[Construct]

We all share technolust for pavement-melting horsepower in a multicore CPU.  Graphics capability second in rendering  power only to God.
So what do YOU do personally that requires a high end mac that isn't practical on a decent Imac?  Do you really NEED a high end mac, or is it just because you wanted one?  No one can fault you for the latter.

[Construct]

Incidentally, this was inspired by the documentary (on dvd) "Welcome to macintosh"  It's a must have for mac fans.

[Pez]

I don't know what everyone else considers "Hi end" but I have a 27" iMac with i7 2.8 ghz quad core w/ 8 gigs of ram. I know you're looking for people who own a Mac tower rather than an iMac, but the newest iMacs are actually better in most respects than the towers. I LOVE this setup I do all kinds of fun things with it. Everything from photography using iPhoto and a little photoshop, to gaming. If you have a DSLR and need something to crunch through a lot of hi rez photos there is no better computer than a Mac. I am getting more and more into light video editing with iMovie obviously nothing too serious. Any way all this media requires some major storage space. I'm using a 2 TB 7200 RPM drive. 

[skunark]

When you mean high-end mac, do you mean the Mac Pro vs an iMac or the base iMac and fully loaded one?

IMO to group the products:
21.5"/Mac Mini/13"Macbook = internet, email, office applications and games. 
27"iMac/15/17" Macbook Pro = Good for the creative types for Photo/Videos and would be great for die-hard gamers.
Mac Pro = This is really a workstation class machine and if you are a professional in your craft then you would easily know if a Mac Pro is right for you.

The Mac Pro has some unique features that certain software developers take advantage of, as it is essentially four computers in one since you can boot from any four of the drives.   Each drive can have a different OS or version of an OS, (mac osx, linux, windows7, xp)  Visualization has really replaced this for most folks though, only those that need real disk IO or access to the hardware will value the Mac Pro.   Even Microsoft used the PowerPC version Mac Pros for the SW development of the Xbox 360. 

The Mac Pro is also great for working with uncompressed high definition video where a true hardware raid card ($500+) is required.   Die-hard gamers who could care less about the actual looks of alien shape computer will go after the Mac Pro or the HP Z800 workstations with the raid cards, but will also require SLI/crossfire configurations and that can be tricky with either.

If you are debating on deciding if you need two cores or four cores then?  If you are a gamer, like to run video editing software, or software development then get the four core.  If you desire to run Windows and Mac OSX at the same time I would also get the quad core and probably even bump up the ram.  Keep in mind Apple is long overdue on upgrading the iMacs and Mac Pros, if you aren't in a hurry I would wait until they do as it should be weeks to months.

(edited to better clarify the various macs)

[Construct]

When you mean high-end mac, do you mean the Mac Pro vs an iMac or the base iMac and fully loaded one?

(edited to better clarify the various macs)

You basically summed up how Steve Jobs separated them.  Imac= consumer  Mac pro= high end/business.  And I have to agree---the imac is stupidly powerful and capable compared to towers that preceded.  Remember the high end quadra for $9k+?  Imac toasts it.  But there is quite a gap between 2.8ghz and quad core. 
I am glad mac has nvidia available, I never had luck with ATI.
BTW:  Recently read:- Fire in the valley- iceo:  second coming of Steve Jobs- Iwoz- The cult of mac
Watched : "Pirates of silicone valley"  (based on fire in the valley)
All recommended.

[Pez]

You can dual boot or even quad boot on an iMac. Any drive can be partitioned to your hearts delight. So that's probably less of a determining factor than just raw theoretical capability of a Mac Pro.

[skunark]

You can dual boot or even quad boot on an iMac. Any drive can be partitioned to your hearts delight. So that's probably less of a determining factor than just raw theoretical capability of a Mac Pro.

My macbook pro has a small partition for windows to run what I would call "legacy apps" that I find to slow to run on virtualization, but it's not something I would call useful for those software developers looking to test drivers and installation packages.  My Mac Pro has drive per OS, and I consider that the next best thing since slice bread.

[Pez]

I bet your macbook pro is a dual core and your macpro a quad or better. The disk partition has less to do with the way an OS runs than the processor and Ram.
I have an older model MBP running XP on a 2nd partition and use fusion to dual boot and I can say it really really sucks. Pretty much worthless. I do the same thing with Win 7 on my single HD iMac and it runs SOLID and sexy. Trust me Mac Pros are great, but the new iMacs can and do outperform Mac Pros as recent as january/february models.

[NekoAudio]

For heavy-duty A/V and print media work, a Mac Pro with its multiple cores and a bunch of RAM makes life much more enjoyable.

[skunark]

I bet your macbook pro is a dual core and your macpro a quad or better. The disk partition has less to do with the way an OS runs than the processor and Ram.
I have an older model MBP running XP on a 2nd partition and use fusion to dual boot and I can say it really really sucks. Pretty much worthless. I do the same thing with Win 7 on my single HD iMac and it runs SOLID and sexy. Trust me Mac Pros are great, but the new iMacs can and do outperform Mac Pros as recent as january/february models.

Hopefully to explain my earlier point better, the only reason I prefer a dedicated drive vs a partition is so I can swap one OS for another but not effect the other OSes I need.  That's why I think it's better than slice bread.    I agree, there's no performance difference dual booting between partitions or drivers, just convenience.

In terms of performance between the latest iMacs and the existing Mac Pros, for single threaded apps, iMacs will score higher today, but that doesn't mean it will always outperform a Mac Pro.  Benchmarks are no better than the MPG rating that the EPA releases for your car, they are just guidelines.   I don't see much of a value for the quad core mac pros, unless you needed the speed of hardware raid, but you might as well go for the V8 instead of the four cylinder.

At the time I purchased my Mac Pro, the iMacs used the mobile processors, but today they use the desktop versions so that's a huge improvement.    When I do replace my Mac Pro, I clearly will consider an iMac as I can easily get by with virtualization and the new versions of USB3.0 and FW will finally provide enough bandwidth for SATA drives today. Hopefully Apple will include them on the next updates.

[navi]

i bought the macpro 2nd hand off ebay for $1300 AU. i pref. it over imacs because i get to use the monitors that i'm used to and like- the glossy screens annoy me and i think the mac screens are too contrasty for true colour for print.

i also have a macbook but that's just for shooting tethered to and watching movies and skype.

[Construct]

i bought the macpro 2nd hand off ebay for $1300 AU. i pref. it over imacs because i get to use the monitors that i'm used to and like- the glossy screens annoy me and i think the mac screens are too contrasty for true colour for print.

i also have a macbook but that's just for shooting tethered to and watching movies and skype.

I have heard the a/v and photographers prefer specialized (and expensive)  monitors over the cinema display. 

[skunark]

Most do want the IPS displays but need matte over glossy.  The good a/v and photographers will have both as the realize it needs to look good for thier different customers.    A/v guys will even have a broadcast quality CRT.

Even though I like the ADC, it's a bit pricey for just one input.  There are other IPS monitors out there with the same glass for half the price with more inputs and same performance.   I went with the HP one. 

[bunnyma357]

I'm a video editor, and I work on both a 24" iMac at home & a Quadcore MacPro at work.  The only difference for me is rendering time and the lack of eSata support on the iMac. The iMac screen is better than the older Apple Cinema's and it is far more stable, due to a more simple configuration.

I accomplish much more on the iMac, since it is far less buggy - and I can mange my rendering time into usable naps. Also fan noise is much lower on the iMac, so having it in the room with you isn't as big a deal.

There is very little real world benefit for me in shelling out the extra cash for the MacPro, if they added eSATA support to the iMac there would be almost no benefit. If I did a lot of hardcore 3D rendering, it might make a difference - but generally you can arrange your work flow to render unattended overnight.

I really love my iMac - I'll be up all night cutting on it tonight.

Jim C

[smk]

A Mac Pro obviously comes in a bigger box which aids cooling & improves component life. In addition, it uses larger components which are easier to get at. Imac, Macbook & mac mini use miniature components that are much more difficult to access foe the less nimble-fingered among us.

[TONEPUB]

Now that I could get a 27" iMac with 8gb of Ram and drive
a 30" Cinema display as well, I don't really need a big tower
Mac anymore.

But if I was using one for a server and needed to put 4 hard
drives inside or doing serious video or 3d rendering, I could see
getting the big box again...

[Construct]

A Mac Pro obviously comes in a bigger box which aids cooling & improves component life. In addition, it uses larger components which are easier to get at. Imac, Macbook & mac mini use miniature components that are much more difficult to access foe the less nimble-fingered among us.

When I built/repaired/modded pc's I loathed the compact cases.  All that junk wedged into a small space with no room for accessing or cooling...even for nimble fingers.  I wanted to fling more than one packard bell,ast or HP out the window.  Back in the late 90's I decided on tower cases that were larger than I needed.