No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage at that price what an rip and the upgrades?? $1,599.00 for only 8GB system + video ram and only 512GB storage??
Based on the mini say $180 to upgrade to 16GB ram? and maybe 32GB at $499-599? $180 to upgrade from 512 to 1TB storage? makeing it cost $360 for 1TB?? that you can't upgrade on your own?
High end PCIe 4.0 1TB ssds are $200 what is apple doing having it be X2 that price?
You must be new here. Apple is always overpriced. Especially it's iMac line. Most iMac buyers would be far better off with a real desktop. No reason to change the monitor and the computer together. It's a dumb financial and environmental move.
The 13" lower-end MBP I purchased in 2013 is still chugging along fine. That was one of the best financial moves I ever made w/ respect to a computer purchase.
Environmentally it's no worse than buying a laptop, or a phone, or tablet or any other devices with a built in screen / low repairability... which is almost any device these days, except a custom built PC. So reasonable point, but not a knock on Apple specifically.
An iMac is not replacing a laptop, phone or tablet. It's a desktop. The thing is when you purchase an iMac, you could have got a real desktop (separate monitor / computer) instead. Which is much better for the environment.
This design is called all-in-one, and it is an offering from most large PC firms. It is a compact option that is easily moved, avoids the mess of most cables, and saves considerable weight by consolidating the outer casing of the major components. In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there. There is less waste involved than you think.
This design is called all-in-one, and it is an offering from most large PC firms.
I know, but most don't sell. Except the iMac. Historically, it's because the Mac mini was not powerful enough and the Mac Pro too expensive. So a lot of people settled for the iMac, even though they never asked for an all-in-one. It's always been a bad choice for most uses cases, and still is.
It is a compact option that is easily moved, avoids the mess of most cables, and saves considerable weight by consolidating the outer casing of the major components.
I've never seen someone move an iMac. It's meant to sit on a desk and remain there. Just like I'm not moving my monitor or my TV around the house. You save at most two cables (monitor power and signal). The computer and most cables can be hidden under the desk if you prefer. They also sell some VESA mount computers that can be attached behind the monitor and most cables would be hidden there.
Of course it's small, but almost can't be repaired or upgraded. I prefer a real desktop tower for that reason, but even a Mac mini would be a much better choice.
In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there. There is less waste involved than you think.
Of course both can have the same MTBF. Statistically, one will break and not the other. It's possible the computer breaks after 4 years and the monitor after 15, even if both have the same 5 years MTBF. It's still waste to replace both at the same time since the chance they both fail at the same time is very low. Also, people tend to upgrade their PC faster than their monitor, although this is becoming less true. I don't plan to upgrade my monitor for at least 10 years. Not sure I will hold that long with my PC, but maybe.
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer. I chose a 32" monitor. Where is the iMac that would suit me?
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer.
The car you drive, nobody buys that class from the other makers, I've never seen anyone use that feature before, you can DIY, you're driving it wrong, it's always been a bad choice, IDK why everyone buys one, it's overpriced, I prefer a something else.
Do you get tired of that crap? I mean we got your opinion a few posts ago, so don't buy an iMac. Now you're trying hard to make up reasons nobody else should want one. It's starting to sound like OTHER people buying them BOTHERS you.
Choosing your screen size is not something you do every morning. So if you do, and find that one of the iMac models fits your choice, then go for it. I'm happy with my 27" iMac, and in many years of actually using it, not once have I thought "dang, I wish it had a different size".
Historically, it's because the Mac mini was not powerful enough and the Mac Pro too expensive.
Exactly. Plus casual users are put off by cabling and having to think about compatibility. Plus the mini doesn't have great curb appeal.
. It's always been a bad choice for most uses cases, and still is.
That's a bit extreme. One sees it in countless receptionist / cashier settings, where it looks cool, minimizes clutter, and doesn't eat limited work surface area.
In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there. There is less waste involved than you think.
LCD panels are fragile, though. A nick or scrape on a chassis is one thing, on a display panel it's another entirely. This is more important to some people and applications than others.
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer.
In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there.
But the monitor in my iMac is perfectly fine, yes they could have reduced it's lifespan to match the other components but why would introducing that level of planned obsolescence be a good thing?
I’m pretty sure Apple wouldn’t do anything to harm the environment. They even accept your used equipment, FOR FREE, and they stopped including chargers in iPhones because they love the environment so very, very much.
I'm still using a 2013 27" iMac as my daily video editor. The monitor is still great and the ageing hardware is still able to do the same job it started doing 8 years ago. The boss considers it value for money.
every PC desktop I've ever owned needed an upgrade or change 2-3 years in. Every single one. Often, something broke or became incompatible with the current Windows version.
Meanwhile, the iMac I'm currently writing this on is 2017 and percectly doing everything I want, and my wife is using my previous iMac (2011, I think) and it's still working fine, though we can't update it to the latest macOS. But 10 years would be a miracle in the PC world.
So thanks, but no thanks. I'll keep the new iMac in mind for the
I've been upgrading components for a decade in the 90s.
Today, I have better things to do with my time than fiddle with hardware, drivers and incompatabilities.
No, I don't buy the cheapest. I buy standard consumer grade components. But a lot of hardware on the PC market is crap and unless you make it a hobby to dig deep into the hardware market, it's not always easy to find out which is which.
If graphics hackers are so smart, why can't they get the bugs out of
fresh paint?
No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage (Score:5, Insightful)
No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage at that price what an rip
and the upgrades??
$1,599.00 for only 8GB system + video ram and only 512GB storage??
Based on the mini say $180 to upgrade to 16GB ram? and maybe 32GB at $499-599?
$180 to upgrade from 512 to 1TB storage? makeing it cost $360 for 1TB?? that you can't upgrade on your own?
High end PCIe 4.0 1TB ssds are $200 what is apple doing having it be X2 that price?
Re:No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage (Score:5, Informative)
You must be new here. Apple is always overpriced. Especially it's iMac line.
Most iMac buyers would be far better off with a real desktop. No reason to change the monitor and the computer together. It's a dumb financial and environmental move.
Re: (Score:2)
The beefed up ones made for decent little Davinci Resolve video editors.
All around decent for media work.
Re: (Score:3)
It still doesn't justify bundling the computer into the screen. Want to add a 2nd matched screen to an imac pro, you can't.
The cpu/motherboard dies -- you've got a very nice screen that's an expensive paper weight.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a dumb financial and environmental move.
The 13" lower-end MBP I purchased in 2013 is still chugging along fine. That was one of the best financial moves I ever made w/ respect to a computer purchase.
Environmentally it's no worse than buying a laptop, or a phone, or tablet or any other devices with a built in screen / low repairability... which is almost any device these days, except a custom built PC. So reasonable point, but not a knock on Apple specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
An iMac is not replacing a laptop, phone or tablet. It's a desktop.
The thing is when you purchase an iMac, you could have got a real desktop (separate monitor / computer) instead. Which is much better for the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage (Score:4, Informative)
This design is called all-in-one, and it is an offering from most large PC firms.
I know, but most don't sell. Except the iMac. Historically, it's because the Mac mini was not powerful enough and the Mac Pro too expensive. So a lot of people settled for the iMac, even though they never asked for an all-in-one. It's always been a bad choice for most uses cases, and still is.
It is a compact option that is easily moved, avoids the mess of most cables, and saves considerable weight by consolidating the outer casing of the major components.
I've never seen someone move an iMac. It's meant to sit on a desk and remain there. Just like I'm not moving my monitor or my TV around the house.
You save at most two cables (monitor power and signal). The computer and most cables can be hidden under the desk if you prefer. They also sell some VESA mount computers that can be attached behind the monitor and most cables would be hidden there.
Of course it's small, but almost can't be repaired or upgraded. I prefer a real desktop tower for that reason, but even a Mac mini would be a much better choice.
In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there. There is less waste involved than you think.
Of course both can have the same MTBF. Statistically, one will break and not the other. It's possible the computer breaks after 4 years and the monitor after 15, even if both have the same 5 years MTBF.
It's still waste to replace both at the same time since the chance they both fail at the same time is very low. Also, people tend to upgrade their PC faster than their monitor, although this is becoming less true.
I don't plan to upgrade my monitor for at least 10 years. Not sure I will hold that long with my PC, but maybe.
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer. I chose a 32" monitor. Where is the iMac that would suit me?
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer.
The car you drive, nobody buys that class from the other makers, I've never seen anyone use that feature before, you can DIY, you're driving it wrong, it's always been a bad choice, IDK why everyone buys one, it's overpriced, I prefer a something else.
Do you get tired of that crap? I mean we got your opinion a few posts ago, so don't buy an iMac. Now you're trying hard to make up reasons nobody else should want one. It's starting to sound like OTHER people buying them BOTHERS you.
I'm going to replace a l
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer.
The car you drive, nobody buys that class from the other makers,
Of course they do. Both of my cars are not the most popular in their segment.
It's starting to sound like OTHER people buying them BOTHERS you.
Of course it does. Pollution does bother me. There should be an extra tax on all-in-one computers.
Re: No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer. I chose a 32" monitor. Where is the iMac that would suit me?
It's called the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini, depending on your use case.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my point. Most people is better with a real desktop. Being able to choose the screen size is just one of the reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Choosing your screen size is not something you do every morning. So if you do, and find that one of the iMac models fits your choice, then go for it. I'm happy with my 27" iMac, and in many years of actually using it, not once have I thought "dang, I wish it had a different size".
Re: (Score:1)
Historically, it's because the Mac mini was not powerful enough and the Mac Pro too expensive.
Exactly. Plus casual users are put off by cabling and having to think about compatibility. Plus the mini doesn't have great curb appeal.
. It's always been a bad choice for most uses cases, and still is.
That's a bit extreme. One sees it in countless receptionist / cashier settings, where it looks cool, minimizes clutter, and doesn't eat limited work surface area.
In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there. There is less waste involved than you think.
LCD panels are fragile, though. A nick or scrape on a chassis is one thing, on a display panel it's another entirely. This is more important to some people and applications than others.
It's also a very bad choice to be forced to choose a monitor along with the computer.
Remember that slashdotte
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of electronic lifespan, it is entirely possible to design the monitor lifespan to match that of the other components so that by the time one fails the rest are nearly there.
But the monitor in my iMac is perfectly fine, yes they could have reduced it's lifespan to match the other components but why would introducing that level of planned obsolescence be a good thing?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a dumb financial and environmental move.
I’m pretty sure Apple wouldn’t do anything to harm the environment. They even accept your used equipment, FOR FREE, and they stopped including chargers in iPhones because they love the environment so very, very much.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still using a 2013 27" iMac as my daily video editor. The monitor is still great and the ageing hardware is still able to do the same job it started doing 8 years ago. The boss considers it value for money.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story bro. Now sooner or later you'll have to replace your aging machine and that fine monitor will be going to waste.
Re: (Score:1)
every PC desktop I've ever owned needed an upgrade or change 2-3 years in. Every single one. Often, something broke or became incompatible with the current Windows version.
Meanwhile, the iMac I'm currently writing this on is 2017 and percectly doing everything I want, and my wife is using my previous iMac (2011, I think) and it's still working fine, though we can't update it to the latest macOS. But 10 years would be a miracle in the PC world.
So thanks, but no thanks. I'll keep the new iMac in mind for the
Re: No 10G e-net 8GB unified memory 256GB storage (Score:1)
Yes, but you could upgrade that PC desktop by acquiring an inexpensive component, not replacing the whole thing..
Also, sorry to hear of your bad luck, man. Do you buy the lowest cost component?
Re: (Score:2)
I've been upgrading components for a decade in the 90s.
Today, I have better things to do with my time than fiddle with hardware, drivers and incompatabilities.
No, I don't buy the cheapest. I buy standard consumer grade components. But a lot of hardware on the PC market is crap and unless you make it a hobby to dig deep into the hardware market, it's not always easy to find out which is which.