Intense gaming on current macs vs future imac rumors (buying now or not)

I am wondering if i should purchase the 2nd tier 21.5 (fully upgraded)in imac for my gaming needs for games such as world of warcraft. Or should i wait to the next refresh. I do not know much about the i3 processors that may or may not be found in the new imacs. Are they better for gaming and will most of the new spec updates (ie graphics cards, ram, etc) also be most likely be better for gaming. This will be my first mac so i am not sure how the bew releases usually effect the old design.
Any help would be great.

It really depends on your definition of intense. World of Warcraft is quite old and not necessarily that demanding. IMO both iMacs should be fine for that game (with an advantage to the 27" because of the better graphics card).
Note that you can also configure the Core 2 Duo 27" with the 4850 card, though at that points it's only $150 less than the i5, or even $50 more if you upgrade either the processor (3.06 -> 3.33) or RAM (4 GB -> 8 GB).
Some iMac benchmarks:
http://www.barefeats.com/imi7g.html (2560x1440)
http://www.barefeats.com/imi7g2.html (1920x1200)
But I agree with Dave that a PC would be better if the two following conditions are met:
1) the primary use of the computer will be gaming;
2) you expect that its primary use will remain gaming for at least several years.
If you're going to use the computer for gaming, you'll get better performance under Windows even on the iMac (via Boot Camp).
And a PC (and by that, I mean a tower) makes a lot of sense because it is upgradeable, unlike the iMac (only the RAM is easily upgradeable). This may be cheaper in the long run because you don't have to replace the whole computer at once, and some of the components can be easily moved to a new computer when you do replace it (e.g. graphics card, hard drives, monitor).
I disagree with Dave about intense gaming implying no object on cost (running demanding games for long periods of time might make you willing to spend good money on a powerful computer - but it doesn't magically grant you a no-limit budget). However, the iMac is not cheap and you can build a good tower PC (including a monitor) for $2000, that will easily match or exceed the iMac's gaming performance.
Not to mention that in order to run Windows on an iMac you'll have to purchase a separate Windows license (though depending on your needs the performance of WoW or similar games might be good enough under OS X).

Similar Messages

I received an Keynote update notice on my Mac Air. I updated and now can not get into my saved keynote docs. I am being asked to upgrade again and purchase the upgrade. Anyone else having this issue?

I received an Keynote update notice on my Mac Air. I updated and now can not get into my saved keynote docs. I am being asked to upgrade again and purchase the upgrade. Anyone else having this issue?

Try this repair, ensure you complete all the tasks and in the order shown:
1 delete all the iWork applications if you have them, not just Keynote, use Appcleaner from Mac Update to           do this, its freeware
2 restart the Mac;   Apple menu > restart
3 immediately after the start chime, press the shift key until you see the Apple symbol.
         let it fully boot up, it will take longer as the OS is repairing the drive
4 when fully booted, go to Applications > Utilities > Disc Utility; click on the boot drive then First Aid tab and           click repair disc permissions
5 when complete, restart the Mac normally
6 install Keynote from the Mac App Store
Please report back to let us know if this helped.

I want to use Back to my Mac, but my iMac using wireless LAN will not wake from sleep

I've read a ton of posts, and it seems that others have similar problems.
Here are some details: I have a 2 year old iMac now running updated install of Yosemite. I have a brand new MBP running clean install of Yosemite.
I have a 2 year old AirPort Extreme connecting my home wireless LAN. How can I get my MBP to connect to my iMac using Back to my Mac once the iMac has gone to sleep. Back to my Mac works if all computers are active.
The appropriate energy saver selections have been made. Leaving the iMac awake is not an option.
it just doesn't seem to work. No wake on wireless LAN?
Help please

Someone else may come along and have an idea, but as far as I know the iMac shuts off wifi when asleep so it can't be used to wake up the Mac. It has to be a wired connection.
Leaving the iMac awake with the display off really doesn't use much energy so it might be worth considering.
~Lyssa

IMac froze, and now will not start up properly

I left my iMac for about half an hour, and when I came back, it was completely frozen, and I had to shut it down by pressing the power button. I turned it back on, and this is what happened:
I heard the usual chime, and the grey screen popped up. However, the screen then went black, and then the grey screen popped up again. After a few seconds of solid grey screen, a little icon appeared in the middle of the screen. It looks like a little folder icon, and it alternately flashes the face from the Finder icon and then a question mark over and over.
I tried resetting the SMU and holding the Command-Option-P-R keys before the grey screen pops up, but to no avail. Any suggestions?

This exact same thing just happened to my girlfriend's iMac G5 on July 11th. After taking it to the Apple Store Genius Bar, we were told that it was a hard drive failure. they booted the computer off their external hard drive with some kind of utility program. the iMac's hard drive did not show up as a drive at all. we were told, there was nothing they could do about it. we could go to a hard drive data specialist who could attempt to extract the data on the hard drive but it would cost up to $1000, but even then the chances of getting data back are not guaranteed. we basically need to get a new hard drive.
this is lovely... for a computer that is a year and a half old, you would expect a little more longevity and reliability in it's components. my old 450MHz G4 tower, that's like 8 years old, has never caused me any problems except for being slow in speed. makes me reconsider wanting to replace my old G4 with the next iMac release.
does anyone have any other suggestions and recommendations that won't cost a thousand dollars in recovery services? thanks!

Imac freezese an now will not boot up

I have a 24in imac late 2006 which has recently been difficult to wake up with screen pixilation etc. Now it just freezes as soon as you touch anything and I cannot even get it to boot up now. Have reset smc and pram and now just have a blank screen. Have read how there is a problem with video card over heating but think it might even be more than that. Have applecare thank goodness.

I had the same thing happen to my 2006 24" iMac - the screen image had a strange grid pattern covering it, and I couldn't get past the grey apple loading screen before what looked like a kernel panic.
I took the mac in for repair at my local Apple-Authorised place, and it turned out to be a defective graphics card causing the problem. It was replaced, and now things seem to be running fine once more.
I suggest getting your mac checked out :o)

New Imac (aluminum) Buy now? or Wait?

hey, i just saw these new imacs, and i was wondering if its a good idea to buy it now, or wait until leopard comes out.
and are they really better than the whites ones?
Thanks
niko

I know this wasn't the original topic...just because Steve Jobs announced 10 "new" features of Leopard, it doesn't mean that those are the only "new" features of Leopard.
I'm not trying to pick a fight...TylerJS, just that if anything, it is Vista that is trying to "look" and "feel" like OSX. I was using a friend's HP running Vista...still "work" and "feel" and "look" like XP to me. It was so confusing that I had to just do what I had to do and power down!
I would say wait...get Leopard with your iMac installed. To me, OSX is so user friendly that I could only see it getting better. But...still a little confused on how "Time Machine" works...one would need a HUGE hard-drive in order to use this feature. When backing up movies, music, photo files, one could only imagine that it would take up a TON of space....
Anyway, again, I'm not trying to pick a fight...everyone is entitle to their own opinion, but to me, Vista is "copying" OSX, not the other way around.
Patrick

I have an iPod which i currently sync on my iMac, I want to sync it on my Apple mac pro, how do I do this? Is there a way of doing this without restoring my iPod?

I have an iPod which I currently sync on my iMac, but I want to sync it on my Apple mac pro, how do I do this? Is there a way of doing it without restoring my iPod?

Post here:
https://discussions.apple.com/community/ipod

Can I use 27' iMac(Later 2009) as a display for Mac Pro(future 2013)?

Can I use 27' iMac(Later 2009) as a display for Mac Pro(future 2013)?

See > http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11302
To be able to use the iMac as an external display, the Mac Pro should come with a Mini DisplayPort or Thunderbolt port, so think that it will include Mini DisplayPort or Thunderbolt, although we don't know anything.
To connect the iMac to the Mac Pro, as your iMac has got a Mini DisplayPort, you have to use a Mini DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort cable (Thunderbolt is compatible with Mini DisplayPort cables, but Mini DisplayPort isn't compatible with Thunderbolt cables). Then, just follow the steps of the page above to use the iMac as an external display

Bridging the gap between Mac Mini and iMac

Does anyone agree that Apple needs to add another model between the Mac Mini and the iMac? I think they need something like a Mac Mini Plus. Two models, one with the 1.83GHz Core Duo and one with the 2.0GHz Core Duo. The unit itself would be slightly larger than the standard Mini and include a PCI Express slot with several video card options and a faster (7200RPM) hard drive. Personally, I hesitate to buy an iMac because of the built in monitor. I would prefer to buy a separate LCD flat panel monitor that I could keep for years and use with different Mac models as I upgrade. As for the current Mac Mini, it's video and processor options are on the low end, albeit perfect for the casual user, but for someone that wants to do some gaming or video editing, they don't quite cut it.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the elegant design of the iMac, but I think Apple needs to offer something that allows us to have the iMac equivalent computing power without the built in monitor and without having spend a thousand more on a PowerMac.
Athlon XP 1800+ Windows XP Pro

Yes, I'd love something in the form of a Mac Mini that was closer in spec to the iMac.
Honestly, the only reason I won't buy an iMac CoreDuo is the built-in monitor.
And, the only reason I won't buy a new Mac Mini is that they are underpowered.
I have owned two iMac G5 systems, and both had serious faults with their built-in LCD panel.
The first would permanently etch in anything on the screen for every hour of intensive use.
It wouldn't etch it in in normal use. But, if I did any of my audio work, it would heat up the system so hot that the image on the screen would literally cook into the LCD panels plastic surface.
It literally looked like you took a razor blade, and precisely carved the exact image into the surface of the screen. Pretty nasty looking. Nothing would get rid of it, and it would happen every time I did my audio editing / processing work for an hour.
Naturally, the more work I did, the worse it got. I only got two editing sessions out of an LCD panel before having it replaced.
After going through that for a while, I sold the system after having a fresh panel installed under warranty.
I got tired of damaging the screen after every hour of work.
The second iMac G5 was purchased a year later. That one also suffered permanent damage to it's LCD panel. But, not quite as noticeable.
I know that there are a bunch of people getting ready to hit me with the "Image Persistence" explanation. But, trust me, I know about Image Persistence, and this wasn't it.
I was seeing actual permanent screen burn-in (which is not supposed to happen on LCD panels).
The service tech was absolutely amazed at the appearance of my screen. And, yes we verified it was the actual panel that was damaged. He wouldn't replace it without verifying that it was the panel itself.
Anyway, I called to arrange service on the second system again, and before I could get it in there, the backlight started flickering. And, I had already had tons of other stuff fixed on the machine. So, I sold it and bailed-out.
Now, after all the problems I've had with the built-in screens on the iMac G5 systems, I don't want another Apple product with a built-in screen. I want to use my own LCD panel.
I have an LCD panel that I'm using now. It's about 3 years old, and only cost me $200. And, it doesn't have even the slightest indication of image burn-in or image persistence. I use it every day, and use it just like I did the iMacs.
So, what I want now, is a machine comparable to the iMac CoreDuo, but without the built-in screen.
The current Mac Mini's cost way too much for their very low specifications.
I already have a Mac Mini G4. It's underpowered as well. But, no worse-off than the current Mac Minis.
Now, if Apple produced a Mac Mini with identical specs to the iMac, I'd gladly buy it.
Even better for them, I'd pay the same price as the current iMac to get it without the built-in monitor.
Yes, that's right, I'd pay the full price of the iMac to get a Mac Mini without a monitor if it was of the same specifications otherwise.
The current Mac Mini is obviously stripped-down to prevent competition with the iMac. But, I think they'd find that they would simply expand their user base if they offered a better Mini.
With their product line as it is, the current Mac Mini is not a compelling machine, and the iMac is not an option because of it's built-in monitor.
Get me a high-end Mac Mini and you've got a sale.

Mac Mini V Imac G5

Hello,
Maybe some people will call me daft but here goes. I have recently purchased a Mac mini Intel duo core 1.66mhz with a 1gb ram and 80gig drive I also already have a 20"Imac G5 with a gig ram and 250gb hard disk. What I would like to know is, should I sell my Imac and is the mini faster? I like them both and bar the obvious hard disk differance and maybe graphics is the mini quicker at applications, burning and the internet which is what I use it for? (I would then invest in a bigger display and firewire hard drive If I sell the Imac) I dont use them for games either?
Any thoughts, ideas and help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Jamie

The mini will be somewhat faster in purely CPU performance, so such things as video rendering, applying filters and effects in Photoshop, iMovie or Final Cut would be quicker than the G5 iMac. However, in disk-intensive software, you'd likely find the iMac still has the edge simply because it's drive is faster - which in turn allows MacOS rather faster read/write access to it's temporary 'swap' files.
From the standpoint of real-world use, I suspect the answer is that they'll roughly equal each other, and certainly for internet use, both will spend the majority of their time waiting for data to arrive since the slowest system is still help back by the data rate in an internet connection. I suspect the fact you're asking the question here reflects the fact you're seeing generally similar performance from them both during normal use.
Thus from a purely 'performance' viewpoint, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
However, I think the previous poster has hit the real issue - that if you are determined to part with one or other, the mini has the immense advantage of being an Intel-based system. That doesn't mean the G5 iMac isn't a great system, but it does mean that the mini gives you access to much in the way of future potential in software as more and more titles become 'native' or begin to be written for Intel alone, and that of course the Intel platform also gives you the option to run both MacOS and Windows natively, while the G5 doesn't.
Add to that the fact that you can mitigate many of the weak performance issues with the mini by investing in a good, fast, FW external drive and use that as the boot drive, while you can't mitigate the weakness of the iMac, the G5 processor itself.
Thus if it were me, and I had decided I really only needed one system, I'd keep the mini and expand it, while parting with the iMac while it still maintains good used value.

Mac Pro vs iMac

Yesterday, talking with a couple of Pi memebers, one remarked that they were
waiting on the the release of the new OS, and then planned to buy a new quad
whatever MacPro.
I remarked that that had been my plan, but that now I was thinking about a new
iMac instead.
My friend, like me who do a lot of video stuff, reacted -- 'Why would you even
consider that, the 'quad' machines are so much faster.'
I said, something to this effect: Yes, I'm sure that the MacPros are faster --
for pros, for whom time is money, e.g., who do a lot of heavy duty lifting (you
can see how technical I am), but for us, whose biggest demand is rendering or
compressing at most an hours worth of video, the time difference would be
measured in seconds, not minutes nor hours, yet the cost difference would be
measured in hundreds of dollars.
My question is this: if, in the most extreme case, we'd be
rendering/compressing a bit of video, is there a 'substantial' difference in
the proformance of a Mac Pro vs an iMac. Let's assume for the sake of this
question, that we'd beefed up the iMac, e.g., added ram, got the best video
card, etc.
Can anyone offer any insights, or point me to a site the offers comparisons (I
can understand)?
Thanks,
Hal
PS: My search led me to sites such as this, but I don't know enough to know how
to judge his comments:
http://blog.crankybit.com/mac-pro-vs-imac/

I intend to wait at least until Leopard emerges from the shadows to purchase my first Mac. But until that moment in time arrives, there is not a single day that goes by where I do not mentally review many of the Mac products...periodically going back and forth between the lower-cost systems and the higher-cost ones.
Like you, I recently (over the last few days) began leaning towards the iMac instead of the Mac Pro Quad-Core product that initially captivated my consumer interest. I am primarily music-oriented (Logic Studio will be my first add-on software product) but I also have an interest in getting into video-production later on down the road perhaps initially as an amateur hobbyist but without ruling out future career possibilities in that field. But cost-wise, when I saved my shopping cart at apple.com that had a maxed-out (beefed-up) iMac and compared it to my previously-saved cart with the 3.0GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro, there was not that big of a price difference between the two (as long as I did not get carried away with filling each Mac Pro hard drive bay with 750 GB HD'S). I am referring to a difference here of around $1000 to $1500 depending mainly on my selection of hard drives (how many and what sizes). 4 GB of RAM was a minimum for both carts but have you noticed how much more they charge to upgrade RAM for an iMAC ($700 to go from 2 GB to 4 GB on an iMAC compared to $699 to go from 1 GB to 4 GB of RAM on a Mac Pro)? And I could be wrong but I think that lots of RAM would be helpful when it comes to digitally editing video whether one is a pro or not.
But then I began researching (mainly at wikipedia.org + googling) the different types of processors used in each of these systems and the more I read online about the ones found in Mac Pro's...
"Processors: Two dual-core Xeon 5100 Series ("Woodcrest" Core microarchitecture with EM64T instruction set) processors at 2.0, 2.66 or 3.0 GHz, or two quad-core Xeon 5300 Series ("Clovertown") processors at 3.0 GHz"
...the more I realized that for a little bit more money (relatively speaking) than an iMAC, I can get the superior processing power offered by the amazingly robust and exceedingly powerful Xeon 5300 Series "Clovertown" processors plus an expandably-friendly hardware interface that is inherently included in the Mac Pro's superbly ingenious design structure as opposed to paying a little bit less to get something that I am very likely to "outgrow" within a short period of time.
Rumor has it that Benjamin Franklin would make a written list of all the pro's and con's affiliated with different decisions he needed to make. I have not done this yet but this might be a good way to see in black and white before my very eyes all of the positives and negatives affiliated with each of the Mac products I am presently considering to purchase. By negative, I mean things like "more expensive"..."not expandable"...etc. Oh yeah. I almost forgot to mention (if I am remembering correctly) that he would count up the number of pro's and con's (pluses and minuses) and then use that data to assist him in reaching a final decision.
When all is said and done for me, I shall most likely choose to invest in the latest technology that I won't need to upgrade at least for three years (when my Mac Pro extended warranty expires). But like I said at the beginning, I do find myself being tossed about daily upon the dreaded sea of indecision.
So, here are my suggestions to you:
1) Try saving different shopping carts with different products to make it easier for you to see how much you will save between your choices and then compare what those price differences mean as far as what you are getting for your money.
2) Continue to ask around as you are doing here to get input from others to assist you in your personal evaluation process. Also, do your own independent research online since many helpful articles are only one google-click away.
3) Remember not to be solely influenced by the numbers (tech specs) that are displayed by each product. Unlike the Xeon 5100 "Woodcrest" or quad-core 5300 "Clovertown" processors used in the Mac Pro, iMACs use a:
"2.0GHz or 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, or 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme processor".
This is not to say they (the Core 2 Duo processors) are not good, but it would be both reasonable and fair to say that they are different from what the Mac Pro uses and IMHO based on all that I have learned so far, the quad-core Xeon 5300 Series "Clovertown" processors are the best I could ever hope to have at my personal disposal when typing various commands for them to faithfully follow and expeditiously execute.
But I do stress this final point about the different processors being used (if not the main point of my response to your posting) only because early on in my preliminary research, I did not even realize that there are different types of processors being used in the different categories of Mac products currently on the market.
If I knew more about cars, I would use an engine analogy here but I am not mechanically inclined so I won't even try. Instead I would simply say that I do not want my spontaneous creativity to be hindered by technology that lags behind me.
Be of good cheer for Leopard should soon appear sometime this year although the exact day remains rather unclear!

Hi im having huge problems trying to install flash for my mac 10.5 imac, iv gone through the internet and tried all of the solutions, everytime i try to install flash it says cant read the download file, or it just wont install, anybody plz help!

hi im having huge problems trying to install flash for my mac 10.5 imac, iv gone through the internet and tried all of the solutions, everytime i try to install flash it says cant read the download file, or it just wont install, anybody plz help!
iv unistalled flash, iv checked plug ins it just wont work,

It would have been a great help to know precisely what Mac you have, so some of the following may not apply:
You can check here: http://www.adobe.com/products/flash/about/ to see which version you should install for your Mac and OS. Note that version 10,1,102,64 is the last version available to PPC Mac users*. The latest version,10.3.183.23 or later, is for Intel Macs only running Tiger or Leopard, as Adobe no longer support the PPC platform. Version 11.4.402.265 or later is for Snow Leopard onwards.
(If you are running Mavericks: After years of fighting malware and exploits facilitated through Adobe's Flash Player, the company is taking advantage of Apple's new App Sandbox feature to restrict malicious code from running outside of Safari in OS X Mavericks.)
* Unhelpfully, if you want the last version for PPC (G4 or G5) Macs, you need to go here: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/142/tn_14266.html and scroll down to 'Archived Versions/Older Archives'. Flash Player 10.1.102.64 is the one you download. More information here: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/838/cpsid_83808.html
You should first uninstall any previous version of Flash Player, using the uninstaller from here (make sure you use the correct one!):
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/909/cpsid_90906.html
and also that you follow the instructions closely, such as closing ALL applications (including Safari) first before installing. You must also carry out a permission repair after installing anything from Adobe.
After installing, reboot your Mac and relaunch Safari, then in Safari Preferences/Security enable ‘Allow Plugins’. If you are running 10.6.8 or later:
When you have installed the latest version of Flash, relaunch Safari and test.
If you're getting a "blocked plug-in" error, then in System Preferences… ▹ Flash Player ▹ Advanced
click Check Now. Quit and relaunch your browser.
You can also try these illustrated instructions from C F McBlob to perform a full "clean install", which will resolve the "Blocked Plug-in" message when trying to update via the GUI updater from Adobe.
Use the FULL installer for 12.0.0.44: Flash Player 12 (Mac OS X)
And the instructons are here: Snow Leopard Clean Install.pdf
(If you are running a PPC Mac with Flash Player 10.1.102.64 and are having problems with watching videos on FaceBook or other sites, try the following solution which fools the site into thinking that you are running the version 11.5.502.55:)
Download this http://scriptogr.am/nordkril/post/adobe-flash-11.5-for-powerpc to your desktop, unzip it, and replace the current Flash Player plug-in which is in your main/Library/Internet Plug-Ins folder, (not the user Library). Save the old one just in case this one doesn't work.

Why did apple remove the superdrive from the current mac mini model?

Also why does the standalone superdrive (USD $79) ONLY work with server version of the current Mac Mini? Does not make sense. Was just thinking of buying a mac mini when they changed the line about 2 months ago. I still use DVD's and CD's as I am sure a lot of people out there still do.
It has made me rethink the purchase of the current mac mini - since the standalone superdrive only works with the server version. I wanted to purchase the 2.3Ghz - 500 GB version - but if that does not work with the superdrive - then no good for me.
The Intel core 2 core duo was the one I wanted and it was perfect for me - but the day I went to purchase was the day the new version was announced - apple is not even offering refurbished one of this model (I have looked at that area of www.apple.com) and everywhere I look on ebay for this version - people are selling them for so much more. I wanted to buy this new from apple.
Getting rid of the drive was not the best idea just yet - CD's and DVD's are still so ubiquitious.
Anyone have any other suggestions on how to get my hands on a brand new Intel core 2 duo from apple?
I already have an Imac and a Macbook Pro already wanted to add to my apple collection.

The description:
External SuperDrive
Compact and convenient, the external MacBook Air SuperDrive connects to your Mac mini with a single USB cable. It lets you install new software and play and burn both CDs and DVDs, including double-layer DVDs.
Everything you need in an optical drive.
You can play and burn both CDs and DVDs with the MacBook Air SuperDrive connected to your Mac mini. It's perfect when you want to watch a DVD movie, install software, create backup discs, and more.
The essence of simplicity.
You'll never have to worry about lost cables with the MacBook Air SuperDrive. There’s no power adapter, and it connects to your Mac mini with a single USB cable that's built into the SuperDrive.
Technical Details
Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Writes DVD+R DL and DVD-R DL discs at up to 4x speed
Writes DVD-R and DVD+R discs at up to 8x speed
Writes DVD-RW at up to 6x speed and DVD+RW discs at up to 8x speed
Reads DVDs at up to 8x speed
Writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed
Writes CD-RW discs at up to 16x speed
Reads CDs at up to 24x speed
I don't see where this says it only works with OS X Server.

Is it possible the current Mac Mini 2.7 Ghz i7 with two full-resolution displays and Thunderbolt operate?

Hello,
Is it possible the current Mac Mini 2.7 Ghz i7 with two full-resolution displays and Thunderbolt operate?
Thanxs for your answers.
Gerald

On Second thoughts...
I don't really know how well Logic Express 7 performs on the Mac Mini because I have not yet had the chance to experience the two together. Don't let that put you off the idea though! From my understanding of the system requirements printed on the Logic Express homepage, it states that a G4 or faster system is required, however Apple personally recommend a Dual G4 or G5 is recommended alongside a minimum of 512MB of Ram. This Does mean that Logic Express will run on the Mac Mini but you will most probably find it lags when moving samples in real time and rendering them onto your hard drive. If you really want to enjoy making "serious" music on the Mac then you really need to be looking at the iMac G5 or the iMac Core Duo (Intel) purely for your tempers sake. As for an Intel Mac Mini, there is no indication as to when we will be seeing one on the market and therefore you may find yourself on the fence between keeping your fixed budget and holding on a little or jumping in and getting on the right road to a digital musical life - mac style.
Maybe this will inspire your decision:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/08/how-to-turn-your-mac-mini-into-a-low-cost-rec ording-studio/
Hope this helps
-Pos

I am contemplating purchasing an iPad, and then possibly a Macbook pro. Currently, I have an iMac G5, and a Powerbook G4. Neither which can be upgraded past Leopard. My question is do I need to have Snow Leopard in order to be able to update an iPad?

I am contemplating purchasing an iPad, and then possibly a Macbook pro. Currently, I have an iMac G5, and a Powerbook G4. Neither which can be upgraded past Leopard. My question is do I need to have Snow Leopard in order to be able to update an iPad? Do I need to reverse my thought on which to buy first?
I plan on keeping the iMac and PB until they cease to work ( have replaced HD's on both already). I mostly use the PB-- lots of writing, surfing, email, etc.
Your thoughts?

The minimum Mac specs (from http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/) are :
Mac computer with USB 2.0 port
Mac OS X v10.5.8 or later
iTunes 10.2 or later recommended (free download from www.itunes.com/download)
iTunes Store account
Internet access
So you only need Leopard, not Snow Leopard

Intense gaming on current macs vs future imac rumors (buying now or not)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for