I'm still watching Thunderbolt 3 4K monitors for pricing. For the first time since the original iMac, I'm really leaning to something different next: a 4k monitor and a mac mini.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
I have a perfectly workable 2012 iMac with a HD that’s failing causing the thing to be near worthless. Back then SSD prices made that solution unobtainable. Now the SSD costs are low enough to make SSD only iMacs a long term solution for those that want to send email, play some music, store photos beyond 2028. Seems like a win win
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
It's a lucky thing that social distancing and self-isolation is schooling us in patience over multiple months.
The warranty on my 2017 27-inch Retina 5K iMac expires on October 16. I got to practice patience with that purchase because the version of the Magic keyboard with the numeric keypad took a while to become available. I will probably start getting antsy around October 1 if a newer, larger-screen, Retina iMac hasn't been at least announced by then. I get nervous if at least one machine in the house isn't covered by AppleCare(±).
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
I have a perfectly workable 2012 iMac with a HD that’s failing causing the thing to be near worthless. Back then SSD prices made that solution unobtainable. Now the SSD costs are low enough to make SSD only iMacs a long term solution for those that want to send email, play some music, store photos beyond 2028. Seems like a win win
That iMac will have never run so well.... Best investment ever!
Sure would like to see a redesigned larger iMac, but more importantly if they could just also release a Thunderbolt Display with the same panel alongside it, I'd be really happy to replace my aging 30" ACD.
I would normally concur, but I'm not willing to pay an Apple tax for a display. There's a reason Apple got out of the display business. That said, it is clear how they wish to price iMacs accordingly. It's a tough choice for me right now, and the combo of a Thunderbolt 3 27" and a Mac Mini is actually a tad higher than a comparable iMac. Pretty sure thats a feature, not a bug. But when the displays race to the bottom in pricing, this too will change, and I may bite.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
Trouble is that Apple has decided the plebs are not allowed to replace their internal storage. HDDS are unreliable in comparison with SSDs and almost always die well before the end of the useful life of the iMac. That is even before you start talking speed. If the internal drives were user replaceable I would not have a problem with your position.
I’d have top disagree from an experience side. I currently use a late 2013 27” iMac 14,2 with a 1.1TB fusion drive that’s now 7 years old. According to DriveDx it’s the 128GB SSD part that’s starting to show its age with a 70% useful life remaining estimate. Meanwhile the 1TB spinning drive is running error free. In either event that Fusion drive now 7 years old and running 24/7/365 is performing like a champ. So could you please provide some credible evidence that spinning drives ‘almost always die well before the the end of the useful life of the iMac’ because, well, I don’t believe you. Before the 2013 iMac I had a 2008 iMac and its spinning drive never failed. In fact I’ve never had a hard drive fail on me to this day, including the four external drives I’ve been using for years and years (WD drives that so-called experts here claim are trash). And I never had a drive fail on my work Windows PC either.
I strongly suspect I’m the norm and not the exception.
Data point: as I type this, I am looking at a box on the floor that contains 4 failed hard drives dating back about maybe 7-8 years. I only have them pending physical destruction (I need to take a drill to them before discarding) and I've done that to I think 2 others that I no longer have here. That said, I can specifically say I have never, ever lost data to a mac since my first purchase in 1992. Yes, I made lots of backups (on stacks of 1.4MB floppies!) and hardly ever had to resort to one.
I don't need SSDs for speed, and HDDs are sufficient for my purposes.
I'm still watching Thunderbolt 3 4K monitors for pricing. For the first time since the original iMac, I'm really leaning to something different next: a 4k monitor and a mac mini.
I'd continue to stick to my 2012 Mini, but the lack of TB3 makes the GPU virtually non-upgradable. That's why I'm leaning the same way as you: latest Mini with eGPU and 4k monitor. TB3 opens up a lot of options (eGPU, external storage, etc.) to ward off obsolescence.
Sure would like to see a redesigned larger iMac, but more importantly if they could just also release a Thunderbolt Display with the same panel alongside it, I'd be really happy to replace my aging 30" ACD.
I would normally concur, but I'm not willing to pay an Apple tax for a display. There's a reason Apple got out of the display business. That said, it is clear how they wish to price iMacs accordingly. It's a tough choice for me right now, and the combo of a Thunderbolt 3 27" and a Mac Mini is actually a tad higher than a comparable iMac. Pretty sure thats a feature, not a bug. But when the displays race to the bottom in pricing, this too will change, and I may bite.
They didn’t get out of the display business, though. As the owner of two 30” ACDs, I’m willing to pay, just not $6K.
We have over $3500 burning a hole in our pocket for a new iMac. Want: 1. larger size than 27 2. double the resolution 3. SSD only
Larger than 27" and double the resolution? We already have 5k iMacs, doubling the resolution won't make a difference unless you mean very large screens when you mentioned larger than 27”.
Why do you care if an iMac is not SSD only? People are always harping about choice so why force something you want on a user who doesn’t want or need what you do? Of course you can order an SSD only iMac today so what’s the problem? And double the resolution? The iMac is 5K but you want 10K? How does that even work?
Non-SSD’s are only good for external storage.
Blathering nonsense. Internal spinning hard drives are perfectly fine for most people and it’s why Apple still offers them. You don't need blinding electronic speed to send an email, play some music, and store photos. Yours is the same false argument used by the 5G crowd. Most people don’t need 5G speeds any time soon, especially on a mobile phone.
I have a perfectly workable 2012 iMac with a HD that’s failing causing the thing to be near worthless. Back then SSD prices made that solution unobtainable. Now the SSD costs are low enough to make SSD only iMacs a long term solution for those that want to send email, play some music, store photos beyond 2028. Seems like a win win
That iMac will have never run so well.... Best investment ever!
Did the same last week on my 2012 nRMBP. Thought I was going to throw it out and get a new one. The transformation was something else.
It is like a new computer and will easily last a couple more years for less than 10% of the cost of a new Mac.
The HDD was a bottleneck that was holding back otherwise impressive (after all these years) hardware. I agree that the sooner SDDs replace HDDs the better for the average consumer who wouldn't know why their Mac is slowing down and will just blame Apple and/or replace and waste perfectly good computers.
I can't understand those claiming that 5400rpm HDDs are in any way adequate, they are a huge bottleneck in any machine. Just compare a Mac of any spec with an SSD and an HDD.
I have personally switched an HDD for an SSD in a 2009 iMac, 2011 iMac, 2008 iMac, 2008 MBP and a 2013 Macbook. In each case they took, slow, unresponsive, barely usable machines and made them feel blazing fast.
With current Hardware and much faster buses, CPUs and memory, the crippling of the machine is even worse.
Apple's pricing is an utter disgrace though, a new 1TB SSD costs around $100 (much less at trade prices) and Apple charge $500 to upgrade to one in an iMac. I often defend Apple's high prices due to the quality of the product but that is indefensible.
Comments
That iMac will have never run so well.... Best investment ever!
Data point: as I type this, I am looking at a box on the floor that contains 4 failed hard drives dating back about maybe 7-8 years. I only have them pending physical destruction (I need to take a drill to them before discarding) and I've done that to I think 2 others that I no longer have here. That said, I can specifically say I have never, ever lost data to a mac since my first purchase in 1992. Yes, I made lots of backups (on stacks of 1.4MB floppies!) and hardly ever had to resort to one.
I don't need SSDs for speed, and HDDs are sufficient for my purposes.
It is like a new computer and will easily last a couple more years for less than 10% of the cost of a new Mac.
The HDD was a bottleneck that was holding back otherwise impressive (after all these years) hardware. I agree that the sooner SDDs replace HDDs the better for the average consumer who wouldn't know why their Mac is slowing down and will just blame Apple and/or replace and waste perfectly good computers.