Purchase Decision

Question

I am in the throes of making a purchase decision to upgrade my hardware from a G3-266 beige desktop to an Intel Mac. I am perfectly happy with my machine but the world around me is advancing, and it is approaching the end of its useful life. I hope with this post some of you may help me make my final decision.
Money is definitely a factor, otherwise I would have no questions. I have a budget of about $1,000 US and have narrowed down some options. First I will explain my needs, then the considerations I have made, then my questions which may be evident if you follow my train of thought.
My bread and butter work is home office desktop publishing on my machine running OS 9.2.2. I use InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop and MS Word. Gaming is not a priority but I do enjoy Flight Sims such as F/A18 Korea and Warbirds. I do some web design as well with Dreamweaver, but I don't believe this factors in.
The purpose of my upgrade is multifold. I can not upgrade my software, I fear my machine may collapse after having seen a couple of Bondi iMacs go kablooey recently, and I do lots of web research and writing which the OS9 does not support very well. I eschewed installing OSX when it first came out and trying it and finding it buggy, slow and the ability to use Classic not exactly what was promised. I recently installed 10.2.8 and found it to be a rich experience, sluggish but adequate for the web work I do. I don't use Classic, but instead boot into OS9 for the publishing.
I believe a Mini will do everything I need and I will wait until the Universal versions of the Adobe Suite is released before I fully migrate. An iMac will do the job as well, and so will a MacBook.
I know I won't be able to use Classsic at all. I guess my biggest concerns are: will I be backing myself into a corner because of a lack of internal expandability, and will the graphics configurations (intel gma 950) noticeably affect rendering in the publishing programs. If there is one complaint about my current system is that I did not get another video card and instead just upgraded the VRAM. I notice some posts online about the graphics capability related to gaming and I would prefer my new machine to be able to handle the flight sims I like.
If I get a Mini, I'll probably get an LCD monitor. Will the low-to-mid range provide me with accurate colour rendition for publishing (mind you, I don't use high-end CRT now and haven't found a problem, but I don't really do much high-end colour work either). I trust the the iMac monitor is a good device for the colour.
The iMac has features I don't want, namely the camera, but otherwise an acceptable choice.
If I should choose a portable, it would be the low-end MacBook as well and would use a second monitor for the square footage I need to work with multiple documents. Will it support a 19-inch millions of colours at optimal resolution.
And on any of those machines, Mini, low-end iMac and low-end MacBook, will the Universal versions of the Adobe software that is critical to me overwhelm machine capabilities?
Are there any other issues I should concern myself with? If I could hear from some graphics professionals, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

Answer 1

Welcome to Apple Discussions!
The first thing to say is that no new Intel Mac will allow you to use your existing OS 9 software. Not only will they not boot to OS 9 (as no Mac in recent years has been able to do) but they will not even run Classic and allow you use of that software in that environment.
Thus, if you do not already have them, you will need OS X-compatible versions of all your software, including InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop and Word..... and at this time none are in Intel native format, meaning that while these applications will run, they'll run rather slowly in emulation.
Leaving that issue aside (since your message indicates you have obviously already considered it), your concerns about the possibility of painting yourself into a corner with the mini platform are understandable, but really not well founded. To be sure, the lack of dedicated graphics board gives the appearance of poor probably display quality or capabilities, but it doesn't really work out that way. The Intel GMA 950 certainly has greater potential, for instance, than the graphics sub-system of your existing G3 iMac, and easily outperforms the graphics cards fitted to many late-model Macs, including the ATI chips in the PPC minis. It's Core Image compatible, thus can take advantage of Apple's display control software and technologies, and while it lags behind the dedicated cards in more expensive systems, it's primarily in games and intensive animations that it shows any weaknesses. Given that the software you use has been in widespread use by many users on Mac systems with older, less powerful graphics systems, I think it's plenty enough. If it were to be insufficient for your flight sims, then you'd have to look at the $1200 iMac instead, which would have the advantage of a 20" display and is a very credible system without doubt.
Where other expansion is concerned, the idea of the mini is that unlike Powermac systems in the past, one simply hangs the extra bits on the outside, and thus imaging, storage and other needs can pretty much be handled by USB or FW components - even including faster hard drives for improved performance where needed.
LCD screens are a bit of a more problematic area. There are many to choose from and some are better than others, but there's no doubt that some models do indeed offer good quality, and of course MacOS offers extensive calibration to ensure you get the best color match possible. It can take a bit of tinkering around with the settings in the color tab of the Display Preference pane, but it works. A DVI (digital) screen is generally better than a VGA one, and since prices of these have come down significantly in the last couple of years, good displays can be had even in the low end of the range.
For myself, I would not generally consider a portable unless I were to need one for portability. It's not that there are too many compromises in order to get a viable laptop (after all, the mini is predominantly made of laptop-class components) but that there is a cost penalty involved in opting for a laptop system which is not present with the mini. Thus, if you need portability, your option is clearly for a laptop, but if you don't, I would say there is no benefit to having one, despite the extra cost involved.
In terms of which desktop, there's not really a whole lot to choose between the mini and the base iMac. They both have integrated graphics, but the imac has a faster hard drive (7200 compared to 5400) and of course an integral screen. A mini with moderate LCD can be had for less. In neither instance would the Intel-native apps you'll need cause the system any problem. With the exception of Photoshop these are not really all that demanding on systems, and in Photoshop's case it's more a demand on CPU and drive space and throughput than on system performance overall, and tests of the Intel native beta of Photoshop from CS3 show that a mini runs it well.
My choice in your situation (allowing for the software/OS compatibility concerns mentioned above) would be a 1.66 mini maxed out to 2Gb RAM with any one of a dozen low-cost LCD displays - which should still come in under the cost of the base iMac, and allow you to add a faster drive externally when funds or needs dictate. Given the need to perhaps 'future proof' yourself as much as possible however, if funds extend to it, the $1199 iMac would be a better long-term choice, though realistically even that would benefit from an increase to 2Gb - particularly if you are going to run any non-native software requiring emulation.