Thanks Ravyne, that's actually a really good point, there's not much use paying out for a PC now if I plan to replace it soon.
I've actually done some looking into Mac Mini's - and by the time I've bought a monitor and expanded the RAM it comes pretty close in price to an iMac, and not as highly specced. I think prices may be steeper here in the UK 
I think I may just hold out and buy an iMac (possibly refurbished)
So, like I said, the Mac Mini is actually overdue for an update based on past trends. The rumor mill has been swirling strongly for the past 3 months that an update was forthcoming, and just last week a UK retailer's site leaked a page for the updated mini, with a sales date towards the end of the month, but without updated images or specs. This still very much amounts to a rumor, but its the kind of thing that precedes an actual product update more often than not. The iMac has had it's scheduled update and so you're right to say that its specs are quite a bit ahead right now. The Mini's update is likely to bring a Haswell CPU, Iris graphics, flash-based storage, and 8GB ram as standard, so it will be much more inline with the iMac, which has already received those upgrades.
Personally, I don't much like the all-in-one designs like the iMac, but its a personal preference and to be honest, no current mac is all that much more upgrade friendly than the others anyway. I mostly just dislike that I may end up with a broken screen tied to a working computer, or vice-versa. YMMV.
Anyhow, if you don't need to get one today (and it sounds like you don't), keep an ear to the ground about the Mac Mini refresh, and then compare it with the iMac before you settle on one or the other, and get the best value-package you can.
And keep in mind that for audio work, what you mostly need is a good amount of RAM (16GB+), fast storage (local flash), and more speed/cores (audio work can be computed in parallel pretty well). Bulk storage isn't so much an issue, and you probably want to farm it out to an external RAID array anyhow.
If you're doing a lot of orchestral stuff you should consider Cubase/Win, because of the possibility to set up VST Expression Maps. I'm personally a Cubase (6.5 atm) guy and I don't think I could go with something else; but like everybody says, it's personal preference. But then again, if you're going for a cheaper setup, I would recommend going the win route.
Regards,
Sebastian
The hard ware doesn't matter. Don't get hung up on it, it's all good enough these days.
The important thing is really the software you work with best. I've been using Cubase since 1.0 on the Atari ST (I still have the disks and dongle, and the ST, in the garage) and I have problems with the workflow on pretty much anything else I've tried. I have friends who swear by Logic.
In the end it's the software that matters. All your decisions should be based on that.
The hard ware doesn't matter. Don't get hung up on it, it's all good enough these days.
You know, I actually disagree with this. You need something with a lot of RAM for the actual software & instruments. For my compositions, I'll often use anywhere from 40% to 60% of memory (It can go even more). I wouldn't get anything less than 6gb of RAM, preferably 12gb.
I have 16gb of RAM and a six-core processor.
Sounds more like an issue with your system specs and less with Logic. Even with Logic 9, I could create full, highly complex arrangements. What I hated about Logic 9, more than anything else, was having a 32-bit and 64-bit version with different feature sets. Thankfully, Logic Pro X fixes that.
You never had problems with some of the large samples? I know there is a 2gig limit on what can be loaded. Unless they had patched it. My machine is only about a year old, top of the line Mac. It's never been a huge problem, but some of the really big patches have caused problems.
I personally don't feel that it matters. It's the end product that makes the difference. Tools are tools. It's all about how you use them.
Do you care about the way things look, and does that mean you love the idea of having Apple hardware in your studio? If so, go Mac. If not, go PC. They are more affordable, more customisable, and the only advantage Mac has is Logic, which is great, but then so are Cubase and Reaper, both of which are cross-platform.
Some people sneer at those that like the good looks of Apple hardware but I think the appearance of your equipment can make a massive difference to your frame of mind. My setup looks remarkably easy to tinker around with, and guess what, I spend hours of my life tinkering and customising and it doesn't help my music making in the least. But I'm a geek and I enjoy it.
Going off on a tangent so I'll stop there!
Do you care about the way things look, and does that mean you love the idea of having Apple hardware in your studio? If so, go Mac. If not, go PC. They are more affordable, more customisable, and the only advantage Mac has is Logic, which is great, but then so are Cubase and Reaper, both of which are cross-platform.
Well.... I think the differences between Windows and Mac go much deeper than just the looks of the computers. As noted above, I worked on both types of set ups for years when I had a day job in a studio using Macs on top of moonlighting out of my own studio which had a PC. Both machines were fairly equal in stats but the Macs blew away the PCs I had.
Some people sneer at those that like the good looks of Apple hardware but I think the appearance of your equipment can make a massive difference to your frame of mind. My setup looks remarkably easy to tinker around with, and guess what, I spend hours of my life tinkering and customising and it doesn't help my music making in the least. But I'm a geek and I enjoy it.
Your work space is, indeed, very influencial in how you work. I'd say it's less about which type of computer you have and more about how you set up your studio and space. Some people flourish in dark or messy spaces while others shine in light(er) or clean studios. To each their own!
