Coverting to iMac G5 from Dell PC/XP/SP2

[terry_rory]

I had never realised there was such a thing as an iMac G5. I was only

aware of the G5 PowerPC which I was thinking of upgrading to in about

18 months when my Dell 3 year onsite, next day support runs out.

 

Well now, there is this new (to me) and far less expensive iMac G5

which looks great and seems to fall into a price category that I could

buy much sooner than the PowerPC G5.

 

The 20" display, 2 GHZ, 1.5 GB RAM, 3 year support works out around a

1000 GB pounds cheaper than a powerPC option with 20" screen.

 

My current Dell PC is 2.8 GHZ but I figure that Windows/XP based

applications are always going to have a built in handicap compared to

Apple based equivalents so 2 GHZ may be enough?

 

The most obvious thing to talk about is Photoshop CS2. I currently run

PS7 & Nikon View 6.2.6 with Microsoft RAW viewer on my PC and would

hold off buying CS2 (or whatever) until I have upgraded/changed

computer. Is the iMac G5 2GHZ (with 1.5 GB RAM) 'punchy' enough to use

PS CS2?

 

My needs are those of a keen amateur digital/film photographer rather

than a pro (Nikon D70, Canon S70 and Contax film SLR) I always shoot

using RAW and will probably want to plug in a decent neg scanner at

some point. (Nikon Coolscan V most likely)

 

The 'footprint' for the iMac G5 is tiny and it looks dead elegant and

appeals to my minimalist side. My current dell 17" flat screen would

become an Apple 20" widescreen so I guess I do not lose any screen

'acreage'.

 

One last thing. Is the 'conversion' from PC to Apple very painful or

is it fairly easy to do? (I have been PC based at work and home for

over 13 years now.)

 

Thanks

[coconutdaydream]

i was a pc user for twelve years before making the switch<br>

it was very painless, the OS is very intuitive, i felt at home<br>

and 2ghz should be enough, just load it with ram<br>

osX loves ram!<br>

if my iBook with 1.33ghz and 256mb ddr is pretty quick<br>

that imac G5 will put mine in a grave!

[ray]

<em>One last thing. Is the 'conversion' from PC to Apple very painful or is it fairly easy to

do? (I have been PC based at work and home for over 13 years now. </em>

 

<p>

Fairly easy. After a decade and half of using windows, it was a simple overnight switch to

OS X. Granted I had a unix background, so I had the added benefit of continuing to use all

my existing unix tools on the Mac OS X -- this allowed me to consolidate my linux and

Win2000 boxes into one Mac.

<p>

In my case, the only heartburn was having to re-buy software I already had in Windows.

This is a one time hurdle and the switch was completely worth it.

[nick_breedlove1]

Geez...Photoshop was built to run on Macs rather than PC's. I'm sure some will disagree with me...it's like the Canon/Nikon and Fuji/Kodak age old debate. However, I used a P4/3.2/1.5 at home, and a G5/DP2.5/1.25 at work and the G5 outperforms my PC in every single way with graphics using CS2. GO WITH THE MAC!

[tom_herman1]

Presumably you all know that Apple has publicly announced they are switching away from IBM G5 processor chip, to Intel Pentium chips?

 

Expect the first Apple/Intel products in late 2005 or 2006. While the O/S will still be some version of Apple Mac, I'd bet all older applications may not work, and you'd have to re-purchase some of the software. Or if older software is suported thru emulation, performance will suck

[terry_rory]

Thanks for the encouragement all.

 

(And the display of exasperation Nick! Please have patience I cannot be an Apple expert before I have even bought one.)

[terry_rory]

Tom, I had heard that Intel would take over from IBM with chip production but assumed that Apple would specify exactly what Intel had to make for them rather than the other way around.

 

I assume Apple will have Intel produce exactly to their specs?

[EricM]

"Geez...Photoshop was built to run on Macs rather than PC's. I'm sure some will disagree with me..."

 

Photoshop hasn't been coded for Mac since Photoshop 5. All versions since has been coded on Windows. Why does PS cost more for Mac?

 

Trevor, it's a funny time to be thinking of Mac. Their whole architecture is, as you may know, changing. I'd hold off for at least 18 months or so until the new chipsets run smooth. Mac's are dog slow right now.

 

Still, I'd stick with PC. In 18 months or so, the money that you will spend on an unstable Mac verses what you put into an all 64 bit PC will knock the socks off any Mac.

[tom_herman1]

Trevor-

 

No, indications are that Apple will be using the "standard" Intel x86 architecture processor chips. But Apple is likely to use proprietary BIOS chips that would "lock" the Mac OS & restrict booting up, to the Apple/Intel hardware only. This would prevent someone from installing Mac-OS on say, Dell PCs; or equivalently prevent operation of Windows OS on Apple hardware.

 

I did have the dates somewhat wrong; Apple expects to introduce the Apple/Intel products by mid-2006 and have completed the transition by mid-2007.

 

The have been numerous news articles on the switch. For exmpl,

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1824695,00.asp

[michaelkh]

Tom,

 

The Intel macs in development currently run an identical version of OS X, simply compiled

for x86. The switch is being accommodated through dual-format binaries (Apple did

this before with success, and NeXTStep, the operating system OS X is built on, once ran on

four architectures with 'fat' binaries).

 

Apple will have, for some period of time, both intel and powerpc machines in their lines

(probably the laptops and mac mini will be intel chips first). Most users won't see much in

the way of difference.

 

Intel machines will endure some period of transition, through an impressively efficient

run-time code-translation (NOT emulation) layer called Rosetta. It is working

now, and the reports are that it is significantly faster than Virtual-PC-style emulation. The

technology for this is not particularly new. Way back when DEC made Alpha machines that

ran NT, there was a system called FX!32, which took an intel NT binary and progressively

made it into an Alpha NT binary as it was ran. The more you used the app, the more

coverage the 'translation' got.

 

For a good number of years to come, developers will be able to support both binary

formats at once (the majority of programming tasks are pretty much high level and

processor-agnostic). Apple's own developer toolset will produce dual format

binaries, and there are guidelines for any issues that might arise.

 

Adobe have committed to supporting both formats. They will have a harder job with

Photoshop as they don't use Apple's toolchain, and they have plenty of assembly language

in their code. However they have basically written this assembly code for intel already, for

the Windows version.

 

The computing world moves at such a pace, it seems to me that 'old G5' users (such as

myself - I have a 17" iMac G5 and love it) will not particularly lose out. The new intel

machines they buy in two or three years to replace their G5s will run their

existing apps almost as fast through Rosetta as their old machines ran them natively, and

by that point new apps will be available for intel.

 

My concern has been not for Apple's long term but for its short term. However I am now

pretty much reassured that someone buying a G5 iMac now for two or three years' use

before replacing it will not really lose out at any point; the replacement will be intel but the

switch should be painless.

[garrison_k.]

not my thread, but wanted to say thanks Michael anyway. informative.

[kyle baker]

Another thing you have to keep in mind, is that you cannot compare a mac to a pc as a

3.2Ghz pc vs a 2Ghz mac, they are built on entirely different architectures and thus a

lower cpu speed does not mean a slower machine. its just like intel vs amd, the trick that

macs use, is they have a wider pipeline out of the cpu and thus more information can be

pumped out at once. I remember when i got my 800Mhz G4 powerbook, PC laptops were

running at almost 1.6Ghz or higher, and my mac was the same on most programs and a

little faster. When i switched thoough, the only problem i had was with some of the

navigation around the HD on the mac, it seemed a little foreign to me, like how to access

programs and how they are installed, but once i clicked in that on macs for the most part

its 1 file 1 program, it made everything much easier. Good luck with the switch!

[terry_rory]

It is not just the performance that concerns me. The Apple 'aesthetic' is extremely attractive and the (relative) lack of viral activity out there in the Apple world.

 

Even a high performance PC is dragging around a kevlar body suit of firewalls/internet security/anti bot & adware and has a skeleton (Windows) made up predominantly of 'patches' and plates keeping it all screwed together which needs live update left switched on to keep itself well.

 

OK I guess the world of Mac is not entirely bug free but it all seems a lot 'cleaner' than the world of Windows. I have never been hit with a virus yet but with a PC there is always that feeing that it is only a matter of time no matter what precautions are taken.

 

I can live without that.

 

I got a small taste of Microsoft free computing with my recent 'conversion' to Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 from IE. Wow what a difference!

Now I want a much bigger dose of that feeling and think that an iMac could provide it.

[erickpro]

Take a look at this http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

 

its a little old, not much. It'll serve you as a guide on comparison.

[doris_chan]

"Is the iMac G5 2GHZ (with 1.5 GB RAM) 'punchy' enough to use PS CS2?"

 

Yes, it should be fine. I run a dual 1.8ghz G5 with 2 gigs of RAM and it's really fast and

uncrashy when it comes to dealing with big (and multiple) files. On location I use a G4

iBook with the maximum 1.25 gigs of RAM and even it deals well with RAW conversions in

DPP and subsequent Photoshop work - totally unlike the previous G3 iBook which was

slow enough to drive you insane. The only question mark might be over the quality of the

monitor on the iMac, I'd compare it side by side with it's standalone equivalent before

making the jump. Don't even think about the superficially seductive 23 inch display until

Apple acknowledge and deal with the magenta color cast issue......

[neil_parker]

The drawback to the imacs is their all-in-one nature. Great for saving desk-space, and

minimalist as you say. But the expandability is limited compared to a tower. No slots to

add specialized video or sound cards, for say, a second monitor for photoshop palettes.

And no way to add additional HDs internally, although you can add them with external

Firewire. And if your monitor has a problem, the whole computer has to go to the shop,

rather than just plugging in a different screen.

 

Still, any Mac is a great way to go IMO, if you don't mind the expense of having to buy

your programs all over. I think adobe may have some deals on transferring to new

systems. Never had a virus, but I that may change if mac's share of the market increases

significantly.

 

I've been using macs for almost 15 years and photoshop since v1.07 came on a single

floppy disc.:)

[nigel_nagarajan]

Trevor,

 

Presumably you are aware of the fact that you can convert your PC version of Photoshop to

a Mac version for the cost of postage. If you have proof of purchase of the PC version, just

contact Adobe and you can get a Mac version for almost free.

 

Also, I wouldn't worry at all about the architecture of future Macs. The main benefit for you

of switching is the move to a virtually worry-free operating system, OS X. This will be the

same whether you get a current G5 or a future Intel-based Mac.

 

From my experience, the conversion to Mac is incredibly pain-free. And if you like Firefox,

you can get the Mac version for your G5 (or Camino, which is also from Mozilla, but has

more of a Mac feel about it). In any event, Safari (default Mac browser) is a joy to use

compared to IE.

 

Nigel

[coconutdaydream]

if you go to the apple site and watch the 2005 WWDC Keynote<br>

you'll see why older programs will run<br>

they get translated on-the-fly in the background as they run

[terry_rory]

I do not mind about the 'all in one' configuration. I like it more from a space saving point of view. So long as I take out the 3 year (including onsite support) extended cover I will feel comfortable. I get the impression that Apple support is pretty good. (Is it as good here in the UK?)

 

I have not read any major mis-givings about going over to Mac, quite the opposite. The mention of the iMac G5 did not ring any alarms bells either. That's good.

 

I am going to read up more on all this and try and get some time on a friend's G4 laptop/PS CS that is being loaned to him by college as part of his photography course.

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts and advice.

[barefoot]

<i>The Apple 'aesthetic' is extremely attractive and the (relative) lack of viral activity out

there in the Apple world. </i>

<p>

Trev,

<p>

Follow your aesthetic nose. A mac isn't really much easier to use than an xp based system

but it is more enjoyable. And you are putting money into a company that cares about

simple things like style as well as efficiency.

[Uhooru]

Hi Trevor. I made this same switch albit from Win2000 to an iMac 20" 2.0. I bought 2 gb of

ram from crucial. I currently run CS on it not CS2. I've not looked back. OSX has been a joy

to use. Now in 3 years I'll probably be screaming for speed, but as of now it runs great and is

actually faster in most everything from my AMD 3200+ system (which I still have). Also, the

screen is amazing. Things that didn't look totally sharp on the CRT look spot on on the mac

and you can see the oversharpening plainly where it wasn't noticiable before. Really, the

screen is brilliant. Check it out carefully, but I don't think you would be going wrong with it.

Also consider a nice external fire wire HD for storage.

Cheers from Barry from over at the Leica and other forums.

[andrew_rodney1]

-->Photoshop hasn't been coded for Mac since Photoshop 5. All versions since has been

coded on Windows. Why does PS cost more for Mac?

 

As someone that?s spent some time on the 10th floor at Adobe, let me say that this isn?t

correct!

 

PS costs more for Macs? First I?ve heard of this one...

[Brad_]

Another vote for the iMac G5. My wife uses one daily, and like the other Macs here, it's

trouble free and a pleasure to use. Do what Barry said and get a FireWire external hard disk

for backup (I use a program called Synk) - 250 to 400 GB would be good.

[EricM]

Andrew,

 

Michael Houghton Photo.net Patron, jul 16, 2005; 11:38 a.m.

 

"Adobe have committed to supporting both formats. They will have a harder job with Photoshop as they don't use Apple's toolchain, and they have plenty of assembly language in their code. However they have basically written this assembly code for intel already, for the Windows version."

 

I've read the same thing from time to time in various journals and publications as Michael pointed out. I never gave it much thought, nor care. But I'd view any links or otherwise if you wish to share the contrary.

 

Why would Adobe code for 3% of the market? Doesn't make sence. And yes, Adobe sw has always cost more off the shelf up here in the great white for Mac. Maybe it's heavier and shipping costs more?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many of us started with early versions of Photoshop on a Mac or PC; where the install was with floppies. Photoshop came out first for the Mac; then the PC about version 2.5 say. The two versions /packages had different types of floppies; since the Mac used a different floppy format. My original Photoshop license for the PC had only floppies; no CD. I think floppies were availbale to at least version 4; maybe higher with a fee to buy them from Adobe. <BR><BR>As a PC user; I am very greatfull that Photoshop still has a strong Mac usage; it prevents "changes to make changes" alot. With some pure PC programs in CAD; their is a mess of toolbar changes; like they are nuts; which a Mac user would go crazy with; and a PC user just mad. :)