[- - e r i k - -]

So it has come to this: I am finally thinking of getting an iMac instead of a PowerMac, and I've generally scoffed at the idea.

My current computer is a 1 Ghz 17" PB which have served and continues to serve me well (despite both my FW-ports and one USB port are now dead). My previous computer was a PowerMac G4 which I sold when I bought the PB. I have long wanted a desktop computer that's more powerful than the PB for video editing in FCP and music (which I'm doing in GB, but are looking at Logic). I'm also wanting to sink my teeth into Motion, which the PB is obviously too slow for. I do play WoW (a LOT), but not much of other games on my mac. The ports dying on me (use a surge-protector kids!) has accelerated the issue.

But when configuring the new iMacs and the new PowerMacs side by side the awful truth dawned on me: Holy crap these computers are expensive! I'm currently studying now, but I have saved up some money by working to keep me through my degree (in addition to my student-loan). Have a look at these configurations:

iMac G5
Single G5 2 Ghz
20" Monitor
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth 2.0
2 GB RAM
400 GB HD
Radeon 9600 128MB

Edu-price: $A 3,397 (NOK 16,708, US$ 2,661*)


PowerMac
Dual G5 2 Ghz
20" Monitor
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth 2.0
2 GB RAM
400 GB HD
Radeon 9600 128MB

Edu-price $A 5,043 (NOK 24 806, US$ 3,950*)

* Prices calculated from Australian Edu-prices. Thanks Dashboard currency-convertor All numbers rounded up.

OK, so you get dual processors, expandability and a separate Apple display (yes, I could have bought a cheaper non-Apple display but then again I am style-concious).


For these applications (Hobby/semi-pro video, digital effects, music production and gaming), how would the iMac stack up to the PowerMac? Is it justifiable to get the PM? How is the Radeon 9600 going to fare? I'm concerned about graphics-card upgradability, but at least for the foreseeable future it looks like it will suffice, no?

[thereubster]

If you are serious about Logic and FCP then get the Powermac, the dual processor will make a huge difference, as will RAID and expandiblity options. Forget the Apple 20" inch and get yourself 2 17" TFT's, you will save lots there, also get a second HD instead of the single 400Gb and get the ram from another source, Apple still overcharges for memory. The new iMac is a good deal and that 20" screen is superb, but in terms of Audio and video work its just not as suitable (and consider the noise issue, the iMac gets noisy when it gets hot)
As for the price, yep, thats the reality of Mac users in Australia and New Zealand, the most expensive places in the world to buy Apple products, period.

[- - e r i k - -]

Clearly you've never looked at the Norwegian prices. I save A$ 720 by buying one in Australia than buying it in Norway (both edu-prices).

[- - e r i k - -]

Are you only able to mirror video on an external monitor with the iMac? Is there any way to hack this limitation away (I remember this being able on iBooks)?

The iMac does look like a good deal, would take up a whole lot less space and I could put the money I saved towards that digital SLR I've been wanting for a long time. But are this a limitation and are there anything else I should be aware of? Noise _can_ be an issue.

[anamexis]

I must say, I'm a bit frustrated that just after I buy a Dual 1.8GHz G5 the new iMacs come out. I definitely would have sprung for the 20" had I known they were coming.

Oh well...

Edit: no harm in trying

[jamil5454]

Unless you need to make money doing what you're doing, I would definitely get the iMac. Sure it might not be able to handle as many audio tracks or render as fast but it still has a lot of great features. If you're in school, you can't really justify the cost of a PowerMac. When you get a job doing video editing or design work THEN I would take the plunge for a PowerMac. It's not like the iMac G5 is slow. In fact, it's currently Apple's fourth fastest computer (not including XServes), and it will serve for years to come.

[Big Mac]

This iMac speed bump is great, but before anyone goes overboard jumping on the iMac train, let us all remember that the Radeon 9600 does not set the world ablaze.

[BZ]

I just made this exact decision and here is why I went with a PowerMac.

- 2 x 2.3Ghz G5s will be faster, handle Tiger and pro apps better and will last longer. Talk to people who have dual anything and the machines just seem to be able to handle more for longer.

- 20" is nice, but I wanted a 23" (no iMac 23")

- I usually keep my machines 4+ years so the ability to upgrade RAM, Drive, Video over the lifespan of the computer makes a difference

- Eventually 2GB of Ram will not be enough.

To me it came down to two theories... buy an iMac G5 every two years or buy a PowerMac every 4 years. For me, for my use, I wanted to have a Pro machine and a bigger screen.

BZ

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by BZ

I just made this exact decision and here is why I went with a PowerMac.

- 2 x 2.3Ghz G5s will be faster, handle Tiger and pro apps better and will last longer. Talk to people who have dual anything and the machines just seem to be able to handle more for longer.

True.

Originally Posted by BZ

- 20" is nice, but I wanted a 23" (no iMac 23")

Also a consideration. I used a 21" Monitor before. Big monster it was. Monitor issues might be a concern for me. Can the iMac use secondary monitors WITH spanning?

Originally Posted by BZ

- I usually keep my machines 4+ years so the ability to upgrade RAM, Drive, Video over the lifespan of the computer makes a difference

So did I. My last mac before my PB was a 400 MHz G4 PM. It served me well, I upgraded the graphics card to a Radeon 8500, the RAM to 2 GB, the HDs to 240 GB. But still, by the end of its lifespan it was S-L-O-W. Keeping a machine for that long is nice, but it's also nice to get a great upgrade every second year instead of every fourth.

Originally Posted by BZ

- Eventually 2GB of Ram will not be enough.

To me it came down to two theories... buy an iMac G5 every two years or buy a PowerMac every 4 years. For me, for my use, I wanted to have a Pro machine and a bigger screen.

BZ

Pro machine, sure. That was my stance two years ago. I would never ever had considered an iMac two years ago when I got the PB. Never. But now. How much is enough. I know, nothing is ever enough. But isn't the iMac pro enough? It's got a G5. 2GB RAM. 400GB HD. Good enough graphics card. I mean, I haven't outlived my PB yet. It still does everything I want (except sync to my iPod and my external HD at resonable rates...which is why I need a new machine) at speeds I can live with. Heck, even gaming is good enough on the PB (WoW is great on it even with its crappish video card).

So the question is: Where do I draw the line. What is the money worth for me. An iMac and money put towards a kick-ass digital SLR-camera. Or just a PowerMac with great expandability?

As I said, I already had great life put into my old PM tower. Plenty RAM and HD space, fitted a new burner into it. But I never once used a PCI-bay (just like I never used the PCMCIA slot on my PB). What's expandability if you don't use it / it's limited by CPU-speed?

[jamil5454]

If you're short on money, then why get what you don't need? If you want the computer to last, you'll need to save up a bunch of money and plunge for the PowerMac. Otherwise, depending on your uses, I'm sure an iMacac will last at least 3-4 years. It really depends on what kind of performance you're willing to live with.

On the other hand, if you depend on your computer to make money or if you're constantly short on time, get the fastest reliable computer money can buy.

In other words, don't be an emotional buyer, be a rational buyer.

[AssassyN]

Your biggest point is the fact that by the end of year 4 (which, by the way this isn't 1995. 4 years from now computers will light years ahead of what they are now...speed keeps getting faster) your current PowerMac will be a snail. The 2-year rotation plan is by far the best option, especially considering how well used Macs sell on eBay. I bought a Rev. B PB brand new w/ EDU discount, used it 8 months, and took a $40 loss by selling it on eBay. $40 to use a PB 8 months.

I'm going to say go w/ the iMac. Look, ignore the PowerMac a minute. In the PC realm, a 2.0Ghz 64-chip, 2GB RAM, and 400GB are esentially top-of-the-line. Even PC zealots that are hardcore gamers don't have more than 2GB of RAM. It's just not that necessary right now. And don't limit the iMac G5 to 2GB....2GB DIMMS will be the rage soon, and so 4GB total will be easy.

A 2Ghz G5 is fast. Really fast. Especially if using 1) Tiger and 2) Apple apps (FCP). You can ALWAYS add external HD space. It's even got gigabit ethernet, APX, and BT2.0 *BUILT-IN*! Plus, the 20" iMac screen is GORGEOUS. I owned a tricked out 1.8Ghz 20" iMac but sold it about a month ago knowing these updates were coming. This time I actually lost $80 on it after months of use...sad, I know. The screen is AMAZING. And YES, the screen-spanning "hack" works just fine...pick up a mini-VGA to VGA adapter and add another screen. 128MB of video RAM is overkill to drive 2 screens, so that's fine as well.

The only reason I see to get the PowerMac is if you'll be adding PCI audio boards for hardcore recording, or capture cards and whatnot. Macs aren't gaming machines anyway, so the Radeon is plenty to push WoW.

I say save your cash, buy the DSLR. 2 years from now it will have suited you fine, you can sell and get a G6 machine.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

Your biggest point is the fact that by the end of year 4 (which, by the way this isn't 1995. 4 years from now computers will light years ahead of what they are now...speed keeps getting faster) your current PowerMac will be a snail. The 2-year rotation plan is by far the best option, especially considering how well used Macs sell on eBay. I bought a Rev. B PB brand new w/ EDU discount, used it 8 months, and took a $40 loss by selling it on eBay. $40 to use a PB 8 months.

I am not entirely certain of that. We seem to be hitting a performance wall. We have seen a less than 10% increase on the top Power Mac speed in ten months. Perhaps we'll break through this rut - the industry has to hope so - but given current performance I cannot envision today's Macs being figuratively slug-like in four years.

Directed more generally to those of you who are enamored of the new iMac, are not many you the same individuals who bewailed the lackluster Power Mac speed bump? Wasn't there no consoling many of you over the lack of dual core, PCIe and associated high end technologies? If that was the case, how can you now be contended with a single processor G5 with an anemic graphics card and FSB to the point where you're enthusiastically recommending it over the Power Macs for most everyone? The incongruity of these perceived attitudes is confounding. The iMac is a great consumer Mac, but a Power Mac it is not.

[Eug Wanker]

I bought a 2.0 GHz iMac G5. However, I don't run Logic or FCP.

A 2Ghz G5 is fast. Really fast. Especially if using 1) Tiger and 2) Apple apps (FCP). You can ALWAYS add external HD space.

Well, to be fair, I consider the 2 GHz G5 fast, but not "really fast". I'd consider the 2.7 GHz G5 "really fast". Indeed, I would have loved to have been able to purchase a 2.3 GHz G5 iMac, but that does not exist. I also spec'd a 400 GB hard drive. That should last me a while. I can always add an external HD later, but I do prefer internal drives and dual drivers. And the iMac doesn't have FW800 either, so there will be potential speed issues, especially with future drives, if I go external

It just came down to a compromise to me. A single iMac G5 2.0 doesn't have EVERYTHING I want, but it has most of what I want, in a very nice form factor with a small desktop footprint, and a very nice price. The dual 2.3 GHz Power Mac has all the speed and expandability I want, but requires much more physical space and costs much more.

[AssassyN]

^^ We've hit a wall, that when we penetrate, we will get faster, and in a monumentally short time frame. Once that breaking point is past, it's onto a whole new barrier. BTW, while Mac speeds are just crawling, the PC side is crawling with anticipation of next-gen stuff.

^ Benchmarks will likely prove otherwise. I'd bet a single 2.7 (I know, there's not one) wouldn't be insanely faster than a 2.0. Seconds, yes. A few FPS, yes. But lifechanging, no. FW800 is almost the biggest joke Apple's every introduced. The speed increases are rediculously minimal, and there's no DV transfers in the world that would clog up a FW400 line to a SATA external drive.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

FW800 is almost the biggest joke Apple's every introduced. The speed increases are rediculously minimal, and there's no DV transfers in the world that would clog up a FW400 line to a SATA external drive.

Firewire 800 is the biggest joke? Surely you jest. The speed increases are real, and while a given DV stream will certainly not saturate a Firewire 400, with the increased reliance on external storage you have to take into account the fact that there will be multiple devices on the same bus competing for bandwidth. Beyond that, you also have to consider that HD transfers are becoming more common.

[- - e r i k - -]

The screen-spanning hack working seals the deal for me. I would rather get a new computer in two years when the gap between a PM and an iMac is potentially bigger. But right now, it looks like an iMac G5 is the winner for me.

I bought a LaCie FW800 external disk to have something to use my FW800 port on the PB. P.O.S! After a steadily declining port-functionality (having to bend the cable from the disk to even make a connection), both FW800 ports stopped working. When I later opened it up I found out why: LaCies FW800 ports looked like legobricks with two plastic knobs connecting them as loosely as possible to the logic board. Cheapest job ever! The USB2.0 port, built like a tank, still works, otherwise I'd just to throw it away (anyone know where I can buy a cheap but stylish FW/USB2 enclosure btw?).

[Appleman]

PowerMac

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

^ Benchmarks will likely prove otherwise. I'd bet a single 2.7 (I know, there's not one) wouldn't be insanely faster than a 2.0. Seconds, yes. A few FPS, yes. But lifechanging, no.

A G5 2.0 cannot decode 1080p @ 24 fps, but from the benches it seems a G5 2.7 single could. Actually, a G5 2.5 probably could too. ie. You'd be able to comfortably watch a full rez HD-DVD H.264 on a single 2.7. You simply can't with the iMac 2.0 GHz I'm getting. That can be a pretty significant differentiating factor IMO. However, I suspect the initial crop of HD DVDs may not be full 1080p rez, precisely because of this: The decode simply takes too much power.

BTW, it's pretty easy to bench a single 2.7. Just get a dual 2.7 and turn off one of the CPUs with Apple's performance tools (free download).

FW800 is almost the biggest joke Apple's every introduced. The speed increases are rediculously minimal, and there's no DV transfers in the world that would clog up a FW400 line to a SATA external drive.

With the right hardware the speed boost is pretty significant with FW800. And they'll only get faster. FW400 is already maxed out.

[BZ]

Eric...

It sounds like an iMac would do you fine for many years to come.

BZ

[jamil5454]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Firewire 800 is the biggest joke? Surely you jest.

I think he jests not. Why doth thou speak with thy strange tongue?

[AssassyN]

Haha, that was a werid way of saying it. Honestly FW800 isn't as big of a deal as people make it to be, is all I'm saying. FW400 will definitely be fast enough for 2 years.

Good choice w/ the iMac

And honestly, I'm not gonna watch an HD DVD on some tiny 20" screen. That bad boy's gettin' hooked up to my projector!

[eddiecatflap]

from what i've gleaned , if you want to have any chance of playing the new hd videos on your mac , go for a dual 2ghz tower as a MINIMUM

i think that's what i'll aim for now