trying to decide between QS Feb 2002 or newer 1 GHz

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by rburns, Sep 29, 2002.

  1. rburns macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Location:
    Jonesboro, Arkansas
    #1
    I'm trying to choose between a new stock-configured Dual GHz from Apple and a 3-month-old QS 2002, which includes a 3-yr. AppleCare plan (minus 3 mos.), a gig of ram, a SuperDrive, and an external 40-gig Maxtor FW drive--each one for the approximate same price ($2350). In other words, at the educator's price, I can get the new one at about the same price as the used one w/extras. On the other hand, the used one's AppleCare will not cover the 17" Apple LCD Display I'll be buying later w/out a rebate; whereas, Apple's currently offering a $200 rebate when customers buy the cpu and display together.

    Because benchtests reveal little difference in performance between these two models, and some posters have even complained about noise problems and little gain in overall speed in the current line, I'm wondering which will offer the best bang for the buck. I'll eventually be using FCP3 burning DVDs on whatever I get, but I'm unsure of the difference between them. I've seen that everymac.com lists the street value of the QS Feb 2002 dual GHz as worth a few hundred more than the current stock-configured dual GHz, and that these were going fast in August when smalldog and others had a few still in stock. Moreover, the used one also offers the extra warranty.

    As an educator, am I better off w/one of the new ones and buying an Apple monitor at the same time, or going w/the "older" model and buying a monitor later w/out the AppleCare plan or rebate?

    I could really use some input, especially since there's few reviews available on the new models, and I'm unsure how big of a difference there is between the 167MHz bus speed and the older 133, or the type of RAM each uses. The extra expansion bays are not really necessary in my work, either.

    Thanks in advance for any help,
    Rick
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    One thing that makes up for the lack of DDR on the QuickSilver (Feb 2002) is the 2Mb cache per chip compaired to the 1Mb on the new models.
    By the sounds of it I'd say ur better off going with the Feb 2002 Quicksilver with all those extras. :)
     
  3. TMJ1974 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #3
    I've been there....

    I recent had to make this same decision......

    In my case, I had to chose between a Quicksilver 733 that CompUSA had for $999 (including 2 year warranty) or one of the new ones (in my case, probably the dual 867) for $1699.

    I went with the Quicksilver, and with the money I saved from the new ones...I've replaced the stock hard drive with 2 WD Special Edition drives, maxed out the RAM at 1.5GB, and will add a DVD-R drive. With the upgrades, I've still spent less than $1699.

    I don't regret my choice at all....I realize "official" benchmarks will show my machine is slower than the new models, however, after having played with them in the store, my eyes can't tell any difference. Yes, for Photoshop and iMovie, the new ones would probably save me some time, but the Quicksilver will hold me over nicely until there is a "major" upgrade.

    I'll be content to keep this until Apple goes with the new IBM chip, which seems to be able to offer a significant performance boost. Until then, I'll have a drink and wait :)

    Tim
     

Share This Page