I think there are lots of choices, unless you are married to the Apple ecosystem. I would think a tower would be best if you want an upgradeable system no?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Launches New 4K & 5K iMacs, Magic Keyboard, Magic Mouse 2 and Magic Trackpad 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think there are lots of choices, unless you are married to the Apple ecosystem. I would think a tower would be best if you want an upgradeable system no?
£15 for a lightning cable here. So still a big jump. For this sort of thing, I'd say it would be better to leave the cable out as many people will have several kicking around already and it's an extra cost they don't need.
Absolutely my point.
Macs are wonderful computers, but the are expensive and never "top notch" technology.
Customers must know that.
I'm very puzzled by people here "struggling to save $2000 on an iMac".
If you don't have $2000 to spend for a computer, it's ok. You can have a PC for $1000, and I mean a very good PC.
But if you are looking for a $2000 iMac then money aren't really your problem ...
This....
I'm not rich, by any means, but I can afford with some sacrifices a MBP ....
So I can afford to buy a PlayStation every 5 years to play games, for me and my sons, on the TV....
You sound like a Snob elitist .... I was a gamer and you probably were in the kindergarten, and today Im using a console (actually two, having a PS4 and an Xbox 360) to play ...
I DONT WANT to use a keyboard and a mouse to play.
It is the past.
A controller is what I like today.
But I know the main reason to prefer PC for playing video games: you have to pay for the games on a console, on a PC ... not always.
Same here.
I'm surprised to see lots of mentions of considering Hackintosh. I think this confirms my own thoughts and approach to this, which is, even if one could afford the extra $100, or $300, out of principle many of us feel betrayed and abused.
Apple has been playing this game for a long time, but it hasn't always felt this 'evident'; now it's absolutely crystal clear what they are doing, it can't be hidden or excused.
I know Steve Jobs played this game too, but I wonder if he would have the common sense and tact to say, guys, we can't offer that 5400 rpm base in 2015 anymore, it's just too obvious, lets do something else here.
Apple has been playing this game for a long time, but it hasn't always felt this 'evident'; now it's absolutely crystal clear what they are doing, it can't be hidden or excused.
I know Steve Jobs played this game too, but I wonder if he would have the common sense and tact to say, guys, we can't offer that 5400 rpm base in 2015 anymore, it's just too obvious, lets do something else here.
Is a hackintosh worth it? That's kind of like removing the whole "it just works" philosophy from your mac.
I built a PC that has served me well for years and it still holds up against the latest iMac, but I did spend a decent amount of time and some frustration here and there troubleshooting hardware and software. What I saved in money (and it was a lot) I occasionally spent on time and anger.
With my luck, I'd attempt a hackintosh build and end up having all the same hardware assembly and troubleshooting problems of a PC with the additional headache of trying to trick that PC into thinking it's a mac.
i never spent that much on a lightning cable. holy smokes, man! http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-...=1-4&keywords=apple+certified+lightning+cable
I built a PC that has served me well for years and it still holds up against the latest iMac, but I did spend a decent amount of time and some frustration here and there troubleshooting hardware and software. What I saved in money (and it was a lot) I occasionally spent on time and anger.
With my luck, I'd attempt a hackintosh build and end up having all the same hardware assembly and troubleshooting problems of a PC with the additional headache of trying to trick that PC into thinking it's a mac.
i never spent that much on a lightning cable. holy smokes, man! http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-...=1-4&keywords=apple+certified+lightning+cable
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Read: Apple is a rip-off con-artist of a company but we Mac users know this and don't care if they rip us off.
And I beg to differ on top notch. My MBP in 2008 was about as good as it got for a non-desktop style notebook. It ran Vista faster than anyone else's notebook (save the desktop style ones). You used to be able to buy a tower Mac Pro and put a top-notch graphics card in it and still have 12-cores if you wanted them. Now you can't even get a truly good graphics card.
Some of us don't "need" the best, but that doesn't mean we want absolute crap either for our money either. I don't care how you slice it; a $2500 computer in 2015 should not have a cheap $40 1TB 5400 RPM drive in it or a graphics card that can't drive its own 5k display worth a darn. What's so hard about that to comprehend? I like Macs because of the operating system, not because I believe Mac hardware is somehow "special" (it's not). But I want a good CPU and GPU and hard drive. Apple doesn't currently offer a single model that fits that bill. I use my Macs for everything from writing music to surfing to playing games. I'd like to be able to continue doing that and not have to fill three separate desks with equipment like I currently have (and 5 monitors).
Why is it about the PRICE and not the operating system with people like you? You try to imply that *I* am the snob here when snobs only care how much they spent on something (luxury item) so they can show it off. Did you buy the Lexus because you wanted a better car or because you wanted your friends to drool because they think you're rich? I couldn't care less about that crap. I could buy a Lexus or BMW. I don't WANT one. That's not my priority in life to impress other people when I couldn't give a flying crap what other people think.
And we're back to MONEY again. You seem to be under the impression I make minimum wage or something. LOL. I could afford to buy 100 Playstation 4s! WTF does THAT have to do with anything? Do you think because I have a reasonable income that means that I actually enjoy not getting any value for my dollar? I didn't get money in the first place by spending it willy-nilly just because it was burning a hole in my pocket or something. In other words, do you think because I CAN afford a Playstation that I automatically WANT a Playstation???
Consoles are so 1983. You're stuck with the same hardware for years on end. You typically have to play on a TV somewhere with unprecise archaic joystick controls and when the next system comes out, you have games that no longer work unless you want to keep hooking up old consoles until the end of time (or until they break). I've got a Nintendo 64 and Game Cube sitting down in my home theatre room. They don't get much use because most of the games were throw-aways. I still play C64 and Amiga games (emulator plus Atari joystick adapter = bliss) and even the occasional game of Adventure with an Atari emulator. I have a real Atari in the closet. I really don't see a need to hook it up when I can play it on a computer. I can play all those games on a computer. I can play arcade games on a computer even. WTF would I want to keep buying consoles when a single computer can play them all and continue to play them all in the future?
I sound like a snob? LOL. I was thinking the same about you since you value Apple as a brand name not a an actual product.
You were a gamer when I was in kindergarten, eh? What games were you playing? Electromechanical pinball? I'm over 40, dude. I started with a Pong game, graduated to an Atari 2600 and then an Intellivision and then a Vic20 and then a Colecovision and then I discovered the Commodore 64 was the greatest gaming machine of its day (1983). From there I got an Amiga 500 (1988) and then an Amiga 3000 (1991) and then a Windows PC (1999) and then an upgraded PC (2003) and then a used PPC Mac (then upgraded to 1.8GHz, Sata, etc.) (2006) and a newer PC (2008) and then a Macbook Pro (2008) and then a Mac Mini (2012). Now I'm looking for a newer machine to handle it all instead of maintaining this three desks of computers.
So fracking DON'T. Do you think I give a monkey's arm pit WTF you do??? Really? Think again. That doesn't change the facts that Apple is turning into a rip-off company. I've had Macs for almost a decade now and I know the value of them has changed drastically since Tim Cook took over.
OMG.... Joysticks ("controllers") have been around for almost 4 decades and you call the mouse and keyboard the "past". Holy fracking bleep Batman.... That has to be the (let's call it "ridiculous" so I don't get banned) comment I've ever read in my entire life. I was using a joystick on the Atari 2600 in the 1970s. That's the "present" ???
Oh, you mean a multi-button controller. Let's see, I was using a Colecovision Super-Action Controller (4-buttons, a spin-wheel, directional joystick and full numeric keypad, all used for more complex games like Temple of Apshai or Baseball). Or the Intellivision controller with 16-way pad, 4-buttons and full numeric keypad. The PAST.... what a ridiculous thing to say.
You don't like keyboards + mouse (the BEST controls for any FPS, in my opinion; controllers lack aiming precision compared to a good mouse), fine. The past? You don't seem to know anything about the past or you wouldn't call keyboards and mice the "past" while calling controllers the present.
Dude, I'm making quite a decent income these days. Buying a game or a game console is not an issue. The fact you would even hint at piracy tells me you are shooting at the wind. I buy games on Steam so I'm insulated against the future. I get both the Mac and Windows versions for one price. That gives me flexibility to change platforms if I so desire and keep all my games (old and new). A console means keeping a half dozen boxes around for the rest of your life if you want to play an old game again. No thanks.
I don't think any of us particularly "want" to build a Hackintosh. But some of us want to keep the Mac operating system around (Unix based secure system that I can leave on 24/7) and there comes a point where if Apple won't offer the hardware we want, what other options do you have? Yes, I can just get a PC and run Windows 10 or Linux. I'd rather run OS X, but I don't want to have to keep running 2008 and 2012 hardware forever because the newer hardware sucks (i.e. 2014 Mini is SLOWER than the 2012 Quad i7 on in CPU terms). It remains to be seen what kind of notebook Apple will offer next year with Thunderbolt 3 coming out. I'd like to have a good notebook with an external graphics card hub that I can use to replace both my MBP (or just use it for music production on the other side of the house) and desktop Mini with ONE computer I can just connect to a dock setup with one wire. That sounds great, but I somehow think Apple will find a way to frack it up. They seem to be good at that lately. Every hardware release is a disappointment instead of a revelation. It doesn't even seem like they're trying anymore (except to wring every last dime out of people).
Last edited:
The simple fact you ran windows Vista says a lot of thing s about you ....
If you BTO a $2500 iMac with the 5400 rpm spinner , well, you are the problem here....
I don't buy Lexus or BMW.
I don't show off any of my iDevices. I just use them because they are, to me, the best on the market. Including my Macs....
I couldn't care less about your money, dude...
But if you still whining about video games on a Mac, I just suggest you to buy a PlayStation (or an Xbox, whatever....).
Who cares about the hardware ? I care about the games.
Games for consoles are optimized for years, since the hardware is a stable platform.
Games for PCs usually are very poorly optimized and you constantly need upgrades to play last games in a decent way....
Well, you seem to have roughly my age, and still whining about a computer to play games ?
iMacs aren't the right computer to play games. It always been that way. iMacs used to use notebook-like graphics even when equipped with a dGPU. And if you are such a pro gamer how could you consider to play on a notebook ?
Apple user since 1989 and I frankly don't remember when Apple has produced affordable machines...
Dude you clearly don't know much about modern consoles and their controllers (not just joy pads)
Again I don't care about you income.
On modern console you can buy games online.
Forget the magic. Need pick up a few of these before they go "out of style":
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MB112LL/B/apple-mouse
Too bad they don't last more than a year or so (ball conks out).
But the store page "recommend" section is a hoot - recommends $379 beats headphones to go with my $49 mouse.
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MB112LL/B/apple-mouse
Too bad they don't last more than a year or so (ball conks out).
But the store page "recommend" section is a hoot - recommends $379 beats headphones to go with my $49 mouse.
Why are you trying to defend Apple so much? Sure we know Apple has always crippled the iMac when it comes to gaming, and yes most long-time mac users have given up on gaming on OSX, but why defend and justify as ok? It's not ok. Why couldn't the iMac be an awesome gaming machine?
Desktop gaming is huge, there are no signs of consoles replacing desktop gaming any time soon, that's a fact, look at platforms like Steam.
Furthermore, consider that Apple now has something that it never had before, it has a huge gaming platform with iOS, and soon with Apple TV. If there is a time to unleash OSX's potential into the gaming realm, it seems it would be now.
And btw, I personally spend more time on games on my desktop than consoles, and I own a Wii U and PS4.
OSX has been limited by crappy hardware for too long, it'd be great if we had at the very least an iMac "gaming edition" that's not $4000. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask and request Apple to do this.
On the other hand, I don't why understand some Apple users defend and justify Apple so much, why limit OSX's potential?
Last edited:
I'm not defending Apple over this.
I strongly criticized some aspects of the new released iMacs (5400rpM HDD, soldered RAM and the lack of an option for discrete graphics), and for sure Im not going to buy one.
I'm just saying iMac, as every other Apple's computer, are not intended for gaming use, since ever.
And to be a drama queen on a matter every Mac user should know is a waste of time IMHO.
And it's a shame really, to limit an entire OS platform like OSX due just to lack of hardware is a true shame.
Are you seriously still going on with the same defensiveness regarding Apple's removal of dedicated graphics in the 21.5-inch? I really don't see how you can justify it, just because you have no need for it yourself. Some of us need it; whether it be for gaming, video editing or other intensive tasks. And for us, Apple no longer offers a suitable product.
I really, really hate when people don't even read my post but reply nonetheless.
English isn't my first language, but I still think this sentence in quite clear:
I strongly criticized some aspects of the new released iMacs (5400rpM HDD, soldered RAM and the lack of an option for discrete graphics), and for sure Im not going to buy one.
Do you need further explanations or are you able to understand that phrase ?
BTW, video editing could be done with an Iris Pro 6200. I'm also quite annoyed about people that don't really know what they are speaking of... The Iris Pro 6200 surely isn't good for gaming, but it is a decent GPU for anything else. On this forum every time people read "integrated graphics" the assume is crap. That's not true anymore with the Iris Pro series.
If you really need something better for your productivity , the 27" iMac still offers a more powerful GPU (not good for gaming too).
Photoshop and Lightroom are to examples of applications that rely more on the GPU then they used too. I think because we're talking about a 4k display the need for extra horsepower is really needed. Can a iGPU drive the display yes, but as I read on Ars Technica, there can be situations where its noticeably slower.
For me, do I want to spend close to 2k for a machine that out of the box has noticeable performance issues? I don't think so.
The fact I've NEVER run Vista on any of my computers and yet some way, some how you magically came to that absurd conclusion says 100x more about you.
I said that model ran Vista better than other PC makers; I got that from reading reviews, NOT from running Vista. Your problem is you keep making ridiculous assumptions about me based on your charged emotional reaction rather than logic or facts and hence my whole argument. You just keep on proving me correct too.
My point (that you keep missing or glossing right by) is that a Mac in that range (actually $2300, my mistake) shouldn't come standard with a 5400 spinner to begin with (and yes a Fusion drive is now just a 24GB SSD mated to a 5400 spinner). Why should I have to custom build (which always costs more than it would if it were standard) when no iMac in that price range should come with that type of drive to begin with? The rotational drives should be the custom build (if you need absolute internal storage over speed), not the other way around at that price point. It would be like offering a Corvette with drum brakes...you just don't do it period.
But you buy Macs and don't mind paying for a "prestige" name there and unlike you I don't buy a Mac for prestige. I buy it for the operating system. I do not buy luxury cars period. I buy sports cars that are good value for the dollar (e.g. Subaru WRX).
They may be that to you, but they are not that in reality and that is the WHOLE POINT being made here. Apple used to represent a high-end experience. While it may not have had the absolute best hardware, it did used to very good hardware and an OS that was light years ahead of Windows in every aspect save graphics API (DirextX and drivers). The problem is that Windows has been catching up and the Mac hardware offered is worth less and costs more by relative comparison to the Steve Jobs years.
And yet you inferred I'm either a "snob" or a software pirate (one implies rich or the appearance of being rich and the other implies poor or criminal demeanor).
I believe I gave my opinions about Playstations and XBoxes already and so I won't rehash them here, but suggest you go back and read instead. And I'm not whining about a lack of "games" on the Mac (I'm reasonably happy with the selection that is offered most of the time; more isn't always "better", after all if the games that aren't available aren't games I want to play), but rather I'm unhappy about the lack of decent hardware offerings and increasingly poor value for the hardware that is offered.
So you don't mind playing games at sub-standard resolutions, detail settings, etc.? The hardware controls that, after all. I personally don't care for controller gaming very much, as I've made quite clear, although I wouldn't mind giving one of those new Steam controllers a try.
That is true of games toward the end of the platform's cycle, not so much at the start of a new one.
Games for PC often include games that aren't available for consoles or have poor control mechanisms on consoles. Try and play Test Drive Unlimited on a console with a controller or even a console steering wheel. They are absolutely inferior to the steering wheels you can get for a PC (I know because I have a $399 one right here for that and other driving games on my Windows machine). I have a dual-control flight stick with rudder pedals for flight simulators. I could run a 3-monitor setup for a flight simulator. Try that on a console. Try and FIND a flight simulator type game on a console that isn't a joke.
You're whining about me giving my opinion so pot meet kettle.
That might explain why I don't own an iMac. It does not explain why Apple doesn't offer a Mac that IS suitable for gaming. After all, there are quite a number of AAA games available for the Mac (largely thanks to companies like Aspyr and Valve among others). And yes traditionally, Apple has had poor drivers and hasn't updated OpenGL fast enough. But that's Apple's fault once again. Valve has gone out of its way to support the Mac and Linux for gaming to a great degree and to their credit, games like Borderlands 2 play just fine against the PC versions without a hiccup on the Steam network (Mac App store version not so much).
Besides, "it's always been that way" is an abysmal reason to argue for the status quo in this world. It implies a lack of change due to past history rather than a better possible future. And in Mac circles, it's the ultimate excuse for why the Mac has poor gaming performance rather than asking why Apple doesn't make more than a half-arse effort when the richest tech company in the world could easily do SO much better.
I never said I was a "Pro Gamer". In fact, I said quite the opposite. I own 68 games on Steam, for example, 53 of which have Mac versions as well. Most "Pro Gamers" have more like 700. I would, however, prefer to have ONE computer in the future instead of three, as I have indicated or at least get it down to two computers. A well equipped Hackintosh could easily handle that and stay in OS X 85% of the time (and could boot into Windows for the other 15%). A poorly equipped Mac could not handle all the games out there regardless of which OS it's running because the hardware can't handle it even in Windows. THAT is my point. You can always get better hardware on a PC to overcome lack of optmization, but you can't buy a Mac that doesn't exist. A Hackintosh is the only possible alternative to keep OS X.
I paid $1100 for this Quad Core i7 8GB 2TB Raid 0 Mac Mini server. I'd call that reasonable. If it had a better GPU, it would have been a truly great value at that price. I would have gladly paid $1500-1700 for a truly great gaming GPU equipped version (i.e. more than the price of what such a GPU would cost on a PC). But alas, Apple offers no such version. In fact, they offer no Mac at ANY price range that contains a gaming level GPU (and you can get a quite good one for $300 and build a 4K capable gaming rig for $1200 in the PC world. Mac users constantly dismiss the so-called theoretical "X-Mac" and yet such a Mac wouldn't cannibalize a single Mac out there because no such Mac exists. You use to be able to equip a Mac Pro to be an amazingly overpriced X-Mac, but that was in the cheese grater days).
I paid $1600 on sale for my 2008 Macbook Pro and upgraded the memory right away and the drive within a year to use it with Logic Pro (a truly GREAT reason to buy a Mac, BTW; it's an awesome DAW for a great price and is not available for Windows). I have played a few games on that Mac, but it's not what I bought it for. I bought the 2012 Mac Mini to replace my PPC server. I did not buy it for games, but it turns out I've played a lot of games on it, after all as my Windows gaming rig has aged to the point where the Mac Mini is as fast or faster even with a relatively poor GPU and running OS X (and games like Borderlands 2 have held up OK). I would like to play a few newer games like Dragon Age Inquisition, though and that means a new computer or console. Buying a console for ONE game is not appealing when I can get far more use out of a computer that I can use for other things and also maintains my older software collection in the process. A Hackintosh would do that and handle my OS X software. I would still need to eventually replace the Macbook Pro as portability is a factor in my music production and it's starting to get a bit long in the tooth even so.
I own a PS3 controller and it works on my Mac. What am I missing? A Wii type controller? A family member of mine has a Wii. The bowling game is fun. That's about it.
How does that keep them working when the next generation console comes out and it is not backwards compatible as both the PS4 and XBox One are not backwards compatible with ANY prior versions of their systems?
Leaving aside the gaming argument (pros and cons, but not really what most people are upset about and I don't think either side of that argument will ever agree with the other ) I don't think I've seen this much disappointment in a Mac update for a while. From 'normal' users and pundits alike. When Snell, Siracusa, Ritchie etc are all saying these aren't great updates then there must be something wrong. I'm not saying I don't value their opinion on things but sometimes they can come across as Apple apologists and gush about everything, so you have to filter some of the reviews but not this time. Jason Snell wasn't even that impressed with the Magic Accessories updates either.
It's sad to see the company going down this route of (seemingly) fleecing the customer for sheer profit at every turn and not really being too bothered about the whole "experience" anymore. As long as they have the money, that's it, move along, next customer please.
I'm still quite new to the Mac and OS X, with Jobs' last keynote being the first one I saw to give an idea of where I fall in the timeline. But even in such a short time I can see how the ethos within the Apple system seems to be changing and the user experience is getting worse as relative prices and the constant drive for profits go up. I hate to think what people who have been loyal to Apple since the dark days think about what's happening to the company now. Any of you lot been around that long? I'd like to know your thoughts.
Computers shouldn't be throw away devices and/or using older technology to keep costs down and revenues up. I've still not decided which side of the SSD fence I fall yet but to not be including at least 256GB of SSD storage as standard or at least a cost for cost alternative to a fusion drive on the new iMacs when pretty much the entire line of Macs below iMac is SSD only now just seems like seeing how long we can be kept bent over before we try to stand up. I know 256GB isn't great for a desktop machine but I just plucked the size as an example.
I said it earlier and I'm curious if I got my timeline right. Does anyone know if a lot of this lack of decent advancement and making things more sealed and disposable than ever before ties in roughly with the shareholders getting the dividend payouts they wanted? To me looking back it feels like it, but I could be getting my timings wrong. 4th Quarter of 2012 is when they planned to begin it if that helps anyone and the dividend per share has gone from $2.65 to $3.55 (accounting for the 7 to 1 split in 2014). More profit = higher stock value = higher dividend = happy share holders = happy Apple = screwed consumer.
Again, opinions vary.
) I don't think I've seen this much disappointment in a Mac update for a while. From 'normal' users and pundits alike. When Snell, Siracusa, Ritchie etc are all saying these aren't great updates then there must be something wrong. I'm not saying I don't value their opinion on things but sometimes they can come across as Apple apologists and gush about everything, so you have to filter some of the reviews but not this time. Jason Snell wasn't even that impressed with the Magic Accessories updates either.It's sad to see the company going down this route of (seemingly) fleecing the customer for sheer profit at every turn and not really being too bothered about the whole "experience" anymore. As long as they have the money, that's it, move along, next customer please.
I'm still quite new to the Mac and OS X, with Jobs' last keynote being the first one I saw to give an idea of where I fall in the timeline. But even in such a short time I can see how the ethos within the Apple system seems to be changing and the user experience is getting worse as relative prices and the constant drive for profits go up. I hate to think what people who have been loyal to Apple since the dark days think about what's happening to the company now. Any of you lot been around that long? I'd like to know your thoughts.
Computers shouldn't be throw away devices and/or using older technology to keep costs down and revenues up. I've still not decided which side of the SSD fence I fall yet but to not be including at least 256GB of SSD storage as standard or at least a cost for cost alternative to a fusion drive on the new iMacs when pretty much the entire line of Macs below iMac is SSD only now just seems like seeing how long we can be kept bent over before we try to stand up. I know 256GB isn't great for a desktop machine but I just plucked the size as an example.
I said it earlier and I'm curious if I got my timeline right. Does anyone know if a lot of this lack of decent advancement and making things more sealed and disposable than ever before ties in roughly with the shareholders getting the dividend payouts they wanted? To me looking back it feels like it, but I could be getting my timings wrong. 4th Quarter of 2012 is when they planned to begin it if that helps anyone and the dividend per share has gone from $2.65 to $3.55 (accounting for the 7 to 1 split in 2014). More profit = higher stock value = higher dividend = happy share holders = happy Apple = screwed consumer.
Again, opinions vary.
I'd read reviews (Engadget, et al.) that hadn't mentioned it was an issue. Sure you'd like the option, but Ars Technica was the only one I'd seen that flagged it as a noticeable performance issue.
The fact I've NEVER run Vista on any of my computers and yet some way, some how you magically came to that absurd conclusion says 100x more about you.
I said that model ran Vista better than other PC makers; I got that from reading reviews, NOT from running Vista. Your problem is you keep making ridiculous assumptions about me based on your charged emotional reaction rather than logic or facts and hence my whole argument. You just keep on proving me correct too.
My point (that you keep missing or glossing right by) is that a Mac in that range (actually $2300, my mistake) shouldn't come standard with a 5400 spinner to begin with (and yes a Fusion drive is now just a 24GB SSD mated to a 5400 spinner). Why should I have to custom build (which always costs more than it would if it were standard) when no iMac in that price range should come with that type of drive to begin with? The rotational drives should be the custom build (if you need absolute internal storage over speed), not the other way around at that price point. It would be like offering a Corvette with drum brakes...you just don't do it period.
But you buy Macs and don't mind paying for a "prestige" name there and unlike you I don't buy a Mac for prestige. I buy it for the operating system. I do not buy luxury cars period. I buy sports cars that are good value for the dollar (e.g. Subaru WRX).
They may be that to you, but they are not that in reality and that is the WHOLE POINT being made here. Apple used to represent a high-end experience. While it may not have had the absolute best hardware, it did used to very good hardware and an OS that was light years ahead of Windows in every aspect save graphics API (DirextX and drivers). The problem is that Windows has been catching up and the Mac hardware offered is worth less and costs more by relative comparison to the Steve Jobs years.
And yet you inferred I'm either a "snob" or a software pirate (one implies rich or the appearance of being rich and the other implies poor or criminal demeanor).
I believe I gave my opinions about Playstations and XBoxes already and so I won't rehash them here, but suggest you go back and read instead. And I'm not whining about a lack of "games" on the Mac (I'm reasonably happy with the selection that is offered most of the time; more isn't always "better", after all if the games that aren't available aren't games I want to play), but rather I'm unhappy about the lack of decent hardware offerings and increasingly poor value for the hardware that is offered.
So you don't mind playing games at sub-standard resolutions, detail settings, etc.? The hardware controls that, after all. I personally don't care for controller gaming very much, as I've made quite clear, although I wouldn't mind giving one of those new Steam controllers a try.
That is true of games toward the end of the platform's cycle, not so much at the start of a new one.
Games for PC often include games that aren't available for consoles or have poor control mechanisms on consoles. Try and play Test Drive Unlimited on a console with a controller or even a console steering wheel. They are absolutely inferior to the steering wheels you can get for a PC (I know because I have a $399 one right here for that and other driving games on my Windows machine). I have a dual-control flight stick with rudder pedals for flight simulators. I could run a 3-monitor setup for a flight simulator. Try that on a console. Try and FIND a flight simulator type game on a console that isn't a joke.
You're whining about me giving my opinion so pot meet kettle.
That might explain why I don't own an iMac. It does not explain why Apple doesn't offer a Mac that IS suitable for gaming. After all, there are quite a number of AAA games available for the Mac (largely thanks to companies like Aspyr and Valve among others). And yes traditionally, Apple has had poor drivers and hasn't updated OpenGL fast enough. But that's Apple's fault once again. Valve has gone out of its way to support the Mac and Linux for gaming to a great degree and to their credit, games like Borderlands 2 play just fine against the PC versions without a hiccup on the Steam network (Mac App store version not so much).
Besides, "it's always been that way" is an abysmal reason to argue for the status quo in this world. It implies a lack of change due to past history rather than a better possible future. And in Mac circles, it's the ultimate excuse for why the Mac has poor gaming performance rather than asking why Apple doesn't make more than a half-arse effort when the richest tech company in the world could easily do SO much better.
I never said I was a "Pro Gamer". In fact, I said quite the opposite. I own 68 games on Steam, for example, 53 of which have Mac versions as well. Most "Pro Gamers" have more like 700. I would, however, prefer to have ONE computer in the future instead of three, as I have indicated or at least get it down to two computers. A well equipped Hackintosh could easily handle that and stay in OS X 85% of the time (and could boot into Windows for the other 15%). A poorly equipped Mac could not handle all the games out there regardless of which OS it's running because the hardware can't handle it even in Windows. THAT is my point. You can always get better hardware on a PC to overcome lack of optmization, but you can't buy a Mac that doesn't exist. A Hackintosh is the only possible alternative to keep OS X.
I paid $1100 for this Quad Core i7 8GB 2TB Raid 0 Mac Mini server. I'd call that reasonable. If it had a better GPU, it would have been a truly great value at that price. I would have gladly paid $1500-1700 for a truly great gaming GPU equipped version (i.e. more than the price of what such a GPU would cost on a PC). But alas, Apple offers no such version. In fact, they offer no Mac at ANY price range that contains a gaming level GPU (and you can get a quite good one for $300 and build a 4K capable gaming rig for $1200 in the PC world. Mac users constantly dismiss the so-called theoretical "X-Mac" and yet such a Mac wouldn't cannibalize a single Mac out there because no such Mac exists. You use to be able to equip a Mac Pro to be an amazingly overpriced X-Mac, but that was in the cheese grater days).
I paid $1600 on sale for my 2008 Macbook Pro and upgraded the memory right away and the drive within a year to use it with Logic Pro (a truly GREAT reason to buy a Mac, BTW; it's an awesome DAW for a great price and is not available for Windows). I have played a few games on that Mac, but it's not what I bought it for. I bought the 2012 Mac Mini to replace my PPC server. I did not buy it for games, but it turns out I've played a lot of games on it, after all as my Windows gaming rig has aged to the point where the Mac Mini is as fast or faster even with a relatively poor GPU and running OS X (and games like Borderlands 2 have held up OK). I would like to play a few newer games like Dragon Age Inquisition, though and that means a new computer or console. Buying a console for ONE game is not appealing when I can get far more use out of a computer that I can use for other things and also maintains my older software collection in the process. A Hackintosh would do that and handle my OS X software. I would still need to eventually replace the Macbook Pro as portability is a factor in my music production and it's starting to get a bit long in the tooth even so.
I own a PS3 controller and it works on my Mac. What am I missing? A Wii type controller? A family member of mine has a Wii. The bowling game is fun. That's about it.
How does that keep them working when the next generation console comes out and it is not backwards compatible as both the PS4 and XBox One are not backwards compatible with ANY prior versions of their systems?
Wow, just wow. Total rubbish re: sub-standard resolutions. Aside from the Xbox 1, the PS4 plays it all in 1080p usually at 60fps. As the vast majority of people don't have a 4k tv, 1080p is great. Apple could offer a "gaming" Mac, but I (and I guess Apple too) don't see a market there and in any event, bugger all developers code for Mac.
What I don't understand is you comment that there are lack of options but appear to have no interest in said more expensive options? Apple should just make it available because.... why? Just because? Should have inventory collecting dust because? Apple makes a killing on phones, Macs do well, but they aren't interested in a niche gamer market for the Mac, never have been and likely never will be.
Last edited:
right.
And Ars Technica spoke about connecting ANOTHER 4K external display ....
I Think Ars Technica went a little bit too far with that configuration. If you need two 4K/5K resolution displays connected, you should buy a 27" iMac, and there you can have dGPU and much more VRAM.
Leaving aside the gaming argument (pros and cons, but not really what most people are upset about and I don't think either side of that argument will ever agree with the other
It's sad to see the company going down this route of (seemingly) fleecing the customer for sheer profit at every turn and not really being too bothered about the whole "experience" anymore. As long as they have the money, that's it, move along, next customer please.
I'm still quite new to the Mac and OS X, with Jobs' last keynote being the first one I saw to give an idea of where I fall in the timeline. But even in such a short time I can see how the ethos within the Apple system seems to be changing and the user experience is getting worse as relative prices and the constant drive for profits go up. I hate to think what people who have been loyal to Apple since the dark days think about what's happening to the company now. Any of you lot been around that long? I'd like to know your thoughts.
Computers shouldn't be throw away devices and/or using older technology to keep costs down and revenues up. I've still not decided which side of the SSD fence I fall yet but to not be including at least 256GB of SSD storage as standard or at least a cost for cost alternative to a fusion drive on the new iMacs when pretty much the entire line of Macs below iMac is SSD only now just seems like seeing how long we can be kept bent over before we try to stand up. I know 256GB isn't great for a desktop machine but I just plucked the size as an example.
I said it earlier and I'm curious if I got my timeline right. Does anyone know if a lot of this lack of decent advancement and making things more sealed and disposable than ever before ties in roughly with the shareholders getting the dividend payouts they wanted? To me looking back it feels like it, but I could be getting my timings wrong. 4th Quarter of 2012 is when they planned to begin it if that helps anyone and the dividend per share has gone from $2.65 to $3.55 (accounting for the 7 to 1 split in 2014). More profit = higher stock value = higher dividend = happy share holders = happy Apple = screwed consumer.
Again, opinions vary.
Honestly Apple has always had this trend of making things sealed and non-upgradable, going back the original Mac. I think what's new and unexpected, is making things sealed that are significantly outdated and non-standard in the industry. That, I don't recall Apple doing at least so outrageously, 5400 drive by default on a 4k $1500 desktop is so out of place compared to the rest of the industry and even Apple's own lineup, and goes against Apple's values of user experience first.
It screams investor profit greed, I'd love to know what exactly is going on with shareholders etc, if Apple meetings now start with "we need absolute profit milking from users" instead of "how do we make insanely great™ products" I think Apple is in trouble.
Not happy about the 5400 rpm spinner too, but you can buy a 1 Tb Fusion Drive just by adding $100, not so much if you are going to spend $2300 on a computer.
BTW on the US store I'm seeing the 5400 RPM HDD on the $1499 model. Then you can BTO using a 1 Tb Fusion Drive for just $100.
I would have preferred a base model at $1599 with the Fusion Drive already installed....
I don't care about the prestige.
I buy Macs because they are just the best computers for me, and I invested in Apple ecosystem over many years.
And they still are years ahead of Windows in many aspects, to me (and I'm using Windows on a daily basis), save computer gaming ...
As I said, Apple isn't about computer gaming.
Since ever...
I wasn't referring directly to you ....
But I know for sure that many computer gamers are "buying" video games with torrents....
sub-standard resolutions ?
Dude, did you ever seen a PS4 on a 50" 1080P tv ?
To me a much better experience than a game on a 27" 4K computer monitor .....
And you seem to know very little about consoles ...
Good games arrives after a few months from a new console launch, not at the end of the life cycle (that is about 5 years, something a gaming computer could only dream).
And some games are console only, not available fo PCs ...
There are plenty of steering wheels also for Playstations.
Flight simulators aren't console games, for sure ....
Ask Apple about that.
They aren't for gaming, at least till now. I don't know if they are going to change their mind in the near future, but as of today iMacs aren't good gaming machines. Thin and light aluminium all-in-one doesn't cope very well with the ugly boxes gaming machines are.
I think Apple knows better than you their market target.
If they are not seeking for gamers, they have their reasons.
Do you have a gaming PC ? What CPU does it have ? What GPU does it have ?
DO they fit in the case of a Mac mini or even of an iMac ?
You know perfectly well the answer is NO.
So a Mini with a gaming GPU is just an excuse to bash Apple on this matter.
The Mac Mini is not a gaming computer.
The iMac can barely run some games (surely not a 5K).
If you want to play on a computer, you have to buy, or better assemble by yourself, a properly configured PC.
Deal with it.
ever heard about Kinect or Playstation Camera .... consoles aren't just a joypad nowadays
again, you seem to know very little about consoles:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/backward-compatibility
BTW, console lifespan are about 5 years, and Im quite sure I don't want to play the same games of today in 2019 ...
I guess if the tech were cutting edge then you wouldn't mind so much things being sealed down. However, even in my short Mac life I've seen first the laptops then the desktops go from the user* being able to upgrade / replace when faulty the RAM and storage as a minimum to only the 27" iMac having user* upgradeable / replaceable RAM. That's quite a change in approach from the last few years at least. The early Macs and iMacs of course I can't speak to.
* user = either the owner or someone trying to upgrade/repair a Mac to give it a longer life who isn't Apple or authorised dealer.
Right now they appear to be deliberately under-speccing the base models of almost the entire line so that people will be tempted to "upgrade" by taking the next level or a BTO. All that means is the user gets the computer they should have had at the original price and the company make more revenue.
It's people going into the Apple stores to buy these things I feel sorry for because I doubt very much the Apple floor walker will be going "yeah, that Mac is, well, it's OK, but it's not great. You really want this one". Every Mac, like TAHITI, is magical supposedly. These people are going to get some of these models home and be watching the beachball as either the small SSD funnels the buffer to the HDD, or the 5400rpm drive can't quite keep up with loading their 30,000 iOS photos Photo Library, going "ummm....I was told this computer was fast"
Surely 5400rpm is slower than SSD. So is the iPhone battery is smaller than most competitors. One thing that I've been giving Apple credit is that they know how to balance their systems. iPhones get decent battery life despite the smaller battery beating/matching competition.
I'd wait until I see some benchmark results until I pass my judgments whether this update sucks or rocks.
I'd wait until I see some benchmark results until I pass my judgments whether this update sucks or rocks.
But I'm referring to how you keep associating the dedicated graphics solely to gaming. As for suggesting the 27-inch iMac.. that's completely irrelevant! I choose the device by the screen size first, not by the specs I need and seeing what screen size I'm left with. A 21.5-inch is perfect for me and my needs; a 27-inch would not physically fit on my desk, not to mention the higher price with makes it unaffordable. But I do need dedicated graphics because, although you don't personally approve of it, I do use my iMac for gaming. I have an Xbox One as well, but the games I play through Steam are games which are not available on consoles.