Mac pro-vs-Imac

[giantrobot]

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying I've never seen ANY computer, PC or Mac, have issues with a device that was properly set up. Not complicated properly, mind you, but simply. Are any of the cases due to user error?

(Note: I work in a customer service job at the moment (hey, I'm a college student and it's easy) and nine times out of ten the customer is wrong. I'm not trying to be rude here, but a lot of people simply don't have very much knowledge about anything technical. The tenth person is a MacRumors member )

The USB Hub problem is a complete mystery and there is alot of discussion on this on the Apple support boards. There seems to be a problem with Mac Pro usb ports not working well with hubs and in some cases not recognizing them. I cannot, for instance, run a portable hard drive off my USB hub when using a Mac but I can when I am using a PC. The Mac will even recognize it though Parellels will which indicates this is a software problem. Similarly, there are issues with a bluetooth dongle I purchased for a fraction of the price of the bluetooth card. The official line from Apple is that they only support certain bluetooth devices.

Regarding the mouse, I went through a couple before I found one that works properly. Oddly enough, the mighty mouse was the worst. The pointer would be very shaky and float around on its own. The Kensington mouse did not have this problem. This is also a common topic on the Apple support forum.

I am fairly new to Mac desktops though I had been using a g4 notebook for years and thought I could just plug stuff in like I had for the PC. Unfortunately, I spend far too much time on support sites trying to trouble shoot issues. This is not to say the Mac Pro is unstable or a bad unit but people need to understand that it is not a PC. It is essentially a toaster that you can use right out of the box and pretty much has to stay that way until you get a new toaster.

 

[dimme]

So are you saying the mac pro is not upgradable?

 

[johny5]

I bought a maxed out 2.8 Imac last september and sold it last month for a 2.8 Octo Pro.

No I didnt need it, but its the best Mac on the block at the mo

 

[alongcamejones]

I just "demoted" my G4 Powermac to the basement when I got my new 2.8 Octo Mac Pro. I kept that G4 going for nearly eight years with a new CPU (from 400 to 1.83), New Superdrive, Sata Card and 400 GB drive, BT module, Airport card, USB 2.0 card, and a ATI 9800 Video card, new keyboards and mouse being added over the years.

Nearly all of those upgrades were made possible by third parties, not Apple. Why does everyone suppose that the relatively large base of MacPro 2006 and 2008 owners would not be in the market for some upgrades in three years or so, and that enterprising third parties would not step forward with some nice, affordable, and effective upgrades that will keep it very current?

It will take the software industry 3-4 years just to fully utilize all the separate cores.

Why do we suppose that the same pattern that my G4 went through won't be replicated with the early 2008 Mac pros?

 

[new-Mac-owner]

I guess I need to slow down the impulse buying and wait till I get some more info and figure the priceing and long term use.

 

[inktomite]

Bought the imac 2.4ghz 24" - the display sucks.. bright on one side dark on the other .. full stop (aperture) difference. tested.

returned it. got another one. same problem returned it.

this is a well documented issue, but you may get lucky.

anyway. i decided the imac is a toy and i need something more.

just got my 2.8 mp quad on friday. it is faster
(geekbench score =5300 vs imac 2.4 is 3300. i hear the octo 2.8 score around 7400 if you can fork yet another $500)

i'll likely get the next apple display when it comes out sometime this year to complement this.

and like everyone states... it has major capacity potential (hd up to 4TB, memory up to 32GB), easier to fix, maintain, lower TCO..

go mac pro!

 

[xraydoc]

Buy cheap and replace often. Unless you need top of the line right now, in 1 year what's top now will be low end and cost 50% what it does now.

 

[jb60606]

Keep in mind -- you're posting this on a Mac-Pro forum. The poll was decided before it was posted.

You could have made it interesting by asking if we'd rather have the latest iMac with Intel Extreme Core 2, or the 2.66Ghz dual dual-core (or less) Mac-Pro... in which case most of us would probably still choose the latter because of it's expansion properties, choice of monitor, etc...

 

[Firefly2002]

If you buy the MP because you think the system will grow with technological development, you will be seriously disappointed. Apple makes consoles like the PS3 or X-box and will go out of its way to deny you any real upgrade so they can make you buy their new system. This is their business model and they will no more give you an upgrade path then Nintendo or Sony would for their older game consoles. They all want you to buy the next one. The Mac Pro looks like a PC box and is sold like a PC box but it is not a PC. Even the most mundane things like a bluetooth mouse or a USB hub may not work properly if OSX doesnt support it.

I would also say, if you are going to buy an IMAC, just get the Macbook Pro. The IMAC is essentially a notebook reconfigured to be stationary. At least the MBP gives you mobility.

Erm... what?

Macs have been upgradeable throughout Apple's history. And yes, the new Macs are very much PCs... in fact, that's all they are. They're just Xeons in pretty pretty cases running a nice GUI that can be run on a self-built PC.

Apple's business model has been to keep macs not expandable? Tell that to someone running Tiger on a maxed out, 12-year-old 9600 with 1.5 GB RAM (12 RAM slots) and FW/USB 2, a Radeon 9200 128 MB and four 1 TB SATA drives (6 PCI slots and lots of expansion).

Or someone running a Dual 2 GHz PPC7458 upgrade in their Quicksilver or MDD G4.

No, it's PCs that are generally not upgradeable because they don't keep the same ZIF socket. They're generally bound by the MoBo... and yes, this means you can't upgrade the CPU on the new Mac Pros, but "won't grow with technology?" There are several perfectly good PCI-E slots in that Mac Pro.... good for 10 GBit Ethernet, USB 3 when it comes out, and any manner of other upgrades.

The iMac also is meant to be used in one spot... it has a larger screen, and one which is sitting up at eye level with someone... and a keyboard you can position as you like. It's not just "a laptop in an iMac case," as it could be argued that all Core 2 CPUs are adapted mobile processors. -sighs-

Anyway, it really depends on what you're doing whether you want an iMac or a MP.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

The Mac Pro will be usable for longer - it can hold more memory, more hard drives etc, but is also a lot more expensive.

If you don't need large amounts of memory, faster processors, better graphics cards, or 4 hard drives etc, then for the same money you might be able to buy a new iMac every 2 years for the same price as replacing a Mac Pro every 3 or 4 years.

If you do need any of those things that the iMac doesn't offer, then you have no choice but to get a Mac Pro (though there are exceptions, like having external hard drives, Firewire audio interfaces, make the iMac much more expandable than all-in-one computers used to be. However, if you do need a lot of extra stuff, the Mac Pro is a neater solution than having loads of external devices all with their own power supplies.

 

[iBeard]

for work: Mac Pro
for play: iMac

 

[OnePumpChump]

for work: Mac Pro
for play: iMac

For you maybe, but I use mine for both.

 

[Qjuu]

Same problem here. And I'm getting crazy over time

Currently I have a PC connected with an 30''ACD. I want to switch to a Mac, but cannot decide between iMac 24'' or Mac Pro.

Here are some pro's and con's for myself. Maybe it'll help you. Or maybe it'll help me while I write it down

Arguments for Mac Pro:
- I could keep my lovely 30'' ACD - I love this huge resolution!
- I could get a pure gaming PC "between Mac and display" via KVM switch
- I can have a _solid_ pure gaming PC - serious gaming @2560x1600 without buying another display
- I don't have to reboot for gaming
- When I leave the gaming PC out, the Mac Pro is better for gaming than a iMac
- Possibility for dual-screen gaming (supreme commander, two MMO clients, ...)
- More power is never bad
- I could save money for an external NAS case and use the internal HD bays
- Overall more flexibility

Arguments for iMac 24'':
- Maybe I don't really need 2560x1600 pixels and 30'', I have a home cinema projector for watching movies
- I would save about 600 EUR overall (after buying a NAS case) when I sell my big ACD
- I like the minimalist design very much
- I like the glossy display (yes I do )
- No problems with dust and dirt, case is sealed - display can easily be cleaned
- No cluttered desktop (other than ACD, Mac Pro, PC, KVM switch) - just one device
- External storage (NAS) for media library is independent from Mac in case of upgrade
- Overall more simplicity - which is not bad!

At this moment I have absolutely no idea what to do. I've my credit card ready, but every decision seems not really perfect. Meh...

 

[inktomite]

Same problem here. And I'm getting crazy over time

Arguments for iMac 24'':

- I like the glossy display (yes I do )

You are going to hate the 24" screen.. Serious downgrade from your 30" ACD. If you luck out it won't have the problematic gradient issue, but it still sucks.

 

[new-Mac-owner]

The acd are very nice but I agree dont down grade your monitor size.

 

[giantrobot]

Erm... what?

Macs have been upgradeable throughout Apple's history. And yes, the new Macs are very much PCs... in fact, that's all they are. They're just Xeons in pretty pretty cases running a nice GUI that can be run on a self-built PC.

Apple's business model has been to keep macs not expandable? Tell that to someone running Tiger on a maxed out, 12-year-old 9600 with 1.5 GB RAM (12 RAM slots) and FW/USB 2, a Radeon 9200 128 MB and four 1 TB SATA drives (6 PCI slots and lots of expansion).

Or someone running a Dual 2 GHz PPC7458 upgrade in their Quicksilver or MDD G4.

No, it's PCs that are generally not upgradeable because they don't keep the same ZIF socket. They're generally bound by the MoBo... and yes, this means you can't upgrade the CPU on the new Mac Pros, but "won't grow with technology?" There are several perfectly good PCI-E slots in that Mac Pro.... good for 10 GBit Ethernet, USB 3 when it comes out, and any manner of other upgrades.

The iMac also is meant to be used in one spot... it has a larger screen, and one which is sitting up at eye level with someone... and a keyboard you can position as you like. It's not just "a laptop in an iMac case," as it could be argued that all Core 2 CPUs are adapted mobile processors. -sighs-

Anyway, it really depends on what you're doing whether you want an iMac or a MP.

Iv changed chips on my motherboard and vice versa several times. If you want to discuss expandability, I recommend you check out the "Upgrade to 8800 in old mac pro" thread - its probably the biggest thread on this forum.

If Macs are upgradable, why cant I upgrade my video card to something that is out and available in the new console?

 

[Qjuu]

You are going to hate the 24" screen.. Serious downgrade from your 30" ACD. If you luck out it won't have the problematic gradient issue, but it still sucks.

The acd are very nice but I agree dont down grade your monitor size.

Yes, indeed. This huge display alone is a very good reason for me to consider a Mac Pro. I checked an 24'' iMac in a store today. This 24-incher is big. But a 30'' ACD is just another class.

And concerning my argument about the cluttered desktop: I just searched at flickr for "Mac Pro" and found some _nice_ Mac Pro + ACD "desk arrangements"

So if I check my pro's/con's list today again - I think it should be a Mac Pro.

Thanks for your input!

 

[new-Mac-owner]

np This is turning into a good post.