That would be a sober decision if using a commercial package like PhotoShop. They have too many customers and too many lines of code. That adds up to not recompiling their software for a long time until customers had the boxes and they were whining.
My AGTC example is the opposite. I am using a program used by three people and it needs recompiling if you breath on it. But adding the port to 8 processors is the holy grail to long chuggers like this. 2 hours so much better than 4 hours. You make up in processors what you screw up in coding.
I've found that, (and I think I am only taking MacGizmo's advice on this) is that something like Photoshop works just as well on the off the bleeding edge boxes like a nice fast iMac. Those boxe are about a year behind the curve and the iMac is about two years behind the curve so good match.
I guess I am contradicting myself a second time. or is that three?
Yeah I'm having the SAME thoughts Varmit ... I'd really jump if the iMacs had quad core and I think that will happen in the next 12 months – after Snow Leopard arrives. Probably overkill, but one would have plenty of room for growth and make that puppy last 6-7 years.
... the towers are clearly aimed at power users. LOL! I just don't think I am one of those.
Au contraire, mon frère! I place you directly in the category of power users.
In my humble opinion, and from the track record of numerous clients running new(er) iMacs, the Intel iMac has indeed dramatically narrowed the gap between consumer and professional product. The obviously overwhelming drawback to the iMac is expandability. Other than adding RAM, nothing is "user friendly" and to a power user, the lack of sufficient I/O ports can be a deal breaker. Having to resort to a USB hub generally proves problematic for many, including myself - and I also yearn for additional FW400/FW800 ports.
After careful study of the take apart manual, I wouldn't touch internal servicing "with a ten foot pole"! Those who take the risk of accessing the internals run a strong risk of voiding their warranty, as Apple can now quite easily detect user tampering. And if one needs to rely on an Apple Store for take apart service, the queue can be as long as a week or more. Even the Store techs don't like taking them apart.
In regards to the performance differential between the iMac and Mac Pro, there's more to the equation than just the processors; bus speed and cache sizes play an important role in almost all processes, not to forget the fact the Mac Pro allows far greater RAM expandability well beyond 4 GB and one should carefully consider these facts if any consideration is given to longevity and ability to "squeeze out" every bit of horsepower during a busy day.
Nearly a month ago, I upgraded a clients rev.a Mac Pro from 4 GB to 8 GB RAM and added a second hard drive as a dedicated scratch disk for Photoshop. This user traditionally leaves all her apps running through the day and had been noticing a certain amount of sluggishness with overall performance. She does work with large and numerous Photoshop and Illustrator files, creates print documents with InDesign, leaves the entire Office suite running and uses Windows XP in Parallels on a regular basis. The occasional weekly restart did clear out some cache files, but no discernible performance improvement was gained. Her Mac Pro now "feels like a new machine", as she claims - high praise coming from one of my more demanding clients. At a cost of under $300, the upgrades were well worth the "small" investment - NOT attainable with an iMac!
Think long and hard before making your decision, Max. I wouldn't let a friend make such an important choice without providing all I can to assist.
Alec, thoughtful post and I thank you for it. I'll have to do just that... think long and hard about the choices I'll be facing. Didn't know that about the USB hubs, either. That could be an issue for me, as when I'm at work I'm jacked into two printers, a scanner, a Wacom tablet and an external drive that's USB-connected. Hmmmm...
Thanks again, dude!
I was really looking forward to the iMac display and the iSight, too... dang. Maybe I'll have to spring for a new display. Decisions, decisions...
I go with Alec on the USB hubs, any model of hub, I've seen problems with many brands. What works on one may not work on another. They don't do well under some conditions depending on what's plugged in or what it's plugged into. I have had my own personal problems so I got a PCI card.
My experiences with my current hub include one or more devices suddenly non-operational until a restart - happens too frequently for my "meager" needs at home. My next purchase will undoubtedly be a tower - still miss my old MDD for its expansion capabilities.
Hmmmm.... come to think of it, the most stable USB situation I'd had was on a dual G4 with a PCI card with USB 2... hubs are always a bit iffy, but it sounds like these days it's even more so. Kind of disappointing. I thought USB was supposed to be a stable standard when it first came out. Guess not!
Nice design. I have this old Belkin that looks like a freakin' purple toilet seat. So many hubs with bad design out there.
Well, glad it works for you, John. I still think I'd spring for another card if I ran out of ports... oh, and I forgot - I need another port for my Logitech wireless mouse unit. And there's also the Sandisk card reader that I use pretty much every day... hoo boy.
Previous Topic
Index
