231–240 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Horrible. I bought a 2010 iMac with a 5400 HD and a MacBook Pro with an SSD at the same time. The iMac became unusable long before the MacBook Pro because of its spinning drive. In fact, the laptop is still usable.
It's not an easy upgrade, but you could swap it out for an SSD. Checkout OWC (macsales) and/or iFixit for guides.
That 5400 rpm hard drive was a bad mistake.
One word: hackintosh.
I now own a 5K iMac. My time is worth more than the difference in price between a hackintosh and a real mac.
Of course if you are in it for hardware freedom instead of cost then a hackintosh is your only option, but it's very difficult to get a perfect build and updating the OS is always a Russian roulette game.
It seems that the price point of i9+32GB+1TB SSD+Vega 48 is about the same price ($5000) as the baseline iMac Pro. Imac Pro comes with Xeon processor and Vega 56 though. Is the iMac Pro better at this price point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not 'iMac got a hardware refresh; now with 2x performance'? When I read this, I thought, 'oh wow, Apple really outdid itself with their SW optimisations'. To me it is obvious it's about HW. These are new iMac release notes, not new macOS announcement.
> These are new iMac release notes, not new macOS announcement. How do you know that though?
Second, OS optimizations of the kind that yield such a big speedup would have applied to the whole Mac range, it makes no sense how they'd be only applicable to iMacs which run more or less the same hardware.
Third, the very first words of the PR is: "Cupertino, California — Apple today updated its iMac line with up to 8-core Intel 9th-generation processors for the first time and powerful Vega graphics options, delivering dramatic increases in both compute and graphics performance. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
vim lifer here, I'm dreading the day my 2015 rMBP dies.
There are decent non-Apple laptops now, like the Dell XPS 13. Unless of course you need to use Mac OS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd love to see Apple make a system that supported upgradeable memory, SSDs, High capacity hard drives, graphics, and separate larger monitors, but that doesn't look like that will ever happen. You may want to keep your eyes out for the new Mac Pro that's meant to release this year.
Even if the Mac Pro is the computer of all our dreams, I doubt it will meet the poster’s needs. Seems like they want a fairly bare-bones, minimalist and simple computer. I doubt a Mac Pro is going to come in at under $3.5k at the entry level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re buying a “$3000” iMac you’re not buying one with a fusion drive....
I maxed out the CPU and got a lot of RAM, I assumed the drive would have enough cache that I wouldn't notice the spindle aspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the 5k model, an additional 8GB in DDR4 RAM for a total of 16GB model costs +$200 [1]. This is beyond unreasonable compared to market [2]. [1] https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac?product=MRR12LL/A&st... [2] https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/
Sure, but with a user-accessible RAM bay built into the back of the machine, I can't work up the energy to be too mad about that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not 'iMac got a hardware refresh; now with 2x performance'? When I read this, I thought, 'oh wow, Apple really outdid itself with their SW optimisations'. To me it is obvious it's about HW. These are new iMac release notes, not new macOS announcement.
> These are new iMac release notes, not new macOS announcement. How do you know that though?