[badtzmaru]

I'm a 2nd year Mac convert who started with a PowerBook and decided to buy a 20" PowerPC iMac in mid-December, figuring that an Intel iMac wouldn't be released for another year. When the Intel iMac was released earlier this week, I was a ticked off and considered buying a new one and eBay-ing off the old one, then I thought about the apps I use often and reminded myself why I had planned to stick to PowerPC for at least another year. My general feeling is that I want to run my apps natively, I don't want to try to use Rosetta on audio and video intensive apps.

The apps I use most often...

Final Cut Express HD (need a PowerPC to run it well now, glad I held off on the $1299 Final Cut Studio because the Universal version is still a couple months away and then I'll buy Final Cut Studio Universal).

Soundtrack Pro (need a PowerPC to run it well now, I guess $200 will get me Final Cut Studio Universal, not shabby).

Peak 4 (need a PowerPC to run it well now, who knows when it'll go Universal).

Adobe Creative Suite (need a PowerPC to run it well now, who knows when it'll go Universal).

Microsoft Office (need a PowerPC to run it well now, who knows when it'll go Universal).

Virtual PC (need a PowerPC to run it well now, and who knows when there will be a commercial app where one can run WinXP in a window, not interested in dual-booting personally).

Traktor Studio (need a PowerPC to run it well now, who knows when it'll go Universal).

The two apps I really hold dear to me...

Mac the Ripper (need a PowerPC to run it well now, who know if it will ever go Universal?).

Toast 7 (need a PowerPC to run it well now, who knows when it'll go Universal).

My point is that I have a significant PowerPC software investment that demands consideration of whether I need to upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware, and only time will tell what the upgrade policy and costs will be to migrate to Universal versions of all my apps.

Back in December I looked at all this and decided that I'll start transitioning when the Intel CPUs are 64bit dual-core, when the performance gains should really jump, and by then most of the apps I've mentioned should be available as Universal versions (I would think). For now the Intel iMac I have is great for what I do now. Next year though, when that JVC Everio hard drive camcorder hopefully goes HD 1080i, that's when I'll be jonsing to upgrade my Mac hardware and hopefully to at least a 64bit dual-core CPU.

[mercmerc]

badtzmaru,
I think of all the posts, yours is the one that feels closest to my personal situation, I really appreciate your detailed analysis. So (hate to belabor this, but...) if you had all the software you had right now, but no machine, and a pocket full of cash for a new one, you would not buy the Intel iMac, you would buy the G5 iMac??

[torifile]

Man, you were stupid to sell your computer.

[mercmerc]

I don't know about that, your mother emailed me and said she loves her new computer she paid $2700 for.

[mercmerc]

Whoa, I just found something that boosts the G5 argument.

I'm sure someone will file this under "hearsay," but I just read a review on Amazon of the iMac G5, and inside the review the guy drops this bomb...

About the Intel switch. Recently a friend of mine said he had the ability to try a prototype Mac with the new Intel chips. He said the chip was a dual core 4.0 Ghz in a PowerMac. He felt that the system performance seemed no faster that the current G5 PowerPC chip. One more reason not to wait for Intel.

This was written just 3 weeks before the MacWorld announcement. This would also boost the rumors that a new Intel PowerMac tower is coming sooner than many expect. Okay, now even I am wary of listening to stories about prototypes and such, but it was an interesting thing to read and I thought I'd put it out there (assuming this thread is being read by some people in a similar position as myself).

*To see the original Amazon post, go to this link, and scroll down to the review by Anthony.

[mercmerc]

Hmmm... More unflattering Intel iMac comparison results here.

Render Six 2 Second Cross Dissolve Simultaneously 60 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM 57 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM 31 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM 20 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM 20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%) 24 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM Export 1 Minute of Video to QuickTime using for CD-ROM Setting (H264) 70 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM 53 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM 35 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM 22 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz 512 MB RAM 20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%) 94 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM Create Disc Image in iDVD using Travel Cards theme and 10 Minutes of Video 28 minutes, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM 25 minutes, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM 12 minutes, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM 9 minutes, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM 5.1 minutes, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 35%) 10 minutes, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM

iMac G5 is looking pretty good for at least the next 12 months. Assuming the unit becomes unsellable after that (because of old G5 processor) that breaks down to roughly $100 a month for use of a fast reliable machine. I'm 80% in favor of getting the iMac G5.

[torifile]

Is there even a 4.0 ghz chip available? And chances are, if the reviewer isn't lying, it was on a non-shipping version of OS X, so it could have been hampered in other ways.

[billybobsky]

I suspect by the time we make our way back up to 4 GHz, processors will begin to be non-clocked...

[badtzmaru]

Originally Posted by mercmerc badtzmaru, I think of all the posts, yours is the one that feels closest to my personal situation, I really appreciate your detailed analysis. So (hate to belabor this, but...) if you had all the software you had right now, but no machine, and a pocket full of cash for a new one, you would not buy the Intel iMac, you would buy the G5 iMac??

Yes, I'd still buy the G5 iMac to maximize my current software investment. Nothing emotional here about the G5, what I have now works great.

[mercmerc]

I purchased my iMac G5 iSight today, and I'm a happy camper. I want to sincerely thank everyone here for their great comments and very considered advice. It all helped a lot, I appreciate it. Thank you!

[Satchmo]

Damn decisons! I just spoke to an Apple rep and they said they would take back my iMac G5 even though I was outside the 14 day period. But they would charge me a restocking fee which would amount to $129.

Or if I kept the G5, they would knock $60 off the price of iLife 06.

So, basically if I send it back and pay $129, I would obviously get iLife with the purchase of a new Intel Mac.
I wouldn't mind the new one...but with all the recent stuff over sluggish speed, I don't know what to do.
Plus using mainly Adobe apps (Illustrator in particular), it may be a while before we see any Universal software.

[Fooboy]

My thoughts on this ...

Personally I'd rather have something older with the bugs worked out than bleeding and buggy edge. At the same time, I want new technology. So to me, the best time to buy isn't RIGHT when a new product comes out, but after the first or second revision.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by mercmerc I purchased my iMac G5 iSight today, and I'm a happy camper. I want to sincerely thank everyone here for their great comments and very considered advice. It all helped a lot, I appreciate it. Thank you!

What? Have you lost your MIND?!?

We were KIDDING!

I can't understand how we could ever seriously recommend a G5 iMac anymore!

Oh wait... NOW I'm kidding....

[badtzmaru]

For what its worth, I tried out the new Intel iMac at an Apple store. The first thing I did was download and install xBench, then I ran it three times to get an average score of 58. My 20" 2.1GHz "iSight" iMac G5 averages around 78 for comparison.

I submitted the results as the following system...

Name: 2 GHz Intel Core Duo iMac 20"
Type: iMac4,1

I realize there are lots of questions about the validity of xBench scores but what else is there that an individual can download and run? (I'd actually like to know)

I tried out a few PowerPC apps (not Universal apps) that were already loaded on the Intel iMac: Google Earth beta, MS Word and MS PowerPoint. All of them worked amazingly well, like I wouldn't have known they were being emulated under Rosetta had I not checked the "info" of the apps. On the other hand Final Cut Pro won't run on it, and I have no idea how other apps like Mac-the-Ripper, Toast 7 and the Adobe Creative Suite would run. I guess wait and see what people's experiences are, but I really liked what I've seen so far, definitely recommending it as a 1st Mac for a co-worker who's switching shortly.

I'm still satisfied with my recent "iSight" G5 iMac purchase although, and honestly it wouldn't be an issue for me to dump the old one on eBay and buy a new Intel iMac if I thought it would be a worthwhile move, and I don't at the present. I believe I'll continue to be happy with my iSight iMac until the time when 64bit dual core iMacs arrive, at which time a lot of software should also be universal as well.

[mercmerc]

BarracksSi,
Nice one.

So after a couple of days of living with my new machine, I've experienced some interesting things. My last machine was a PowerMac G5 Dual 2Ghz, with 2.5Gigs of ram. Not a "beast" but a solid machine. My new machine is a iMac G5 iSight, 2.1Ghz, with 1.5Gigs ram.

I'm sure some people won't believe me, but after a couple of days of use in Final Cut Pro HD, and DVD Studio Pro, the difference is negligable. Not non-existant, but hardly a big difference. I must say, I was pretty surprised. As for over-all system performance, the machine is snappier for sure. I'll just assume that's because I'm running Tiger and not Panther (as I had on the PowerMac). Overall, I feel reeeeeally good about my decision. A few months ago, I saw a guy in a professional recording studio running his set-up off this same model iMac and I was pretty surprised, given that the iMac is supposed to be a 'non-pro' machine. Now I understand why he was using it, it's a strong/robust machine, and I think (other than the expandability issue) we have to revise what we consider a "pro-machine" and a "consumer machine", or just admit that they are artificial designations created by Apple to support varying product line price structures. I'm not saying this is a "pro-machine" per se, but I'm damn sure doing some intensive "pro" things on it, and it's not crying in pain.

[Matsu]

Buy nothing now. In fact, consider selling one. You have two macs already, and won't get anything out of replacing one at this time. Decide if maximum Final Cut Express performance is your most important criteria. If so, sell the Powerbook. If you absolutely must have portability, drop the iMac. Either way you should be OK, lots of FCP work gets done on Powerbooks.

PPC users will be happier for the next 6 months. After that Intel users will see more, and faster, upgrades.

Merom, is coming in H2 '06, hold out for it, it promises to be a killer, and will appear in Apple's desktops -- that's the Intel CPU you want to graduate to.

[chucker]

Well, he's already made his decision, from what I can tell.

[mercmerc]

Yeah, I hear ya, but anyone with the ability to wait half a year to have an available final cut system, probably either doesn't do a lot of final cut, or doesn't need a reliable/available system. The only people I would suggest going for the new Intels (now, or even in the next 6 months) is people who don't need the Intel machine as their main machine.

What will probably happen in my case is, I will rock out with my current set-up (iMac G5 iSight & Powerbook G4), and later this year (say in the fall or so) I'll pick up the Intel iBook that they'll probably release. By this Fall, enough apps should be out for the Intel Macs, and the Intel bugs should be mostly worked out. I'll use the Intel iBook as a test machine to slowly integrate my way into the new Intel Mac experience, but I won't be dependant on it as my main system. So, all I have to do is come up with $999 by the Fall.

[byzantium]

This should clear it up:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php

"Macworld Lab’s tests do show that the new Intel-based iMac is faster than the iMac G5 when running native applications. However, we found that those improvements are generally much less than what Apple claims is a 2x improvement in speed.

Instead, our tests found the new 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac to be roughly 10 to 20 percent faster than the 2.1GHz iMac G5 at most native application tasks, albeit with some notable exceptions. And we also found that applications that aren’t yet Intel-native—which must run using Apple’s Rosetta code-translation technology—tend to run half as fast as the same applications running natively on the iMac G5."

[Dovek916]

Yo,
i got my intel on the 15th, 2 days before they were going to have them near me at my apple store, and man, they are smokin' :it is crazy fast, omg! if you have chance to get one, do, don't go for the g5 cause apple isn't looking back and you'll have to kill someone next year to get one and who's going to want a 2 year old g5! pay to extra 200 bucks or whatever it cost to upgrade. badtzmaru- your apps will be made universal soon. and wouldn't you like to have the latest and greatest anyways? i think yes

[badtzmaru]

I think MacWorld's recent Intel iMac review sums up the points I've been making pretty well...

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php

"Unfortunately, our tests suggest that the remarkable results of Apple’s published tests aren’t reflected in most of the real-world applications we tested. Based on our initial tests, the new Core-Duo-based iMac seems to be 10 to 20 percent percent faster than its predecessor when it comes to native applications, with some select tasks showing improvement above and beyond that.

Potential iMac buyers who predominantly rely on applications that aren’t available in Universal versions (or, for that matter, those who rely on Classic, which is incompatible with Intel-based Macs) will likely not be interested in these first Intel systems. Running a handful of programs in Rosetta seems reasonable, but if you rely on numerous applications that aren’t yet Universal, it’s probably wise to wait."

The results are just slightly on the intelmac then I would buy a G5 and skip all of the bugs. I bought my Imac G5 in December after reading the Hidden Manual by Pogue. He said the swap was going to come in 2007 so I bought a G5. I have a buyer for my new/used Mac ($950 from my sister) but I have decided to keep it after looking at the results from the IntelMac. Why would I want to wait for universal versions to run Toast and Mac the Ripper and other apps? All other subsequent software should run on this Mac just fine if its really universal and I don't have to pay the fees for upgrades with the G5. So if I beat out 2-4 years with this Mac then I won't feel bad selling it for peanuts and buying a new IntelMac at that time. I mean what's the big deal? I don't see how I can get hurt or incur extra cost this way. Does this sound like a sound game plan? Any loopholes in my logic?

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by pwrslave So if I beat out 2-4 years with this Mac then I won't feel bad selling it for peanuts and buying a new IntelMac at that time. I mean what's the big deal? I don't see how I can get hurt or incur extra cost this way. Does this sound like a sound game plan? Any loopholes in my logic?

Sounds fine to me.