laptop PC vs iMac or iBook
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]
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]
Comments
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?
we're talking about an Acerview TravelMate 620..
<a href="http://global.acer.com/products/notebook/tm620.htm"; 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 editing...as 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...
GO WITH THE iMAC!
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!
other than that, the iMac hands down. it would be way faster/nicer/queiter to use.
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?"
<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.
So iMac, hands down, and it's cheaper, faster, better all around. Especially if you don't need portability.
Fast, quiet , easy to use and stunning looks - what more do you want?!
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?
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..
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 old...it 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?
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>