macplusplus

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

For comparison: 

This Dell is £1029, slightly less than the base iMac. It has an 8th Gen i5, newer than the iMac. It has faster RAM. It has a much better GPU, a Nvidia GTX1050 vs Intel Integrated. It has a 128GB SSD and a 7200RPM 1TB HDD. Still think the iMac should have an SSD? Granted, the display is likely to be better (though the iMac one is smaller, and neither are 4k)

The iMac is actually much closer to Dell's £749 offering. That still has a faster HDD, and faster RAM, though the graphics are slightly worse. Other than that, you get pretty much the same machine for £300 less. Of course you have to then deal with Windows, but Windows 10 whilst not exactly great, is nowhere near as bad as older versions. I love Apple, but the prices are just becoming ridiculous. The prices are markedly affecting sales, but for some reason Cook is obsessed with maximising profit, even if it means less sales and ultimately, less total revenue.

nemaworm said:

This 2017 1 terabyte which has a 32gb fusion (not 64gb like the previous poster said) is terrible at launching apps. 

Oh geez I didn't realise they'd gone down to just 32GB now. That's a f**king piss take.

This is not the 2019 4K iMac described in the article, this is the $1099 1080p iMac you're comparing. The article says:
"The 21.5-inch 4K iMac that we're reviewing is the base model iMac that you can buy for $1,299 (or on sale for $1,249 at Amazon) and it features a Quad-core i3 Processor, 8GB of RAM, a 5400RPM 1TB Hard Drive, and it's also equipped with a Radeon Pro 555X with 2GB of VRAM."

Oh, so it's even more expensive, has an even slower CPU, and still a worse GPU than the Dell. Great, thanks for pointing that out.

elijahg said:

For comparison: 

This Dell is £1029, slightly less than the base iMac. It has an 8th Gen i5, newer than the iMac. It has faster RAM. It has a much better GPU, a Nvidia GTX1050 vs Intel Integrated. It has a 128GB SSD and a 7200RPM 1TB HDD. Still think the iMac should have an SSD? Granted, the display is likely to be better (though the iMac one is smaller, and neither are 4k)

The iMac is actually much closer to Dell's £749 offering. That still has a faster HDD, and faster RAM, though the graphics are slightly worse. Other than that, you get pretty much the same machine for £300 less. Of course you have to then deal with Windows, but Windows 10 whilst not exactly great, is nowhere near as bad as older versions. I love Apple, but the prices are just becoming ridiculous. The prices are markedly affecting sales, but for some reason Cook is obsessed with maximising profit, even if it means less sales and ultimately, less total revenue.

nemaworm said:

This 2017 1 terabyte which has a 32gb fusion (not 64gb like the previous poster said) is terrible at launching apps. 

Oh geez I didn't realise they'd gone down to just 32GB now. That's a f**king piss take.

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

JWSC said:

myshkingfh said:

Anything with an HDD in 2019 (2015, really) is 0 stars out of 5. Come on.

Well, SDDs are optional for a few hundred dollars more.

StrangeDays said:

myshkingfh said:

Anything with an HDD in 2019 (2015, really) is 0 stars out of 5. Come on.

Then don’t buy the cheapest 21” iMac, as the 27” all have Fusion or SSD. If you need the cheapest base model for some reason, upgrade the storage. Problem solved, something for everyone. Users like my dad are not performance oriented, and just want something to hold photos, surf, etc. 

 
A Fusion Drive at least should be included in all the iMacs, especially when all the MacBooks and the old MacBook Air has an SSD and costs less than the iMac. They recently nerfed the Fusion Drive's SSD down to 64GB from the 128GB it used to be. Oh and even the top tier model that starts at £2,250 still has a hard drive. Apple's just taking the piss there. Plus upgrades to a SSD are ridiculously overpriced. Not only that, it's incredulous that the base iMac only has a 5400RPM drive. If that's not nickel and diming I don't know what is, and how you can try and defend that I dont know, and totally discredits anything you say.

A friend recently bought the base HDD iMac before the recent refresh, and it's so sluggish it's embarrassing. It's like a machine that's 5 or 6 years old. Hell, my 2012 iMac is faster than the HDD 2015 model she purchased in 2019.

Upgrade to a fusion drive is just $100. So all your chagrin is for that $100 difference? And if you pay $200 instead of $100 you get 1TB Fusion drive + 8th gen i5 + 4GB GPU. It is not meaningful to default to Fusion drive in all models because only the HDD component of that drive can be partitioned for BootCamp and this is not as easy as partitioning a 1TB HDD. 

Yeah, but then as the Fusion drive is only 32GB it isn't much better than a HDD. And Apple's charging $100 for a M.2 SSD that can be bought on eBay, singularly, for £35. Apple will be getting them cheaper than that. That Cook is willing to cause such a crap experience to save £35 on a £1000 machine is really quite saddening.

elijahg said:

For comparison: 

This Dell is £1029, slightly less than the base iMac. It has an 8th Gen i5, newer than the iMac. It has faster RAM. It has a much better GPU, a Nvidia GTX1050 vs Intel Integrated. It has a 128GB SSD and a 7200RPM 1TB HDD. Still think the iMac should have an SSD? Granted, the display is likely to be better (though the iMac one is smaller, and neither are 4k)

The iMac is actually much closer to Dell's £749 offering. That still has a faster HDD, and faster RAM, though the graphics are slightly worse. Other than that, you get pretty much the same machine for £300 less. Of course you have to then deal with Windows, but Windows 10 whilst not exactly great, is nowhere near as bad as older versions. I love Apple, but the prices are just becoming ridiculous. The prices are markedly affecting sales, but for some reason Cook is obsessed with maximising profit, even if it means less sales and ultimately, less total revenue.

nemaworm said:

This 2017 1 terabyte which has a 32gb fusion (not 64gb like the previous poster said) is terrible at launching apps. 

Oh geez I didn't realise they'd gone down to just 32GB now. That's a f**king piss take.

elijahg said:

macxpress said:

elijahg said:

Oh and the 8GB of RAM they've come with by default since 2013 is getting pretty damn stingy now, especially as it's not upgradable on the smaller model. The best model of both sizes should at a minimum include 12GB RAM, but why do that when you can rip people off with a £300 RAM upgrade?

I have yet to run into any issues with 8GB of RAM I got in my 2018 Mac mini. There's no reason for everyone to have over 8GB of RAM today. Only people who care about specs care to have more RAM than they need. And yes, I even run my Mac in Windows, play games, etc and I've never had issues pertaining to lack of RAM. 

Ohhh sorry I never realised your use case was the same as most other people. My iMac with 12GB RAM right now has just 1GB free. The rest is used by Safari, Xcode, VSCode, the Windowserver and iTunes(!). Good luck running Windows with 4GB of RAM and expecting any kind of performance. My friend does a small amount of science research, using her Mac to write reports and papers. It has only 8GB (non-expandable) RAM. It is always out of RAM, taking 8 or 9 seconds just to open a tab in Safari. And that's with a SSD. Another friend's iMac that I mentioned earlier has 8GB RAM and a HDD. More than a few tabs open in Safari with maybe Word or Excel running in the background and the HDD is thrashing trying to keep up. it's a bad experience. 

In any case you're missing the point: for a machine positioned as the "best" configuration, to have only 8GB of RAM is verging on scandalous. People buying that configuration aren't doing run-of-the-mill Number/Excel/Pages work, they're power users. They'll almost certainly need more than 8GB RAM. Why do you keep making excuses for Apple giving customers a bad experience, for a company that can easily afford to stop ripping off its customers? I'm a big an Apple fan as the next guy, and I hold Apple shares, but I don't assume my use case is the same as everyone's, and I can see their flaws and ripoffs.

nemaworm said:

macxpress said:

elijahg said:

Oh and the 8GB of RAM they've come with by default since 2013 is getting pretty damn stingy now, especially as it's not upgradable on the smaller model. The best model of both sizes should at a minimum include 12GB RAM, but why do that when you can rip people off with a £300 RAM upgrade?

I have yet to run into any issues with 8GB of RAM I got in my 2018 Mac mini. There's no reason for everyone to have over 8GB of RAM today. Only people who care about specs care to have more RAM than they need. And yes, I even run my Mac in Windows, play games, etc and I've never had issues pertaining to lack of RAM. 

I'd agree with you that 8gb of ram on a mini might be fine for the average user.  But that's only because the mini's all come with a super fast SSD standard in them.  all the extra ram usage goes to the SSD which doesn't miss a beat unless you really push it.  This is the experience you should be having with a base iMac but with a 5400rpm standard on the iMac forget it your going to be seeing beachballs all day and 15 second app launches all the time.   Apple needs to mirror their Mac mini line and include a SSD as standard on their iMac line in 2019.  Especially now that they switched to APFS format on their drives.  what's the point of APFS if they are still offering 5400rpm drives.....