For me has been reliability. I have 27' inch i5 2010 Quad, it has been the best machine I have ever had. I have never had one single issue with it. I cant say that for me scummy Windows 8 Toshiba Satellite I use for class.
For me has been reliability. I have 27' inch i5 2010 Quad, it has been the best machine I have ever had. I have never had one single issue with it. I cant say that for me scummy Windows 8 Toshiba Satellite I use for class.
To give the flip side to that, I've been unable to use my 2012 iMac for a week now due to a kernel panic issue.
Just curious, what caused the kernel panic in your machine?
... it's an i7, GTX680, 32GB of 1600MHz RAM a solid state and a 1TB HDD.
It is just a cool machine.
Except it's not really a GTX680 is it? It's a 680MX, which is rather lower down the hierarchy. (I've got a Mid-2010 model, so I'm jealous either way).
Still, I understand your point.
You have seen the benchmarks on a lowly 680MX right?
Seems to me it does quite well, for a mobile card.
The iMac product is about looks, not power. Had they kept the size from the last generation, imagine what hardware they could have packed in that machine. Even allowing for aftermarket upgrades.
I would have loved that computer.
The UNIX sub-system.
An i7 is not power?
That's a very general question, that depends on what your definition of power is. Every computer, even a calculator is a "power" depending on your preference.
Some i7s are not very strong if they are ULV for example. Some i5s are stronger than some i7s.
But that was not really my point. My point was that, iMac is trying to be as strong it can be, but with compromised internals due to the focus on looks and thinness. There is simply no disputing that. Had they not reduced the depth of the machine, maybe it could have held a 6 or 8 core CPU like in Mac Pro? Or a stronger graphics card? or more HDDs! That sounds plausible.
That's a very general question, that depends on what your definition of power is. Every computer, even a calculator is a "power" depending on your preference.
Some i7s are not very strong if they are ULV for example. Some i5s are stronger than some i7s.
But that was not really my point. My point was that, iMac is trying to be as strong it can be, but with compromised internals due to the focus on looks and thinness. There is simply no disputing that. Had they not reduced the depth of the machine, maybe it could have held a 6 or 8 core CPU like in Mac Pro? Or a stronger graphics card? or more HDDs! That sounds plausible.
The iMac is not compromised at all. Just because it doesn't meet your niche needs, does not make it compromised. It's designed for the regular user. Not the niche market techies who like to tinker endlessly on their machines, just for the sake of benchmark bragging or gaming. It works straight out of the box and for years to come without modding a single thing on it. What exactly is the purpose of having multiple HDD when one big one will do?
Ultimately, the iMac is the optimized machine for today and a few years into the future, and the thinness is simply a result of energy, space, and design efficiency.
The iMac is not compromised at all. Just because it doesn't meet your niche needs, does not make it compromised. It's designed for the regular user. Not the niche market techies who like to tinker endlessly on their machines, just for the sake of benchmark bragging or gaming. It works straight out of the box and for years to come without modding a single thing on it. What exactly is the purpose of having multiple HDD when one big one will do?
Ultimately, the iMac is the optimized machine for today and a few years into the future, and the thinness is simply a result of energy, space, and design efficiency.