A year with Apple's 5K iMac: Still the best Mac for your money

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 46
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,314member
    macxpress said:
    mike54 said:
    I'm waiting for a reasonably priced and spec'd headless mac. I will not buy an all-in one, especially these iMac's as they have serious thermal limitations.
    So basically you're waiting on either a Mac Pro which isn't really gonna be reasonably priced for most people, or a Mac mini which will have WORSE thermal limitations than the iMac. I guess you're gonna keep waiting for a long time. I'm not sure what you're doing that requires something other than an iMac. 
    The Mac mini I owned didn't seem to have thermal issues, nor did the quad-core iMac... unless you pushed them hard (ex: I used to run 2 of the 4 cores full out nearly 100% of the time, and hardly ever heard the fans... though I didn't push all 4 cores, as I didn't want it to break). It sounds like these newer ones easily run the fans up (i.e.: Chrome with some tabs open!?!?).

    One would think Apple could design a mini or iMac that didn't have such thermal issues if they cared to try. But, I suppose they'll make them thinner and louder, as their new target audience won't make them noisy creating a letter in Pages, checking email, or using Facebook (so long as they aren't in Chrome).

    If it weren't for the thermal issues and fan thing, I'd probably agree with this article and go iMac. (Well, that and the fact that it becomes a big single-use display in my environment where I can't have multiple displays.)

    tht said:
    backstab said:
    My only wish for the iMac is, that they would increase the screen size. Something like, 24" and 30".
    21" is just too small for a desktop. And while 27" is too big for the needs of users like me, I'm sure pros who really need a bigger screen would do well with a move to 30"
    Totally agree here. 

    It’s been 5 years for this form factor, and 9 years for iMacs with 21.5” and 27” displays. Hoping this 16 to 18 month period of no iMac update means a new form factor with new display sizes, 24” 16:9 and 34” 21:9. A 34” 21:9 display at something like 6720x2880 would be sporty, but 8K will be coming sooner or later. 
    I agree here too, as I am concerned 27" is getting a bit big, but I wouldn't mind a bit more space than the 21". The iMac used to be 24", right? Except, I suppose then the 24" model wouldn't have the expandable RAM or VESA mounting, so I'd have to go towards the 30"... so maybe this 27" is better then. :)

    eightzero said:
    You know, this is fair. But the monitor/display should last for a long long time. Maybe it is time to separate the two, and then upgrades/ replacements are more tenable. I guess I've just gotten to the end of the iMac being my only choice.
    Yeah, different target markets, I guess. I'd also much rather they be separate. Once you have a good display, you generally keep it and use it a long time. Plus the flexibility of having multiple inputs. But, if the target market is the computer using masses, I suppose they don't care and would rather not have separate pieces. I just wish Apple could serve more than one market.

    Since the days of my “iLamp G4” I was always going for Laptop + Screen because of the portability versus power. The iMac 5K was the first Mac to convince me to try again a desktop. Ok, lack of decent Apple made screens (I am like that) plus my iPad Pro made that choice easier. Never looked back so far. Great machine. 
    I prefer the laptop as desktop too, as long as I need a laptop when mobile anyway. But, if you could get by without a laptop mobile (i.e.: just don't need it or can use an iPad, etc.) then it's a much more expensive and complex setup, and you generally sacrifice money and performance to get it.

    damn_its_hot said:
    P.S. I get the style and aesthetics but I would not mind a slightly thicker iMac (edge and bulge) if it allowed for better thermal performance and easier user upgrade (mind you and don't want a Mac II with a Monitor shaped on the front. /s
    I just don't care that much, beyond being reasonable about it. The space behind my display is somewhat wasted anyway, so another inch or two doesn't much matter besides Apple's marketing photos (which try to make it look thinner than it actually is, anyway). I was OK with Apple downsizing things until they started to compromise reasonable performance expectations to get there.

    razorpit said:
    And you would be wrong. The MacMini is (was) a fantastic work machine as a small server. Trying to fit three or four iMacs in a rack is a bit silly. My home also has repurposed Mini’s where an iMac would never work. 

    In my opinion I think the iMac is the most ridiculous (limited) product Apple sells but to each their own...
    No doubt. And, the not selling thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    steven n. said:
    I have a serious question:

    "I personally prefer using Google Chrome as a browser, and even with 40GB of RAM, the fans can sometimes kick up really loud when I'm researching and opening a bunch of tabs at once."

    I find Chrome to be big, slow, battery hungry program with no tangible benefits over Safari. When I launch Chrome (basic install, no add ons) on my iMac Pro, it takes about 5 seconds (VS about .2 seconds for Safari). I don't see the appeal.

    What is it people like about Chrome?
    Often the extensions that people install, or there are a number of other browser projects based off Chrome, like Ghost Browser. But, I agree, it mostly sucks. Also, Safari used to be much less compatible and Firefox was horrible (as was IE on the PC)... so Chrome became the go-to. But, Safari and Firefox are now much better.

    The iMac seems to be a great position for Apples #1 selling desktop machine, but there should still be non all in 1 macs available ...
    Well, should be and Apple's new spread-sheet/pie-chart driven design model are two different things. :(  If all you care about is numbers, why do anything but the best selling? (And, I'm not sure if Tim has learned the answer to that question, yet.)

    davgreg said:
    I see Macs as the tools they are- not as a styling exercise or fashion statement.
    Welcome to the new Fashion-R-Us Apple.

    MacPro said:
    Nice Mac but still loving my trashcan.   I am looking forward to the next Mac Pro though, for both HVEC and latest I/O. Given the performance of the new MBPs it has got to be a spectacular machine that's coming. /hope
    So, if you were buying one today... would you buy the 'trashcan' Mac Pro cylinder, or the 5k iMac? (I had been leaning towards the cMP, but seeing how much the newer generation CPUs speed up some of this stuff has me questioning that.)
    (I suppose you'll say the iMac Pro, but that's out of my budget.)
    williamlondon
  • Reply 42 of 46
    lkrupp said:

    If anything the Mac Mini should be discontinued.
    Just because you can’t think of a use case for a Mac Mini does not mean that one doesn’t exist. 
    My company buys scores of them for video linking applications. And they fit in a rack better than any other Mac.

    I personally want one because I want to use my own monitor, a monitor that can take a secondary input. E.g. an xBox.
    An iMac monitor cannot take input from an Xbox and quite simply I don’t need or have the space for two monitors. 

    Aside from all this, MacMini are still a good gateway drug to get Windows users who already have their own KVM into the Mac ecosystem.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 43 of 46
    lkrupp said:
    I am still praying for a new Mac Mini.
    Mr Tim & Jony ,please grant our wish for a new Mac Mini with a SSD option.
    If anything the Mac Mini should be discontinued. It has never been very Apple like in design. It’s downright ugly. It was brought out because of all the whining about a cheaper headless Mac from the few who don’t like all-in-ones. The Mini has never sold very well because its market is limited to a tiny minority of Mac users. That kind of market is best left to the cheap PCs you can buy at Walmart for $400. I hope Apple kills this abomination once and for all. 
    Mac Mini is the cheapest way to get macOS. Mac Mini is a direct comparison to Intel's NUC.
    I highly doubt they'll be discontinuing it any time soon, even if they don't refresh it.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 44 of 46
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,409member
    I have the same iMac and I have had issues with the Dell 4k monitors I added to it. They lose the display signal over the TB3/DisplayPort connection every now and then and I need to safe boot the iMac to get the monitors back some times. It is just one of those things I live with but it is annoying. There are still issues with external displays on iMacs if you go beyond standard 1080p. Apple never properly replaced their own branded displays.
    I have a Mac Pro with three monitors, an Apple 27" 2560 x 1440 and two Dells, one 4K one same as the Apple.  Either HDMI or TB2/DisplayPort work perfectly on the 4K Dell all the time.  However, the Mac Pro doesn't have TB3 only the TB2/DisplayPort.  So I wonder if you switched to HDMI you have better results?  That or a dodgy cable?
  • Reply 45 of 46
    T-START-STAR Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Hi All,

    Any idea if it would be possible to upgrade the CPU to Intel 8th gen, intel saying 8gen support DDR4 ram, which ships with iMac 2017.
    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000025694/processors/intel-core-processors.html

    Thanks
    T
  • Reply 46 of 46
    FuzzyDiceFuzzyDice Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    Bought the 2017 about two weeks ago myself! Got it for $1450 (Rx 570 4GB / 8 Gig / 1 TB Fusion / i5 model) and to me the newer model just wasn’t worth the $400 extra to get 2 more cores! For that extra $400 I can upgrade to 32 Gigs of RAM and add AppleCare, that’s a no brainer to me. Honestly, I live the iMac! My only other machine is a custom built thread-ripper 12 core PC Desktop with a higher end GPU and I still use the iMac more! Even today, it’s a very good deal for a machine!
Sign In or Register to comment.