[Mac Write]

Well my Saga continues. Few minutes ago I realized maybe a bare min Mac Pro would be better then a fully loaded iMac 20". As I've said previously, it would need to last as my primary system (my place 42 weeks/yr) for 3-years, then would move to my moms place (10-weeks/yr I am there). The heaviest stuff at present is I want to do Aperture (20K+ in photos (D70 RAW, JPEG (for 5 months, JPEG on CP995 previously), WoW, RollerCoasterTycoon, Vista Ultimate, XP Pro, etc. Yes I realize that the RAM is below min I would need (would add 2x1GB at a later date) but money would be tight. I should be able to spring for the Bluetooth/Airport combo (since I use Bluetooth heavily). All pricing in Canadian Dollars.

Current System:

• PowerMac MDD
• Dual 1.25GHZ G4
• 2MB per CPU L2 Cache
• Radeon 9800Pro 256MB
• USB1.1/FireWire400
• Pioneer DVR-710D DVD±RW
• ComboDrive (shipped with it as secondary drive)
• 120GB (OS/Apps), 160GB (secondary Data, 320GB (Home folder) HD's
• USB2 PCI

New Systems Specs:

• iMac 20"
• 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
• 250GB Serial ATA Drive
• ATI Radeon X1600/256MB VRAM
• SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
• AirPort Extreme
• Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
• $2.359

Vs.

• Mac Pro
• Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
• 1GB (2 x 512MB)
• 160GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
• NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
• 16x SuperDrive
• $2.345

[Big Mac]

The iMac, unless you anticipate needng expansion slots.

[Mac Write]

Why would the iMac be better? As you can see I have upgraded the video card, added an HD USB2 to my current system. I will need 3 HD's min (OS/Apps, Data, Time Machine) and being able to upgrade the video card would be nice. Remember it has to last 5-6 years in primary/secondary system roles.

[Big Mac]

Well, if you need it and if it's you're money, go nuts if you want. I like towers too, but the iMacs do give a lot of bang for the buck.

[Mac Write]

Actually mom is buying it "since I need a computer for her place so I won't use her MacBook." I am beyond broke, so the extra $500+ just for the RAM upgrade to make the Mac Pro usable would maybe be September if I pushed really hard. I am on permanent disability due to my Asperg Syndrome, but the good news is in 3-years the iMac (or Mac Pro) would be replaced at my place and then moved to my moms place for use for another 3-years. Sigh, this is not as easy as I thought and is driving me crazy.

[mac128k-1984]

I'd go with the iMac, youre underspecing the MacPro so much that your performance IS going to suffer. I had 2 gig on my macpro and even that was too little. I finally sprung and upgraded to 4 gig and now Aperture, parallels and photoshop all seem to be happy

Also why run Vista ultimate and XP Pro, depending on what environment (parallels vs. bootcamp) I'd stick with XP. Even if you go with Vista I see little reason to spending so much money on that baby. At least with Vista you can purchase the home or business flavor. If the you think you need more features you can "upgrade" your vista by calling MS and then handing them over your credit card number.

[Mac Write]

OEM versions for XP Pro and Vista ($100 and $240CDN). I need to learn those OS's, so I will start with XP Pro then move to Vista. I am thinking the six years out, yes that is thinking way too far out, but I have two cycles to think about. $1,200 more (minus RAM and second HD (only $120 including tax from atic.ca) for a properly configured Mac Pro (including tax). That would fair better over six-year double cycle, but how to convince her for the long term (of course in 3-years when the G4 is due for retirement from main duty and the iMac or Mac Pro moves to her place for the next 3 years, then we have to go through this all over again+in three years her MacBook will also be due for replacement so if we did Mac Pro's that is $7,000 in computers every 3-years). This is getting so complex. Yes I need to think about just now, but I do need to think about the life-span of the computer (like RAM, HD and video card upgrades).

[danbrew]

if it were me, i'd go with the macpro. granted, the imac does give you a super nice display - so you'll have to add a display to the macpro.

why mac pro? you're essentially getting 4 procs vs. 2 on the iMac. you've got better expansion options and more memory capabilities.

[Eug]

Aperture?

Considering waiting for an iMac that's upgradable to 4 GB RAM. You may not be happy with Aperture and a few apps open if you only have 2 GB. And with 3 GB RAM, you lose out on dual-channel support. Well, maybe you won't need the 4 GB RAM, but the new iMacs are probably out soon, and they'll get an improved bus as well as some other goodies, not the least of which may be a price drop. So, even if you do just get 2 GB, it would still pay to wait a couple of months before deciding.

And whichever machine machine you get, go for the 256+ MB RAM endowed GPU. I'd recommend a 24" for Aperture though. However, do not get the 7300 GT. People on the photo forums say that for some reason that GPU doesn't seem to cut it for Aperture. Get the 7600 GT for the iMac, or else the X1900 XT for the Mac Pro, or even the 256 MB X1600.

Furthermore, I think it's too much penny pinching to get a 2.0 GHz Mac Pro. If you're going Mac Pro, get the 2.66.

ie. This is what I would recommend:

Mac Pro
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
2GB (2 x 1GB)
160GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s <-- Might be too small if you want to run BootCamp
ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0+EDR module
$3397 + whatever it costs for the monitor

or

iMac 24"
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
250GB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
24-inch widescreen LCD
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
$2549

or

iMac 20"
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
250GB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon X1600/256MB VRAM
SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
20-inch widescreen LCD
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
$2059

While I don't suggest the 2.0 for the Mac Pro, I do recommend the 2.16 for the iMac. Why?

Mac Pro: 2.66/2.0 = 133%
iMac: 2.33/2.16 = 108%

Overall, I think the 2.16 GHz 24" iMac with 7600 GT is the best bang for the buck. In fact, that's what I got, except that I got the 2.33 (because I wasn't as cash strapped as you are), and I got a bigger hard drive, among other things.

My second choice on your budget is the 20" iMac. A reasonable Mac Pro just costs too much for your situation.

P.S. Do you need to run BootCamp? Or is Parallels sufficient? Either way, it seems like a large expense to install two different versions of Windows, alongside OS X. It'd be a big pain too, and more so on the iMac since there's only one internal drive on the iMac.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

While I don't suggest the 2.0 for the Mac Pro, I do recommend the 2.16 for the iMac. Why?

Mac Pro: 2.66/2.0 = 133%
iMac: 2.33/2.16 = 108%

I agree with the notion to go with a 2.66 GHz MP instead of a 2.0GHz MP. If you look at Intel's 1k prices you see that the 2.0 GHz Woodcrest is $374 less than the 2.66 GHz Woodcrest. If you spec the MP down to 2.0GHz Apple gives you a $299 discount off the base price. So basically you're saving $299 while Apple's saving roughly $700. Bad deal.

OTOH going from iMac's 2.16 GHz Merom to the 2.33 GHz option will set you back $250. And Intel charges Apple roughly $200 more for that CPU. So that upgrade's a decent deal at least from a purely financial POV. OTOH if your work isn't CPU-limited, chances are you won't really notice the additional 8% clock though.

Now you may argue that no matter how bad Apple's downgrade deal on the MP is, if you're on a really tight budget you have to shave every buck off that MP price tag. But in that case, you'd be much better off with the iMac anyway. The iMac definitely gives you more bang for buck. Unless you are sure that you need the MP's additional expansion capabilities today, the iMac is likely going to be the better deal. You can get it with the 256MB 7600 GT which is a really decent GPU. And you can spec it out with a large HD and even further expand it through FW800 should that be necessary.

[macgeek2005]

I would go with a Mac Pro no matter what. It doesn't even matter if right now you could have gotten an iMac that's slightly faster. The Mac Pro will last you ages longer, and has all the expansion capabilities.

[mfbernstein]

Ditto. Get the Mac Pro if you want to stay on the same machine for 3-5 years, because you have an upgrade path for just about everything. RAM, CPU, HD, video card, display... Even if you drop it down to 2.0GHZ, you'll be fine performance-wise.

Get the iMac if space or power consumption are a constraint, or if you don't see yourself on the same machine for more than 18-24 months. It's not worth the cost premium for a Mac Pro if you'll just be starting over again in a year and a half, and most of the upgradability won't be taken advantage of.

[Eug]

I'd get the iMac if you want to get something well-endowed for a reasonable price now, and then upgrade again in 2-3 years, when you have more money.

So many people get towers when they don't really need them, and then end up spending much more up front for little reason.

It really depends on what your needs truly are. From your description, you aren't really in need of a Mac Pro.

[Simon]

If I were a non-pro on a budget I'd certainly rather buy a new iMac every 2 years than buy a MP today and have to live with it for the next five years. No matter how many PCI cards, disks, RAM, etc. you put in there, in 4 years from now, it's gonna be a dinosaur. Compare a Quicksilver PM to a current MP and you know what it'll feel like.

[Mac Write]

Well the Mac Pro has been approved for April 19 introduction, mid range (2.66GHZ today what ever's mid range April 19 or is under $3,200 CDN+Tax after upgrades).

I really do use the expansion. Current system, Maxed out RAM, USB2 (was really needed for iPod), replaced the DVD-R when it died and have 2 drives (useful when moved archived stuff from CD to DVD), upgraded the video card (which I like to do 2-3 years in did it on my Beige G3 as well as added USB1/Firwwire400 for OSX).

As for the Mac Pro, immedatly, I will add a 500GB SATAII drive as my Data drive and keep the main drive foe OS and Apps (OS X, test partition, Windows XP, Windows Vista (later), maybe even some linuxes (or install on G4 at my moms). I also will upgrade to the X1900 since Aperture must be put to work and I must clear this backlog of photos and process them all (reason I got the R9800 256MB last May for this MDD). I will continue to use this 19" CRT from my mom (1600x1200 80hz). Also I want to add a 500GB drive later as a "Time Machine" Drive, this means 3 drive bays will be used immediately. When Blue-Ray drives drop below $100, I will add one to the second drive bay (think 80hrs of 8mm analog video tapes 13GB/hr=1TB+ in space*2+ copies).

In 2010 Spring, I will then request the next system and my Mac Pro will be moved to my moms place for use there through 2013. I also will need to put $1,800 towards the next system in 2010, this means working my but off to find $600/yr, $50/month (not easy on permanent disability with tight money) due by May 1, each year ($600). So this means a plan is in place for the next system.

How does this sound?

[idyll]

what do you mean it has been approved for april 19 introdution? as in, new mac pros will be released then or what?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Mac Write 

Well the Mac Pro has been approved for April 19 introduction, mid range (2.66GHZ today what ever's mid range April 19 or is under $3,200 CDN+Tax after upgrades).

I really do use the expansion. Current system, Maxed out RAM, USB2 (was really needed for iPod), replaced the DVD-R when it died and have 2 drives (useful when moved archived stuff from CD to DVD), upgraded the video card (which I like to do 2-3 years in did it on my Beige G3 as well as added USB1/Firwwire400 for OSX).

As for the Mac Pro, immedatly, I will add a 500GB SATAII drive as my Data drive and keep the main drive foe OS and Apps (OS X, test partition, Windows XP, Windows Vista (later), maybe even some linuxes (or install on G4 at my moms). I also will upgrade to the X1900 since Aperture must be put to work and I must clear this backlog of photos and process them all (reason I got the R9800 256MB last May for this MDD). I will continue to use this 19" CRT from my mom (1600x1200 80hz). Also I want to add a 500GB drive later as a "Time Machine" Drive, this means 3 drive bays will be used immediately. When Blue-Ray drives drop below $100, I will add one to the second drive bay (think 80hrs of 8mm analog video tapes 13GB/hr=1TB+ in space*2+ copies).

In 2010 Spring, I will then request the next system and my Mac Pro will be moved to my moms place for use there through 2013. I also will need to put $1,800 towards the next system in 2010, this means working my but off to find $600/yr, $50/month (not easy on permanent disability with tight money) due by May 1, each year ($600). So this means a plan is in place for the next system.

How does this sound?

1) How often do you archive from CD to DVD?
2) You could use external drives. The 24" has Firewire 400 and 800, and USB 2 of course.
3) I'm not sure the X1900 is necessary for Aperture, at least compared to the 24" iMac's 7600GT.
4) I do agree having the multiple internal hard drives is nice, especially if you're going to be playing a lot with BootCamp. (BootCamp can't boot Windows off external drives AFAIK.)

It's all up to you, of course, but you did say you were trying to save money, and an iMac would accomplish that. But, if you can swing it, the Mac Pro sounds good.

[Mac Write]

My mom is paying and has approved the $3,000. Reason for Mac Pro over iMac, is life-span. This new Mac Pro won't be fully replaced until Fall 2012/Spring 2013, so it has to last. with RAM and video card upgrades slowness should be kept to a real minimal (providing no chip change happens again). This computer would be fine (well not so much thanks to hearing WoW runs like crap on this system when I thought 15fps was fast (didn't notice the choppyness) through late next year, but the Intel switch, has made the upgrade more urgent, but if that hadn't happened this would last.

One major mistake I made in 2003, was not getting the G5 1.6GHZ when I ordered this sytem (same price) in early September. This sytem was faster due to the Dual CPU's, also allot more expandable (Dual optical bays, 4 hard drive bays fully in use (storing my moms HD), 3 in use all the time).

If I had gotten the G5 1.6GHZ in 2003 upgraded to an X800 last year, how would have that faired over the next 36 months compared to this dual 1.25GHZ G4 vs singal 1.6GHZ G5?

Also when I buy I have to plan for 5-years as primary system anyways (well at least I did with the G4) since I rarely come into big money. This time a plan is in place for 2010 and late 2012 upgrade.

Now I just need to build my strength, energy, focus, and motovation into my websites so that I can generate a independent cash-flow. But I really need help with that.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Mac Write 

How does this sound?

It sounds like you really want to get the MP. And if you can pay for it (or if your mom can pay for it) everything's fine. The MP is certainly an awesome computer. Have fun!

[Mac Write]

Yes I do want it since long term (5-6 years down the road) it will fair far better then the iMac.