Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
On the contrary, the Mini is a good deal IF one already has separate components, which many people do. I can reuse my current keyboard and Logitech trackball. All I need to buy is a monitor.
But don't pick a nice 4K monitor. Remember, we want to prove that $599 for a Mac without any peripherals is still a good deal. People who would complain about a missing $19 20W charger in the iPhone box, praise the nothing-in-one (NIO) Mini as if they made the bargain of a lifetime. Meanwhile the no-need-to-bring-your-own-display-keyboard-and-mouse (NNBYODKM) iMac is shunned. How dare Apple sell me all I need to start working in one device?
 
This thread is about all-in-one desktops which is what all-in-one or AIO is typically used to refer to. Yes, laptops, mobiles, tablets etc, have the screen, processor and input device "all in one piece" but when was the last time you heard someone refer to their phone as an "all-in-one computer"? When people say all-in-one they inevitably mean an iMac-like system.

Agreed. But once the assertion "I really wish the AIO form factor would just die." is made, the ridiculous of this "wish" needs to be pointed out: all computers are trending towards AIO, and have been for decades now. So, good luck with that…

I guarantee that nobody here arguing against "the AIO form factor" is talking about phones, laptops or tablets.

That I'm less sure about.

...actually, increasingly powerful laptops (with relatively large, high definition screens) are likely a big part of the reason for why AIO desktops are declining.

It's all desktops that are declining. AIO has nothing to do with it, and it wouldn't even make sense, as, as has been established, laptops and smartphones are also AIO.

"Why would I give up portability" has to do with it. The question is no longer "do I spend a bit more and get something portable", but "do I want something beefier but lose portability", and the answer for most people is "no, who wants that".
 
I guess for one, future-proofing. The M1 chip is close to 3 years old at this point, and an M2 Pro Mac is likely to receive software updates for longer. The M2 chip also supports more ram, which may matter to people willing to pay more for 24gb of ram.

Second, it's like asking the people who purchased the M2 Pro Mac mini just what they needed one for, and why an M1 Mac mini didn't suffice. I imagine they wanted the extra horsepower, maybe for playing Baldur's Gate 3 on that larger display?

Perhaps the greater question is - why hasn't the iMac been refreshed, even if it's a simple spec bump to go from the M1 to the M2 / M2 Pro chip?
I guess my point is, the M1 chip revolutionised the Mac and personal computing. It brought a significant boost to performance and let’s face it, iMac isn’t a pro machine, it never has been. The iMac Pro got close but it was still prosumer, not Pro Pro if that makes sense? So why upgrade it so frequently? I just think all these people getting obsessed with a small spec bump on a machine when, the people using it won’t notice any real world difference is nuts and consumerism at its worst.

If you need more power, there are options for that, if you want the newest chip, there are options for that. Maybe explore those instead of bitching about Apple not releasing a product you’ve imagined up in your mind. iMac with M2, M3 etc doesn’t exist, but there are loads of really good options for the people that would need those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
I have not run into a task that my M1 iMac can't handle easily. But I want to upgrade my storage to at least 1 TB, and to future proof potentially with an extra 8 GB of ram to 24GB. A 24GB, 1 TB SSD 24" iMac would last 6, 7, 8 years.
You know that when the M1 Mac runs into RAM constraints it uses the SSD as a buffer? Can I ask what you’re using your M1 Mac for? Chances are an 8GB model will last you 6,7,8 years and I sounds like you have 16gb.
 
Well, now...if this just ain't a great headline to wake up to this morning...

32-Inch iMac With Mini-LED Display Rumored to Launch in 2025 - MacRumors

...best tech news I've read all week! Woot! :)

Finally, XDR displays to fill out their product line up "for the rest of us", I expect we'll see XDR in the next 24"-ers before then! Big turning point for low-energy displays and HDR adoption, creative fun times ahead! ;)

Did I already mention..."Woot!"?! LOL
 
Maybe explore those instead of bitching about Apple not releasing a product you’ve imagined up in your mind. iMac with M2, M3 etc doesn’t exist, but there are loads of really good options for the people that would need those.
I don't disagree with you on this point. Maybe the right move moving forward really is to pair a Mac mini with a monitor (even if it's a costly studio display) and finally decouple the CPU from the display, now that both the Mac mini and iMac essentially sport the same specs.
 
I don't disagree with you on this point. Maybe the right move moving forward really is to pair a Mac mini with a monitor (even if it's a costly studio display) and finally decouple the CPU from the display, now that both the Mac mini and iMac essentially sport the same specs.
It’s a good idea! And then when you want to upgrade the computer, it’ll cost you a lot less as you’ll already have the display, keyboard, mouse/trackpad etc which will typically need updating a lot less frequently (for people that like to upgrade regularly).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abazigal
I’m done buying expensive Macs, including the iMac. Get a Mini with upgraded RAM and a really nice monitor. Replace the Mini as necessary, keep the display. iMac displays are useless unless it’s being used as an iMac display. These newer Minis scream for most tasks and typically only need to be replaced to keep up with security updates.
The AIO iMac continues to have its' appeal. It includes keyboard and mouse, and as someone else noted somewhere... theMacBooks and the iPads also trash their displays when updated, so the iMac is not alone in that aspect. It remains the "value" solution. The Apple studio display alone cost more that the iMac. Add in a Mini and that combo costs twice what an iMac costs. That said, it would be nice if these displays had a life after component obsolescence.
 
Last edited:
The AIO iMac continues to have its' appeal. It includes keyboard and mouse, and as someone else noted somewhere... theMacBooks and the iPads also trash their displays when updated, so the iMac is not alone in that aspect. That said, it would be nice if these displays had a life after component obsolescence.
They certainly have appeal, just not for me. I wouldn’t recommend this to my sister, but it’s a waste of money for me to keep buying an iMac. I use it for creative projects and browsing the web. A RAM upgraded Mini is more than enough for my workload.
 
I have not run into a task that my M1 iMac can't handle easily. But I want to upgrade my storage to at least 1 TB, and to future proof potentially with an extra 8 GB of ram to 24GB. A 24GB, 1 TB SSD 24" iMac would last 6, 7, 8 years.
I can't help you with the RAM, but there are at least two iMac24 "hubs" that almost appear to be part of the iMac that support NVME SSDs at 10GBS in addition to the extra ports the hubs bring. One company's offering is a base for the iMac and is even color matched to your iMac24.
 
The e-waste advantage of iMacs proposed earlier doesn't work for me. If I bought an iMac, I'd obviously be buying a built-in monitor. But I already own a monitor. It's very old--an Apple Cinema HD, from about 2009 as far as I know. I use with my Mini and it works very well--not 4k or HDR, but I don't need those.

The single best way to minimize your e-waste signature is to avoid buying any new components. Thinking about it after the fact, a Studio would probably have been a better purchase for me than a Mini, as it will likely be able to run the OS/apps better over the long term.
If they sport the same CPU/GPU/RAM, What difference does the enclosure make? The Studio has more ports, but at a given task, don't comparable, e.g., "M2 Pro" chips do the same work? Honest query here. If an M1 iMac accomplishes your task, does the same chip in a Mac Studio do it better?
 
If they sport the same CPU/GPU/RAM, What difference does the enclosure make? The Studio has more ports, but at a given task, don't comparable, e.g., "M2 Pro" chips do the same work? Honest query here. If an M1 iMac accomplishes your task, does the same chip in a Mac Studio do it better?
The difference the enclosure makes is that I don't have to repurchase the screen part of it when i need a new computer.

The comment about the Studio was no more than the idea that a more powerful computer would last longer as the OS became more demanding.
 
I took your comment to imply that a “Studio” was somehow more powerful than a “Mini” even with the same “M” chip.

To reiterate… a Studio is no more powerful than a Mini if both contain the same processor, right? It is NOT inherently more powerful. Sooooo….an M2 equipped iMac could be more powerful than an M1 Studio.
 
I took your comment to imply that a “Studio” was somehow more powerful than a “Mini” even with the same “M” chip.

To reiterate… a Studio is no more powerful than a Mini if both contain the same processor, right? It is NOT inherently more powerful. Sooooo….an M2 equipped iMac could be more powerful than an M1 Studio.
I understand the power comparisons between Minis and Studios (though for what it's worth, every Studio is substantially more powerful than my base model Mini).

My comment was intended to address the all-in-one vs modular debate in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
I took your comment to imply that a “Studio” was somehow more powerful than a “Mini” even with the same “M” chip.

To reiterate… a Studio is no more powerful than a Mini if both contain the same processor, right? It is NOT inherently more powerful. Sooooo….an M2 equipped iMac could be more powerful than an M1 Studio.
Mini was a standard M2 or the Pro M2 chip. The studio the Max M2 chip or the Ultra M2 chip. These are all physical different chips, with different sizes, power consumption, memory bandwidths, number of CPU and number of GPU. Any of the existing M2 Studio configurations is more powerful than the most powerful M2 Mac mini.

Based on current available configurations, there is no M2 Studio that uses the same processor chip as any M2 Mac mini.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.