buyer's remorse: 20"->17" or 17"->20"???

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by kugino, Feb 4, 2006.

  1. kugino macrumors 65816

    kugino

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    #1
    i just sold a pretty beefy PM setup with tons of storage and ram and a 20" aluminum display. i'm going to "downgrade" to one of the intel imacs and save the rest of the money for the next great thing that steve will unveil later this year (i'm tepidly looking forward to some kind of multimedia or tablet device...)

    anyway, i know the answer to this, but i'll throw it out there. which scenario will cause me the greatest "aw, crap" moment? is it buying the 17" and later wishing i had spent the few hundred dollars to get the 20", or is it buying the 20" and realizing that it's not that much better than the 17" and i should've just gotten the 17"?

    yes, some of you will say i'm crazy to even think about getting a 17" after my 20" cinema display...but i'm wondering if there are people out there who got a 20" iMac (intel or G5) and later wished they had gotten the 17". and if so, what are the reasons?
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    It's a balance between screen real estate and size. I love my 17" since it's small and light. I'd love the resolution of the 20" one though. :rolleyes:
     
  3. mongoos150 macrumors 6502a

    mongoos150

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    #3
    Light?!?!?! What does it's weight have to do with anything...it's not going to leave your desk {often}!
     
  4. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #4
    I wanted an iMac G5 / 20" and settled on a 17" that came along at the right price and with the right features. So far, I do kind of wish I had a 20", but I've been very happy with the 17". To be honest, somehow, with Exposé, screen real estate is not such a huge deal for me. Which is a change from being a resolution whore on Windows. :rolleyes: So it isn't that much of a chore for me to go back and forth from the resolution on my iBook 12" to this. Although full vertical screens of PDFs are much more legible on here. :)
     
  5. Josh396 macrumors 65816

    Josh396

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Location:
    Peoria/Chicago, IL
    #5
    I've had 2 20" iMacs and there's no way I'd want a 17". After using mine for a few months and going back to my Aunts 17" at work it seems so much smaller to me. If you want to save the money for something else then that's fine but you may regret since you've already used a 20" display.
     
  6. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #6
    Remember, you can now double your screen real estate with a second monitor. I got the 17" because I didn't think the 20" was $400 better - sometimes I wish I had, when I see them together in the Apple store, but I'm happy with this.
     
  7. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #7
    I got the 17" as a result of Apple offering a 17" Intel iMac in exchange for returning the Developer Transition Kits early. I was glad they did that, but disappointed that they didn't give us the option to upgrade and pay the difference.

    However... now that I have it, I love it. If I were buying one, on my own, to keep, I'd probably get the 20". Not just a bigger screen, but a better one spec-wise. Of course, that extra $400 could buy a separate Dell 20" to go with the 17".

    But, the 17" is much more portable. For most iMac owners, that's a non-issue. But, since my employer won't buy me a Mac, I've taken to bringing my iMac to work with me in an iLugger bag, and I'm quite happy not to be carrying around the extra weight.

    Personally, if you're buying the next great thing when it's announced, save the $400 towards that, and get the 17".
     
  8. kugino thread starter macrumors 65816

    kugino

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    #8
    this is probably the main reason screen real estate's not that big of an issue. i've thought about just picking up a cheap 20" monitor if i ever felt claustrophobic with the 17". i'm not into gaming so the 256mb video ram's not an issue..hmmm...the price difference b/n the two from amazon w/rebate is $375. i was playing around with both today at the s.f. apple store and they're both beautiful...
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #9
    Lugging my 17" home in the Apple box was not at all bad. But you're not moving your iMac on a daily basis, are you? :eek: :(
     
  10. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #10
    Get 20 inch. Now Apple offers a better stuff inside that *screen* :D

    256MB video card, faster CPU cores, better displays, bigger HD :)
     
  11. macbaseball macrumors 6502a

    macbaseball

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Northern California
    #11
    I have to second that. The 20 inch display is significantly bigger, than a 17inch. I use every inch of my 20 inch. In actuality, I'm regretting not getting a 23. Definitely get the 20 inch iMac and all the upgrades it comes with.
     
  12. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #12
    Every work day. Honestly, it's cake with the iLugger.
     
  13. macbaseball macrumors 6502a

    macbaseball

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Northern California
    #13
    I looked on their site, and saw the one for the Power Mac. :eek:

    I wouldn't want that on my back. The iMac one looks manageable though...
     
  14. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #14
    No kidding. Even Sherpas would weep at the thought of carrying a PM on their backs.
     
  15. kugino thread starter macrumors 65816

    kugino

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    #15
    yes, better stuff behind the screen...but, 2.0 not significantly better than 1.8. hard drive is significant difference for me, though. the 20" screen is nice, too...two word documents side by side at 125% view. i like that. crap. well, i have until tuesday 'til amazon's rebate offer ends...will go back and forth until then.

    do you guys think amazon will extend their rebate past the 7th?
     
  16. macbaseball macrumors 6502a

    macbaseball

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Northern California
    #16
    177 MHZ is more significant than you would think. On paper they are just numbers. They look like they are really close but if you actually tried it out, I'm sure there would be a difference. As for amazon.com, they are always running promos like that one, but I wouldn't take a chance since you know pretty much what you want.
     
  17. p0intblank macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #17
    I for one would go for the 20-inch model. This is because I do photo editing and other related tasks, so I would really need the screen real estate.
     
  18. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #18
    I've lugged my iMac from home to campus. I'm weak so I can barely make it up the stairs with it as it is.
     
  19. arcsbite Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    #19
    I just got rid of my G5 iMac for an intel iMac, I use a 2nd 17" monitor so couldn't justify the extra cash for the 20"
    the only thing that made me think twice was the fact you can't take the 256 VRAM with the 17" *sigh*
    but, 2 17" monitors side by side trumps 1 20" in my book.
     
  20. arcsbite Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    #20
    ok, that didn't even touch on your querstion, sorry.
    my advice would be, go for the 17", you're holding out for new releases so don't blow extra cash on a machine that you may not be keeping for that long.
    I guess the choice is yours, best of luck
     
  21. Josh396 macrumors 65816

    Josh396

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Location:
    Peoria/Chicago, IL
    #21
    Exactly. With the 20" screen you get a bigger screen, HD, and a faster processor. I love my 20" Intel iMac. The extra Mhz probably aren't a huge difference but when I buy a computer I like to get the best at the time just incase future upgrades in software demand a little more, which they always do. It's a tough call but I'd go with the 20".
     
  22. arcsbite Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    #22
    but when it comes to the cash difference, I saved £300, lost a little processor speed, hard drive space (which is cheap as chips nowadays) and a few inches, which i've never really noticed, but then that could be because I've always used 17"
    and technically all intel iMacs are HD.

    *shrug*

    I guess it depends on your use for the machine and how much you're willing to pay for the extras.

    Edit - sorrry, you meant hard drive, I thought you meant High Def. My Bad,
     
  23. kugino thread starter macrumors 65816

    kugino

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    #23
    i don't doubt that an additional 177MHz would certainly be faster...but from the tests i've seen (like on barefeats) the 3-5 seconds of speed improvement with the 2.0 (on most tests) isn't, at least to me, that significant. since they have the same bus speeds, same ram capacities, and same video cards (assuming you stay with the 128mb), i guess it comes down to the monitor. that 20" IS very nice, and that may be the swing vote. i guess i'm trying to be cerebral about the purchase, but when it comes down to it, it comes down to what "feels" better...that, to me, is the difference between mac owners and pc-buyers...it's also an emotional purchase for us (at least for me it is) :)
     
  24. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #24
    Aaaaagh!

    Okay, sorry. Where is this 177MHz number coming from?

    It's 2.0 GHz (166 2/3 MHz front side bus (quad-pumped to 667 2/3 MHz, if you want to call it that,) times 12,) or 1.83 GHz (same bus speed times 11, which is actually 1.83 1/3 GHz.) For a difference of 166 2/3 MHz. (Or, to round off, 166MHz, not 177.) Heck, even if you round to the numbers Apple uses (2.0 GHz = 2000 MHz and 1.83 GHz = 1830 MHz,) you get 170 MHz difference, not 177.

    Simple math, people!

    Yes, this whole thing is meant party in jest.
     
  25. kugino thread starter macrumors 65816

    kugino

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    #25
    heh heh...167 it is...i didn't even bother to do the math myself, just quoting the reply. is subtraction simple? who knew...:D
     

Share This Page