your opinion: 20" Imac G5 or 23" apple cinema display + mac mini... if you HAD to get a mac desktop right now.
your opinion: 20" Imac G5 or 23" apple cinema display + mac mini
- Thread starter whistleclient
- Start date
I'd wait a bit for the next revision of the iMac G5 - which should be pretty soon. The measily 32mb of video ram in the Mini isn't enough to drive the 23" display and still have smooth expose animations. Of course, if that doesn't matter to you... get the mini.
If I even had to touch a Mac, I'd bash myself in the head repeatedly until the liquid crystals from the cracked display mixed with the blood coming out of my cracked head and then id drink the liquid crystals and sacrifice the monitor to the gods... That's what I think of Apple lol.
Here's a nice ad for Apple: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=apple.wmv
Here's a nice ad for Apple: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=apple.wmv
23" + mini
you can always "upgrade" the mini to a full size G5 tower later on. with a imac, you're stuck with that and you have to replace the entire setup if you'd like an upgrade in performance
you can always "upgrade" the mini to a full size G5 tower later on. with a imac, you're stuck with that and you have to replace the entire setup if you'd like an upgrade in performance
20" iMac G5. No comparison. The mac-mini is garbage, and 3 extra inches of LCD on top of 20 inches already is negligible. You will have a better resale value with the iMac once most people figure out the mac-mini is total shiite. In any case, don't buy an Apple at all because they suck for the most part.
Mac Mini + more memory + 23" Cinema Display. At least if you decide to upgrade to a G5 or something else you won't have to replace such a magnificent display. All-in-one's just seem too limiting to me unless your key concern is space.
If you already have a monitor and perhaps a keyboard and mouse as well, the Mini is a perfect drop-in machine.
If you're buying this for your boss and you want minimal mess, the iMac G5 is pretty darn slick (and looks better in person than it does in the online photos).
Neither is very good at gaming, though the 64mb gfx memory in the iMac makes it slightly better. The Mini only has 32mb which will cause some choppyness when using Expose to scale/tile the windows, but there's no lag, it's just not a butter smooth animation anymore. The Mini can drive 1920x1200 quite well. But you'll have to ask yourself what the machine will be used for. Chances are, if you need a 23" monitor, you probably also need some more CPU power than what a 1.25ghz can give you!!
If you're buying this for your boss and you want minimal mess, the iMac G5 is pretty darn slick (and looks better in person than it does in the online photos).
Neither is very good at gaming, though the 64mb gfx memory in the iMac makes it slightly better. The Mini only has 32mb which will cause some choppyness when using Expose to scale/tile the windows, but there's no lag, it's just not a butter smooth animation anymore. The Mini can drive 1920x1200 quite well. But you'll have to ask yourself what the machine will be used for. Chances are, if you need a 23" monitor, you probably also need some more CPU power than what a 1.25ghz can give you!!
jamesbond007
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2000
- 5,280
- 0
- 71
Personally, I'd get a G5 tower, even if it was a single, and some 17"+ Cinema display. I like being able to upgrade if I want.
core video will be part of 10.4? andnot supported on radeon 9200, but will be on FX5700. but I have seen a mini drive a 23" nicely.(not gaming)
I think you mean CoreImage and FX5200.
The latest rumors claim that CoreImage will be supported on all G4 and G5 based systems, but that the newer/faster GPUs will of course lead to much more performance.
Unless the next version of iMovie and iDVD require full hardware CoreImage (I doubt it) I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The largest benefits of CoreImage are going to be with Final Cut Pro and Shake to accelerate render times and provide for more real time effects. There will also be some improvements to hardware acceleration of the Mac OS X GUI itself, but like Quartz vs Quartz Extreme, the real world performance differences probably won't be huge.
I think it all boils down to looking at your needs. If you're a gamer, get a PC or a game console. If you really need a 1920x1200 monitor, a Mac Mini will be able to drive it, but it probably won't have nearly enough horsepower to run the sorts of applications you want to use on that monitor.
FWIW, the Mac Mini I have is used to drive a 1280x1024 monitor and is mainly used for web, email, word processing, home videos, and digital photos. It's perfect for that.
Core Image makes a huge difference to performance on machines that have a GPU that it supports. On machines with unsupported GPU's, it just works the same as in Panther, but with supported ones, the OS is just so much faster (because graphics is now sent fully to the GPU, and not handled by the CPU at all). I know someone who's tried it on an eMac and a PM Dual 2.5. There wasn't much performance difference between Panther and Tiger on the eMac, but on the PM there was a huge performance boost.
apple looks good, that's it.
they are easier to use b/c they eliminate customizability, and b/c it's natively got less features accessible to the user, it's of course simpler.
i think it's overrated.
they are easier to use b/c they eliminate customizability, and b/c it's natively got less features accessible to the user, it's of course simpler.
i think it's overrated.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter