Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I would agree with the others here that the Intel is the way to go. Still, I would wait for Rev B. Apple Care doesn't cover everything. Apple screwed the Rev B single-1.8GHz processor Powermac G5 owners for a long time, whether they had Apple Care or not (see G5freeze.com). That sort of snag is much more likely with a Rev A product.
 
OK. Very helpful to me. Another question(hopefully, you guys are not tied of such a new user like me). Before, apple said their cpu is much much much powerful than intel's, but why they start using intel's cpu right now?:confused:
 
luis.jin said:
OK. Very helpful to me. Another question(hopefully, you guys are not tied of such a new user like me). Before, apple said their cpu is much much much powerful than intel's, but why they start using intel's cpu right now?:confused:

Well, things change after time. IBM couldn't keep up with the kind of performance upgrades that Apple wanted to deliver -- so it was time to jump ship. I think a huge factor was the lack of a fast processor for the Apple laptops -- they have been in dire need of a better processor for some time now because IBM couldn't deliver a G5 that was cool enough and energy efficient.
 
johnnybluejeans said:
Well, things change after time. IBM couldn't keep up with the kind of performance upgrades that Apple wanted to deliver -- so it was time to jump ship. I think a huge factor was the lack of a fast processor for the Apple laptops -- they have been in dire need of a better processor for some time now because IBM couldn't deliver a G5 that was cool enough and energy efficient.

OK. Fair enough. Maybe big blue needs to do their homework.
 
johnnybluejeans said:
If you have a local Apple store I suggest you go play with both the Intel and the G5 iMac.

I did exactly that today. I played with a 20" 2.0 Ghz Intel iMac with 1Gb of Ram, and I played with a 2.1 Ghz G5 iMac with 1Gb of Ram.

I was very surprised by the difference. The Intel iMac was muuuuuch quicker. I downloaded some 1080p trailers from the Apple Quicktime site, it played them with ease while the G5 choked and dropped frames when there was too much action. Then I fired up iMovie HD and played HD clips while playing the 1080p trailer at the same time, the Intel machine performed beautifully! Tried the same test on the G5, the results weren't so beautiful. ; )

If you really want to have fun, go to the applications folder, select every application on the machine and hit enter. Watch 30+ applications load in 30 seconds, including all of Office running under Rosetta. It is pretty amazing.

Awesome impressions, man. You've inspired me even more to consider the 20" iMac. :D As for 30+ launching apps, let's just say I tried that on my PowerBook G4 (specs in sig) a few minutes ago and everything came to a halting stop. :p It's all back to normal now, though.
 
Would anyone care to speculate on Apple's near term plans for the iMac G5? I'm a little suprised they didn't drop the price a bit. But maybe they figure they'll keep selling them at full price as long as people are buying them, and then just discontinue them?

Does anyone know a good place to buy a used iMac G5 (iSight)? No way am I going to buy a new G5 at the same price as the Intel.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.