Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

bbales · Dec 4, 2006, 09:36 PM

I will be purchasing a new computer in the next few months to replace my gigabit ethernet G4 (was 400 MZ, upgraded the processor a few years ago to 900 MZ). It's 6 years old and has served me well, but I'm getting impatient with speed, (anything with photos is painfully slow -- I can't TELL you how glacially slowly iphoto runs. Well, you are all using macs. You probably know!) plus figure it's just time to go intel. My kids can continue to use it for many things.

Anyway, my intention had always been to get a new tower when they came out. Now they're here and they're really probably more computer than I need. I do a lot of writing, plus a lot of web reserach, etc. I don't do video, except a bit for fun; my photo work is also primarily for fun. I'm definitely not a professional photographer or anything. Plus, those towers are pricy. So I'm thinking an imac. But I know I'd go with the 20-inch screen (though the 24 is certainly nice) and upgrade the ram, etc. If I downgrade the tower and upgrade the imac, I'm probably not that far apart on price. (I haven't done a formal comparison yet.)

In addition, I do tend to keep my computers a while. So I keep going back and forth, wondering if the tower is worth it, particularly if I keep this one a long time, as I have the one I'm currently using, whether the imac is perfectly fine for my needs (which really, it probably is), etc.

There's the timing issue, too -- I'm self-employed and had been thinking of doing this before the end of the year for tax purposes. But I probably will wait, for a variety of reasons.

Too many decisions to make ... Any help would be appreciated.

Karpfish · Dec 4, 2006, 10:17 PM

If you are keeping it a long time, id say go for the Mac Pro. It is upgradeable, so when you need more HD space or major ram in the future you can add it. Also you can get a bigger screen in the future.

macintologist · Dec 4, 2006, 10:40 PM

The iMac's hard drive, RAM and CPU are upgradeable. If you need even more HD space, then get an external RAID or something.

Get the iMac.

Scotttheking · Dec 4, 2006, 11:19 PM

Mini!

macgeek2005 · Dec 5, 2006, 12:27 AM

I haven't even read anything in this thread, but I can tell you that if you're thinking of the iMac, then get that. If you need the tower, then the iMac wouldn't be an option.

webmonkie · Dec 5, 2006, 09:06 AM

I would get a tower just for the freedom to be able to upgrade any component in the future. Example: Video Card and Monitor.

OreoCookie · Dec 5, 2006, 09:17 AM

I would like to ask you how often did you upgrade parts that cannot be upgraded for the iMac (i. e. something other than RAM, your harddrive or your cpu)? If the answer is `nothing', then an iMac is a good choice for you.

Keep in mind that nowadays many upgrades are also available as external devices.

Abbas · Dec 5, 2006, 09:38 AM

I like to game every now and then, so I'm going with the Mac Pro so I could use the x1900 under Windows for NVN2 or Guild Wars etc. Games are getting more and more demanding and I certainly need an option for upgrading to the latest/greatest graphics cards once a year or two.

I guess if you dont game and dont already have a display then the iMac should be a decent machine. Its limit of 3GB RAM is good enough for anything non-professional while the CPU and Hard drive can always be upgraded if and when need be.

-a

P · Dec 5, 2006, 10:20 AM

I usually say that unless you're absolutely certain that you do need a tower, you don't. The one thing that isn't upgradeable on the iMac is the GPU, and it doesn't look like you'll be taxing it with the needs you have specified.

bbales · Dec 5, 2006, 11:12 AM

With my current G4, I upgraded the processor, plus bought more RAM (though even that I haven't maxed out) and did a VERY minor upgrade (and that, just earlier this year) of the video card. I stayed with the original RAGE 128 (or something like that) for at least 5 years. I eventually got a new internal hard drive, plus have some externals. And whoever mentioned the external option is correct -- I bought an external DVD burner as well.

I'm leaning, once again, toward the imac, but I keep waffling.

So one other question -- and this is crystal ball time. If I get a computer now, I can get a deduction on my '06 taxes (and I'm self-employed, so believe me, every little bit helps). From reading other posts, it doesn't seem like an upgrade of the tower will happen in January. Anyone have a feeling that the imacs will see a change? To be honest, I've lost track of what's been upgraded, so to speak, when. But that would make a bit of difference to me. This strictly a monetary concern. On the other hand, January is so close I feel like waiting. I can live with what I have, though I'm getting awfully tired of watching a beach ball.

macintologist · Dec 5, 2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by P

The one thing that isn't upgradeable on the iMac

Not on the 24"

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7...ss&tag=6636341

Xyrrus · Dec 5, 2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by bbales

With my current G4, I upgraded the processor, plus bought more RAM (though even that I haven't maxed out) and did a VERY minor upgrade (and that, just earlier this year) of the video card. I stayed with the original RAGE 128 (or something like that) for at least 5 years. I eventually got a new internal hard drive, plus have some externals. And whoever mentioned the external option is correct -- I bought an external DVD burner as well.

I'm leaning, once again, toward the imac, but I keep waffling.

So one other question -- and this is crystal ball time. If I get a computer now, I can get a deduction on my '06 taxes (and I'm self-employed, so believe me, every little bit helps). From reading other posts, it doesn't seem like an upgrade of the tower will happen in January. Anyone have a feeling that the imacs will see a change? To be honest, I've lost track of what's been upgraded, so to speak, when. But that would make a bit of difference to me. This strictly a monetary concern. On the other hand, January is so close I feel like waiting. I can live with what I have, though I'm getting awfully tired of watching a beach ball.

I think you're on the right track with the iMac. You're saving over $1000 vs the Mac Pro, and you get a beautiful new LCD to boot! Nothing in your posts seems to scream "Mac Pro" to me.

-Xy

gurman · Dec 5, 2006, 07:17 PM

The only thing you're liable to be limited by if you keep an iMac as long as you've kept the G4 is the memory. The chip set on the logic board only handles a maximum of 3 Gbyte, which may seem more than enough now, but could appear paltry by OS 10.6, or whatever.

DeathMan · Dec 5, 2006, 07:33 PM

Also ask yourself if physical size is an issue for you. The MacPro is considerably larger than the G4 tower. Just something to keep in mind. If you don't already have a really nice monitor, I'd recommend the iMac all the way.

dankar · Dec 5, 2006, 08:31 PM

The new CD2 iMac is good for 100% of home usage and can also double as a workstation for graphic design and photography. Since it looks like the main usage would be for home. No point spending that hard earned money on a MacPro, no doubt it is better than the iMac. That premium dollar you are about to expel for the MacPro, can be put into a 24" iMac and you would still have loads left for a nice dinner for your family and more Christmas presents for your kids...

I have a MacPro on the way to replace my old dual 2ghz G5, because my investment can be recovered as I am using them mainly for business. But if I have to get a Mac for my home, it would be the 24" iMac... Hope this information helps.

tkmd · Dec 5, 2006, 10:23 PM

Probably the Imac will fit 99% of your needs. However, if you are a heavy multitasker I would suggest the mac pro - it is a multitaskers wet dream. I have done work on this mac pro that would have brought most mac to their knees but I NEVER felt a slow down. Just amazing. Yes you can upgrade some of the internals of the iMac but it is more difficult than the MP - because in the MP you have room to work.

motionMan · Dec 6, 2006, 12:30 AM

iMac was upgraded to C2D, what, in August-September? I would say it would be safe to get one now even with MWSF so close, but then there's what happened this time last year. I think it was Sept-Oct of '05 they upgraded the G5 iMac to include the iSight camera and front row and a few other things, then *bam* January brought the Core Duo iMac and there were a lot of pissed off brand new G5 iMac owners. Just some food for thought.

galarneau · Dec 6, 2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by msonyxx

Its'not a spam

Oooh.... that's a relief. I was worried for a minute.

brokenjago · Dec 7, 2006, 04:06 AM

Oct. 12th is when they upgraded the iMac to the iSight model, and January 9th is when they introduced the Intel Core Duo Model.

The iMac was upgraded to C2D on Sept. 2nd.

P · Dec 7, 2006, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by macintologist

Not on the 24"

24-inch iMac not as 3D-upgradable as you might think - Alpha Blog - alpha.cnet.com

The OP specifically stated that he won't consider the 24" model.

bbales · Dec 7, 2006, 10:43 AM

I did a quick pricing, upgrading some of the ra here and downgrading the processor (in the Pro) there. I can't remember the exact specs, but I could get the 20-inch imac with 2 GB of ram, plus some other options for about $1,900, the Pro for $2,600 (yikes!) or for $2,369, if I downgraded the processor. Somehow I had a 24-inch imac for $2,214, or, with an upgraded processor, at $2,439. I was seriously thinking of the 24-inch, at that point!

I'm still going back and forth. I do love my current tower and have used it for a long time. But those things are big, as someone else noted, and they really are expensive.

I do appreciate all the comments. It's good to have people point out various points I neglected to think of on my own.

GORDYmac · 03:24 PM

I'll just add that I owned an iMac at one point (1999), and its limited expandability really bugged me. I bought a Quicksilver 933 back in 2002, and never looked back. Now that I am considering an Intel Mac, expandability is less of an issue, but I'd hate to cut myself off from the option. Using external drives & USB hubs with the iMac was the main irritant.

I've added RAM, 3 hard disks, 8 extra USB ports (4 front 4 rear), and an extra CPU fan, but no processor/GPU upgrades to date. I also have a gorgeous 20" Apple Cinema Display (ADC) that would break my heart if I retire it.

As I write this, I think I've made up my mind to go with a Mac Pro--with a DVI-ADC adapter, of course.

Just thought I'd share.

brokenjago · Dec 7, 2006, 04:26 PM

The 24" iMac is a beautiful computer. I wouldn't go for the processor upgrade though, it's overpriced.

pyrite · 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Uscredit

Hi ladies and gentlemens, i have found the place with information about blablabla … (I've edited out the link, OreoCookie)

bugger off

Simon · Dec 8, 2006, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by brokenjago

The 24" iMac is a beautiful computer. I wouldn't go for the processor upgrade though, it's overpriced.

Apple pays Intel $214 more for the 2.33 GHz Merom than for the 2.17 GHz version. The upgrade costs $250. That doesn't exactly sound 'overpriced' to me.

I'd rather argue that for somebody who isn't CPU performance limited, $250 might just not be worth it.

P · Dec 8, 2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Apple pays Intel $214 more for the 2.33 GHz Merom than for the 2.17 GHz version. The upgrade costs $250. That doesn't exactly sound 'overpriced' to me.

I'd rather argue that for somebody who isn't CPU performance limited, $250 might just not be worth it.

Overpriced by Intel, then - but that's always the way. The high-end CPUs cost a lot more for just a little bit more performance. The high GPUs do the same. It's almost never worth it, but some people must be buying them or they would lower the price.

SierraDragon · 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by bbales

...I do a lot of writing, plus a lot of web reserach, etc. I don't do video, except a bit for fun; my photo work is also primarily for fun. I'm definitely not a professional photographer or anything.

There's the timing issue, too -- I'm self-employed and had been thinking of doing this before the end of the year for tax purposes. But I probably will wait, for a variety of reasons.

WAIT.

Mac Expo SF is in one month, and substantive changes to the Mac world usually happen then: products, pricing, technology, etc. Specifically, a doubling of Mac Pro cores is virtually guaranteed, which will rearrange the Mac product mix and pricing, including driving Rev.A MP prices down.

You should reintroduce this thread in a month. If you need the expense item on 2006 taxes, just buy a non-CTO box from Apple December 29, don't open it, and exchange it January 9th if necessary. Keep your eye on Apple's Refurbished offerings on December 28th because they may telegraph where prices are going - and often are excellent purchase choices for folks like you whose power needs are minimal.

Personally I consider iMacs generally poor choices for desktop usage because they have the limitations (primarily the serious inability to increase RAM in the coming 64-bit world) of laptops, without the benefits of portability. IMO you should be including laptops in consideration in addition to refurbished Mac Pros.

If you have never used a powerful laptop as a desktop replacement you really, really should think about it. Macbook Pros rock (mine is a 17" C2D upgraded from a PB G4; I will upgrade my G4 tower in January). The benefit of computer usage anywhere in your home with an inexpensive Airport setup is huge. Not to mention being able to take your work platform anywhere.

WAIT. And we should revisit this after Steve's January 9 Keynote Address when prices and purchase choices will have changed.

-Allen Wicks

Gorloth · Dec 8, 2006, 11:02 PM

I'd try and wait until 10.5 comes out. Adobe CS3 should be out at the same time. If your not a power user the iMac would suit you fine. Custom order it with a 256 Meg video, then you can run an external monitor. The iMac screen is barley adequate. If you do that go for the 20". I don't think you can get the 256 Meg graphics with the 17" imac. I sold my dual G5 last Aug and had the 17" since Feb 06. Then started using it when the G5 was gone. I have a 1TB raid0 and an external DVD burner system I put together. A dual Pioneer DVR-111D with dual ATAPI to FW bridge boards. An external 24"Samsung 244T monitor. Firewire rules you really need it with an iMac. PS: I think the iMac is almost due for a internal redisgn. Wait till after the Keynote speech. Perhaps a Kentfield iMac is in the wings

brokenjago · Dec 9, 2006, 02:31 AM

I personally wouldn't be able to wait the 4-6 months until Leopard to buy a Mac.

That's just me.

Gorloth · Dec 9, 2006, 11:55 AM

Well I can understand brokenjago. If you don't have a mac yet...well lifes just to short to go with out a Mac

brokenjago · Dec 9, 2006, 03:26 PM

Yeah

mduell · Dec 9, 2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Apple pays Intel $214 more for the 2.33 GHz Merom than for the 2.17 GHz version. The upgrade costs $250. That doesn't exactly sound 'overpriced' to me.

FYI, per iSuppli's analysis, Apple pays about 13% less than the 1Ku prices.
So you're paying Apple $250 for an upgrade that costs Apple $186; some other OEMs charge $400 for the same upgrade.