I'm also still very confused in a way i love imac. In a perfect world I would upgrade with a 23" cinema display for my mac mini and when leopard comes out I would buy a more powerful machine. Since imac comes with a built-in display imac is not a option. It's too much wasted money to buy a cinema display and then a imac. In a way mac pro may be a overkill. But in a way mac pro is the next logical step after buying the cinema display😕
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
cinema display+mac pro vs. Imac
- Thread starter jimbo110
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
barr08
macrumors 65816
I'm not sure if I can answer your questions in a technical manner, but I can say this:
I am a web design/CS student, so I usually have quite a few apps open at a time. Often, these are apps running in rosetta (PS, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Office). I have a 20' intel iMac with 2 gigs of ram, and it runs anything I want it to way faster than I need it to. It is the best computer I have ever used. It runs osx, windows, and any app I have tried flawlessly. The screen is more than big enough for almost anything you'll need to do.
I'd say get a 20' iMac, get 2g ram, and do your thing. It sounds like you don't really need the power of the mac pro.
I am a web design/CS student, so I usually have quite a few apps open at a time. Often, these are apps running in rosetta (PS, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Office). I have a 20' intel iMac with 2 gigs of ram, and it runs anything I want it to way faster than I need it to. It is the best computer I have ever used. It runs osx, windows, and any app I have tried flawlessly. The screen is more than big enough for almost anything you'll need to do.
I'd say get a 20' iMac, get 2g ram, and do your thing. It sounds like you don't really need the power of the mac pro.
GreatDrok
macrumors 6502a
rcm said:
I have 2GB in my MBP and 1GB in the Mac mini. I stand by my comments. Photoshop is much faster on the PPC mini than it is on the MBP. Granted, once started the MBP isn't too bad but to me I find any PPC app feels sluggish. I'm still running Office X rather than 2004 because it is much quicker but still there is a feeling of lag in many operations which isn't present on a PPC Mac. I bought iWork 06 to get universal binary support because iWork 05 was also laggy.
Also, I have found that the G4 is a significantly more efficient processor than the G5 and my 1.42 mini performs similarly to the 2Ghz G5 iMac we have here. In fact, now that I have an external Firewire 7200RPM drive on my mini it feels very fast and sometimes I even feel that the MBP feels slow starting universal apps. Safari on the mini now opens instantaneously whereas with the internal drive it always took a few seconds. I was going to upgrade my desktop system but with the new external drive I feel the speed boost is sufficient that I don't really think I need to just yet. 😀
Love my 20" iMac
I have to agree completely with barr08. I bought a 20 inch iMac w/ 2 GB RAM and it does everything I need to to do without any trouble. I run a ton of apps at the same time all the time. I use Photoshop on it and it really isn't bad and I know that it will be even faster once the software is Universal. I had a dual 1 Ghz G4 Powermac and was drawn to this when I upgraded cause with a scanner, printer, Wacom tablet, external drives, and everything else I hook into it, I need to conserve space where I can. The screen is nice and bright (actually I don't turn it all the way up cause it is too bright at highest level) and couldn't ask for a more beautiful picture. I don't think that there is a real need to go with the 23" display. Yeah, it is always great to have more screen but it isn't like you are going to be held back by a 20" screen. I am sure whatever you decide you will be happy but maybe by going with the iMac, you can spend the extra money you would save on other things you could use. 🙂 Also I don't think I would worry about the getting outdated real soon either, especially if you are someone who upgrades their systems every few years. I don't see there being anything I can't run for quite awhile with this machine.
I have to agree completely with barr08. I bought a 20 inch iMac w/ 2 GB RAM and it does everything I need to to do without any trouble. I run a ton of apps at the same time all the time. I use Photoshop on it and it really isn't bad and I know that it will be even faster once the software is Universal. I had a dual 1 Ghz G4 Powermac and was drawn to this when I upgraded cause with a scanner, printer, Wacom tablet, external drives, and everything else I hook into it, I need to conserve space where I can. The screen is nice and bright (actually I don't turn it all the way up cause it is too bright at highest level) and couldn't ask for a more beautiful picture. I don't think that there is a real need to go with the 23" display. Yeah, it is always great to have more screen but it isn't like you are going to be held back by a 20" screen. I am sure whatever you decide you will be happy but maybe by going with the iMac, you can spend the extra money you would save on other things you could use. 🙂 Also I don't think I would worry about the getting outdated real soon either, especially if you are someone who upgrades their systems every few years. I don't see there being anything I can't run for quite awhile with this machine.
Fotograffiti said:
Thanks for a really helpful reply. Think your are right. The mac pro + display. Costs about the same as a imac 20" 2GB + mac book. And i wouldn't mind having black macbook😉
Hope apple will upgrade imac when in conjunction with the expo in paris. Since i really need a bigger display soon. I just measured my display it's only 15"
FCP on iMac ??
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread back in August. I am resurrecting it because yesterday's announcements seem to add some concrete details.
Returning to my central question: Can anyone speak from experience about how well FCP (all the Studio apps) and/or Shake run on the CURRENT iMac configuration? I am not daydreaming here; I do not expect a 30 minute HD production with effects to RT render on any iMac. But do these high-end apps run acceptably well on a current iMac?
I am not doing huge amounts of HD work and nothing under tight production deadlines. I have speced out a low-end MacPro that seems suitable: 2.66 Woodcrests, 4GB Ram, the mid-range ATI video card. I will wait like everyone else for the new iMac benchmarks but if someone here can tell me that they are ALREADY running FCP Studio on a current iMac, then that really helps me gauge the likely suitability of the newly announced version with a 2.33 Merom and 3GB RAM.
Thanks, Bob Gerber
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread back in August. I am resurrecting it because yesterday's announcements seem to add some concrete details.
Returning to my central question: Can anyone speak from experience about how well FCP (all the Studio apps) and/or Shake run on the CURRENT iMac configuration? I am not daydreaming here; I do not expect a 30 minute HD production with effects to RT render on any iMac. But do these high-end apps run acceptably well on a current iMac?
I am not doing huge amounts of HD work and nothing under tight production deadlines. I have speced out a low-end MacPro that seems suitable: 2.66 Woodcrests, 4GB Ram, the mid-range ATI video card. I will wait like everyone else for the new iMac benchmarks but if someone here can tell me that they are ALREADY running FCP Studio on a current iMac, then that really helps me gauge the likely suitability of the newly announced version with a 2.33 Merom and 3GB RAM.
Thanks, Bob Gerber