[benkraft]

First off - hi everyone!
Okay, so here's my situation - I'm a university student and also work as a freelance translator. Lately, I've gotten pretty fed-up with my Windows XP rig, mostly because using it both for "serious work" (read: translation and writing papers) and as a gaming rig doesn't seem to work all that well for me. I guess it's my own fault for experimenting too much with drivers and patches and all the wonderful blessings of the Windows world.
At any rate, right now I'm contemplating getting a Mac as a WORKstation, i.e. for the important stuff. This would mean correspondence/email, university assignments (my master's thesis will be coming up in about a year), and translations - the stuff that would actually pay for the machine. The Wintel machine would remain my gaming setup. I have a 2 1/2 year old G3 iBook 800 I'm pretty happy with (although it's beginning to feel slow), so I'm not a complete Mac newbie.

So, I'm trying to decide what a sensible choice would be. I see three options:
1.) Getting a Mac mini, which should be sufficient for what I outlined above, and quiet too.
2.) Getting a 17" 2GHz G5 iMac, as it is much more advanced, has a better feature set complete with display and, let's be honest here, is pretty darn sexy!
3.) Getting a low-end PowerMac (probably single-proc).

Pros & Cons:
1.) Pro: small, quiet, sufficient (probably), I have an extra monitor or could use a KVM switch
Con: non-upgradeable, already 1 Proc generation behind, limited graphics, etc
2.) Pro: More up-to-date, much better graphics, pretty decent deal overall, obviously better performance, nice display included, more future-proof (if there is such a thing)
Cons: Potentially overpowered for my purposes, also not upgradeable in the important areas (CPU, graphics), higher cost (although as I said, imho justified)
3.) Pro: Upgradeable, expandable, also nice design
Con: imho currently not a good price/performance ratio, especially the 1.8GHz, needs lots of extra space (both on and under the desk, probably overkill for my needs)

I need some outside input... My current ranking in order of preference would be:
2.
1.
3.

Would appreciate anyof your comments and/or wisdom, though! Thanks!!!!

Notes: I don't want to buy anything used, and I'd rather not get one of the Rev A iMacs - if I invest now, I want to get the most out of Tiger... Also, my point about being "overpowered" is relative - I expect that I would begin to use the Apple for more and more tasks (except gaming - don't think it could keep up?).

[torifile]

Your ordering seems about right. I'd discount the difference between 1 & 2 as worth the cost difference. It's really a wash between the two. I'd forget about #3 entirely. It's foolish to think about the low-end PMac unless you NEED (not want) the expandability.

[benkraft]

Thanks. Coming from the Windows world, expandability may actually rank too high within the framework of my decision. In other words - Macs tend to have a longer lifespan than Wintel machines, as far as i can tell. So my main motivation was trying to keep some kind of door open for future-proofing. Obviously, neither AIO system can offer that, save for RAM and HDD... Then again, you can't have everything.
Hmmmm - iMac....

[ast3r3x]

I think you'd be happiest with an iMac.

[benkraft]

Thanks again!
Actually - one more question (that seems to crop up everywhere, but I'd like an answer pretaining to my situation):
Does it make sense to get an extra 512MB right away, or should the 512MB of the standard configuration be enough (at least to begin with)?
My iBook works relatively well with 384MB, although I think I'd like to get more (trouble is it means throwing out what's in there now...)

[ast3r3x]

It would increase the ability of your machine to run at maximum potential. OS X loves RAM like MJ likes children...well maybe not that way.

It isn't necessary for what you are doing, but it would help everyone run a little snappier.

[benkraft]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x It isn't necessary for what you are doing, but it would help everyone run a little snappier.

Well, if it helps everyone, I guess I'll have to bite the bullet.
Thanks for the input - guess I'll stick it out at first, see how she runs, then get an upgrade later.

(Edit: Just found my answer to the other question - thanks!)

[jkloos]

For an Imac you would be best off to goto memory 2 go and buy the 2 gig for 276$. My mom and sister both have 1.8 17" imacs with 1 gig of ram, they run pretty well. I'd suggest a gig of ram minimum. If you can bite the bullet even harder for the 2 gigs. It is well worth the money. You will not be let down by the imac if you max the ram out.

[benkraft]

Thanks for the advice, but as I'm sitting in Europe, I'm afraid I'll have to look for another place to actually buy the RAM... (Although I'll be back in the States in the summer - hm, maybe grab 2 Gig then???) Otherwise, any suggestions in the European area? Micron makes Mac-RAM, I believe?

[Luca]

512 MB of RAM is what I'd consider the minimum now. 512 MB used to be a comfortable amount for OS X, but Dashboard (a sloppy hack, methinks) uses up over 100 MB depending on how you configure it. I would suggest adding at least another 512 MB module to the one that ships with it... preferably a 1 GB module. I don't know of a good place to buy it in Europe, but over here it's about US$50 for 512 MB and US$120 for 1 GB.

[jkloos]

i would say 1 gig is the minimum you would want in there. 2 gig is gonna be the best for the imac obviously. Remember in paying 1500$ for a computer you don't want it to work at the speed of a typewriter. So if you can afford it by all means do it. A 1.6 17" rev a imac with 2 gig of ram will make a 2.0 17" rev b imac with 512 meg of ram feel much slower. Processor speed doesn't mean much anymore. a machine with more ram is always better than a machine with more mghz (to a reasonable gap).

[bluebuoy]

Get the iMac, and go to a third-party to bring it up to 1 or 1.5 gig of RAM. If you want to "get the most of out Tiger" then you don't want the mini, which doesn't have sufficient video spunk to accelerate the new Tiger graphics.

[Luca]

There's only one difference in the graphics the mini can display vs. the iMac... the ripple effect. That's it. Just want to let you know.

That said, it's still not very powerful. Fine for general use but I notice a few slowdowns here and there. If I'm, say, burning a DVD while watching a movie, the movie will slow down a bit. A dual processor system (and maybe even an iMac) would handle this much better.

[benkraft]

Hmmmph - I promised myself to wait for the first print reviews of the rev B iMac to show up here in Germany (in the c't, an excellent IT periodical, imho) before I did anything. And I'll also get some input from real Mac publications - trouble is, with the rev B only just having appeared - no one has a review. And I'm getting really itchy fingers...
I also want to hear more about the recent midplane / powersupply failures and whether they are likely to continue with rev B. As the whole point is having a more stable, reliable machine, I don't want to shoot myself in the foot by getting one that will cough and die while I'm working on my masters...
So it looks like I'm stuck waiting at least another week, which is when the new issues of any print mags come out here, or maybe as long as a month if I really want to see any reader feedback on the new rev, be it in print or online. Arrrgh..
I wants me Mac!
Btw, is it advisable to get the apple protection thingy? Especially for the iMac with all its midplane/powersupply problems? From what I read, I got the impression it was money well spent in most cases! (Although it kinda makes you sad that one even has to consider it at the price of an iMac...)
Thanks!

[Koodari]

My situation is pretty similar to yours. I initially opted for a 15" Powerbook and a couple months ago switched to a 12" 1.2GHz iBook G4. I plan on upgrading my PC for gaming, but right now I'm more of a PS2 gamer.

I would definitely get the mini if I were you - it's great, it has about the same power than my comp, has DVI, and is very cheap.

If you want to spend more than that for text based work, the most important point you should be looking at is display. Check out your local Dell site and see how their screens plus the mini you want compare with iMacs. You'll probably find you can get a one size bigger screen with the mini: 20"+mini vs 17" iMac, and 24"+mini vs 20" iMac. The upgradeability is far better with non AIO system, and a big display could also enhance the gaming PC quite a bit. I'm not saying Dell is the only screen option, but they're a good baseline.

I have heard bad things about KVM's and high res DVI, but it might not be too bad if the gaming PC runs directly on the VGA input? A USB only switch for keyb+mouse should be dirt cheap.

In 10.3, I would say 256MB is too little, 384MB a lot better, and 512MB should be plenty for basic use. I think these 1+GB recommendations at least in regard to 10.3 are bunk unless you work with graphics, sound, or other resource intensive work. I got 768MB but 384MB felt almost alright.

I wouldn't touch Applecare for a desktop machine under any circumstances.
- If the machine is so unreliable it needs special insurance, then it's too unreliable to buy.
- One year warranty is sub par in the first place, 2 or 3 year is more frequent here. I don't want to pay for bringing the warranty up to what others offer as default, and encourage Apple to carry on this practice. IMO they need to up the warranty, at least on desktop, to 3 years as default and sell the phone support instead.
- We got extensive customer protection laws, and so many things (esp. manufacturing defects) are covered by law for a long time even if warranty says otherwise. I hear you got very strict laws regarding car and used car sales in Germany, isn't the rest of the law up to that standard?

[sunrain]

Don't forget that as a translator, you're bound to enjoy vastly superior language integration of character sets that is available with OS X.