Finally, many years later than wise, I'm about to upgrade my old G3 iMac... but to which of the new ones - 20-inch 2.0 or 24-inch 2.8?
As usual, budget is a constraint but, as whatever I buy will likely have to last awhile (I got 7 years from the current G3 - and I'm still happy with it, but it can't handle web video and some other stuff), I'm ok to spend more now to get the smart choice.
None-too-techy, many of the benchmark tests are over my head. And, although I'll use Photoshop to edit an image for the web, the '21-step processes' used in speed/power testing just confuse me.
Having maybe a dozen Firefox tabs open, with BBEdit, Thunderbird, Transmit, Photoshop, iTunes and maybe a couple other apps open are about as much as my load gets. Oh yeah, and sometimes I have to open an about-an-hour mp3/aiff and chop it into 5-10 minute bits.
Realistically, am I likely to get a worthwhile performance boost with the 2.8 rather than the 2.0? Common sense says it should maybe be 40% - but is that likely to be noticeable on my work pattern.
And, monitor size... I'm getting older and my eyes are crap. I run the G3 15" at 800x600 - at 1024x768 the type is just too small to read comfortably.
A larger screen should help, but quick math suggests otherwise... with the 20-inch running 1680x1050, that's twice the resolution on a screen just one-third larger - won't that make things even smaller and harder to read?
With the 24-inch at 1920x1200, that's up to 15% higher resolution on a screen 20% larger - so am I right in thinking 'on a 24-inch, things'll look around 5% larger than they do on a 20-inch'? (And sure, I know I can lower the resolution, but I've noticed things get fuzzy at lower than default.)
Suggestions appreciated. Please and thanks.
As usual, budget is a constraint but, as whatever I buy will likely have to last awhile (I got 7 years from the current G3 - and I'm still happy with it, but it can't handle web video and some other stuff), I'm ok to spend more now to get the smart choice.
None-too-techy, many of the benchmark tests are over my head. And, although I'll use Photoshop to edit an image for the web, the '21-step processes' used in speed/power testing just confuse me.
Having maybe a dozen Firefox tabs open, with BBEdit, Thunderbird, Transmit, Photoshop, iTunes and maybe a couple other apps open are about as much as my load gets. Oh yeah, and sometimes I have to open an about-an-hour mp3/aiff and chop it into 5-10 minute bits.
Realistically, am I likely to get a worthwhile performance boost with the 2.8 rather than the 2.0? Common sense says it should maybe be 40% - but is that likely to be noticeable on my work pattern.
And, monitor size... I'm getting older and my eyes are crap. I run the G3 15" at 800x600 - at 1024x768 the type is just too small to read comfortably.
A larger screen should help, but quick math suggests otherwise... with the 20-inch running 1680x1050, that's twice the resolution on a screen just one-third larger - won't that make things even smaller and harder to read?
With the 24-inch at 1920x1200, that's up to 15% higher resolution on a screen 20% larger - so am I right in thinking 'on a 24-inch, things'll look around 5% larger than they do on a 20-inch'? (And sure, I know I can lower the resolution, but I've noticed things get fuzzy at lower than default.)
Suggestions appreciated. Please and thanks.
