Forums | MacLife

This:
http://www.apple.com/displays/

looks just like a mac.

Redstone wrote:

been working with my trusted MacBook for over a year running windows probably 90% of the time.  the computer is doing ok, though I can use some more power (scotty) plus I really need bigger monitors.

1. I'm a Mac guy, but seriously, is it still worth it for me to buy a mac if I'm going to use it mostly to run windows?

2. Which mac should I buy? The old lowest level Macbook is still working mostly fine for me. the only real lagging I experience is running Camstazia (a video capture program) which I presume any new Mac will deal with better.
My first instinct are the Imac, due to it price and size. However, I'm thinking of getting an extra monitor. Will it be hard to find another monitor that looks like the imac?
is it o to work with two differen monitors or is it too confusing?

Any advice is welcome. Basically am looking for best price for computer+2 monitors. (2X21" will be enough as I'm able to work on 1 15" at the moment)

thanks for all the help.

Danny

I personally don't think it makes much sense, but one of my professor does exactly that, so you're not totally insane.

The only matching monitor you could get for the 24" iMac would be the 24" LED Cinema Display. You're going to pay a $300 premium over pretty much any other 24" LCD monitor for matching industrial design.

Whatever you buy is up to you, but it sounds like purchasing a desktop and two identical monitors is the way to go.

Forget about matching the exterior. Concentrate on performance. Most monitors are fine. I prefer ViewSonic, but that's a simple preference from long use of this brand.

I agree with Booksley, a base model desktop and two monitors.

The argument for paying the premium price for a Mac desktop instead of a less expensive other brand, is that when you get the same specifications for each, with the same capabilities, the Mac isn't that much more expensive. Just buy your RAM from a 3rd party, not Apple.

I still maintain the COE (cost of ownership) is less over the life of the product if you buy a Mac. It's compatibility is greater, and its reliability is higher (in general). YMMV.

I run VMWare Fusion for my Windows side programs and do a majority of work in there. However, if I need to use a text editor for XML or HTML or other pure text munging, I prefer the Mac side for ease of use. Same for internet use, the risks are much, much less.

If you just prefer OS X (I do) then the extra cost of a Mac may be justifiable for personal use system. But for business use unless you are forcibly tied to OS X for some very important (ie massive income generating) reason I can't see any reason to buy a Mac any more, especially if you are going to run Windows most of the time. A couple of years ago I wouldn't have said that but Vista has impressed me with its stability, reliability and compatibility. Vista is different from OS X and each OS has strengths and weaknesses, things I like and dislike, features I miss from one when I use the other, but I find the overall usability and "quality" comparable.

I can tell you I won't be paying $3,000 for a Mac Pro when I can buy a better equipped Windows box (built with mid-high priced components, not the cheapest junk available) for approximately $2,000. The iMac is maybe slightly less ridiculously over-priced as a 20 or 24 inch monitor is included but practically speaking the RAM is maxed at 4 GB and I just don't know if that is enough to make an iMac viable for a long enough time to offset the extra you pay compared to a comparably equipped Windows box.

mrreet2001 wrote:

Redstone wrote:

and it cost just $100 shy of a new imac...

You must have some crazy pricing in België.

Here in the states:

24" imac: $1,499.00
20" imac: $1,199.00
24" LCD : $899.00

I had the impression the cheapest imac's only cost like $1000. I was wrong

There will be a boost in performance, it won't be truly significant. The additional RAM will help, and you can plug in an additional monitor. The 20" iMac is $1199.

The Mac Mini is $599, which is significantly lower in price and might be able to push tow displays. It definately isn't faster than your macbook.

My iMac 2.8 is noticeably quicker than my 2.2 BlackBook
Heck the FW800 port is a huge enough jump in speed right there.
Particularly if you are doing video capture / rendering.

Redstone wrote:

dv wrote:

If you're upgrading from a 1 year old macbook, nothing in the iMac range you buy is going to offer a stunning performance boost.

Seriously, none at all?

I've got a 2.16ghz macbook with 1gb ram.
It serves pretty well for my very meagre needs, though trying to use video capture application like Camstezia (running on XP via boothcamp) the computer lags too much.

So a 2.66ghz imac or a 2.96ghz really wont show enough boost to justify cost?
I'm never going to spend $2k or more simply because I do not need the power those desktop offer.

They have the same CPU, just running at different speeds. If you have a 50% MHz boost, figure it "feels" like a 25% speed increase, all else being equal. The faster HD in the iMac will probably have just as great an overall effect. Between the two, I'd expect you to notice an improvement, but not so much that you'd be unwilling to use the Macbook due to the "Porsche Effect."

If you're doing video work, 1GB of RAM is cramped. Seriously. Upgrade that right away.

Ok, so if we go the Monitor root, does the apply display really worth it? I can probably get 2 for the same price.
I can get a LG W1952TQ-PF 19 Inch Widescreen for $100 (but I can't connect two to my macbook, right?) or a Samsung SyncMaster 305T 30 Inch Wide for like $600

Ty for your time and effort .

No, Apple Displays are good, but they're usually not worth it. Unless it just OMG HAS TO MATCH!!!

test wrote:

If you just prefer OS X (I do) then the extra cost of a Mac may be justifiable for personal use system. But for business use unless you are forcibly tied to OS X for some very important (ie massive income generating) reason I can't see any reason to buy a Mac any more, especially if you are going to run Windows most of the time. A couple of years ago I wouldn't have said that but Vista has impressed me with its stability, reliability and compatibility. Vista is different from OS X and each OS has strengths and weaknesses, things I like and dislike, features I miss from one when I use the other, but I find the overall usability and "quality" comparable.

I can tell you I won't be paying $3,000 for a Mac Pro when I can buy a better equipped Windows box (built with mid-high priced components, not the cheapest junk available) for approximately $2,000. The iMac is maybe slightly less ridiculously over-priced as a 20 or 24 inch monitor is included but practically speaking the RAM is maxed at 4 GB and I just don't know if that is enough to make an iMac viable for a long enough time to offset the extra you pay compared to a comparably equipped Windows box.

"Vista has impressed me..." and you still prefer OS X?

Redstone wrote:

I don't do video work. I capture the video that is displayed on my monitor (running on XP if that matters) I don't do anything with it after but viewing.

Is that really just a matter of more RAM?

There's a lot of factors, but 1GB is pretty minimal these days - without actually messing around with the computer, it would be my primary suspect.

If you're going to keep the Macbook as a second machine, it would be smart to max the RAM in it anyway. That's cheap. So do that, see if you are still dissatisfied with the performance, then go from there.

Your comments about the GUI and the mouse acceleration puzzles me. I'm just the opposite with Windows.

mrreet2001 wrote:

sturner wrote:

Your comments about the GUI and the mouse acceleration puzzles me. I'm just the opposite with Windows.

QFT

All I know is that when I use the mouse in Leopard the pointer movement is either behind the mouse movement or way ahead of it. It's too imprecise and no fiddling with the preferences will fix it. From Panther to Tiger to Leopard the lack of precision seems more pronounced. In my use of Win 95, 98, and XP I've never come across this.

The sluggish GUI (lag in opening windows, files) is common to all the OS X versions in my view.

I'm not sure if this is a software or hardware problem or both. Since Apple makes both I guess that's academic.