New System Purchase

[KenDRhyD]

I have a bit of a quandary, and I am seeking input and advice.

I have been on medical leave for some months now to deal with cancer treatment and recovery. All seems to have gone well, and I am eager to get back to work.

While I have only ever purchased Mac computers (my first was a monochrome "Fat Mac"), my work for the past several years has been all related to software that runs on Windows systems.

For the new job that is pending I will be seeded at least one Windows based system, although the specific specifications for that system are not yet set.

I am considering, once the details are finalized, purchasing one of the new Core 2 Duo systems and using Parallels to also run Windows XP Pro with SQL Server 2005 (Yukon) and Visual Studio .Net 2005 to do the develoment in both C++ and C#.

I have a 17" LCD G4 iMac, but at 1.25 GHz it is not fast and does not have enough power to run the Windows emulation (and most products are rapidly becoming obsolete for that platform anyway).

I am considering either a 20" Core 2 Duo iMac, the gorgeous 24" Core 2 Duo, Mac Book Pro, or even a Mac Pro. The latter is much more expensive, especially with having to purchase the external monitor, and it seems to use older processors (still listed as Pentiums, not Core 2 Duo), but it also seems to be much faster.

I am concerned with three issues:

1. Performance -- I want to be able to use XCode (for myself) and Visual Studio (for work at home) and have the code compile quite rapidly. I have read some recent articles that seem to imply that iMac systems are not exactly all that fast when compared to Core 2 Duo PC systems -- the iMac uses a slower FSB (667 MHz) instead of the faster one (1GHz) used in the PC systems -- and this concerns me somewhat.

1a. If I did elect to pursue the iMac, the article implied that the faster 2.33 MHz CPU option would be a waste of money due to the bus speed -- the article did not quantify this, but implied only memory resident actions would be slightly faster.

2. Cost -- obviously I want to keep the cost of the new system down. I know that more memory (main and video) and disk space should be added to the configuration, so that the final price of any system will be about 50% higher than the base price listed (just a general observation from trying several configurations). On the other hand, I want the system to last for some time.

3. Power consumption -- this new system will become my main machine and, like the existing system, will likely be on 24x7, so the amount of power consumed will have an impact on my electrical bill, something I would like to keep to a minimum.

Currently, my ranking in order of preference is:

A. 24" iMac decked out (2GB RAM + disk + video; possibly the faster processor too)
B. 20" iMac decked out (2GB RAM + disk + video; possibly the faster processor too)
C. 17: Mac Book Pro
D. 15" Mac Book Pro
E. Mac Pro (less certain of the specific configuration).

The Mac Book Pro options are tempting, but I could survive without the portable factor, and if the job develops I should be able to fund a laptop later (or a Windows laptop might be seeded). I primarily need a desktop development environment -- and yes, I use iLife and iWork and do some web site management as well for personal use.

One of the main reasons I am leaning to the 24" iMac is my love of real estate when I am developing and debugging code. Before leaving for cancer treatment I had a dual-monitor PC (a 19" and a 17" screen), which was great for being able to separate the debugger and the running code; the 24" monitor should come close to this, since the iMac and Mac Book are not capable of dual monitor support (mirroring, but not dual monitors).

Looking for realistic evaluations on these three points as well as some thoughts on the ranking.

 

[Lt Major Burns]

the Mac Pro doesn't use Pentiums, it uses the latest Xeon workstation processors, which are very-high-end Core 2 Duo processor designs (Woodcrest) cranked all the way up to 3ghz.

All the current line of Macs (excluding the Mini) have full DVI support for dual monitors, up to 1920x1200. you could have another 24" screen attached to the iMac 24"

"most products are becoming obsolete for that platform anyway" - not true, if you are referring to the PowerPC macs, as they will be supported universally for roughly 5-8 years from now.

I would say, unless you need a ton of RAM, the 24" iMac would be the best alround amazing system for the price, and there are rumors of logic board improvements around january, upping the FSB past 1ghz, if you want to wait.

 

[fryke]

Yes, just to clear that up: You _can_ hook up a second monitor to both iMacs and MacBooks (Pro and non-pro) without "mirroring", i.e. you can extend the Desktop.

 

[KenDRhyD]

Interesting. I may end up waiting a bit, as the financing is becoming less certain. This could work to my advantage.

What about the 'value' of the upgrade from the 2.16 GHz to the 2.33 GHz processor when ordering an iMac? Is the additional cost worth it in performance? Since the bus and other components do not appear to be different, will the additional processor speed actually result in a performance increase at all?

I know that for typical desktop activity the processor speed is somewhat moot after a certain point -- aside from launching a word processor in less time, a faster processor does not make typing faster (or not significantly) -- but for things like compiling code and rendering images (iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD), the processor speed does make a difference. But how much in the case of the high end iMac systems?

 

[Lt Major Burns]

when you buy, and certainly in the first year or 2, the negligable difference in speed (0.17ghz) won't make any difference at all. nothing will run on 2.33 that won't on 2.16. toward the end of it's life, you may find that it's not as fast, but to be honest, by that point, the 2.33 will be slow as well. i'd go for the cheaper processor and spend on ram, and software.

the bus won't restrict the speed as much as you think. the bus is suited to the architecture. you will be able to play all the latest and greatest games, and run any software you like on it. it will be fast.

 

[tcsdoc]

Matrox makes the DualHead2Go which gives the Mac Mini (and any other computer) the ability to run dual monitors.

 

[Lt Major Burns]

ah yes, but that's not ideal. it's vga (analogue), and also has an upper limit of 2x1280x1024 displays.