cinema display+mac pro vs. Imac

[jimbo110]

I'm also still very confused in a way i love imac. In a perfect world I would upgrade with a 23" cinema display for my mac mini and when leopard comes out I would buy a more powerful machine. Since imac comes with a built-in display imac is not a option. It's too much wasted money to buy a cinema display and then a imac. In a way mac pro may be a overkill. But in a way mac pro is the next logical step after buying the cinema display

 

[jimbo110]

I'm also still very confused in a way i love imac. In a perfect world I would upgrade with a 23" cinema display for my mac mini and when leopard comes out I would buy a more powerful machine. Since imac comes with a built-in display imac is not a option. It's too much wasted money to buy a cinema display and then a imac. In a way mac pro may be a overkill. But in a way mac pro is the next logical step after buying the cinema display

Any advise or suggestions?

 

[barr08]

I'm not sure if I can answer your questions in a technical manner, but I can say this:
I am a web design/CS student, so I usually have quite a few apps open at a time. Often, these are apps running in rosetta (PS, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Office). I have a 20' intel iMac with 2 gigs of ram, and it runs anything I want it to way faster than I need it to. It is the best computer I have ever used. It runs osx, windows, and any app I have tried flawlessly. The screen is more than big enough for almost anything you'll need to do.
I'd say get a 20' iMac, get 2g ram, and do your thing. It sounds like you don't really need the power of the mac pro.

 

[GreatDrok]

I have MacBook Pro 2.16Ghz and an iMac G5 (1.8) - the difference in the speed of Adobe's CS2 applications is noticable for me too, but not significant enough to hamper my workflow. On the converse - the universal binaries I've added on my MacBook run much, much faster than they do on the G5. Maybe RAM is a factor in your experience? I have 2GB in both of my machines which could offer some padding against the slow-down from Rosetta (my MacBook Pro is much slower in openning the programs, but I don't notice much difference really in using them.)

I have 2GB in my MBP and 1GB in the Mac mini. I stand by my comments. Photoshop is much faster on the PPC mini than it is on the MBP. Granted, once started the MBP isn't too bad but to me I find any PPC app feels sluggish. I'm still running Office X rather than 2004 because it is much quicker but still there is a feeling of lag in many operations which isn't present on a PPC Mac. I bought iWork 06 to get universal binary support because iWork 05 was also laggy.

Also, I have found that the G4 is a significantly more efficient processor than the G5 and my 1.42 mini performs similarly to the 2Ghz G5 iMac we have here. In fact, now that I have an external Firewire 7200RPM drive on my mini it feels very fast and sometimes I even feel that the MBP feels slow starting universal apps. Safari on the mini now opens instantaneously whereas with the internal drive it always took a few seconds. I was going to upgrade my desktop system but with the new external drive I feel the speed boost is sufficient that I don't really think I need to just yet.

 

[Fotograffiti]

Love my 20" iMac

I have to agree completely with barr08. I bought a 20 inch iMac w/ 2 GB RAM and it does everything I need to to do without any trouble. I run a ton of apps at the same time all the time. I use Photoshop on it and it really isn't bad and I know that it will be even faster once the software is Universal. I had a dual 1 Ghz G4 Powermac and was drawn to this when I upgraded cause with a scanner, printer, Wacom tablet, external drives, and everything else I hook into it, I need to conserve space where I can. The screen is nice and bright (actually I don't turn it all the way up cause it is too bright at highest level) and couldn't ask for a more beautiful picture. I don't think that there is a real need to go with the 23" display. Yeah, it is always great to have more screen but it isn't like you are going to be held back by a 20" screen. I am sure whatever you decide you will be happy but maybe by going with the iMac, you can spend the extra money you would save on other things you could use. Also I don't think I would worry about the getting outdated real soon either, especially if you are someone who upgrades their systems every few years. I don't see there being anything I can't run for quite awhile with this machine.

 

[jimbo110]

I have to agree completely with barr08. I bought a 20 inch iMac w/ 2 GB RAM and it does everything I need to to do without any trouble. I run a ton of apps at the same time all the time. I use Photoshop on it and it really isn't bad and I know that it will be even faster once the software is Universal. I had a dual 1 Ghz G4 Powermac and was drawn to this when I upgraded cause with a scanner, printer, Wacom tablet, external drives, and everything else I hook into it, I need to conserve space where I can. The screen is nice and bright (actually I don't turn it all the way up cause it is too bright at highest level) and couldn't ask for a more beautiful picture. I don't think that there is a real need to go with the 23" display. Yeah, it is always great to have more screen but it isn't like you are going to be held back by a 20" screen. I am sure whatever you decide you will be happy but maybe by going with the iMac, you can spend the extra money you would save on other things you could use. Also I don't think I would worry about the getting outdated real soon either, especially if you are someone who upgrades their systems every few years. I don't see there being anything I can't run for quite awhile with this machine.

Thanks for a really helpful reply. Think your are right. The mac pro + display. Costs about the same as a imac 20" 2GB + mac book. And i wouldn't mind having black macbook

Hope apple will upgrade imac when in conjunction with the expo in paris. Since i really need a bigger display soon. I just measured my display it's only 15"

 

[nate13]

Wait!

this just might be some unnessary caution, but the imac is LONG past overdue for an update, so wait to see what the next month has to bring, that way you could at least save money on either option you choose.

 

[jimbo110]

this just might be some unnessary caution, but the imac is LONG past overdue for an update, so wait to see what the next month has to bring, that way you could at least save money on either option you choose.

Good idea will wait to the end of september

 

[bgerber]

FCP on iMac ??

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread back in August. I am resurrecting it because yesterday's announcements seem to add some concrete details.

Returning to my central question: Can anyone speak from experience about how well FCP (all the Studio apps) and/or Shake run on the CURRENT iMac configuration? I am not daydreaming here; I do not expect a 30 minute HD production with effects to RT render on any iMac. But do these high-end apps run acceptably well on a current iMac?

I am not doing huge amounts of HD work and nothing under tight production deadlines. I have speced out a low-end MacPro that seems suitable: 2.66 Woodcrests, 4GB Ram, the mid-range ATI video card. I will wait like everyone else for the new iMac benchmarks but if someone here can tell me that they are ALREADY running FCP Studio on a current iMac, then that really helps me gauge the likely suitability of the newly announced version with a 2.33 Merom and 3GB RAM.

Thanks, Bob Gerber