How do you justify your lavish spending on a fully-loaded 27"

The iMac is supposed to fill the mid-end gap which they do but not at an appealing price (to me) given the hardware is been out for more than a year and I don't really need the display so I kinda feel stupid about waiting for Apple's release. Had it followed the 2011 concept with a hardware bump and a minor discount for all the hassle and they'd already have my money on their account. A real refresh is the one we saw on the MBP line. I'll probly get the new iMac next year or in 2014 when it gets refreshed again and when the 5400 rpm HDD gets the flaming it deserves so Apple couldn't push it on us.

If you have enough disposable income then why not? The hardest work my Mac does is tons of word processing but I still find satisfaction in buying A fully loaded retina MacBook Pro.

I share the dilemma of the OP. For me, I'm sure the high-end 21.5" would be enough - FOR NOW.

I'm not a serious gamer, and don't particularly care about the high FPS shooters that seem to dominate discussions about what GPU/iMac you need. I would, however, like to be able to play games like Skyrim, Dishonored, and Rome TW/etc. - AND their descendants that come out over the next few years - at decent settings. Other than that, I need a computer for everyday academic work.

So it's really a question of what games like this will be like in a couple of years - and what specs they're likely to require. It's clear that the 27" iMac with 680MX would be the safest choice, overall. But I wonder if that's overkill. And like the OP, I'd really rather not have to get the 27": it's just so much BIGGER than necessary; I'd greatly prefer the 21.5 (I mean, I'm sure it's great for games, but for everyday use, I just don't think I need that much real estate; and as I've said elsewhere, having that screen staring down at you is intimidating!). If there were a better GPU for the 21.5, there'd be no question....

What do people think? It seems to be the hardcore gaming crowd that's insisting the 680MX 27" is absolutely necessary to game; does anyone have any thoughts about what sort of future-proofing is needed if I'm mostly interested in keeping up with RPGs and strategy games for the next few years?

MagicThief, thanks for starting the thread. We seem to be in the same boat, and have similar concerns. Have you reached any conclusions?

Thanks!

I justified it because I have uni discount at the moment for thought i may as well take advantage.

----------

Dispatched: 3 - 4 Weeks
Delivers: 03 Jan, 2013 - 09 Jan, 2013 by Standard Shipping
Part Number: Z0MS
With the following configuration:

•3.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
•8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
•1TB Fusion Drive
•NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5
•Magic Trackpad
•Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) & User's Guide (English)
•Apple Battery Charger
•Accessory Kit

I'll be using it for photo work, so I'll appreciate the 27" real estate.

As far as the other options, I've learned not to settle. While I think it's pointless to try and "future proof" a computer, I think I can extend the usability of it.

I knew this day was coming, so for close to a year I've saved up for it. If I hadn't, the sticker shock would have killed me! lol

masp84 said:

I have something to tell you that you don't know yet

The iMac is a desktop personal computer (Desktop PC)
The concept changed because of apple moving towards to a more mobile design for no reason but still, it's a Personal Computer sitting on a Desktop. About comparing hardware, why can't you do that? I'm running Lion on the hardware list you quoted above with no hiccups. That would be the equivalent of a maxed out iMac 27", although mine has way better storage performance and I didn't get the fancy display. About the mini and a Mac Pro the analogy is way off, the logical answer is to wait until the MP gets refreshed. MP is for professionals while mini is intended for core consumers.

Click to expand...

Silly me. I should have included the implied word "traditional". True, the iMac is a desktop personal computer that sits on a desktop just like a mini or a Mac Pro. Also true, the iMac is a very good desktop PC at that. The difference between the three is that each has certain uses that the others do not as well. That means that a prospective buyer might choose one over the others simply for what the others cannot do.

In other words the differences are not so much quality as ability ("configuration" implied). As an example it wouldn't matter how great an iMac is it just wouldn't work in my world. Additionally my mini and my Mac Pro do very different things even though they all can cruise the Net, play iTunes, etc.

Sorry for the confusion.

More real estate and memory is never enough.

More real estate is never enough.

More memory is never enough.

I would have been outrun, hardware and software wise if I hadn't bought my late 2009 iMac when it was the first model that had the new Intel Dual processor. That decision saved me a lot of money down the road. Many people were outrun when Mountain Lion came out.

I'm considering replacing my CPU with a faster one down the line but that will be awhile and at least you would be able to say so also.

I remember the day when the cables switched from 1.5 to 2.0 and no one told me about it. I spent hours wondering what was going on. It will save you time because you don't waste time later "fudging" to make it work while asking "what did they change now?". And you may end up buying adapters soon enough!

Already 3.0 cables are creeping in.........

My last Imac was maxed out and retains a higher value ( AC helps too) I buy at the top for two reasons.

1) I need the power and storage for work

2) It's just disappointing if you encounter software that won't run properly.