Help me choose an iMac

I'm thinking about getting a Mac. I... I dunno. I still kind of love Windows 7, but things have come up and I need a computer to serve as a sort of "work" computer alongside my Windows PC which serves me more as a computer for playing games, messing around with programing, watching movies, and other relatively frivolous things.

Anyway, I'm a writer, and I've lately decided to try and take my career more seriously. To do that, I think I need a computer that's going to allow me to more efficiently write, publish, and promote my work. I could do all of that from my Windows 7 computer, but let's face it. I've had to begrudgingly accept the fact that Macs are generally a more efficient platform for things like graphic design, publishing, video editing, and other related tasks.

Looking at Apple's website, I've sort of narrowed my choice of computer down to the 21.5 inch iMacs which seem to be the best value for me and most suitable to my needs. It's at this point where I'm a little bit torn between the $1199 and $1499 ones.

To be honest, the $1199 one probably offers as much computer as I'm going to need, at least for the foreseeable future. Additionally, I'm not too sure if the extra $300 really gets you much. I mean, obviously the more expensive one is mildly more powerful and has a larger hard drive, but I'm not sure if those differences are really significant enough to justify paying the extra money for. I'm just worried that, down the road, I'm going to be kicking myself and wishing I'd spent that little bit of extra money.

I won't pretend money is no object for me. $300 is kind of a big deal, but I can afford it. I'm just not sure how much it'll be worth it in the long run. I mean, I'd certainly hope the slight increase in power would keep the computer ahead of the curve slightly longer than its less powerful brother which makes me think it might be worth it over the long run to go for the more expensive one. Additionally, I may need to start using the computer for editing video, audio, and somewhat complicated graphics projects. That leads me to think that there may come a time when I end up being very thankful for that little extra bit of power. Still, $300 is a decent amount of money to shell out for upgrades that, in a sense, can seem slightly negligible.

I suppose all of this is my extremely wordy way of asking if there's anything I'm failing to notice that sets the $1499 iMac clearly above the less expensive one. Also, I'm curious to see what opinions folks have about which one would be better for someone in my situation. I mean, it doesn't take a supercomputer to run a word processing program. The cheaper iMac would be plenty enough for writing, say, a screenplay. I'm more worried about later on when I'm creating promotional material, laying out documents, and possibly editing video and audio that I'm going to find myself really regretting I didn't spend a little bit more money for a more powerful system. What do you all think?

I personally didn't see much a difference between the $1199 and the $1499 iMacs either. 1TB v.s. 500GB and 2.5Ghz v.s. 2.7Ghz were the only differences that I saw with a quick glance. I don't think that 200MHz is such an amazing increase myself, it probably wouldn't even be noticeable during normal usage.

If I were you, I'd go for the base model and use that left over $300 for extras like:

-More Ram (not from apple, it's too expensive)
-External HD (if you need more space)
-Software
etc.

Hope this helps.

MacDude121 said:

I personally didn't see much a difference between the $1199 and the $1499 iMacs either. 1TB v.s. 500GB and 2.5Ghz v.s. 2.7Ghz were the only differences that I saw with a quick glance. I don't think that 200MHz is such an amazing increase myself, it probably wouldn't even be noticeable during normal usage.

If I were you, I'd go for the base model and use that left over $300 for extras like:

-More Ram (not from apple, it's too expensive)
-External HD (if you need more space)
-Software
etc.

Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I did.

LoganTyler said:

This is exactly what I did.

Click to expand...

Me three!

And me.I too looked at the extra 300 and decided "nah".Will buy an extra 8GB in the next week or two from Crucial.

Sounds like your trying to rationalize a new computer purchase...given your statement...your Windows 7 machine will do everything you need to recommit...

In a similar boat

Hi Giwer - Having spent well over a hundred hours pondering the same sort of questions as yourself, I understand your dilema. My main usage of an iMac will be for the purpose of video editing. Originally, I was going to get the top spec 27" but have hit upon a slight financial problem - I either wait an extra three months and pay £1700 or get the 21.5" now.

I'm not bothered about a few MHZ or only a 512gb hard drive. The screen estate can be sorted via a second monitor a few months down the line and external storage is cheap. But - and there is always a but with computers - I realised that none of the 21.5" iMac's come with anything more than a 512mb graphics card. They CANNOT be upgraded.

Now, I did further research on how quickly 2010 iMac's have fallen behind the game (when new software is developed) and found that the most commonly reported gripe is the meager 256mb graphics cards being left behind. Those owners of last year's shiny iMac's cannot use the latest Final Cut.

This wasn't the end of the world for me as surely I could purchase FC7? Further digging revealed that I couldn't - it has been discontinued by Apple!

The minimum requirement today for up to date editing suites is a 512mb graphics card. That leads me to think that next year a 1gb graphics card will be the 'bare minimum' for anybody wanting to video edit on an iMac.

Sure, there is no such thing as a future proof machine - but when last year's buyers cannot use this year's software then choosing an iMac (as opposed to more malleable machines) has to be done very carefully. I shall have to wait until February but at least I know that I will have an iMac that I can use for the purpose I want it for. Without researching extensively, I'd have been stuck with a machine that only just meets this year's minimum specs requirements for video editing and would most likely be left behind next year.

At least with the 27" i7 with a 1gb or 2gb graphics card I have confidence that it won't struggle during it's three year life cycle. By the time I come to sell it for a few hundred pounds, the 2015 iMac's will no doubt make it look like an abacus - as long as I can still use whatever semi professional editing software I purchase in February then I'll be happy.

Just as last year's iMac buyers are happily using FC7.

PS

Sorry Gwiwer - my sausage fingers spelt your name wrong. Anyway, keep on searching and take 'official' minimum specs with a pinch of salt - those who are using an iMac for the exact purposes that you want one for are the people who should make your mind up.

I eventually went on video editing sites, which were invaluable in preventing me making a £1500 mistake!

David Green said:

In a similar boat


Now, I did further research on how quickly 2010 iMac's have fallen behind the game (when new software is developed) and found that the most commonly reported gripe is the meager 256mb graphics cards being left behind. Those owners of last year's shiny iMac's cannot use the latest Final Cut.

Click to expand...

I agree about the graphics card...however, I'm on a late 2009 21.5 iMac C2D and I'm running FCP X fine...albeit a little slow with rendering...but I'm doing everything I need to with it...including generators, transitions, looks etc....I did upgrade RAM to 12gb which helped a lot.

Hi Codda

Will definitely be getting an extra 8gb RAM from Crucial - again, Apple's minimum specs are 4gb RAM for FCPX but twice that amount is 'recommended'. A further exploration of real time users such as yourself tells a different tale with the general consensus being more like 8gb minimum and 12gb recommended.

Lion, FCPX, Compressor running in union would 'use' a lot more RAM than the minimum that Apple quotes - surely you can't disable Lion whilst working with FCPX?

I was aghast to read of Mac Pro users with 32gb RAM struggling and stuttering like a drunken snail on FCPX. The problem was across the board and all down to inferior graphics cards from two years ago.

I'm surprised that your getting by with a 2009 C2D and what must be a 256mb GPU - perhaps I'm being forced upmarket unnecessarily by users of FCPX that want everything done in a snap?

It's been nice to hear both sides of the argument here. I'm still not sure where I stand on the matter. In many ways, I kind of find myself agreeing with the people who went with the cheaper iMac and then added memory and an external hard drive. I'm kind of leaning towards that at the moment because I'm also going to probably need Word and Microsoft Office for Mac runs around $100+ or so, it seems. I'll probably pick that up and use the remaining money for memory, an external hard drive, and other software. I might try and make do with Open Office, or one of its variants, if I can, but I'm not sure how that's going to work out. I've had mixed results with previous versions for Windows. I'm also seeing conflicting reports about how it runs on 10.7, so things are looking a little sketchy at the moment. I'm probably going to end up with Microsoft Office.

I'm not too concerned with the graphics card. It's been my experience that software often runs just fine even with unsupported or underpowered graphics cards. My Windows 7 computer is actually a two year old laptop that just has the horrible Intel mobile graphics card that's essentially worthless. Regardless, I run quite a bit of software on here just fine that technically shouldn't run at all. I experience some slow downs and the occasional error message from doing so, but the software usually works alright for the most part. My father's iMac is probably about 5 years old and is still pretty fast. Sadly, it's probably even faster than this laptop. It's hard to take from that anything particularly relevant though since the only programs he ever seems to use are iTunes, Firefox, and iPhoto.

I'm always a wee bit suspicious of what people say on forums about the performance of different programs. It's hard to tell what their frame of reference is. When someone says something like, "Photoshop takes FOREVER to load!" it's hard to know if their definition of forever is measured in seconds or minutes. It's also hard to know how well maintained their system is and what other programs they might be running that could be slowing things down. I mean, the latest version of Photoshop can occasionally take a minute or two to start on this computer and will sometimes be a little sluggish for the first few minutes it's running if I have certain other programs running alongside of it. I find that annoying, but relatively tolerable. Someone else might consider it to be totally unacceptable though.

I think the bottom line is I'm going to head over to the Apple store some day next week and talk to the people working there. If they could lay out a convincing argument for buying the more expensive iMac, I'll probably do so. If not, I suppose I'll settle for the cheaper one. I'll try and remember to post a reply in this thread to update it regarding what the people at the Apple store say and which one I ultimately decide to get.

The people at my Mac store, or should I say Mac desk because that is all there is in a store devoted to PC, agreed that the lower costing one was the better value unless one was desperate for that small extra bit that came for the extra cost.Unless of course they were just settling for a sale, any sale in this economic climate !!!

Irishman said:

The people at my Mac store, or should I say Mac desk because that is all there is in a store devoted to PC, agreed that the lower costing one was the better value unless one was desperate for that small extra bit that came for the extra cost.Unless of course they were just settling for a sale, any sale in this economic climate !!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, it should be interesting to see how they react. I could see it going either way. They'll probably be tempted to go for the easy sell and try to push the lower cost option, but seeing my obvious willingness to potentially buy the more expensive one might be enough to convince them to try and push that one instead and squeeze a little extra money out of me. I can't really blame them, of course, since making sales is part of their job. I suppose it'll be imperative to keep that in mind while talking with them. I'll hear them out though and see if they could make a persuasive argument either way.

I remember back in the 90's my family had a few bad experiences with Apple when it came to things like customer support and whatnot. I've heard they've come a long way in making sure all of their employees are knowledgeable and helpful since then though, so I guess I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic and see how it goes.

Gwiwer said:

It's been nice to hear both sides of the argument here. I'm still not sure where I stand on the matter. In many ways, I kind of find myself agreeing with the people who went with the cheaper iMac and then added memory and an external hard drive. I'm kind of leaning towards that at the moment because I'm also going to probably need Word and Microsoft Office for Mac runs around $100+ or so, it seems. I'll probably pick that up and use the remaining money for memory, an external hard drive, and other software. I might try and make do with Open Office, or one of its variants, if I can, but I'm not sure how that's going to work out. I've had mixed results with previous versions for Windows. I'm also seeing conflicting reports about how it runs on 10.7, so things are looking a little sketchy at the moment. I'm probably going to end up with Microsoft Office.

I'm not too concerned with the graphics card. It's been my experience that software often runs just fine even with unsupported or underpowered graphics cards. My Windows 7 computer is actually a two year old laptop that just has the horrible Intel mobile graphics card that's essentially worthless. Regardless, I run quite a bit of software on here just fine that technically shouldn't run at all. I experience some slow downs and the occasional error message from doing so, but the software usually works alright for the most part. My father's iMac is probably about 5 years old and is still pretty fast. Sadly, it's probably even faster than this laptop. It's hard to take from that anything particularly relevant though since the only programs he ever seems to use are iTunes, Firefox, and iPhoto.

I'm always a wee bit suspicious of what people say on forums about the performance of different programs. It's hard to tell what their frame of reference is. When someone says something like, "Photoshop takes FOREVER to load!" it's hard to know if their definition of forever is measured in seconds or minutes. It's also hard to know how well maintained their system is and what other programs they might be running that could be slowing things down. I mean, the latest version of Photoshop can occasionally take a minute or two to start on this computer and will sometimes be a little sluggish for the first few minutes it's running if I have certain other programs running alongside of it. I find that annoying, but relatively tolerable. Someone else might consider it to be totally unacceptable though.

I think the bottom line is I'm going to head over to the Apple store some day next week and talk to the people working there. If they could lay out a convincing argument for buying the more expensive iMac, I'll probably do so. If not, I suppose I'll settle for the cheaper one. I'll try and remember to post a reply in this thread to update it regarding what the people at the Apple store say and which one I ultimately decide to get.

Click to expand...

I have the base model and it is superb, I am running the standard 4gb ram at present have done anti virus scans and played online games at the same time. Now you mention office but you can get the Mac version which is quite cheap and you can buy in it bits so to speak.

Excel is called numbers and is £13
There is also a word (Pages) version and again the same price and so is the power point (iNote) version they do. all £13 each which isn't a bad price at all.

Something to consider?

David Green said:

Hi Codda

Will definitely be getting an extra 8gb RAM from Crucial - again, Apple's minimum specs are 4gb RAM for FCPX but twice that amount is 'recommended'. A further exploration of real time users such as yourself tells a different tale with the general consensus being more like 8gb minimum and 12gb recommended.

Lion, FCPX, Compressor running in union would 'use' a lot more RAM than the minimum that Apple quotes - surely you can't disable Lion whilst working with FCPX?

I was aghast to read of Mac Pro users with 32gb RAM struggling and stuttering like a drunken snail on FCPX. The problem was across the board and all down to inferior graphics cards from two years ago.

I'm surprised that your getting by with a 2009 C2D and what must be a 256mb GPU - perhaps I'm being forced upmarket unnecessarily by users of FCPX that want everything done in a snap?

Click to expand...

I am also still running Snow Leopard and not Lion...FWIW...

Gwiwer,
I argue with myself and win both sides.
But if you go to a salesperson and ask anything, they'll read you and sell you what you already want AND if THEY CAN, a bit more. So I doubt that would help you.
I do recall in the PC world, buy the biggest, fastest, etc....I am new to the Mac World so I don't know if that holds true.
In your first post you indicated you want it for writing and a SOME photos, so buy the cheaper. If you think you want video down the line, or more intensive processing, then buy the upgrade. In my judgement the cheaper one fills your bill, but then so does your PC. Sorry as I can't be more muddy!

LenInSebastopol said:

Gwiwer,
I argue with myself and win both sides.
But if you go to a salesperson and ask anything, they'll read you and sell you what you already want AND if THEY CAN, a bit more. So I doubt that would help you.
I do recall in the PC world, buy the biggest, fastest, etc....I am new to the Mac World so I don't know if that holds true.
In your first post you indicated you want it for writing and a SOME photos, so buy the cheaper. If you think you want video down the line, or more intensive processing, then buy the upgrade. In my judgement the cheaper one fills your bill, but then so does your PC. Sorry as I can't be more muddy!

Click to expand...

I spent all night at work arguing with myself over 21.5" versus 27", 512mb 6770 versus 1gb 6970, FCPX versus Adobe, 2.5ghz versus 3.4ghz, waiting one minute versus hyperthreading, £1450 versus £2030. I even made two screens out of paper in 16.9 and laid them side by side, imagining myself editing a fiddly section of video.

After many days of online recon and two hours badgering staff (who were superb) at my local Apple store, my mind is made up.

I'm going with the 3.4ghz i7 27".

Which is what I chose in the first place many weeks ago. I just had to be absolutely certain, like the OP and countless thousands of others, that I wasn't being either greedy or cheap.


It's been a bit like choosing a wife.

Now I have eleven weeks to study all the Mac 101's and familiarize myself with all the nuts and bolts. Oh, and choose an appropriate external storage system and video camera.

OP - for what it's worth, go for the base model. If over 30% of your time would be spent video editing then I'd suggest you wait and save for the bigger screen - 5½" doesn't sound much, but the difference is huge and well worth the extra bang.

For predominantly office work, a few photos and casual video editing, spending extra money on screen estate and 200mhz CPU power would be an unnecessary luxury.