIe, mitch?
U2410's are at $500 some places... --- $2500.....

Eug:
nice idea. Actually I could just get the imac for $1200 and use my current Sony 21" for toolkit.

Still nothing would be as cool as single large 27"+
So many valid ideas.
Why 4GB more of memory?
I would think the 4 it comes with is a lot no?

[Eug]

Cuz the new iMacs have 4 memory slots and it's only $90 to add another 4 GB. With 4 GB if you run a lot of apps simultaneously, you might sometimes have to page out to disk. With 8 GB it will be a lot less frequent.

You should really tell us all the apps you might use, and which ones you run simultaneously. For example, I can allocate 512 MB to VMware Fusion running Windows XP, and it doesn't stress my iMac. With only 4 GB, it would, when I'm running multiple OS X applications at the same time. For the new iMacs, 8 GB is the sweet spot, since 8 GB is so cheap to get these days.

Also, it might make more sense for you to get a faster GPU, and it would be another $300 to get the Radeon 4670. However, it really depends on what apps you run.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

What is PCIe, mitch?

Google knows.

Hit the first link.

-t

[jeff k]

Turtle.
expansion slots -- which are then not available on imacs only with MP's.

Eug,
Well, others apps are pretty basic, Dreamweaver, Safari, Entourage, Excel etc.

But you still think 8GB will be felt?

GPU, bit over my head (even though I just Googled it -- influence of Turtle there)

Macs come with one GPU, but you can add more?

[Eug]

For those apps, the base model integrated graphics processing unit will be fine. You CANNOT change the GPU or add another GPU later in iMacs. That is only possible with the Mac Pro. However, for those applications, the Mac Pro is complete overkill, a needless waste of space and money.

You could always get the iMac with 4 GB, and then add another 2 GB (ie. 2 x 1 GB) later for $42 (Newegg.com), for a total of 6 GB. However, since 4 GB (ie. 2 x 2 GB) of good quality Crucial RAM is only $85 (Newegg.com), I don't see why you don't go straight to 8 GB.

IMO for heavy duty use with all those apps simultaneously, 4 GB would be OK, but there may be some instances where 6 or 8 GB would be superior, esp. if you work with numerous large files in Photoshop.

[Simon]

Jeff, the tasks you describe don't make a MP necessary at all.

However, if you indeed require this box last for five years minimum, the iMac is out of the race simply due to lack of expansion. No USB3 option, no GPU update option, stuck with the CPU, no eSATA option, no expansion slots for any other type of new bus. Basically the only thing you can do with the iMac is add a new external display (assuming MDP stays around and 2560x1600 is enough throughout the entire lifespan).

Personally I think somebody like you is better off buying an iMac every two to three years than buying a MP that has to last. How long the computer has to last is up to you however. And ultimately that will determine what you'll buy.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Personally I think somebody like you is better off buying an iMac every two to three years than buying a MP that has to last. How long the computer has to last is up to you however. And ultimately that will determine what you'll buy.

Agree completely with this. 3 years from now should put us in Ivy Bridge territory, at which point it's very hard to predict what sort of performance we're seeing. We can probably expect 4 cores/8 threads to be standard, SSDs or even flash with a different connection to the motherboard to be common, USB 3.0 everywhere, and an even faster wireless standard than 802.11n available in draft versions.

[jeff k]

Eug,
nice post thanks. Based on my personal needs/ uses (and let's say I'm on CS5 or CS6 one day....)
Question:
would I really notice much difference between the

NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory3
or
ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
------
finally:
Currently I have 2 FW hubs full of basic peripherals ( hard drives, scanners, burners) -- emanating each from it's own seperate FW bus.
If all that went to one FW bus, would I notice anything?
----
Simon, not hard rule, 5 years, it's just that I woke up and realized that's how long I'm on my current G5, and to be honest, I could probably go another 1-3 years (staying on CS3 albeit). the ONLY real slow thing I notice is when I run filters with Photoshop -- it takes a minute to grind through. And I don't do that too much, so it's totally tolerable.
If I missed out on USB3, I could probably live with it.
But you point out there are the unknowns that come along.
Plus I pose the same quesiton to you about putting two FW hubs through one bus.
It's a hard call becuase it's so tempting to just get an imac for $1200 that would totally blow away my G5. But again, I could hang tight for awhile. this is all great info to have.
-------
Don't think SATA means much right? I'm already used to using exteranl hard drives.
The reason I hate internals is that in past you have to bring you heavy computer to shop to inspect a broken internal, is this still case with current MacPros -- and imacs your are stuck for sure. GPU/CPU, I guess that's all contingent on how PHotoshop CS -- what needs for that will be. As I've said, I had to return CS4 as it does not work well with G5 Graphic card -- who would have thought that could ever happen a few years ago. You last sentence may be a correct assumption -- go imac every three years.
------
thanks P. -- Boy starting to worry: what happens if imac drops FW? I have a $1300 top end Nikon slide scanner that I still need once in a blue moon to scan critical slides from years back. What if I adpot the 3 year imac strategy and imac drops the FW port?

[Eug]

1) I use Aperture, and the Radeon 4850 is a humungous advantage over the GeForce 9400. Same for Adobe Lightroom. Photoshop is also starting to use the GPU as well.

OpenGL/GPU features in Adobe Photoshop CS4 are:

Smooth Display at ALL Zoom Levels
Animated Zoom Tool
Animated Transitions when doing a One Stop Zoom
Hand Toss Image
Birdseye View
Rotate Canvas
Smooth Display of Non Square Pixel Images
Pixel Grid
Move Color Matching to the GPU
Draw Brush Tip Editing Feedback via GPU
3D GPU features include:
3D Acceleration
3D Axis
3D Lights Widget
Accelerated 3D Interaction via Direct To Screen
GPU features in Bridge CS4 are:

Preview Panel
Full-screen preview
Slideshow
Review Mode

If you really want a machine-that-will-blow-away-a-quad-G5 type experience, then the best machine to get is the Core i7 quad-core (8-thread) iMac. A Core 2 Duo dual-core iMac will still be significantly faster than a dual-core G5 Power Mac though.

2) IIRC, the previous iMacs with dual FireWire ports only had one FireWire bus anyway. Basically it was like having a built-in 2-port hub. The Mac Pros have a couple of independent Firewire busses IIRC.

However, one can run both FW 800 and FW 400 at the same time, and have full speed for both. These are my iMac FW 800 and FW 400 benchmarks. When I ran the FW800 benches, I had a FW400 drive running too. Obviously having the FW400 drive attached didn't seem to slow the FW800 hardware down (although I wasn't actively transferring files to the FW400 drive at the time).

Note that Snow Leopard borks FW support for some hardware. Many people are experiencing the uber-annoyance of having FW drives and peripherals disappear in Snow Leopard. I had this very problem. My FW optical drive is no longer seen in Snow Leopard. So right now I am running Snow Leopard with the 10.5.8 Leopard FW kernel extension. It's a hack, but Snow Leopard works fine this way, and I now have my optical drive back.

Internal is way better than external though. With the Mac Pro and Power Macs it's quite simple to change an internal drive. Furthermore, they're significantly faster, and you don't have to deal with idiotic USB or FW driver issues, etc. I was considering the Mac Pro, specifically for this reason. I could run 4 internal SATA drives this way, and have two pairs of RAID1 drives.

I don't really understand your iMac-dropping FW question. If in three years the iMac drops FW, then just get a Mac Pro then, that is if you still need FW. By that time the iMac may already have USB 3 and/or eSATA. Will you still need to scan old kodachrome slides then? If you so could even keep your 27" iMac for that purpose. It should be noted that a 27" iMac can be used as an external monitor. In 3 years you could get a FW-less 27" iMac, and use your 2009 iMac as a second monitor. However, for the times you need to run your FW scanner, you can do that too with your old iMac. My gut feeling though is Apple will not drop FW by 2012 in iMacs.

[GuyWithACamera]

Easy access to the internals such as the hard drive is an issue that convinced me to go the Mac Pro route as I was also contemplating the new iMac. If my start up drive decides to fail on me, I want to just be able to pop a new one in and restore from backup. I also don't want to be married to a video card for as long as I own the computer. The extra hdd bays are nice too.

I'm also using a G5 (dual 2.0) as my main workstation even though my Macbook Pro is much faster. I could really use the new desktop but I can get by until January. I couldn't wait if the release of the new models is in March. The expense would be nice in this tax year too.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by GuyWithACamera 

Easy access to the internals such as the hard drive is an issue that convinced me to go the Mac Pro route as I was also contemplating the new iMac. If my start up drive decides to fail on me, I want to just be able to pop a new one in and restore from backup. I also don't want to be married to a video card for as long as I own the computer. The extra hdd bays are nice too.

You can always boot off a FW backup until you can get the machine fixed. (I always get the 3-year Apple Care for my iMacs, cuz it's cheap for me.)

I'm also using a G5 (dual 2.0) as my main workstation even though my Macbook Pro is much faster. I could really use the new desktop but I can get by until January. I couldn't wait if the release of the new models is in March. The expense would be nice in this tax year too.

Many are estimating a 2009 Q2 release date for Gulftown. If that's accurate, we're talking new Mac Pros after March (or at best March, if Apple gets the chip a few weeks early).

[Big-J-Dubb]

wait to see if apple put's out new MBP's after christmas in jan - early feb time frame and you'll be happy have fun and good luck but if you need a new mac now 27 imac corei7 all the way then

[jeff k]

Thanks Eug/ Guy,
Let me get this right, with new Mac pros the removal of internal Hard drives is easier than with the G5?
The G5, basically, I just bring the whole thing to the shop...'

Was actually leaning toward to the cheap 21" imac until this post. Of course I could wait until
Radeon 4850 is standard. but I have an important question:
CS4 would not work well with my G5 and I was told it was entirely because of the graphic card. (ie, OpenGL/GPU features)

The mouse had huge tracking delay. are you saying that with the NVIDIA, this issue would still not be solved?

I'm not understanding the FW thread. Over my head. My main question is: can one bus deal with 8 periphials spread over 2 hubs? You were saying one of you devices was not recognized. Why not? just curious.

What is Gultown going to bring to the table?

[jeff k]

PS, I'll always have to have this scanner, as I have critical images that once in a blue moon will need to be scanned -- forever..

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Thanks Eug/ Guy,
Let me get this right, with new Mac pros the removal of internal Hard drives is easier than with the G5?
The G5, basically, I just bring the whole thing to the shop...'

Why? It's pretty straightforward on the G5 Power Mac, too. It's a user serviceable part after all.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/PMG5_HD_DIY.pdf

Was actually leaning toward to the cheap 21" imac until this post. Of course I could wait until Radeon 4850 is standard.

Well, the next model up has the 4670. Not the 4850, but reasonable.

but I have an important question:
CS4 would not work well with my G5 and I was told it was entirely because of the graphic card. (ie, OpenGL/GPU features)

The mouse had huge tracking delay. are you saying that with the NVIDIA, this issue would still not be solved?

No idea.

I'm not understanding the FW thread. Over my head. My main question is: can one bus deal with 8 periphials spread over 2 hubs?

Yes, at least if you're not using them simultaneously, and there aren't any conflicts.

FWIW, I have 4 or 5 FireWire peripherals, spread over two hubs. Two are FW800, and the others are FW400. Works fine (with the older FW kernel extension).

You were saying one of you devices was not recognized. Why not? just curious.

Bug in Snow Leopard. Nothing to do with the iMac. I get the same problem on my MacBook Pro. People have the same problem in Snow Leopard with the Mac Pro too. Blame OS X 10.6, not the hardware.

The only fix at this time is to delete the kernel extension in Snow Leopard, and use the one from Leopard 10.5.8. The one in Snow Leopard is version 2.0.0. The one in Leopard is version 1.5.2.

What is Gultown going to bring to the table?

Much more speed, with 6-core and 12-core Mac Pros. ie. WAY overkill for your needs.

[jeff k]

thanks Eug,
I image I could have two seperate FW drives and have something open from each one. who knows...
Or have image from on FW drive up and the burn a CD which is FW...

Guess have to test that.

Too bad don't know the Photoshop answer. The implication though is that you don't get the higher end
ATI Radeon, you lose out on almost everything that is new in CS4.

[Eug]

I just burned a DVD-R using my Mac Core i7 with my FW400 optical drive, with data from my FW800 hard drive. Worked great. Setup is as follows:

iMac --> Kramer FW800 hub --> FW800 hard drive
iMac --> Kramer FW800 hub --> Belkin FW400 hub --> FW400 DVD burner

---

What exactly in CS4 are you doing that slows the G5 down so much? The integrated nVidia GeForce 9400M is slow, but for many things it's just fine. However, my 9400M machine only has CS3 installed so I can't check.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by jeff k 

Simon, not hard rule, 5 years, it's just that I woke up and realized that's how long I'm on my current G5, and to be honest, I could probably go another 1-3 years (staying on CS3 albeit). the ONLY real slow thing I notice is when I run filters with Photoshop -- it takes a minute to grind through. And I don't do that too much, so it's totally tolerable.
If I missed out on USB3, I could probably live with it.
But you point out there are the unknowns that come along.
Plus I pose the same quesiton to you about putting two FW hubs through one bus.
It's a hard call becuase it's so tempting to just get an imac for $1200 that would totally blow away my G5. But again, I could hang tight for awhile. this is all great info to have.

Since you say you could wait and keep your G5 for another 1-3 years, you definitely can wait another three months. It's not like that $1200 iMac will suddenly cost $2k in Feb.

With your plan to keep the iMac for several years and use it with CS4 and even CS5 you should definitely get at least the i5/4850, and quite obviously the i7/4850 would be better. That means you're looking at a $1999/$2199 system.

I suggest you wait until early next year when the MP gets its update and see what a low-end Gulftown system or a refurb octo MP (the current Gainestown generation) will cost you. Compare that plus a screen to a >$2k iMac. Then make an informed decision. There's no need to jump the gun now when you acknowledge yourself you could hold out another 1-3 years.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Since you say you could wait and keep your G5 for another 1-3 years, you definitely can wait another three months. It's not like that $1200 iMac will suddenly cost $2k in Feb.

Possible, but optimistic.

[Simon]

That's beside the point. The iMac in question will still be $1200 in Feb. It will actually still be $1200 in April (meanwhile similarly performing PCs will have come down in price). The MP will receive its update soon enough, if not Feb, then Mar. In any event much earlier than the 1-3 years the OP mentioned. If the OP is in no special rush to get rid of his G5 then he should wait until all the Macs in question have seen an update. Even if the OP decides to go for the iMac the wait is a good idea. There are going to be a lot of refurb quad-core iMacs at better prices in a short while (judging by all the early adopter issues). Right now there is simply nothing to be gained from jumping the gun.

[Eug]

Not really. We already know the Mac Pros will be way overkill for his needs.

The best reason to wait will be to get a refurb price on an iMac.