View Full Version : Imac or Mac Mini + monitor
What would you guys buy, a brand new 17'' Imac or a mac mini + a 20 inch apple display?
The thing is, I would love to have an imac, but if I would go with the mini plus the display, it would be cheaper to upgrade once in a while.
If I get the Imac, I get a smaller screen but a faster chip, a better graphic card, double layer superdrive (we'll have to see if higher end mac minis superdrive is updated...), isight, front row, the remote thing...
And as said if I go with the mac mini, I get a bigger screen and the possibility to upgrade the machine once in a while for a cheaper price...
Which of the machines is louder?
What would you go with?
Thanks!
The Mac mini is the quieter machine. But I'd personally go for the iMac. I would not drop nearly that much cash on a display for a computer as cheap as a Mac mini. Get a high-quality 17" LCD with a DVI input for $200, or look for rebate deals on a Dell 20" to bring the price down to $400 or so. Apple's display is too expensive.
When I consider on buying a display is also because I have a 12'' PB so I could plug it when necessary. Some would say that if I already have a PB why go with another computer... I just feel that each of them would have a function, a different use...
One thing I learned is don't buy a computer planning to upgrade it. It usually costs more in the long run.
the imac is wayyyy faster then the mac mini. but if you are looking for a machine that you will mostly use for web browsing then the mac mini should be fine.
out of curiosity why are you looking for a desktop mac? if you get the 20inch screen you can just use your 12inch powerbook as a desktop computer that is unless other people in your house are interested in using it.
if you are planning on getting a mac for some heavy stuff like video editiing and crap, then you would be better off in a powermac if you are planning on upgrading in the future. try to find a second hand original G5, plus get a regular CRT monitor and you should come up in price close to the imac. then you can ugprade whatever u want down the line with ease.
I'm also stuck on the horns of this dilemma but inclined to the mini + 20" ACD. The iMac G5 rev. c is great value but I'm wary of AIO, particularly with G5's heat issues. I already have an iSight camera, and I want a desktop computer, not a home entertainment system so I'm not really going a bundle on the whole Front Row/ remote malarky (and as for Photobooth, God effects or no...)
I'm hoping that with the intel transition Apple will offer modular options in their mid-range systems (if the iMac G5s do indeed deteriorate quickly, they will be forced to deliver the long-awaited headless iMac, I imagine). Two or three years down the line, I'd be happy if I can upgrade to a Mactel for less than 1000$ and just hook it up to my 20" ACD which should have a couple more years' life in it yet.
As soon as this stealth update to the Mini is officially released here (Japan), I'll pull the trigger. Then again, Apple didn't drop the price-point on the 20" ACD and this odd deviation in update procedure with the Mini both conspire to make me think something special may soon be coming...
I just got the 17" iMac Rev. C.
I can guarantee that it's an awesome computer.
Well, maybe I shouldn't say that before I open the box.
I will say that I'm not sure what I think about the likelyhood of a mid-range Cube Redux at MWSF. I know I'd love for one to materialize, just because I know AIOs aren't for everyone, and I do think it's a great candidate for the first Intel machine, but I'm not sure if Apple will unveil anything Intel at MWSF.
And as for the Mac mini...I'm positive the update will be made official before the 25th (aka "Black Friday," or the busiest shopping day of the year), so if you do decide to pull the trigger on it as soon as the update is official, you shouldn't have much longer to wait (*crosses fingers*).
uypeterson
2005-11-04, 04:16
One thing I learned is don't buy a computer planning to upgrade it. It usually costs more in the long run.
I used to think that way. In 1999, I purchased a 300MHz IBM laptop with Win98 SE, 14.1" display, DVD-ROM, 48MB and a 4.3GB HD for $2200. I thought that computer would last a minimum of 5 years.
Today, such a computer is worthless to me. It can't run iTunes. With a max memory capacity of 128MB, it barely ran WinXP.
That was my second computer. I purchased my first one in 1998. I've 'upgraded' six times since because my needs and uses have changed. I thought I would never need more than 4GB of storage for the OS, apps and data. Today, I need 30GB just for the music. The computer industry is always upgrading. I'll soon be upgrading to a PowerMac now that they have PCI Express and 16GB RAM.
I hope the cheap PowerMac with 4GB of RAM and a 500GB hard drive will be enough for the next few years because I'm looking into doing home videos now.
These days, I budget for regular upgrades to my computer because it is a permanent part of my life. I purchase for what my needs are now, and anticipate the changes for the future.
As for the iMac vs. Mac mini, it all depends on your needs, your likelyhood and/or desire to upgrade and your budget.
Given that computers change all the time, you have to consider which is more important -- the performance of your monitor or the performance of your computer. Then, resolve that with your budget.
If you know the 64-bit iMac will keep you happy for quite some time and the built-in screen and 2GB memory limitations are no problem, get the better, less expensive machine.
However, if you know that you want to stick with one display for as long as possible and upgrade as your memory, storage and performance needs change, the Mac mini makes sense.
With only 1GB and a 32-bit processor, I would relegate the mini to basic duty, knowing that it would be replaced as soon as a 64-bit processor and more memory were made available to the mini.
byzantium
2005-11-04, 12:22
If I get the Imac, I get a smaller screen but a faster chip, a better graphic card, double layer superdrive (we'll have to see if higher end mac minis superdrive is updated...), isight, front row, the remote thing...
Well I think you answered your own question there! I was comparing the mini, the 15" pb, and the iMac 17". I bought the iMac. It's a fantastic machine for the money right now.
get a 20" imac if you need the bigger screen.
"Well I think you answered your own question there!"
No he hasn't, because there's also this:
"And as said if I go with the mac mini, I get a bigger screen and the possibility to upgrade the machine once in a while for a cheaper price..."
Have you made your decision yet, Johnkid?
For me at the moment, modularity is winning out over performance. I'm very tempted by the 20" imac, but in just what condition is it going to be in after it's been through a hot and humid Tokyo summer?
Two years on from now I'd much rather be semi-retiring my mini and upgrading to a prosumer headless mactel (please!?) than having to replace a big heap of ugly AIO molten white plastic and lcd.
I Think that I'm finally first buying a display, probably the 20 inch apple one and stuck it to my 12'' PB. If I get tired of pluging and unpluging the powerbook I'll think on a remedy... and that would be to buy a mac mini... because I already own an apple mouse and a keyboard... and what's more, I personally prefer G4 iMacs rather that the G5 ones. I saw them in the store the other day (still the rev B, not C) and if the 17'' looks ugly, the 20'' one looks horrible to me... thanks for all the posts and giving ideas!
I really really think the ACD is a waste of money if you are not going to be doing intensive photo editing that requires a display with perfect color reproduction, etc...
Why not just get the Dell displays, they're cheaper and pretty good looking, IMO. I think you are ignoring logic here...
byzantium
2005-11-05, 18:51
I reckon you'll be replacing that 12" powerbook in a shorter timeframe than a 20" imac. Same with the mini. The iMac is a G5 with a fast FSB, a 7200 rpm drive; it's goign to last a longer time than either your PB or the mini. If and when you decide to upgrade, just sell it on ebay and buy a new one.
Otherwise buy a dell 20" they have better ergonomics and plenty cheaper than the ACD.
byzantium
2005-11-05, 18:52
than having to replace a big heap of ugly AIO molten white plastic and lcd.
WTF are you talking about? It's very unlikely an iMac is going to melt. this is FUD.
WTF are you talking about? It's very unlikely an iMac is going to melt. this is FUD.
Of course it isn't - I know that. You're taking me far too literally. My main concern with the iMac (apart from a quite possibly irrational distrust of AIO in the first place) is how quickly it will deteriorate due to (over)heating. My deliberate hyperbole also refers to how hot summers are here in Tokyo.
Well, when buying a display, I plan to be able to watch movies and stuff I download... In spain the apple 20 inch display is 726 euros with edu discount, and the dell one is 718 euros, just 8 euros cheaper... I'm sorry but I'm not buying that! Then Dell has a cheaper 20 inch model which isn't widescreen for 547 euros, but once again that's a 4:3 model...
One thing I learned is don't buy a computer planning to upgrade it. It usually costs more in the long run.If by "planning on upgrading it" you mean skimping on an essential part to push off the purchase of the real part by a couple of months, you're right, that is stupid. But if the purchase is something designed to work for two years or so - incidentally this kind of parts usually have best price/performance - then you're wrong. The very best thing for computer longevity is a separate display, and that will pretty much always prove cheaper in a timeframe that includes the next major upgrade. The longer the timeframe, the better it gets.
Well you could have mentioned your situation, which isn't that you are in America. IE. prices change abroad, ie. you wouldn't have gotten flamed.
Well, when buying a display, I plan to be able to watch movies and stuff I download... In spain the apple 20 inch display is 726 euros with edu discount, and the dell one is 718 euros, just 8 euros cheaper... I'm sorry but I'm not buying that! Then Dell has a cheaper 20 inch model which isn't widescreen for 547 euros, but once again that's a 4:3 model...Arguably the Dells are still a better deal the same price. Four connectors, four ways of adjustment including pivot, whereas the Apple has DVI and tilt adjustment only. It's true the Dells are not the outrageously better deal they are at times in the US, and if you don't need the additional features the Apple is the better deal due to cleaner design.
At those prices, the non widescreen 2001FP stands out as the right choice. It's better for normal desktop use than the widescreen is (more space). If it had been available for that price when I bought my 2405FPW, I'd have bought the 2001FP instead.
What makes the Dell display so inexpensive isn't Dell's stated price (which, as you said, isn't that much lower than the Apple display), but the fact that Dell usually has several promotions going at once. Many people have been able to get a 20" display for $400 or so by using several hidden coupon codes.
Keep watching dealnews/dealmac. I've seen that Dell go down as low as $359!
I chose the 17" iMac when faced with a similar decision. I happen to find its design very appealing, and I have to stare at a Dell logo all day at work, so it's nice to go home to the friendly white face of an iMac and a happy little Apple logo. I also felt that the component/feature differences between the two computers were worth the extra 2 Benjamins: faster processor & bus, easy-access RAM slot, bigger HD...
The one drawback: I know that three years down the road I will once again be faced with the AIO/Display decision. But I also know that three years down the road, Apple's displays will still be priced too high.
I think this AIO fear is a little exaggerated.
Even a 20" iMac will be able to serve it's display justice for it's projected life. In three or five years displays will also have improved, and the price on current displays will have dropped accordingly. So if you divide your iMac into display and computer, you might notice that the two parts have lost a similar percentage of value. So if you sell if off because you want more performance. You will receive some value for the monitor also, that you can use for you next investment.
And besides. The 20" iMac ($1699) isn't that much more expensive a 20" display ($799) and a Mini ($499). But it damn sure packs a bigger punch, not to mention the feature list!
As for that humidity problem :err: What kinda climate do you guys have in Tokyo?! It must be insane :eek: As far as I know humidity firstly attacks the capacitors. And those little buggers reside in both monitors and computers, so how should that make the iMac less attractive? You might as well end up with a dead display and a dead Mini. Perhaps someone can educate me?
I think this AIO fear is a little exaggerated.Fear? More like acknowledging the facts.Even a 20" iMac will be able to serve it's display justice for it's projected life. In three or five years displays will also have improved, and the price on current displays will have dropped accordingly. So if you divide your iMac into display and computer, you might notice that the two parts have lost a similar percentage of value. So if you sell if off because you want more performance. You will receive some value for the monitor also, that you can use for you next investment.That argument leaks like a sieve.
- Computers grow old much, much faster than a decent display. This is the number one reason why AIO's are not bang-for-buck efficient. The displays do not need to be changed nearly as often as does the computer.
- You can't connect another computer, a game console, a TV tuner or anything else to the display you have on the iMac. Therefore, the display on the iMac is made less valuable than an external one merely by being placed in an AIO design.
- You always lose when the AIO design forces you to sell your display along with the computer if you are going to buy a similar display to replace it. This is because the old and new displays have similar utility to you, but no one's going to buy the old used display's imaginary share of the iMac at the same price as you are buying a new display.
- Technical trouble? With an AIO, you are stuck. Pay for repairs or have a pile of scrap metal. With headless and a display a fault in one does not affect the other.
Regarding the timeframe these things play out on: my last display (19" CRT, the first of its kind to market) was pretty costly, but lasted eight years in active duty, connected to no less than four different computers. I still have it as a backup unit. If I had not bought that, and had instead stuck to poor quality 15" and 17" CRT's and bought a new one for each computer, I would have ended up paying the same overall and would have had to do with crappy displays instead of a great one.
My current one, a half a year old 24" flat panel (which incidentally cost the same than the CRT did back then) has an iBook and a PS2 dangling from it. By the time it's finished, I'd be surprised if it hasn't served with at least four more devices.
I don't see Johnkid saying anything about why the computer should be upgraded now at the same time with the display. So maybe it doesn't need an upgrade?
Set up something like this (http://130.233.20.28/~ypeussa/setup_640x480.jpg) and you will have a huge grin on your face while waiting for the Intel summer '06. No matter how slow your computer. :D
Fear? More like acknowledging the facts.That argument leaks like a sieve.
- Computers grow old much, much faster than a decent display. This is the number one reason why AIO's are not bang-for-buck efficient. The displays do not need to be changed nearly as often as does the computer.
Regarding the timeframe these things play out on: my last display (19" CRT, the first of its kind to market) was pretty costly, but lasted eight years in active duty, connected to no less than four different computers. I still have it as a backup unit. If I had not bought that, and had instead stuck to poor quality 15" and 17" CRT's and bought a new one for each computer, I would have ended up paying the same overall and would have had to do with crappy displays instead of a great one.
My current one, a half a year old 24" flat panel (which incidentally cost the same than the CRT did back then) has an iBook and a PS2 dangling from it. By the time it's finished, I'd be surprised if it hasn't served with at least four more devices.
Thats all fine and dandy, yes your display will outlast the computer.
But will the technology? The question in my mind lies not along the lines of whether your monitor will outlast the computer but more along the lines of how fast the technology grows that I will be inspired to buy a new monitor. This is just personal preference, there is no such thing as a golden rule.
I think this AIO fear is a little exaggerated... As for that humidity problem :err: What kinda climate do you guys have in Tokyo?! It must be insane :eek: As far as I know humidity firstly attacks the capacitors. And those little buggers reside in both monitors and computers, so how should that make the iMac less attractive? You might as well end up with a dead display and a dead Mini. Perhaps someone can educate me?
From October to May the climate is very easy to live with. Winter sees a lot of crisp and clear Pacific blue days (incidence of SAD must be negligible compared to Northern Europe). It's in June that things start going "insane" - at least by Danish standards (that's a compliment btw) - with the onset of rainy season which lasts until late July. Temperatures are in the late twenties/early thirties, humidity 80% and upwards. By August, the place is a cauldron with the lid on. You're now sweltering in the mid to high thirties with no real difference in humidity. I'm far from alone in finding it unbearable between dawn and dusk. This lasts well into September and it is also the typhoon season. A typhoon just means the cauldron lid gets blown off and more misery blows and pours in.
You may be right about AIO "fear" being exaggerated. At least the capacitors in the Mini & display are not dealing with a hot G5, too.
@ Guido:
Doesn't sound very nice. Especially not for a guy who likes his weather cold and dry. Must suck for the citizens of Tokyo and all their electronics stuff :(
@ Koodari:
Sorry, I still don't agree. You mention some flexibility advantages of going modular, and I don't refute those. But when it comes to value, I insist that the iMac is such a good deal that it even outweighs the risks of failure in one of the components. Just look at the prices I quoted ;)
@ Maciej:
Excellently put :) My 19" CRT is easily capable of living another four years, long after my PC has been thrown out, but it's a big and bulky power-hog. So I only keep it because I'm a poor student.
@ Koodari:
Sorry, I still don't agree. You mention some flexibility advantages of going modular, and I don't refute those. But when it comes to value, I insist that the iMac is such a good deal that it even outweighs the risks of failure in one of the components.I agree that iMac 17" is a decent deal. No argument there. The 20" is okay if it happens to be exactly what you need, but most people would be better served by something else.Just look at the prices I quoted ;)They are US prices so irrelevant to this discussion. At Spanish Apple Store and Dell webstore prices,
- 20" display + the faster mini are much cheaper than the 17" iMac
- 20" widescreen + the faster mini are cheaper than the 17" iMac
- 24" widescreen + the faster mini are just a few euros more than the 20" iMac
Thats all fine and dandy, yes your display will outlast the computer.
But will the technology? The question in my mind lies not along the lines of whether your monitor will outlast the computer but more along the lines of how fast the technology grows that I will be inspired to buy a new monitor. This is just personal preference, there is no such thing as a golden rule.If you read again, technology is what I was talking about. None of my computers has been used until it breaks. They have all grown obsolete and insufficient, while the displays last and last.
Maybe for a graphic artist the difference between, say, an older generation Apple LCD and a newer Apple LCD of the same size is so significant it warrants a change? I don't do graphics, so I never noticed that kind of difference. I believe firmly in buying the biggest reasonably affordable good quality display that is available, and sticking with it for a long time.
byzantium
2005-11-08, 07:06
Displays while they last longer than CPUs, aren't immune to being obsoleted as well. Witness how quickly flat panels have replaced CRTs in the last 5 years; and how much flat panels have evolved over the same amount of time (WXGA, X-Brite, etc)
Maybe your multiple generations of use is based on passing down a flat panel to another member of the family; but I certainly do not think I will be using the same display technology in 3 years. My mom is still using the massive B&W 17" CRT Apple Studio Display I bought with by B&W G3 in 1999; but if you're going to be upgrading your computer (let's say a mini) are you really going to attach that CRT to the mini?
Component based computing has it's place; but to a lot of people an AIO is good value for money; me included. As was said above; there is no sweeping golden rule.
@ Koodari:
Of course the the mini + display will always come out the cheapest. $ or €. But the iMac is so much more powerful, and thats the point I'm trying to communicate. And why I think even the 20" iMac is a good bargain.
And about displays, I guess it depends on how you use them, but also how you use the computer. If you aren't the type who upgrades anyway, the added expense of a similarly capable "hypothetical headless iMac", will be higher.
But I can also agree on that there is no golden rule.
If you read again, technology is what I was talking about. None of my computers has been used until it breaks. They have all grown obsolete and insufficient, while the displays last and last.
Maybe for a graphic artist the difference between, say, an older generation Apple LCD and a newer Apple LCD of the same size is so significant it warrants a change? I don't do graphics, so I never noticed that kind of difference. I believe firmly in buying the biggest reasonably affordable good quality display that is available, and sticking with it for a long time.
See, I disagree, I had CRT at home a fatty 19", it was probably the crispest monitor I'd seen in that size, ever. Despite that, I still bought an LCD when they became popular and cheaper, the newer technology (form factor) got me thinking about getting a smaller display. Although the technology never became obsolete, it was worth it to upgrade to the newer stuff.
Of course that need varies from person to person. What I've been trying to say is that whoever is getting this computer (I forgot already, sorry! :o ) needs to decide whether they feel that they're the type to upgrade a monitor in "x" years anyway... if they are, then the choice is clear.
See, I disagree, I had CRT at home a fatty 19", it was probably the crispest monitor I'd seen in that size, ever. Despite that, I still bought an LCD when they became popular and cheaper, the newer technology (form factor) got me thinking about getting a smaller display. Although the technology never became obsolete, it was worth it to upgrade to the newer stuff.What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? I never said anything about displays "needing to become obsolete".
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.