new to apple..help me to decide

I understand that heat is not an issue with the Intel imacs but you may have more of an issue running those apps until they are optimized to run on the intel machine.

I would go for the lowest dual-core G5 with 2GB or more Ram and use a cheap 17-19" CRT. LCD is horrible for Photoshop work.

I wouldn't go for an Intel Mac until the end of the year or possibly even next year when you will get Leopard bundled with it and much more native apps should be available.

The lowest Dual-core G5 tower is the best value IMO for performance and upgradability in Apple's lineup at the moment.

Why do people STILL say LCD is horrible for Photoshop work. Every marketing company and photo studio I have been to in recent years have moved to good quality LCD screens like Eizos or Apples. They are excellent image processing platforms now especially for web work. Many places are going for the Apple monitors because of their quality and even tradional CRT manufacturers are phasing out CRT monitors for high quality LCD variants.

I would avoid the Intel Macs for now because of Adobe's applications not being native to the Intel/Mac platform at the moment. A highend G5 iMac (20") or lowend dual core G5 tower would be a decent investment right now. However, if Adobe says they'll release Intel versions of their suite by the Summer, that changes everything.

Most of us long-time Apple buyers always get the minimum RAM from Apple and then order the rest from OWC or Crucial or other reputable vendors. If this means that you wind up with an extra DIMM that came with the computer, just eBay it.

'cos I use both and CRT is way better. But I think you hit the nail on the head:


I probably should have said that in a price comparison, CRT is way better than LCD. I'm sure the high quality LCDs are acceptable but my brother who is a graphics designer says his CRT is better quality than his boss's Apple Cinema display. It's not susceptible to glare for one thing.

All the LCDs I've used have shown noticeable aliasing artifacts at some point or other and the colour reproduction is rarely consistent with the viewing angle.


Yeah I think so:

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

The Intel transition was mainly made to get rid of the outdated G4 lineup once and for all though so the G5 still holds up well. If IBM had delivered a chip at G5 performance that ran with a laptop's power requirement, Apple might not have switched.

The Intel chips will outperform the G5 because a lot of software is written for PCs originally and I heard it was easier to optimize software for Intel chips because the compilers do a lot automatically (heck we only just got auto-vectorization in XCode 2.1 or something and it doesn't even work very well). For example, games ported to the Mac were always a bit slower because of that. But at the moment, a G5 is standing fairly evenly with the x86 competition and I would reckon it will hold up well for the next year or two.

The most important thing for most people is getting professional work done and the Intels aren't ready for that yet, which is likely why they haven't released the Intel tower yet. I would only consider the Intel when all the pro software is available and even then you have to weigh in the cost of getting Intel versions of them. The upgrades likely won't be free.


Hardly any noticeable difference in the long term I'd say. If you configure the machines exactly the same (including HD) the difference is £270. For that you get an extra 300MHz per processor and a slightly faster fsb. You would notice a slight difference in situations where you are encoding video where you click encode and just let the processors burn away but for Photoshop stuff where it's more interactive, you wouldn't tell the difference. As you can see here though:

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

even for those tasks where you just let the processors do all the work, the difference between a dual 2.5 and a dual 2 isn't all that much so a dual 2.3 will be even closer to the dual 2.

I use a 1.5GHz powerbook and a 1.25GHz Mac Mini and CPU-wise, they are pretty much identical performance when using them. The GPU is better on the powerbook so it feels faster at certain things but all CPU stuff is practically the same.

The thing I like about the lower one is they give you the choice to get a 160GB drive. That's plenty for me and saves you £50. With a total saving of £320 over the dual 2.3 opting for the lower HD, you could even get the 7800GT and still be cheaper.

Concerning Ram, Apple's Ram prices get a bad reputation but recently I don't think they are too bad. The Mac Mini Ram from Apple was about the same as Crucial's. I just checked the G5 and 2GB on Crucial is £131-237 and there you have to fit it yourself. Apple's price is £210. Now buying from Crucial means you will get an extra 512MB that came with your machine.

I'm not sure if you'd still be able to use that though. I think the G5 has 4 Ram slots but Crucial Ram kits come in pairs. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable even putting Ram in such an expensive machine because your warranty could be at risk for the sake of £80 or so. Plus you don't have the hassle of waiting for Ram to be delivered, getting it fitted and making sure it works.

For most tasks especially Photoshop, I'd go for the 2GB Ram and 6600. I use the 6600 in a Quad G5 and it plays Doom 3 at second best quality (you need a 512MB card for highest quality). The 7600 would probably give you about a 25% speed up so in most cases it's not worth it.

It is possible to use some PC cards in Macs but you have to flash the firmware. In general, it's not possible to use them as they are. When you want to buy a GPU for Mac, you have to get Mac editions of the cards. This site has more information on it:

http://strangedogs.proboards40.com/i...ead=1111556315

^ that's probably the oddest subject mix on a site I've ever seen. Flashing GPUs and shaved poodles.

Another thing you might want to look into is buying a mouse. The new Macs come with Mighty Mouse and it's not very good IMO. I prefer Microsoft's Intellimouse. Still, the mouse comes with the package so you can decide that later.

Apple will be updating Powermac soon, wait. Going G5 when Apple is in the middle of transition isnt very smart. Unless you need it now just wait. G5s aint all the spin Apple makes them up to be.

In most cases I would agree, but here I think that the PM may not be such a bad idea. Adobe has yet to announce ship dates for UB apps, and the intel mac tower has yet to debue.


If this is a bread-and-butter tool, then get the PPC now and come back for an intel this time next year. Let the others find and work out any CS3 kinks and quirks with the UB port, not to mention the potential for rev Bs, if the PM is announced in Aug, then Feb/mar 07 seem like a logical update and/or price cut time.

I agree that there are too many unknowns to wait. Unknown when PMs will be released this year, unknown when UB Adobe apps will come out. If you need a solid machine that runs Photoshop well, get a PowerPC Mac. The Power Macs are a great choice.

Put my vote in with a_greer and CosmoNut. Get it now and use it well for a year or two or three until everything has been updated and is running well.

This is a transition period so there is the risk that something might not work as expected, so use what already works; don't gamble your income on the unknown.

I have a dual core 2.0 with 2GB RAM and it purrs like a kitten while screaming through my work - mostly done with Illustrator, InDesign, Pages, Keynote, iMovie and iDVD.

I'd say getting a Mac with a PowerPC processor is a kind of stupid decision right now, if you're able to wait until September.