False; a desktop cant be 'best' when it comes shipped with a crippled
mobile GPU and some of the worst airflow imaginable, so bad that it has to downthrottle the CPU to save it from overheating; this was confirmed by LinusTechTips in the video below:
Linus has always impressed me by trying to take the least bias approach to reviewing he can, even if he can be a bit, sarcastic (i get his humour but many people would take it as rude / mean)
There is absolutely no sense to Zirel's comments. don't bother. The iMac is not a bad computer. but it's absolutely a "form over function" device, where they often have sacrificed performance and capabilities in order to make a device that is looks good. but I know you know all this
the iMac 5k screen is gorgeous, But, its like lipstick on a pig. its meant to be the showcase of the device, and distract from the obvious shortcomings of lowered performance and significantly less performance per dollar of competition.
its also a non-typical standard resolution that only Apple supports. And unfortunately, their hardware is not really well matched, as aside from a few graphic editing programs or movie production programs, it's goes under-utilized, and could have been equally served by 4k, or even 2k.
when you then even couple in that they supplied a mobile GPU that struggles at 1080p gaming, that 5k display becomes even less useful. One of the reasons why 1080p based displays are still standard on most computers is the fundamental interaction between a computer does not change. as the size scales up of the elements to be usable, the computer UI interaction stays identical. you will get the same use experience out of 1080p or 5k. 5k is just going to look prettier for a small subset of use.
[doublepost=1475006692][/doublepost]
I actually liked Mavericks, lol. I hated Lion and Mountain Lion (total garbage).
Mavericks wasn't bad from the overal USE. but i'm anal about performance. I found Mavericks to be the most heavy handed for resource utilization of any OSx I've used to date.
for several tests, using hackintosha nd my MacBook air, I found consistently that Mavericks would require minimum of 2.2GB of allocated RAM on fresh boot on clean install. highest use i've seen in an OS since Vista.
I also found there was noticable UI lag, even on SSD machines that didn't have modern CPU's. My Sandy Bridge CPU in the MBA would often cause beachballs while things would load. This was repeatable over multiple test installs. CPU load on average was also much higher.
This seems to have been remedied in Yosemite, and further refined in El Capitan. Its also one of the reasons why Apple has had to increase the base ram offerings, as they really are not super efficient at resource utilisation anymore. Even El capitan on fresh uses more RAM and CPU at idle than Windows 10
and people can say what they want about WIn10 UI, and some of the disjointedness, but currently, Win8.x and Win10 are the two single mainstream OS's that seem to have the best resource utilisation and performance.
example Win10 boots on my machine in 3-4 seconds to desktop
OSx on the exact same hardware is about 10 seconds.
Gaming on the same hardware for many titles, yields anywhere from 10% to a 75% performance degradation in OSx.
