Is the iMac just a glorified laptop?

[iHailCarlo]

Whoa!! I now feel bad that I own an iMac. (sarcasm)

 

[albusseverus]

Fun troll.

As much as iPad is just a glorified iPod Touch - different tools for different jobs.

Nothing neater than a 21.5" iMac when you're sitting at a desk - lots of ports, better keyboard & you could use it as a television after work, (if Front Row was still alive).

Sure you can plug a MacBook into a 27" monitor, and that's fine if you don't need a couple of external discs doing their business, when you take the MacBook away.

Different tools for different jobs. And frankly, the price of iMac… Who wouldn't just buy one to be the centre of the hub? You get a lot of bang for $1200, even less if you go refurb.

 

[joe-h2o]

Nobody seems to be considering that if you "just get an iMac and Air for the same price", it's still two computers. If I just plug into a display, it's exactly the same machine just presented larger and there's no need to rely on a cloud to make sure I have the right things on the right unit. In terms of performance, I believe certainly with the retina model at least that they are pretty much on par with each other, and the iMac is therefore sort of the budget option for people who are willing to always use it in one place. If money is no object, laptops and after-purchase displays are the definitive way forward because it's like having two computers with the ease of use of having just one.

I'm sorry, but the retina Macbook Pro is not "on a par with" the 27" iMac. Not even close. The 6970M in the iMac runs rings around it, and when Apple finally gets around to refreshing the iMac in 2016 in time for the Rio Olympics the GPU will be even further ahead.

If you care at all about graphics performance, the iMac's top flight GPU is much better, even a whole generation behind.

 

[d0nK]

It would be good if Apple finally merged their desktop line (Mac Pro) with their laptop desktop line (iMac).
It's been a long time coming I think. People want desktop components without Mac Pro price extremes.

 

[Tankmaze]

That's because this thread was back from May and some Einstein decided to bump it back up

No wonder, didn't see the post date

 

[Mark D]

I'm sorry, but the retina Macbook Pro is not "on a par with" the 27" iMac. Not even close. The 6970M in the iMac runs rings around it, and when Apple finally gets around to refreshing the iMac in 2016 in time for the Rio Olympics the GPU will be even further ahead.

If you care at all about graphics performance, the iMac's top flight GPU is much better, even a whole generation behind.

It isn't for everyone, I guess I assumed people would realize it's just my personal opinion. I'll just get a dedicated Playstation if I ever want to do intense games. Being able to take my main computer anywhere remains more valuable for my situation. Plus I absolutely detest the dust-sucking, reflective iMac monitor design.

 

[harcosparky]

You're better off getting a MacBook pro and an external display. .

Been there ...

Done that ...

Got the headaches ...

You're wrong !!!!

 

[terraphantm]

I'm sorry, but the retina Macbook Pro is not "on a par with" the 27" iMac. Not even close. The 6970M in the iMac runs rings around it, and when Apple finally gets around to refreshing the iMac in 2016 in time for the Rio Olympics the GPU will be even further ahead.

If you care at all about graphics performance, the iMac's top flight GPU is much better, even a whole generation behind.

I don't know, the rMBP is pretty close. The GT 650M in the rMBP is essentially a GTX 660M. The 650 and 660 both use the same GK107 cores, and the one in the rMBP is actually clocked a little higher than the 660s. The 6970M is ~20% faster. Faster, but I wouldn't say it runs circles around the 650/660.

But, it does cost a lot of money to get an rMBP and a thunderbolt display.

For some I suppose, sure. But there are those of us who to which $1100 is more then a month's pay. I'll take an iMac, thank you.

Are you a teenager?