Desktops are dead ?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by bontempi, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. bontempi macrumors member

    May 14, 2008

    what's preventing you all to go with the macbook route ?

    back in the days, desktop were faster than laptop, but these days they're fast enough to do CPU intensive tasks such as Audio / Video.

    i have an old iMac and a 2011 Macbook. i've started working on the macbook and the performance is excellent. i'm thinking of buying a display and saying goodbye to the desktop, which is i think a dying format anyway.

    the Thunderbolt Display is too expensive, but these days monitors have HDMI / DISPLAYPORT / USB hubs / built-in speakers / Headphones out ... you can get an excellent 22" for 200$ ... and take your computer with you everywhere.

    thoughts ? what's the thing that makes you wait for the iMac ?
  2. SpecAU macrumors member

    Mar 30, 2012
    I want to sit at a desk, with a large screen.

    Laptops are not as powerful as rear desktops.

    Desktops are not dead, Apple is just slow.

    Also they will release one when its ready, They don't have to release one every 12 months.
  3. Fattytail macrumors 6502a

    Apr 11, 2012
    Only for certain very specialized use cases would a MacBook's performance lag. These days, the gap is pretty narrow. And the large screen issue is moot with an external monitor.

    I actually have both an iMac and a MacBook Air and have been wondering lately why I even need them both. The answer is that I really don't, but it's nice to have a "base station" of sorts and a separate laptop I can take on the go that's not the same as my primary machine. I could do just as well with just the laptop and an external monitor, but maybe I don't because it's a slightly less elegant solution.
  4. OLDCODGER macrumors 6502a

    Jul 27, 2011
    Lucky Country
    No, they are not dead. You must be young, and not mind staring at a small screen, or two dissimilar screens. I need screen real estate more than raw power, along with a full-size keyboard and multi-button mouse. Therefore, a laptop is useless to me (and the iMac doesn't count).

    I use a mini, but would shell out for an xMac in a heartbeat (MP being overkill).
  5. Yeroon macrumors member


    Jun 12, 2012
    A 22 inch screen for $200 cannot be compared to an iMac screen. For that price you'll have a TN panel, which is inferior to IPS which Apple (and other high-end models) uses, especially when you do photo/video-related stuff.
  6. Broseidon macrumors regular

    May 8, 2012
    MacBook Pro + Thunderbolt display = £2400

    iMac 27" = £1400

  7. thelookingglass macrumors 68000

    Apr 27, 2005
    Decent IPS displays can be had for much less than the TD. And if I already had a monitor, then all I need is a new MacBook.
  8. Ricky Smith macrumors regular

    Jan 28, 2006
    Boston, MA
    Are desktops dead? Nope and that's because the old fossils who use them are still kicking. (Kidding)
  9. Timhet macrumors newbie

    Nov 14, 2010
    I used to think desktops were dead so I bought a laptop that I always leave on my desk.

    I think laptops will be dead with tablets getting more powerful and functional.

    As it stands currently, I see a place for a desktop and a mobile tablet for a few years to come, while laptops will probably die off a bit...

    Who knows what will happen in the near always keeps changing.
  10. bontempi thread starter macrumors member

    May 14, 2008
    that's why i said external display :)

    the gap is really narrow today as someone said

    again, i spoke about having an external display

    there are excellent screens out there

    Macbook Pro + 22" External Display = 1400$ = £900

    so far no really real argument in favor of the iMac, except maybe one : it looks nice. keep em coming :)

    most of us desktop owners also have a laptop. that's two machines to upgrade / backup ... that's also one point that annoys me in my setup
  11. AndyCarolan macrumors member

    Jun 25, 2012
  12. eXan macrumors 601


    Jan 10, 2005
    Not for me. I have both 2010 MBP and 2011 iMac and I mostly use the iMac not because its faster, but because it has a great screen, feels like a "base station", gets less hot = runs quieter, etc.

    Of course having a great LCD alongside a MBP would probably be almost as nice, but I like that I dont need to constantly plug/unplug all my stuff when I want to take my laptop, it also allows me to keep my "main" stuff on the desktop machine so I don't worry about accidents that do happen more often with portables.

    Also, my huge Razer mouse pad and Razer mouse are just too good to not use all the time ^_^
  13. themcfly macrumors regular

    Jul 20, 2011
    You are not considering that not anyone is really going to need portability.

    iMac runs faster, cooler, has more storage, and a better display. Also you don't have a power unit hanging around on your power cord, and all the cabling needed for an external display, and a spare wireless keyboard to put in front of it. Having a battery that you won't ever use that's going to get ruined. Also, just plugging in an external monitor in a hot summer day gets your MacBook hot as hell, with fans ramping up. iMac is just cooler. And guess what? At the same performance level iMac is 20/30% cheaper.

    If you only need a desktop you can never beat that.
  14. bontempi thread starter macrumors member

    May 14, 2008
    funny, my macbook is quieter than my iMac. it rarely gets very hot so the fans keep quiet.

    i use a mouse too with it.

    i feel it's the "base station" we're used to. i've grown up with desktops as well.
  15. Seamaster macrumors 65816


    Feb 24, 2003
    Laptops are the new desktops.

    Tablets are the new laptops.

    The sooner everyone accepts this is where Apple is taking us, the better for all concerned.
  16. Gloops macrumors member

    Mar 3, 2009
    The entry level Dual-Core 13" MacBook Pro with integrated graphics is £999. Add, say, a Dell Ultrasharp 24" screen, you're looking at £1,250 or so.

    You can get 27" Quad-Core i5 iMac with a dedicated graphics card for £1,399, or a 21.5" for the same price as the laptop.

    That's why desktops aren't dead; even though Apple would obviously want you to fork out more cash for something 'mobile' that's less powerful and never going to leave your desk.
  17. d0nK macrumors 6502

    Nov 4, 2011
    The cheapest MBP is £999.
  18. bontempi thread starter macrumors member

    May 14, 2008
    i just translated $ to £, my bad

    macbook = 1200$
    22" screen = 200$
    total = 1400$
  19. GermanyChris macrumors 601


    Jul 3, 2011
    Depends on the level of desktop we're talking about. There will always be a place for the tower PC be it Mac or Windows 1-4 processors, 1-4 graphics cards, 3-10 HDD's, 1GB to 128+GB RAM, 4-10 expansion lanes etc.

    The MBP with display can replace the iMac with out much effort. The iMac has a desktop CPU with mobile graphics and tops out a 32GB RAM and max's at 2 HDD's. the only thing you lose is the desktop CPU and a HDD.

    If I were in the market for and AIO I'd just buy a notebook with display.
  20. iSayuSay macrumors 68030


    Feb 6, 2011
    You hit the spot so good.

    Base 27" iMac perform roughly the same with base 15" MBP, so you get a barely portable and barely powerful notebook when you can go with iMac and the 27" on your desk.

    You're not comparing fairly. If you insist to cheap out the display with 22" then iMac could go with 21.5" for $1200. And it's much more powerful than $1200 base MBP. And it has 4 RAM slots.

  21. bontempi thread starter macrumors member

    May 14, 2008
    the thunderbolt display is a ripoff

    you can find a great 27" monitor for 300$, thus saving 700$

    who needs 4 ram slots ? 8 gigs is more than enough
  22. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Jan 14, 2008

    That is a poor comparison.

    Like comparing a Ford Fiesta to a Maserati.

    In order to do a fair cost comparison one must match the units specifications.

    Same CPU
    Same GPU
    Same RAM
    Same HDD

    Oh and thanks for creating another one of these ' desktops are dead ' threads, I have not seen one in like .....minutes! :D
  23. Icaras macrumors 603


    Mar 18, 2008
    California, United States
    No it's not a ripoff. Find an equally comparable display at a similar price point.

    A $300 27" is not in the same league as the ACD or ATD. You need to do some research on display tech.
  24. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Jan 14, 2008
    no you cannot find a great 27" display for $300, you can find OK ones, but not great ones.

    I'm a photographer, and I know what a great monitor is and how much they cost.
  25. Broseidon, Jul 19, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2012

    Broseidon macrumors regular

    May 8, 2012
    Get real :rolleyes:

    A base model 15" Macbook Pro is £1499 in the UK - that's $2,400 ********kng $dollars.

    Add to that a high quality, 27" display, which over in the UK would be an absolute minimum £350 - £400. Lets also take into account that that display would inevitably be an ugly, hideous, plastic monstrosity... Then I'd have to buy a keyboard and mouse - if I go for Apple ones, that's another £120.

    I'd be looking at paying over £2000 for a laptop and a display - that's over $3250. $3250

    $3K+ for a chunky, fat ass laptop to plug into an ugly, black plastic Dell monitor that will just sit on my desk in the office and maybe leave once a month.

    Or I could just pay a touch over $2000 for a beautiful, 27" iMac.


Share This Page