Intel iMac vs. 1.67 ghz PB

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by macaddicted, Feb 11, 2006.

  1. macaddicted macrumors regular

    macaddicted

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Down on Copperline...
    #1
    I currently have a 17" 1.67 ghz PB that I bought while I was doing freelance design/marketing work. I have changed jobs out of that field and no longer need the laptop. I would like to get something with a little more speed, but I don't want to go the laptop route anymore. I am considering buying an Intel iMac but I don't know if there is sufficient differnce to make the upgrade worthwhile.

    I have been checking things out here and elsewhere and am thoroughly confused. While I would still need to use apps like Adobe CS2 occasionally I figure they can't possibly be as slow as they are on the laptop even under Rosetta. Any information or advice (No, the laptop will be going to a family member if I transition. No, I won't adopt/marry you.) you could give would be appreciated.
     
  2. cnakeitaro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    #2
    Well the iMac is the fastest thing you can get unless you want to fork over the money for a Powermac. The Quad Core G5 system is going for $3299 w/out a monitor, and there are plenty of things in that system I would want to change. The iMac is going to be the best deal for your money. The Core Duo can compete with a Dual Core G5, and you already get a nifty 17 or 20 inch monitor glued to your new computer.
     
  3. FF_productions macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #3
    I would NOT go the INTEL route this early in the transition.

    It will be up to 18 months before Adobe makes their Apps Universal. I would check out the Apple Refurbs (POWERMAC G5's). Being that you want that extra speed, go in the direction of the PowerMac. I actually regret getting a iMac because of the lack of expansion and upgrading (For Video Editing)

    What field are you currently in now?
     
  4. sw1tcher macrumors 65816

    sw1tcher

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #4
    regarding CS2, what's your definition of occassionally?

    If you use it every day or even several times a week, I would say get a G5 iMac or, better yet, a PowerMac over the Intel iMac. Running CS2 under Rosetta will be about equal to your PB. It might be a bit faster if you load it [Intel iMac] up with RAM, but I don't think it will provide you with the leap in performance compared to a PowerMac.

    Check Apples refurb section. You can usually get a Dual 2GHz G5 PowerMac for about $1500.
     
  5. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #5
    I think the chief question is "What would you qualify as slow?"

    If you can put up with a bit of slow for now, the Intel Mac represents the future.
     
  6. shrimpdesign macrumors 6502a

    shrimpdesign

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    #6
    I use Photoshop CS2 on my 17" Intel iMac. I'm a graphic designer, but I'm in college right now, so I was buying for the future. I've used Photoshop since 5.0, and a very young age ... anyways, CS2 takes a very long time to load with 512 RAM. Once it opens, it's bearable. Things get faster as I used it (Rosetta caches the translation process). I was designing a website, so it was nothing hi-res, it was slow for designing a website. But it worked.

    I have heard that more RAM makes Rosetta go much much faster. I think I'm going to add a gig soon. I figure that'll at least speed it up to my previous Mac (a MDD dual 1Ghz PowerMac)

    I have a feeling that Adobe will release CS3 before 2007. All of Apple's computers should be Intel by then, it would be really stupid to release a Universal Photoshop along with the last Mac to go Intel.
     
  7. MacMyDay macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Location:
    Cambridge, England
    #7
    I've got a 1.3GHz PowerBook, and just purchased a 1.83GHz Intel iMac. The speed difference is absolutely incredible. But, after having had it 2 days, I suddenly find that specific apps either don't work or aren't supported yet, and for that reason I would say wait a few months. You can certainly tell that Adobe products aren't yet Universal, but it's still far quicker than my PowerBook.
     
  8. Chrispy macrumors 68020

    Chrispy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Location:
    Avon, IN
    #8
    I would say wait. If you are going to be using adobe software you will regret not having native support. It sounds like Adobe and Microsoft are taking their time making this transition happen. I have an iBook 1.33 with a 7,200 RPM hard drive and I get good performance out of Adobe and Indesign CS. I would just stick it out with your current PB for awhile as they are great machines.
     
  9. macaddicted thread starter macrumors regular

    macaddicted

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Down on Copperline...
    #9
    My family is opening a retail uniform shop and they asked me to help since I am the only one with anything close to experience in managing and operating a business. Of course I will be doing the advertising, and probably the web site. I was doing several 4/c ads a month, on top of managing the art department and the web site before, I won't be doing nearly that much design work in the future.

    I also have access to a G5 1.6 ghz, which has been a good system except for the Apple RAM failing (I was going to upgrade the RAM anyway). It is significantly faster than my laptop in just about everything, but I needed the laptop because my previous employer required that I work often at their location and would not supply me with the hardware I needed (the down side of freelancing).

    I was hoping I could compromise between the laptop and the desktop by purchasing a "luggable" Intel iMac. I would like to be able to take my computer out of my home office if it is absolutely necessary, something that is difficult to do with a desktop computer. And a speed boost would be a definite plus.

    Thanks for to all for your advice. I have to admit I am fighting the urge to buy the latest/greatest thing. I know I will not be buying a new laptop, the portability isn't worth the extra expense; and I won't be buying a desktop, the faster processor is great but the last expansion card I put in was a SCSI card (two systems ago) and I have never come close to maxing out the memory. So the choice is to wait until the next generation iMac comes out or not.

    Decisions, decisions.
     
  10. rtkramer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    #10
    How much ram is in that PB? Photoshop is a ram hog, I had a 17" with 2 gigs and it ran fine, just fine, I have been using apple computers since the Apple II and using Photoshop since version 1.0 dont tell me about speed. Of course it will always run better on a G5 Dual duh! I picked up a returned 17" imac just for kicks till my MBP gets here. It has 512 mb CS2 does not run any slower than on the PB with 512mb. I even ran a test on a file with a ton of layers and compared the two, the imac was slightly faster. I ran the Photoshop blur spin test on both and the iMac beat the PB by a minute. Keep your PB for now and pump up the ram man! Or get the 20" iMac CD, nice machine, make sure to get extra ram! Or spend 3.5k and get a G5 Quad.
     
  11. macaddicted thread starter macrumors regular

    macaddicted

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Down on Copperline...
    #11
    rtkramer thanks for your input. The PB has 1 gb of ram. I know more ram will make for a faster system, but I don't know how much more speed I would get at this point.

    I still haven't decided. I readily admit that the PB is a great computer and that I am looking at the Intel iMac because it is the newest kid on the block. But it will be either a new Intel iMac or nothing, I'm looking at this because I want it not because I need it.
     
  12. maverick808 macrumors 65816

    maverick808

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    Scotland
    #12
    I had a 1.5GHz PowerBook and I now have a 20" iMac CD (and waiting on a MacBook).

    Having used both I can tell you that Photoshop is actually faster under Rosetta on the iMac than it was running native on my PowerBook. The startup time is slightly longer (like maybe 25 secs when it was 20 on the PowerBook) but once it's loaded the iMac completely outperforms the PowerBook. Both the machines have 1GB.

    So if you are judging on Photoshop use alone then the iMac is the better of the two machines.
     
  13. macaddicted thread starter macrumors regular

    macaddicted

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Down on Copperline...
    #13
    Actually I spend most of my time in InDesign and Illustratror. I do have to do some editing and recomposing in Photoshop, but I'm not a Photoshop power user.

    If I do decide to buy this new system (it's about 60/40 that I will right now) I am definitely going to put at least a 1 gig more memory in it, perhaps more.

    Besides, I just bought two D(H)ell computers for my new business. I feel unclean.
     

Share This Page