iMac & Cinema Displays

[Anonymous]

I am going to switch from Windows to Mac, I already have a MacBook, but am undecided between an iMac and a Mac Pro, the Mac Pro seems like overkill to me but I am uneasy about an all in one system.

The thing I am most curious about is, is there any difference between the quality of the screens on the iMac and the Cinema displays, also I have read that there have been some problems with colour shifts on the 23" model which Apple has not been keen to rectify, has anybody experienced this.

The nearest Apple shop is about 600 miles away so I can't wander in and look.

If I go for the Mac Pro should I go for a Cinema display either the 20" or 23" which are quite elderly in specification terms or am I better to go for an Eizo or some other up market model with a more current spec.

Thanks

Chris Dennehy

[Thomas Holm]

I'd recommend the EIZO FLEXSCAN S2411W if you're buying a separate screen. It's got two qualities that sets it apart from the crowd: Much better back light quality and flexiblity, and a stand that allows you to pull the screen down to act like an extension to the keyboard. This paired with exceptional color quality for the price. I'm using the previous model with my MacBookPro.

But if bang for the buck is priority, I'd go for the 24" imac. It's got a better quality screen than the 20".

[Rex Maximilian]

If you need a beast, get the Pro. I mean, some people who specialize in visualization will need to do great amounts of renderings and animation frames, etc. So, processor speed and RAM is a must! However, if you plan to use ArchiCAD on standard type projects, then the iMac is for you.

Even if you get the iMac, get it configured with MAXIMUM RAM and the biggest hard drive you can get!

I would of course get the 23" iMac as well... And a second monitor would be wise to as you can expand all of your palettes, etc., and have multiple windows open and viewable at the same time.

And of course, the great thing about going Mac is you can use BootCamp or Parallels as a crutch.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to the both of you for the feedback.

For once getting the most bang for the buck is not an absolute priority this time I'm after the best quality.

From your observations the 24" iMac has a better screen than the 20", if I decide on the iMac, I was going for the 24" anyway as I don't want multiple monitors, I find them distracting. I'm just wondering if it's worth going for the 2.8 model.

I feel that there is too much of a gap in the Apple line up between the iMac and the Mac Pro, for ordinary work a single processor version of the Mac Pro would probably be more than adequate, as nobody round here wants renderings or animations the Mac Pro is probably something of an overkill for me but I just can't make up my mind as the Mac Pro is user accessible and you can fiddle with it whereas the iMac is a sealed system apart from the memory.

I have been looking at the Eizo screens and if I decide on the Mac Pro I will probably get one rather than a Cinema Display as I feel they are due for renewal shortly and I don't want to find myself the proud owner of an obsolete display.

Regards

Chris Dennehy

[Thomas Holm]

Chris wrote:
I feel that there is too much of a gap in the Apple line up between the iMac and the Mac Pro...

Agreed! A faster Macmini with a graphics card option would be ideal, I think (essentially a "headless" Imac)

I have been looking at the Eizo screens and if I decide on the Mac Pro I will probably get one ...

You won't regret the Eizo! But check out their different stand options.

[Erich]

Chris,

You might take a look at this MacWorld article too.

http://www.macworld.com/2007/11/firstlooks/speedmark5new/index.php

They found that the 2.8 iMac was very close in speed to the Pro (at least in their tests)

[Anonymous]

Thanks Erich,

It's difficult for me to say if these tests relate to anything we do apart from the rendering one which only occurs occasionally for me and then with Lightworks, what does seem interesting is that the 3.0GHz Mac Pro only seems to have a marginal performance increase over both the 2.8 GHz iMac and 2.66 GHz Mac Pro which is out of line with it's price premium.

This of course may change as rumour has it that Apple has been buying up the latest Xeon chips for a rumoured upgrade which will happen sometime just after you've bought one, for this reason I'm looking at the refurbished models of the Mac Pro which are more reasonable and carry the same warranty, then if the upgrade happens you don't feel so bad about it.

So far no new aluminium iMac's have appeared in the refurbished page in the applestore.ie though they do seem to have quite a lot of MacBook Pro's and I'm wondering why.

Regards

Chris Dennehy

[Anonymous]

Chris wrote:
So far no new aluminium iMac's have appeared in the refurbished page in the applestore.ie though they do seem to have quite a lot of MacBook Pro's and I'm wondering why.

The MacBook Pros have been around a lot longer. Alum-iMacs are still in their first release. I doubt it's to do with build quality. My first gen MacBook Pro (ordered the morning they were announced) is going strong with no problems (aside from some fingernail wear on the A, S & E keys).

[Eduardo Rolon]

The benefits for the MacPro are not necessarily in processor speed but in expandability. The max memory for an iMac is 4 Gb for a MP is 16, the video card is upgradable and you can have more than one, internal Hard disks in MP = 4? in iMac 1. If you don't need to add anything more than 4Gb of Ram and a 256Mb video card then an iMac will do fine. For a regular user of AC with not much rendering get an iMac 24, save the money, max the memory (from crucial or macsales) and buy an external firewire hard disk for time machine.

[Erich]

ejrolon, I think you hit it square on with that comment! Although the Mac Pro's do have minor speed bump it is really the expandability that is of value.