I am new to Mac, and I bought the Flat panel imac

[HyperJoe]

Though its not to late to cancel.
I was wondering if I made a good purchase. I dont do video for a living, so I thought that the new imac would be fine for this reason. I do video (home), alittle web desing, and office for school. I love the idea that I can burn DVD's and though for the price, I couldnt go wrong ($1757 shipped) I understand that I could get a tower for about $700 more with monitor, but I dont like spending more than what I will use it for.


What ye think? Is the new imac going to suit my needs. I dont want any flames(PC users I have 2 PC's) so...

-hyper

[dumwaldo]

I couldnt go wrong ($1757 shipped) I understand that I could get a tower for about $700 more with monitor, but I dont like spending more than what I will use it for.

hmmm interesting? the fastest mac processor is what, 733Mhz.?

you could get a Dell Dimension 8200 with a 1.8 Ghz. processor (and yes monitor included) for $1,149. you can add a DVD burner directly from dell for $500 or you could shop it yourself and probably get one closer to $400. all in all once the shipping is added in you come to approximatley the same price for a much faster machine.

just one other thing... have you thought about where the machine will be tomorow? personally i opt for the choice of versatility over the propriotary path that mac users tread.

[resnullius]

I think ou should have taken the tower cause for an equivalent tower it should cost you less for 700$ more you're probably looking at the new double processor g4 which is nice(ok i'm drooling everytime i see it...) but too expensive. however all things being equal in 2-3 years youre imac will be ready for the garbage where as a tower can be upgraded...
the imac might be nice to look at but they're toys for rich kids who can afford to buy a new computer every year...

[resnullius]

Oh and by the way as for comparing mac cpu's to pc cpu's forget about it my g3 400megaherzt mac is faster than most p4 1.5g you can't comparer them like that mac uses it speed better than pc ( I also use both mac and pc (and have work as a computer tech)so i know what i'mtalking about)

[kwag]

Hmm... Well all I can say is that I have a Mac G4 400MHZ ( Overclocked to 450MHZ ) and the speed compares roughly to a P3 @1GHZ.

I also have a P4 @1.6GHZ, and all I can say is that it beats the crap out of any G4 currently in existence.

I have tested, to be fair, latest Linux ( kernel 2.4.18+ ) on the G4 and the same version on the PC, and the PC P4@1.6G is about 3 times faster than my G4 at 450MHZ.

Megahert for Megahert, the G4 takes any Pentium CPU. So when a G4 arrives at 1.X GHZ, then it will be a fair comparison.

The problem is that Intel and AMD are going so fast, that when Motorola finally releases a G4 at 1.5GHZ+, we'll be running P4's ( or P5's! ) at 4 or 5 GHZ!.

It won't be too long to see that speed become a reality...

[resnullius]

Kwag if you're saying that your 4oo compares to a 1g pc how can the dual 1 gig (that's 2 gig my friend) not kick your 1.6 gig pc's ass...?

[AntnyMD]

I, too, would have recommended you buy a G4 tower ... mostly because I don't dig the design of the new flat-panel iMacs ... mostly because towers and generally upgradeable over a couple life-cycles.

The iMac you bought should do you well for a couple years, but keep in mind when the original iMac was released -- then the following year they took a dramatic evolutionary leap (inside) with slot-loading drives, firewire, more RAM and a faster processor.

I bought the DV model of the iMac just the other week, because when the new flat-panel iMacs were announced, my local Circuit City dropped the price on their remaining stock to around $650 each. It was a no-brainer to just go buy one! My next Mac will be a tower, though. I won't go back to PCs! I had two of them completely die on me, and now I'm wondering where do you trash these fuckers once they're dead? I'm ripping out all the good parts to sell in pieces!

[speedy]

Anyone that blows almost $1800 on a IMac when he already has 2 PC's deserves to be stuck with buying a IMac at a grossly inflated price in my never humble opinion. :P

Put all the technical double talk aside. Just ask yourself one simple question. Since Macs have been around longer than IBM clones (original PC) how come they NEVER had more that roughly 6 percent market share and only achieved that by flooding schools?

Hint: Because PC's are better. Way better, both in hardware and software availability. Since I'm guessing you're into video editing compare that grossly over priced and under performing piece of crap video editing application that almost costs $1000 written just for Macs with Vegas Video III. I hope you didn't buy Enron stock because you thought that also was a good investment.

And finally, I got news for you. Don't hold your breath waiting for Motorola to release any new chips anytime soon. That company, headquarted just miles from where I live is drowning in red ink and laying off employees like crazy and has been for going on two years.

[DiViNeLeFT]

ive used macs since the apple IIG days... so im not going to say this from a pc biased standpoint...

macs are more expensive than pcs... any way you look at it... untill apple lets you built your own macs by buying parts there will never be a cheaper mac than pc...

macs have way less software (if any it seems). pcs not only have more software that you can find on the store shelves, but more people own them so you will have a lot of useful programs written by every day people... i mean that is where a lot of our favorite video programs come from or at least originated from.

[AntnyMD]

macs have way less software (if any it seems). pcs not only have more software that you can find on the store shelves, but more people own them so you will have a lot of useful programs written by every day people... i mean that is where a lot of our favorite video programs come from or at least originated from.

... and the vast majority of your computer viruses. The freedom from having to combat the daily assault on Microsoft from your "every day people" and the virii they produce makes the cost of any Mac totally worth it.

I couldnt resist joining the platform war briefly, but I think it's time this thread died. Mac people will be Mac people and PC people will be PC people.

[kmadel]

If you want to be able to easliy create DVDs and based on everything else you want to do then an iMac is your best bet for the money. Somebody mentioned that you could get a Dell with a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4 processor for the same amount, but I GURANTEE that you will be able to edit your mini-DV footage, created a DVD menu, and burn a DVD ALOT faster on the Mac than on any PC that is close in price. I just switched to Mac's a month ago, and only after I tried going the DVD burner route with a Sony Vaio with a 1.8Ghz Pentium. The Sony took 10X the length of the mini-DV footage to encode to MPEG-2 (DVD codec), whereas my 867Mhz G4 PowerMac takes around 1.5X. Furthermore, for me and anyone who wants quick good results and not an intricate, complex program; iMovie 2 and iDVD 2 are awesome and FREE. I think you will be very happy with the iMac, and I think it is a great deal.

[HyperJoe]

Thanks for your truthful answer.

-hyper

[silver356b]

Unless you want to add PCI cards (e.g. if you are a heavy duty gamer, etc), stick to the iMac. It's fast and looks nice...and ignore the Winblows user's comments who couldn't understand your original question: iMac vs. PowerMac Tower

[kmadel]

As far as either PC or Mac users go, you can't really have a well informed opinion unless you have tried to use both for the same task. For instance to create a DVD. I have used both, and if were talking spending the same amount of money for the Mac as the PC, I would really be suprised to find an honest person that says the PC is easier to create a DVD with a nice (highly subjective, I know; how about not crappy) menu.

Now, if you want to make VCD's or SVCD's with menus, then the PC is easier. But now that blank DVDs are $5 and less, I not going to waste my time with SVCD's or VCD's.

[DiViNeLeFT]

... and the vast majority of your computer viruses. The freedom from having to combat the daily assault on Microsoft from your "every day people" and the virii they produce makes the cost of any Mac totally worth it.

I couldnt resist joining the platform war briefly, but I think it's time this thread died. Mac people will be Mac people and PC people will be PC people.

very true... no arguement here... then again though... if you dont download email attachments it seems virii are easy to combat. i dont run virus protection on any of my PCs and ive never had one.

[HyperJoe]

Well everyone, its been over 2 years since I originally posted this. All I can say is that since the iMac purchase, I have bought 2 more Apple computers. A Powermac dual gig and an iBook. ALL COMPUTERS RUN WONDERFUL and I DO NOT regret any of my purchases. For those who said that the iMac would be trash in 2-3 years is SOOOO wrong. In fact, the computer has gotten faster with the Panther Operating system upgrade. These computer just run different than PC's. Listen, dump the XP platform. For those who are considering a new computer purchase, buy an Apple.

[deadsierra]

Well everyone, its been over 2 years since I originally posted this. All I can say is that since the iMac purchase, I have bought 2 more Apple computers. A Powermac dual gig and an iBook. ALL COMPUTERS RUN WONDERFUL and I DO NOT regret any of my purchases. For those who said that the iMac would be trash in 2-3 years is SOOOO wrong. In fact, the computer has gotten faster with the Panther Operating system upgrade. These computer just run different than PC's. Listen, dump the XP platform. For those who are considering a new computer purchase, buy an Apple.

I hear the people who star on the switchers ads get some nice benefits. Maybe if you apply now you'll still get in. If not, you can dance like a maniac right?

[WiseWeasel]

If not, you can dance like a maniac right?

ROFLMAO!!! That was high-larious. I think the switch campaign is long dead. Glad to hear you're still enjoying your purchase, and that the iMac has suited your needs.

[Huntn]

I've got both a Pentium 4 3.0GB and a Mac G5 dual 1.8GB. Ive been into Macs/Apple since 1982. Into PCs for about 5 years now. Use the PC for some work related stuff and gaming but don't trust it. Use the Mac for all important computer tasks. I love OSX. I disklike XP in comparision. The registry is evil. :P

In the 5 years I've owned a PC, I've had 3 major events requiring starting from scratch, wiping the harddrive and reinstalling the OS. And this was not doing anything fancy. Just normal everyday tasks. In the 12 years using Macs, I've never had a catasrophe (sp?), have updated to about every new version of the OS without any complications. This is in comparision to my PC book which says "never upgrade you PC OS if you can help it."

The only drawback to the Mac is that it is pricey hardware and not all software is availalbe for it. But since OSX, and it's connection to UNIX, there are new programs becoming available. Ok so there are not many Mac apps. 10,000 will do for a lot of us. http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/. What is boils down to is what do you use it for? It's my first choice for a computer.

Regarding the iMac vs Tower, if you can afford it, I would have gotten the tower. I already have a monitor, and I prefer the expandability of towers over the iMac. But it's capabilities are no less. Yes a G5 is faster, but you can do all the video stuff you want on a iMac.

Generally people who go for PCs either want 1)cheap and are willing to deal with the headaches or 2) can't find specific software they need or want.

-Dave

[WiseWeasel]

I think after more than two years, it's a bit late to change his mind on that purchase. . . apparently, he liked his iMac enough to get a dual-processor PowerMac and an iBook subsequently, so it worked for him.

[galactica]

I couldnt go wrong ($1757 shipped) I understand that I could get a tower for about $700 more with monitor, but I dont like spending more than what I will use it for.

hmmm interesting? the fastest mac processor is what, 733Mhz.?

Is that what we were up to in 2002? who how far we have come.

Oh and I love the reason this post was resurected Right On!

[Huntn]

I think after more than two years, it's a bit late to change his mind on that purchase. . . apparently, he liked his iMac enough to get a dual-processor PowerMac and an iBook subsequently, so it worked for him.

Yeah, like I was paying attention.

-Dave

[miksu]

Those cheapest pc's just happen to have Celeron-processors, which is absolutely useless. If you make some searching in Internet and try to use those Celeron based (Dell) computers, you can make some conclusions.

Even the slowest iMac is currently 1GHz. As everyone knows, Megahertz-count isn't even close to whole truth.

I'm using 1.8GHz P4 (Full version, not crippled Celeron) desktop at work, and have to use it for video editing sometimes. It simply sucks, even my four years old G4/450 runs circles around 1.8Ghz P4 Your new iMac has few hundred megaherz more and double the Altivec-units. It runs circles around my "Sawtooth" Apple.

You have bought good and fast computer. Fact is, there are cheap PCs to buy, but cheap and good ones doesn't exist. Apple may be slightly more expensive to buy, but Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is low. Not to mention better OS and hardware-software integration...

In a two year, 800$ Dell with it's antiquated Celly-processor is just expensive paper weight

[GregN]

Despite being freaked out by this thread resurrection for a minute, I am glad you posted your mega-late follow-up, HyperJoe.

Your recent post helps fortify me to stay the course, or shall I say, fortify me in my future plan to alter the course, as I still occasionally waver in regard to the wisdom of making the same switch.