[PJ G4]

I am in the market for a new computer. After reading the posts on the new DP G4's and fan noise I have limited my choices to the following. 17"iMac or the Quicksilver 800 Mhz G4 and the Apple 17" Studio Display. The differences will be in the following: Hard Disc size, system bus, video card, Super Drive vs CD-RW, resolution of the monitors and upgradeability. My needs are digital photography and audio. Is the Quicksilver quieter than the new DP G4's. Which option will be best for me. I live in Mexico and we do not have dealers where we can compare the units side by side. Thanks in advance

[mediahound]

" Is the Quicksilver quieter than the new DP G4's"

Absolutely yes.

I would get the G4. While the iMac looks cool, the G4 has more expandability in terms of being able to add PCI cards and any monitor you want in the future. It's also faster.

[D'Espice]

The QS definitely is quieter than the new DPs, although in my opinion, it's still too loud. In case you need silence to work, the QS surely is the wrong way to go whereas the iMac is almost completely inaudible.
On the other hand, the PowerMac is expandable and faster, if it doesn't bother you to hear a hum from under your desk, get the Quicksilver.

[kfchan]

I work with a qs 867

I come home to an iMac 17"

I would hate to have my Quicksilver at home.. really..

but I wouldn't mind having my iMac at work, and I can't notice the speed difference.

Anamorphic displays are great to work with in design. I like my iMacs 17" display much much better than my work 17" standard aspect.

I can send you screen shots of both display realestates if you like and you can make up your mind. [email protected]

Factors of quietness, unobtrusiveness, superior ergonomics, and wider more useful screen aspect make the 17" iMac a better choice if you do not require PCI expandability.

17" 800MHz iMac/ 1024MB
Powermac 867/1025MB/ 17"Studio Display

good luck

Ken

[Catfish_Man]

...except that I'm trying to decide between the dual 867 (or,to be more specific, whatever is in its spot on Jan 30th 2003) and whatever is in the 17" FP iMac's spot then. Basically, the iMac is slightly more expensive (200-300 dollars) and won't last as long (because it can't be upgraded as much), but the PowerMac is noisy and doesn't have the spiffy display. The noise is a *moderately* major concern because one of the people paying for the machine is a professional musician (read that as: noise sensitive). Right now I'm leaning towards the FP iMac, but it's a tough decision. If the iMac is upgraded by my target date and the PM isn't, then I'll go for the iMac. The reverse is *probably* true if the PM is upgraded and the iMac isn't. If both are upgraded... I'm not sure.

[Xtraz]

wow kfchan, 9 posts since 2000. I thought I was bad with only 50ish posts...

[InterfaceGuy]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
The QS definitely is quieter than the new DPs, although in my opinion, it's still too loud. In case you need silence to work, the QS surely is the wrong way to go whereas the iMac is almost completely inaudible.
On the other hand, the PowerMac is expandable and faster, if it doesn't bother you to hear a hum from under your desk, get the Quicksilver.

I have a QS in my home office and keep my iBook in my bedroom. The iBook is silent, which is very nice when watching a movie in bed or listening to music while reading. The QS is not a super quiet machine but it doesn't bother me. I keep it under the desk and crank the volume up on my HK Soundsticks. Even when not listening to music I don't really notice the sound. I've not seen the new G4 in person so I can't comment on it.

[Griz]

Originally posted by PJ G4:
I am in the market for a new computer. After reading the posts on the new DP G4's and fan noise I have limited my choices to the following. 17"iMac or the Quicksilver 800 Mhz G4 and the Apple 17" Studio Display. The differences will be in the following: Hard Disc size, system bus, video card, Super Drive vs CD-RW, resolution of the monitors and upgradeability. My needs are digital photography and audio. Is the Quicksilver quieter than the new DP G4's. Which option will be best for me. I live in Mexico and we do not have dealers where we can compare the units side by side. Thanks in advance

PJ G4
I have had a G4 Quicksilver 2002 800Mhz 512RAM for 5 months & I never hear the fan. Best computer I ever bought. Of course it is a matter of choice &
you have to decide. I hope you get one.

[curtlivingston]

there is no question. GET THE POWERMAC

cheap and easy storage upgrades, (IDE)
cheap and easy sound input options, (PCI)
cheap and easy USB 2 and Gigawire, (PCI)

and, if you need DVD burning, it will be cheaper to upgrade later to a superdrive on the powermac. in the meantime, enjoy the speed of burning with the CD-RW

the imac is for the home user.
it is an appliance.
the powermac is for the serious user.

don't get stuck with an under-performing un-upgradeable brick, unless you have the cash-flow to upgrade every two years (at least).

go on, get the powermac, it will make me happy.

[Johnnyboysmac]

"the imac is for the home user.
it is an appliance.
the powermac is for the serious user."

That sounds a bit tough doesn't it? I mean there are lots of Imacs being used by "serious" users out there. And what defines a serious user anyway? What one user considers 'serious' may be quite lightweight to someone else. Just because there are those who wish to have a quiet,unobtrusive, ergonomically and aesthetically satisfying and performing computer "appliance" if you will, in the home, doesn't make it any less a computer than a tower, or the owner necessarily some kind of less serious or able user because of their choice of machine.

"don't get stuck with an under-performing un-upgradeable brick, unless you have the cash-flow to upgrade every two years (at least)."

If the performance is adequate for ones needs, how does that make it under-performing? The ram can be upgraded, and externals take care of most of the rest. True, it's not as upgradable as a tower, but lets not forget that those upgrades cost money, and could be argued a less than optimum cost effective route compared to purchasing a new box when the present one is too slow / underpowered etc for your individual needs. Unless of course you have a large cash flow as you point out, to pay for the upgrades, money which you will be unlikely to recoup when the inevitable time comes to get the newer box, and you trade or sell your existing upgraded but now obsolete machine. So there's arguments both for and against ugrading, or buying a new machine, but either way expenditure seems inevitable if you want to be at the edge of things re performance, and an ongoing pathway it is.

Anyway, I'm not wishing to be harsh, or maybe start flame wars, that's not my point. I guess what I'm getting at, is this slight impression that I get ocassionaly through reading various forum postings, that you're somehow not a 'proper' computer user if you use an Imac, that's a kind of y'know, girly, or gay computer, and that 'real' men, use SERIOUS machines, like the towers. But isn't that the same criticisms those in the PC world levied at MAcs for so long. That nobody took Macs seriously for anything, with the possible exception of graphics.

In my view, as a SERIOUS user, presently on a PC, but thinking of switching, the Imac looks tantalisingly like satisfying my needs, as well as my wants.

I know that there's a lot of satisfaction in having the fastest computer, but I seriously doubt it would make me a more serious user, or for that matter a happier, or better person, and that is really the point I feel.

It is, after all, only a computer.

Anyway, just some thoughts, not to start arguments or such, merely to make a comment on what've I've felt for a while re the Imac v's tower thing, and the way they're associated as having a particular type of user base, with an often implied it would seem, sense of expert, or a somehow 'lesser' type of user, depending upon what you choose. Plenty of 'experts' and 'serious' users out there, use Imacs, it's more a matter of what suits your needs, than better or worse IMHO.

Anyway, I guess that's my 2c worth, deep down I guess if I buy an Imac, the thought of being thought of as a 'housewife' type computer user, fills my ego, internal fantasies, and sense of self image with dread.

But hey, I'll survive, I'm man enough for that,

[curtlivingston]

i've just upgraded from an imac to a tower, and so, at present, am rather biased. bathing in the glory of the ability to install three hard drives and even considering putting a floppy drive in, for reasons i cannot even imagine.

i didn't mean to classify users by their choice of machine, but rather machines by their most appropriate use.

as far as appropriateness extends, the imac and the powermac overlap quite substantially, and many users could find themselves in an either/or situation.

but, in the case of a machine being required to function as a working tool, that must bend to the needs of it's user, the imac, (and emac, and laptops) are not really an option.

each type of machine offers it's own particular environment of use, and that should be assessed on an individual basis, but i still tend to think that the towers offer the best value for money.
(the lower end ones that is, and second-hand)

and thanks for the perspective Johnnyboysmac.