Reply to: The latest iMac with 5K retina display

[stek]

I'm in dire need of a new laptop/ pc and after months of swithering, I've got my finger on the 'buy now' button for an iMac right now.

John Lewis have the 1.4ghz version at £799. And the 2.7ghz at £949.


Should I go the extra £150? Decisions, decisions.

I'm on the 27" Retina iMac now - do it - after looking at the screen, nothing else will do - even though Apple locked out the 5120 resolution. Initially I was peeved, so I used a res switcher to get the full resolution.

Apple was right - I could hardly read the menu bar, it was tiny - in perfect detail, but tiny. The Dock was a tiny strip. 3120 is fine, and nice.

Just like my hero John Shuttleworth can't go back to Savory now, I can't go back to non-retina now....

I Can't Go Back To Non-Retina Now....

[JRCT]

I'm in dire need of a new laptop/ pc and after months of swithering, I've got my finger on the 'buy now' button for an iMac right now.

John Lewis have the 1.4ghz version at £799. And the 2.7ghz at £949.


Should I go the extra £150? Decisions, decisions.

[Platypus]

Choose the CPU you want in the cheapest configuration, and upgrade it yourself?

As mentioned in Technical, upgrading has been made deliberately much harder to the point where Apple say there are no user upgradable parts, not even the 2nd hard drive!

Mac mini (2014) first look review - Review - Macworld UK

[d000hg]

I specc'ed my dream Mac Mini (I do fancy one of those) and top-of-the-line was £1799

Choose the CPU you want in the cheapest configuration, and upgrade it yourself?

[Platypus]

I specc'ed my dream Mac Mini (I do fancy one of those) and top-of-the-line was £1799

[stek]

How did you get a PC with SSD for £200?

OP is talking bollocks, looked on Ebuyer site at Zoostorms, no SSD and all the cheap ones are Celerons...

[d000hg]

My wife has just bought a new Windows machine, which I'm slightly jealous of as it boots in about 5 seconds. (Not a fast processor, but it has SSD disk plus UEFI, I think it's called.) Anyway, it's actually capabable of doing everything I use a PC for. (I don't play games, most strenuous use is probably Monte Carlo simulations of my retirement!)

It cost less than a tenth as much as that iMac.

So I suppose the iMac is for people who are willing to pay ten times as much for a sexier PC.

Or do its users actually have funtional requirements that it meets, and a Windows machine costing 90% less doesn't?

Edit: a tenth might be an exaggeration, I have only a hazy idea of iMac price, however the point remains valid: if the iMac is more than several hundred pounds then it's already costing multiples of what a machine that does everything I need costs.

(Wife's machine was a £200 Zoostorm from Ebuyer, to which was added a £125 22" monitor capable of use in portrait mode.)

How did you get a PC with SSD for £200?

[SpontaneousOrder]

In my opinion, no.

that can essentially the same stuff?

But one with the same stuff wouldn't be ten times cheaper

[SpontaneousOrder]

My wife has just bought a new Windows machine, which I'm slightly jealous of as it boots in about 5 seconds. (Not a fast processor, but it has SSD disk plus UEFI, I think it's called.) Anyway, it's actually capabable of doing everything I use a PC for. (I don't play games, most strenuous use is probably Monte Carlo simulations of my retirement!)

It cost less than a tenth as much as that iMac.

So I suppose the iMac is for people who are willing to pay ten times as much for a sexier PC.

Or do its users actually have funtional requirements that it meets, and a Windows machine costing 90% less doesn't?

Edit: a tenth might be an exaggeration, I have only a hazy idea of iMac price, however the point remains valid: if the iMac is more than several hundred pounds then it's already costing multiples of what a machine that does everything I need costs.

(Wife's machine was a £200 Zoostorm from Ebuyer, to which was added a £125 22" monitor capable of use in portrait mode.)

Your wife's machine that cost less than a tenth is fine for browsing the web... but then if that's all you want to do then why would you buy a much more powerful iMac?

[Tasslehoff]

My wife has just bought a new Windows machine, which I'm slightly jealous of as it boots in about 5 seconds. (Not a fast processor, but it has SSD disk plus UEFI, I think it's called.) Anyway, it's actually capabable of doing everything I use a PC for. (I don't play games, most strenuous use is probably Monte Carlo simulations of my retirement!)

It cost less than a tenth as much as that iMac.

So I suppose the iMac is for people who are willing to pay ten times as much for a sexier PC.

Or do its users actually have funtional requirements that it meets, and a Windows machine costing 90% less doesn't?

Edit: a tenth might be an exaggeration, I have only a hazy idea of iMac price, however the point remains valid: if the iMac is more than several hundred pounds then it's already costing multiple of what a machine that does everything I need costs.

In my opinion, no.

Does it look great, yes.

Is it functionally worth 10 times more than a PC that can essentially the same stuff? No chance.

[IR35 Avoider]

My wife has just bought a new Windows machine, which I'm slightly jealous of as it boots in about 5 seconds. (Not a fast processor, but it has SSD disk plus UEFI, I think it's called.) Anyway, it's actually capabable of doing everything I use a PC for. (I don't play games, most strenuous use is probably Monte Carlo simulations of my retirement!)

It cost less than a tenth as much as that iMac.

So I suppose the iMac is for people who are willing to pay ten times as much for a sexier PC.

Or do its users actually have funtional requirements that it meets, and a Windows machine costing 90% less doesn't?

Edit: a tenth might be an exaggeration, I have only a hazy idea of iMac price, however the point remains valid: if the iMac is more than several hundred pounds then it's already costing multiples of what a machine that does everything I need costs.

(Wife's machine was a £200 Zoostorm from Ebuyer, to which was added a £125 22" monitor capable of use in portrait mode.)

[SpontaneousOrder]

Looks marginally thicker than my current iMac - which is thin, so that's not a problem.

[Bunk]

A mere £3519 for the highest spec machine... as much as I like shiny Apple toys I will pass on this one. Although it would be nice if it was possible to just buy the display without the mac parts inside.

That's the thing, the Thunderbolt display is desperately in need of an update. The iMac has been super thin for a few years now and the standalone screen is still the big thick clunky thing.

[sartois]

A mere £3519 for the highest spec machine... as much as I like shiny Apple toys I will pass on this one. Although it would be nice if it was possible to just buy the display without the mac parts inside.

[DaveB]

Isn't this the Lisa all over again, impressive but far too expensive? I can't see even most Mac users buying this, since it is a new model rather than a replacement for the existing iMac... graphic design types maybe? Power users would have the Mac Pro - are they going to sell the 5k screen as a standalone product like they do the current iMac display?

It's a £400 premium on the standard display. If you are in the market for a new Mac it's worth considering. It's also the only iMac with a 4 Ghz processor option. The next one down only has the option for 3.5 Ghz.