Why even offer a low end PowerMac?

L

Lazarus18

In debt medical student
With the new iMac, I'm curious as to why anyone would get the low end PowerMac. For $100 more you can get the 17" iMac with the same processor, more HD space, same RAM, and of course a big gorgeous screen.

Granted that's my gut impression after comparing, because I would want a Superdrive in any new computer I got, so I'm tacking $200 onto the price of the PM. But even if you didn't, $300 for a 17" LCD display is better than you'll do anywhere. It just seems like the iMac has eclipsed the low end of the PM line. You lose expandability and Firewire 800. Other than that I see little reason not to go for the iMac if you weren't considering a higher end PM.
 
Simple.

Larger screen: ASD 20" and 23" or bigger CRT monitors, if they are in the print business. Even a plasma if you want to go crazy. LOL

More HD capacity: You can add 3 (6 with the piggyback mounts) hard drives for more space.

Video: You can upgrade your video card.

PCI Slots: For highend fibre-channel, SCSI, ATA-133, sound boards, etc.

Dual CPU: CPU upgrades are also possible here as well.

Thanks abuot all I can think of at the moment... but you get my point.
 
Don't forget L3 cache, gigabit ethernet, additional 5 1/4 slot, and a bigger power supply for all your extra goodies.

iMac is great if it has everything you'll need for a while. PowerMac is fine as a starting point and you want to go up from there.
 
Well, I said that you lose the ability to expand. If you're going to go for DP, would you really do it as an upgrade, or wouldn't you just buy a PM that comes that way? If you need 3 HD, SCSI, etc, chances are your needs are beyond the $1500 PM anyway. I remain unconvicned that there would be much of a market for the low PM, and that the high end iMac fulfills this role.
 
Right, but I think you discount the ability to expand too much for those on a budget. If you can't afford to foot the big for the "big boys", you could buy in on the low end and pick and choose your upgrades as you go. With the iMac, you're stuck. If I was buying a computer for my wife at the ~$1500 level, I'd get an iMac and be done with it. If I was buying one for me (always tinkering), I'd get the pmac because the ability to expand at a later point is absolutely critical. If you can't see the point in the pmac, that's fine, the iMac is for you anyway.
 
Well, most Mac users I know (including myself) are "All or Nothing" type of people when it comes to their Mac. I rarely upgrade a Mac from what it was originally. I might add more RAM in my PM, but I can also do that in my iMac. If I wanted a big hard drive, I'd still be able to do that with the iMac, I just couldn't put both in their. :)

I think the iMac 17" solution as it stands today is a fantastic price, and if you BTO your lowed end PM to match that of the BTO highend iMac, still only $100 price difference.

That is awesome in my book. I could spend $600 and upgrade my PM system with 1GHZ and new graphic cards... but why spend that type of money, when that money, along with ebay of the current system and a few extra bucks will give you overall newer system.

I don't know... just my thinking.
 
For studios that need to use video or audio capture hardware, and are using software that isn't optimised for dual processors, the low-end PowerMac is the obvious choice.
As a mini-server that needs a large capacity but will see virtually no load (such as a backup/long term storage system) it is also the most likely choice.
Basically, though, Apple are offering it because it is what a lot of people and businesses want.
 
If you can't see the point in the pmac, that's fine, the iMac is for you anyway.
Click to expand...
I can see the point. I OWN a pmac (albeit an old one). I ahve upgraded the video card and added a 2nd hard drive. But I also did not buy the bottom of the line pmac when mine was new.

I'm sure there are situations where a bare bones pmac is better than a $300 more iMac that does more. But I think those are rare. For most situations I can think of the iMac is a better option, or go with a higher end pmac.

Basically I guess this just points out that the price/performance of the iMac right now is fantastic. I would never have been making this argument with the CRT G3 iMac (which is why I bought a pmac as my first Mac).
 
Originally posted by binaryDigit
Right, but I think you discount the ability to expand too much for those on a budget. If you can't afford to foot the big for the "big boys", you could buy in on the low end and pick and choose your upgrades as you go.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I did. When I was just out of college (and therefor poor) I bought the cheapest "business" class machine I could. At the time that was the 7200.

While that machine turned out to be a terrible peice of #%&^, I did upgrade almost eveything on it to keep it limping along for almost 4 years. After that I was completely thrilled to upgrade to a mid-line B&W G3. Right after my switch to OS X I also upgraded to a G4.

This the the General Motors model of compute selling. We'll start you out in a Chevy, upgrade you to a Buick, and then eventually get you in a Caddilac.

I just ordered a PowerBook for work... I think that will have to fall into the midlife crisis Porsche category.

:p
 
I'm just not an all-in-one fan. I'd take the powermac tower over the imac in a heartbeat. The option of expandability is something that I really like having.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top