I know variations on this have been asked to death but with the new iMac and prices I'm hoping to find a little more guidance: The price difference between the dual 2.8 Mac Pro with the 2600XT (either refurb or MacMall ) and the iMac is about $400 depending on rebates and tax, etc. Add a decent monitor (22"-24") to the MacPro and the price difference is $800-1000. I know that usually the answer to "is the MacPro really THAT much better" is usually, "depends what you do with it." But $800-1000 doesn't seem like a huge price to pay for a significantly better computer - especially when you consider that you'll be dumping a monitor with every new iMac you buy and with the next MacPro you may purchase, you could keep your same monitor which means that the next price difference when you next upgrade makes the price diff between iMac and MacPro a lot less. Perhaps I'm too optimistic about the chances of keeping the same monitor! I've had this dual 800 G4 for about 7 years, and felt the benefits of not buying an iMac for most of it. But now I want to start doing a lot more and I don't want to feel tempted to buy a new iMac in 2 years or likewise feel that I should have just gotten the Mac Pro and enjoyed it perhaps twice as long. So do you get the same benefit with dual processors nowadays where the system and the apps use both, or does the system do just as well using the iMac's two cores? I hope that question makes sense! I've been out of the loop for a long time. Is the Xeon in the new Mac Pros so significantly better than the iMac chips that I'll get more life out of it and not feel the slowdown before the iMac that just came out? Anyways you get the gyst of my dilemma by now I bet! In other words, I'd pay more in a second if I thought I'd get more life out of the MacPro as well as enjoy better performance, AND be able to get the next Mac Pro in say 4 or so years without having to buy a new monitor. K... that's a lot of rambling but I SURELY would appreciate any help!