New 20" 2Ghz iMac G5 and Tiger...WOW!

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Just bought one of these for Kate's birthday as part birthday gift and part solution to our "we wanna get DSL but we ****ing hate viri and spyware" dilemma (it replaces her old POS Gateway PC). I gotta say, this thing is a real work of art, and faster than hell...and what a great OS! I've never seen anything like it in that the interface is so intuitive it's almost psychic. Talk about "plug and play", I had the thing out of the box, set up on the net, printer hooked up, software installed, all without a glitch in under an hour. To drop files from the other iMac, just copy to an iPod, carry downstairs, and dump in through firewire.

Before anybody attempts to turn this into YET ANOTHER "well, my PC does all that, plus it's cheaper and faster" flame thread...well, DON'T. I just wanted to pass the word on that this is a great machine and a great OS. Much as I love my G4 "iLamp", this one is even better. I'm doubly excited because I'm about to get one of the 17" 1.8 Ghz models for my office at the U. (courtesy of the U.), and I can already think of a hundred ways that it'll make life easier.

To whoever designed this thing: Well freakin' DONE. Anybody else using one of these?

[Jeremy Allen]

Yup, I am. After living a dual life with an ibook and a PC for awhile, I finally dumped the PC and got a 17" 2GHz G5 Imac. I can only describe it as "heaven," especially since we have a wireless keyboard/mouse and a wireless Internet hookup (with "Airtunes" or whatever, where you send your itunes library straight to a stereo in whatever room of the house you want sans cables). The simplicity and elegance of this set-up is what personal computing should be like...

The funny thing is, after having done a fresh install of Windows XP Pro on my four year old Dell, the OS worked without a hitch. Even without the system crashes, though, XP is so clunky and inelegant compared to OS X. My attention is no longer drawn to the fact that I'm using a computer when I'm using a computer, if you know what I mean...

And "Spotlight?" Thank you Lord for that, and I don't know why no one thought of it sooner.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I don't know about "Airtunes" - don't you lose fidelity that way, like when you use iTrip? But I'm pretty excited about the possibility of wireless internet, although I can't imagine how that works when the machines are two floors apart. Anyway, glad to hear you don't have any bad things to say about the machine.

[Jeremy Allen]

I have 30Gb of 320kbs mp3's (and AAC's) on my hard drive. Having compressed the files to begin with, I don't think I can raise a fuss about a loss of quality over a wireless network (which I can neither confirm nor deny--but I can say that sending a wireless signal to my fairly crappy stereo sounds one bajillion times better than plugging my computer into a "high quality" set of computer speakers/subwoofer). Regarding my standards, though: keep in mind that, even as a professional musician, I have the lowest-quality stereo of anyone I know: both Kenwood amplifier and bottom-of-the-line Bose "bookshelf" speakers were the second-cheapest options at Circuit City in 1998 (which is also how I choose wine at a restaurant--not the cheapest, that's too obvious, but the second-cheapest). I don't know why, but I just can't spend money on being an audiophile (it all goes toward the $10K bass, the Walter Woods, etc.).
I once did a taste test where I played a CD through the CD-ROM drive on my computer, plugged into my stereo receiver, and through a regular CD player component also plugged into the stereo to see how they compared. I mean, it's the same CD, right? The same cable? It was amazing how much crappier the CD sounded when coming through the computer than it did through the middle-of-the-road Denon CD player. At that point I decided, the computer may not be the best thing going for sound quality. But I accept that sacrifice for the ease of organization that itunes provides, and because I kind of hear through low quality (I've always been baffled by people who can't dig old Duke or Satchmo or even Lomax field recordings because the "recording quality turns them off"--although I do have trouble stomaching the CTI piezo-plugged-into-the-mixing-board double bass sound, so what can I say).

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by YOKOONO5

I have 30Gb of 320kbs mp3's (and AAC's) on my hard drive. Having compressed the files to begin with, I don't think I can raise a fuss about a loss of quality over a wireless network (which I can neither confirm nor deny--but I can say that sending a wireless signal to my fairly crappy stereo sounds one bajillion times better than plugging my computer into a "high quality" set of computer speakers/subwoofer). Regarding my standards, though: keep in mind that, even as a professional musician, I have the lowest-quality stereo of anyone I know: both Kenwood amplifier and bottom-of-the-line Bose "bookshelf" speakers were the second-cheapest options at Circuit City in 1998 (which is also how I choose wine at a restaurant--not the cheapest, that's too obvious, but the second-cheapest). I don't know why, but I just can't spend money on being an audiophile (it all goes toward the $10K bass, the Walter Woods, etc.).

I can dig it. I'm a "semi" audiophile, and I can totally get with your "second cheapest" mindset. I like to get top-of-the-line consumer stuff, but not the audiophile stuff, which amounts to kinda the same thing one a different level (DP instead of Pro Tools, M-Audio instead of Neve/Neumann, basically the best at Circuit City rather than the low or mid range of Ovation). I save for the bass/amps by skimping and buying "second cheapest" when it comes to stuff like clothes, cars, not having a cell phone, etc.

I once did a taste test where I played a CD through the CD-ROM drive on my computer, plugged into my stereo receiver, and through a regular CD player component also plugged into the stereo to see how they compared. I mean, it's the same CD, right? The same cable? It was amazing how much crappier the CD sounded when coming through the computer than it did through the middle-of-the-road Denon CD player. At that point I decided, the computer may not be the best thing going for sound quality. But I accept that sacrifice for the ease of organization that itunes provides, and because I kind of hear through low quality (I've always been baffled by people who can't dig old Duke or Satchmo or even Lomax field recordings because the "recording quality turns them off"--although I do have trouble stomaching the CTI piezo-plugged-into-the-mixing-board double bass sound, so what can I say).

Did you do this test with your iMac? Really, the only difference should be the converters and the output preamp, which on most machines is pretty much total kludge...so it's not surprising that your Denon sounded better. On the new Macs, though, I think the CD players sound pretty good - on my G4 iLamp upstairs, the headphone out runs to a little Yamaha mixer, and it sounds great.

One great solution I've found for "not-quite-audiophile-but-still-damn-good" is to keep a decent set of headphones around for listening. Sony V600's or 7506's sound pretty amazing for the price, and they'll even rock out on your iPod (if you have one). I usually choose these over the Polk or M-Audio speakers when the fam is home, just because I can hear all the detail and presence without annoying Kate with the "testosterone jazz" vibe...a vibe which does not go well with her sanity, and by association, my own.

[Damon Rondeau]

FITS CHRIS GERALD, your new Mac makes me sick. I can't even speak of it. Everything's green all of a sudden....

Taking things a little further down this road, does anyone around here know about computer columnist Bill Machrone? He's been at it a long time, and he also happens to be a musician, instrumentmaker and all-around tech tinkerer. He recently conducted some audio quality testing on MP3 players and discovered that Apple's newer Shuffle iPod has some drastically better audio performance that Apple's not marketing at all...

Read all about it here .

[Jeremy Allen]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Did you do this test with your iMac? Really, the only difference should be the converters and the output preamp, which on most machines is pretty much total kludge...so it's not surprising that your Denon sounded better. On the new Macs, though, I think the CD players sound pretty good - on my G4 iLamp upstairs, the headphone out runs to a little Yamaha mixer, and it sounds great.

No, this was through an older PowerMac G4 (not mine, borrowed for some audio recording). As is usual with me, I only notice a difference in quality when I directly compare things. I listened to mp3's for a year without knowing if it was the computer speakers or the compression that sounded less-than-stellar, and then I A-B'd them through the same speakers with .wav files of the same thing. Wow, what a difference! But, in spite of what Neil Young says, I couldn't hear a huge difference between the .wavs and the vinyl originals when I did the same comparison. But I'm also deaf, so there.

[John Sprague]

I still love my Advent loudspeakers, lol! Very natural sound, great for the practice room.

I've always been the type that thought that there's no real reason to go Mac, especially regarding software compatibility issues. But seeing how now I rarely do anything besides surf and graphics, the Macs are starting to sound pretty smart. When this laptop is ready to become my kids' computer, I'll take a good look at Mac. It's funny hearing you describe WinXP as clunky Jo-Ho, that says alot about OS X.

[Jeremy Allen]

Well, props is props, so I should say that although Win 2000, ME, and XP Home made my life a nightmare, a fresh install of XP Pro was the stablest Windows experience I've ever had (although I know many people still swear by Windows 98). But OSX is just...so nice, really. Having been a Windows person for a long time, I resisted, but there's no denying that OSX is a great approach to an operating system (and supremely stable). And almost everything is compatible across platforms now: I still use the Microsoft Office suite on my Mac, and there's a "Virtual PC" function for anything that isn't covered. The stuff just works, and I don't waste time with system crashes anymore. Plus, no viruses (yet...).

Of course, when I see the prices in a Dell catalog, I think twice...but just for a minute. With the amount of time I spend in front of this screen, the Mac is worth it.

[Jeremy Allen]

Actually, I probably shouldn't say "almost everything is compatible across platforms now." But everything I use is, and we no longer have the situation wherein one couldn't choose a Mac because everyone else at work or school was using a PC. The boundaries are blurred enough now that you can choose based upon your preference for OS (and your relative desire to be a "super hip with it" Apple user, which matters little to me).

[christ andronis]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Before anybody attempts to turn this into YET ANOTHER "well, my PC does all that, plus it's cheaper and faster" flame thread...well, DON'T.

Touchy, aren't we?




Actually...congrats. I still say that my crappy old SE30 running Vision was probably one of the best and most stable setups I've ever had. I only went to PC cause of business/economic concerns and while I'm happy with the way it handles my music stuff, I'll eventually be getting a Mac...