Can I get an answer?

chaos

I have heard good and bad things about Macs. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



Here's my problem.



I mostly used PC's and Windows throughout my "computing life." I have used Apple Computers/Macs in School, but they were "Old" and some of them were "REALLY old." (So I don't know a whole lot about Macs)



I have a good Computer now, but there is just too much competition to get on it (I have a Big Family) and I NEED to have it a lot of the time for "work". So, I need a Computer of my own. I have always liked the "look and feel" of Macs, so I went to Apple's Site to check out some of the comps they have. I knew I wanted something like the iMac or the New iMac but the thing is it's low system bus.



I mean I can live with 600-700MHz; but the 100MHz system bus isn't enough... (Me thinks)



The Basic things I will be doing with the iMac or New iMac is:



Photoshop 7

Music

Internet (2-3+ Browsers Open)

Instant Messaging

E-mail

Chat



Some Simultaneously.



(I Usually use with my PC; 2-3 Internet Browsers, Photoshop 7, and Instant Messaging (AIM) simultaneously.)



My question is, Can an iMac or New iMac with 600-700MHz, 100MHz System Bus handle that ("that" is; 2 Internet Browsers (IE), Photoshop 7, and Instant Messaging (AIM) and still be relatively fast? The PC I use now has 800MHz (I'm not sure about system bus).



Help?



[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Chaos ]</p>

eman

For browsing, music, chat, e-mail and instant messaging the new iMac would be great. I really don't know about Photoshop since I don't use it. If you do get an iMac go for a new iMac and not an iMac G3. You'll be much better off with a G4, especially with Photoshop.

tacojohn

coming from the PC world you might be convinced ny intel that MHz matters- well it doesn't.



The G4 at 800MHz is about the same as a Pentium 4 at 1.5 or around there. The G4 uses a thing called the Velocity Engine where the G3, P3, or P4 doesn't (well P3 and P4 have thier own thing, but its not as good). This little thing vastly improves performance- check it out on Apple's site:



<a href="http://www.apple.com/imac/processor.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/imac/processor.html</a>;



I have a slow 500 MHz G3 iBook and I have more than 1 window open at a time- photoshop, IE, MSN, Mail open at the same time- you need to get a lot of RAM if you don't want your system to slow down. RAM is where its at for multi-tasking.



BTW- make sure you run OS X and not 9- 9 blows

steve666

&gt;BTW- make sure you run OS X and not 9- 9 blows&lt;



It blows if you don't like an OS that is twice as fast as OSX. Right now OSX blows...............................

whee

I'll have to agree with EmAn about mostly everything except Photoshop. Photoshop will be greatly benefited by a G4 over a G3, but perhaps hindered by the (relatively) low resolution of the LCD iMac. It depends on how seriously you're into that -- the iMac would be a great choice, regardless. It shouldn't have any problems handling those tasks.



I would also go with the recommendation of running OS X over 9, especially if you plan on doing a lot of simultaneous tasks. People may perceive it as being slower, but it can help you be more productive. Since you're going to be a 'new' user, I'd recommend getting used to what's going to be the future, and not getting into habits that may be required for previous operating system versions.

eman

[quote]Originally posted by steve666:

<strong>&gt;BTW- make sure you run OS X and not 9- 9 blows&lt;



It blows if you don't like an OS that is twice as fast as OSX. Right now OSX blows...............................</strong><hr></blockquote>



OS X is slow sometimes and everyone knows thaat. To say it blows is just ridiculous. First of all it's an OS that's been around for a year. I think it's pretty damn good after one year. Second, the good outweighs the bad with OS X. Like I've said various times, IMO the stability is worth a little slow down.

ghost_user_name

[quote]Originally posted by steve666:

<strong>It blows...</strong><hr></blockquote>H'yah! H'yah! Back in yer' cage, troll!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



Hi Chaos,



Don't worry about the 100 MHz system bus on the iMac. Shoot, the dual GHz towers only have a 133 MHz bus! Go visit that Apple Store again and take an iMac for a test drive. Play wth it for a while. See if it "feels" fast enough for you. Unless you are doing some CPU-intensive (particularly with AltiVec) work like video editing or lots of Photoshop filters, you won't notice a hit from the bus alone.



You need to remember that having all those apps *open* won't make a bit of difference because they all won't be "working" at the same time. I mean, you're not going to be rendering HTML in those browsers, filtering e-mails, transmitting of chat, and applying Photoshop graphics all simultaneously... are you? Of course not. Most people's apps sit idle most of the time. Web browsers only hit the CPU while they're fetching and drawing the layout for web pages. Chat programs only hit the CPU while they're transmitting data and render messages to the window. Photoshop only hits the CPU while you're drawing or applying filters.



Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah, don't worry about the numbers! Most of these numbers are meaningless when comparing Macs to PC. It may sound cliche, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.



I'll agree that Macs aren't the fastest at certain tasks. That doesn't matter, though. I use a Mac not only for its speed (I use FCP a lot and the G4's AltiVec helps immensely) but also because of the user experience. The way things work on a Mac are so much easier, logical, and cleaner than anything I experience with Windows and Linux.

chaos

Wow, you guys are really helpful. Thanks.



Now my new problem is:



iMac



or



The New iMac?

eman

[quote]Originally posted by Chaos:

<strong>Wow, you guys are really helpful. Thanks.



Now my new problem is:



iMac



or



The New iMac?</strong><hr></blockquote>



New iMac... for the price the old one is crap.

serrano

or an eMac



sounds like that'd be the best compromise, a little slower but it'll take care of the screen rez problem, plus it's 17

chaos

EmAn~ Thanks.



janitor~ Uh... I'm not so sure I would be able to get it.



<a href="http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/routingpage.html"; target="_blank">http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/routingpage.html</a>;



[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Chaos ]</p>

luca

I don't think an eMac is a good deal for an individual purchase for a student. A combo eMac is only about $100 cheaper than a combo iMac, and for the extra cash you get a much better screen and better ergonomics with the moving screen. Otherwise they're the same. I'd personally get an iMac over an eMac. I'd only get an eMac if it was $200 less than the iMac.



Of course, the CD-ROM eMac is really a good deal, IF you don't need a better optical drive.

agent302

[quote]Originally posted by steve666:

<strong>&gt;BTW- make sure you run OS X and not 9- 9 blows&lt;



It blows if you don't like an OS that is twice as fast as OSX. Right now OSX blows...............................</strong><hr></blockquote>



I really hate to respond to this... BUT, OS X is slower than OS 9 in certain things, like window resizing, application launching, browsing contextual menus, etc. BUT, this is largely Finder related stuff. As a work environment, OS X is MUCH faster than OS 9. Why? Because, while I wait for a webpage to load, I can go respond to my friend on IM, or type more in a paper on Appleworks. In OS 9, I would have to wait for one task to finish completely before I could go onto the other tasks. OS X seems slower because, when people first move from OS 9, they use their old computing habits, they wait for tasks to finish. After using OS X for awhile, though, you'll discover that your work patterns change, and that when you take full advantage of preemptive multitasking, you'll discover that OS X is lightyears ahead of OS 9.



That said? Chaos, get a new iMac. For what you want to do, it's the best machine for your money. Now me, I bought a new powerbook yesterday .

eman

[quote]Originally posted by Chaos:

<strong>

janitor~ Uh... I'm not so sure I would be able to get it.



<a href="http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/routingpage.html"; target="_blank">http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/routingpage.html</a>;



[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Chaos ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



If you wanted one I'm sure you could always find someone who can get it for you.

steve666

OSX on the internet is excruciating. Put a Windows user in front of OSX on the web and they would laugh at us. Sorry, OSX is not ready for prime time. OSX 10.2 is their last chance to show that it is a modern operating system in every sense of the word. Its pretty to look at, but give me functionality..................................... .....

eman

steve, on a lot of sites Windows browsers are even faster than OS 9 browsers, just not as much as OS X. Like I've said before, the OS is a year old. Of course there's going to be problems. They'll get worked out. The browsing speed isn't great, but it's useable.

fischer

My .02¢:



The $799 iMac is a good second computer - as long as you're happy with OS 9 @ 800x600. It will easily do the job if you're looking for a word processing/e-mail/IM/web terminal.



To run OS X, Photoshop and iMovie, however, a G4 processor and larger display would make life far more pleasant. If you're edu-eligible, the eMac is a steal at $1049. Personally, I'd go with the eMac since it's cheaper than the flat-panel iMac, I prefer its design, and have no need for a modem or additonal CD-RW/DVD-ROM. But that's me.



Don't forget - there are also a lot of G4s out there if you don't mind buying used.



Good luck!



[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Fischer ]</p>

matsu

If you can buy edu, you might want to look at a 733 tower.

eman

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

<strong>If you can buy edu, you might want to look at a 733 tower.</strong><hr></blockquote>



Yeah, those are definately worth the money.