laptop PC vs iMac or iBook

in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Im going to buy a new computer in about a week or so, but im kinda confused...

I have a choice over an iMac 700Mhz G4 with 384+ RAM, or a laptop PC, 1,1Ghz with 256 of RAM...

im a Photoshop freak, and i REALLY...REALLY, want to try OsX and Photoshop 7 when it's released...

the case is, how will the G4 700Mhz compare to the Pentium 3 1,1Ghz ?

and will OsX run smoothly on that Mac i mentioned?

hoping for some good response,

memo , [email protected]


  • Reply 1 of 13
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    pscates? paging pscates?

    How much do you need portability? And what kinda PC laptop are we talkin'bout? Prices and spec please: resolution? video? HDD, firewire? etc etc?
  • Reply 2 of 13
    memomemo Posts: 4member
    i dont really need that makes no difference to me...

    we're talking about an Acerview TravelMate 620..

    <a href=""; target="_blank">here</a>

    it's with a 14.1" monitor, but i dont know the resolution... im guessing 1280x1024 or something..

    i have a max price at 2000$.

    i wont do any heavy video i said, mostly graphics and a small apache server.

    HD isn't that bigadeal either...20gig is enough, but nothing below that...

    there is really nothing i absolutely NEED...
  • Reply 3 of 13
    we're going to be a little biased here; of course, i'd say:


    if you're going to do any work with photoshop at all, or any work in the area of creativity (music, video, IMAGE EDITING, etc.), then the mac can't be beat. it's the number one platform for all things creative.

    i use both macs and pcs for music production, web page design, and graphic design/image editing, and in all three areas, i prefer the mac. photoshop runs much faster on the mac than it does on a pc. the interface is also more straightforward on the mac...and hey, once it's on OS X, you'll be blown away by the GUI. as well as the overwhelming myriad of features availible to you at your very fingertips.

    for everything else, macs and pcs are pretty much created equal. except in internal hardware design (where pcs already have ddr ram and all that other nifty stuff that we mac users so longingly crave for but still are waiting for apple to implement into their computers) -- but even that will change in the near future because apple has no choice but to catch up.

    get the imac and you'll never go back!
  • Reply 4 of 13
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    something to keep in mind. i happen to find the 10x7 res. on the iMac and iBook to be limiting if you're doing graphics work. not sure what the iMac or iBook's max output is to an external monitor, but you may want to consider that. if you're doing a lot of photoshop work, 10x7 is pretty tight.

    other than that, the iMac hands down. it would be way faster/nicer/queiter to use.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and shock everyone and suggest that you go with the iMac.

    People seem to forget that just two years ago, all the magazines and posters and layouts and whatever were done using Photoshop 5 on a sub 400MHz G4 (or even G3).

    So why wouldn't Photoshop work really well on a 700MHz G4?


    Perception and history.

    If it helps make the case, I used a 400MHz G3 iMac for over two years and used Illustrator and Photoshop quite a bit. And never ONCE thought "gee, I could sure use a 2GHZ G5...".

    Get the iMac, enjoy the iApps and the overall tightness and coolness of the experience and quit worrying about the numbers so much.

    You know, THAT'S my new mission in life: to spread the gospel that it isn't about MHz and other numbers (not always, anyway) and that other factors are (or should be) given more importance in choosing a computer. Or even choosing between two platforms.

    My MOM, for crying out loud, is buying into the whole MHz thing, and all I want to say is "what are you possibly going to be doing that you think you need all that horsepower anyway? Does AOL and Solitaire suck less at 1.8GHz?"

  • Reply 6 of 13
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>Get the iMac, enjoy the iApps and the overall tightness and coolness of the experience and quit worrying about the numbers so much.

    You know, THAT'S my new mission in life: to spread the gospel that it isn't about MHz and other numbers (not always, anyway) and that other factors are (or should be) given more importance in choosing a computer. Or even choosing between two platforms.


    Amen, brother.

    If it weren't for the GREAT software, and how insanely easy it is to use, I might be swaying to the PC right now.

    This new XP1800+ box in my office is fast, stable, and really not bad to use at all. I'm actually kind of impressed with XP after reading all the bashing of it here...

    But man - nothing compares to my Mac when I'm ripping a CD, watching a DVD, burning CDs... There just isn't anything in the Windows world that can touch the Mac in these areas. Throw in video editing, putting up websites on your iDisk, organizing digital pics, the Mac starts to shine.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    If you're concerned about screen resolution, the iMac is still a better choice than a laptop with 14" screen (most likely 1024x768 resolution). The iMac's 15" screen is larger, but only by a little. Anyway, the laptop you're considering is an Acer, which is one of the worst PC makers out there (my friend has one, and he tells me often how much he hates it compared to his eMachines).

    So iMac, hands down, and it's cheaper, faster, better all around. Especially if you don't need portability.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    mimacmimac Posts: 872member
    It Just has to be the new iMac! I have just recently bought the new 800Mhz Superdrive with 512Mb 1dimm and I can tell you honestly that this machine really kicks pc ass!

    Fast, quiet , easy to use and stunning looks - what more do you want?! and NO I DONT work for Apple - 'cos before I bought this I had used everything from macintosh color classics up to 2Ghz pentiums and still this baby doesn't fail to impress.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    memomemo Posts: 4member i just found out,

    why not get a PowerMac (better hardware specs), and use my old 19" monitor, and a monitor switcher (i wont use the pc and mac at the same time anyways)..

    wouldnt i get the most out of my money if i did this?
  • Reply 10 of 13
    mimacmimac Posts: 872member
    Hmmm.... which Powermac? I think you'd get more bang for your buck with the superdrive iMac than just the entry tower, both have similar specs but iMac already has the monitor.

    How OLD is your CRT? Better hope it holds out or you could find the cost of a decent new one could blow your budget,then you have the question of calibration etc..
  • Reply 11 of 13
    memomemo Posts: 4member
    the iMac 700Mhz and the PowerMac 800Mhz are

    about the same in price...

    the only difference between them, is that

    iMac is fitted with a DVD-rom/CD-RW

    and a GeForce2 MX card...

    But it only does 1024x768 in resolution on the "onmachine"-display...

    then again, PowerMac has a better CPU, an can do a much higher res...

    My CRT is a couple of years can do 1280x1024 @ 85Hz etc...

    it's an Hitachi CM715, if that tells you anything...

    i also have an old 17" monitor...

    what do you mean by hold out?

    what isnt't holding out?
  • Reply 12 of 13
    At a $2,000 price point, the iMac G4 800 Mhz SuperDrive is the best value. Unless you already have a good monitor, remember that PowerMacs do not come standard with a monitor. The DVD burner can also be used for data, and at 4+ GB, a DVD-R isn't bad for backing up large files. I'm using 2 DVD-R discs to back up all my MP3s.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    This is going to sound a bit boring compared to some other suggestions, but I think a refurb G4/800 or G4/733 along with a 15 inch LCD and AppleCare is going to get you more bang for the same price as the iMac--so long as burning DVDs isn't an issue. Make sure, if you go PowerMac, that you get the LCD and computer on the same invoice, which makes the LCD eligible for AppleCare at no extra charge; otherwise the LCD is not eligible for AppleCare at all and you would be stuck with a one year warranty, which is unacceptable for any monitor.

    If, of course, you go portable; bear in mind that the 12 inch iBook is much more compact and lighter; whereas the 14 inch iBook has a much faster CD burner (8-8- instead of 4-4-) and longer battery life. If it's your only computer, the 14 inch iBook has a lot to commend it.

    [ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: photoeditor ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.