Relative preformance

[D3v1L80Y]

I want any new purchase to last me for a decent amount of time.

Well, Macs do tend to be "useful" a lot longer than other systems. For example, I used to run a couple of G3 era iMacs on OS X 10.3.9 installed on each of them. The computers were 6 and 7 years older than the OS version itself, and both ran just fine with no issues whatsoever. Were they as snappy as the more current systems I had, of course not...but they still performed beautifully. So, using that rationale, the Mac you buy today should still be a workhorse for the next half a decade or so.
That feat is not always as easily reached with other OS/hardware setups. Macs do really hold their value and usefulness for years and years. Apple does make many adjustments and accomodations with regard to older systems when they design newer software and OS updates. You will be very pleased should you decide to expand your home computer use to the Mac.
Yet, as you have already stated, I would reccommend taking some time to "fiddle" around with one BEFORE you make any commitment to buy one. Make sure that you do your own research and try to get answers to as many questions that you can before you make a purchase.

And as far as your original question, while there isn't a great amount of difference between the clock speeds of the G5 chips, they are obviously progressively better and faster. However, if you took say a 1.6 GHz system and loaded it with 2 GB of RAM...and pitted that against a 2 GHz system with only 512 MB of RAM....you would likely find that the "slower" 1.6 GHz system would perform many similar tasks much smoother and more efficiently. With Macs, the amount of RAM you install greatly impacts the overall perfomance of your system. The more the better. So if you would decide to get a less expensive, lower clock speed model, you may want to consider upping the RAM.

 

[Malcy]

That feat is not always as easily reached with other OS/hardware setups. Macs do really hold their value and usefulness for years and years. Apple does make many adjustments and accomodations with regard to older systems when they design newer software and OS updates.
.

Your point about existing hardware running with new os'es is so true. I have seen it many times over the years, my present system will be just below the minimum spec for Vista if the rumours of the hardware requirements are true. This means that a hardware upgrade of some sort will be inevitable anyway and most of the guts of the computer is getting fairly aged now it seems like a good time to jump ship.

 

[Malcy]

Well, I braved the crowds at my local PCWorld today and had a look at the Macs. They had a 1.42 Mini and 17" and 20" iMacs.

As far as the screens go, I was pleasantly surprised by the 17" which has a higher res than my 19" monitor, I could happily live with it.

Performance wise, I was restricted to playing around with the built in apps and there appeared to be little difference. The Mini was slower of course, but would be fine for wp and surfing. I took along some jpeg and a raw image to try out iPhoto but the manager wouldn't let me, 'we had someone load a jpeg and it corrupted the whole hard disk' :dummy: Their sale prices were exactly the same as Apples standard off the shelf price - what a bargain!

The 17" iMac will cost £845 ($1461) after the educational discount (I am a teacher) and they are doing 6 months interest free, it works out to about £140 a month and I can reduce the cost substantially by ebaying my existing screen and pc (I have a laptop, so can do Windows stuff if necessary).

Looks like a winner.

p.s. I didn't like the mighty mouse.