robgendreau
macrumors 68040
A couple of things to consider:
At least in the US, the riMac base is only $100-300 more than the non retina higher end iMacs; Apple jacks you for extra money for flash storage on the non retina iMacs, but doesn't on the riMac. I can't imagine passing on retina for that amount of money, so the comparison with the highest end non retina seems to be slam dunk for the riMac. Even you went to a lower spec'd iMac that equation gets more favorable to the non retina.
And it's a much better bargain than the nMP, unless you need something very specific about that machine.
I've owned a bazillion new Macs. The riMac has fewer glitches and is less like the "first year car" (if such even exist anymore) than many Macs I've purchased. In fact it's actually only an evolutionary model, more like a change in an old model lineup . Still the old processor line, form factor, etc, and as others here have noted very much last year's model with just the addtion of the screen and it's support.
At least in the US, the riMac base is only $100-300 more than the non retina higher end iMacs; Apple jacks you for extra money for flash storage on the non retina iMacs, but doesn't on the riMac. I can't imagine passing on retina for that amount of money, so the comparison with the highest end non retina seems to be slam dunk for the riMac. Even you went to a lower spec'd iMac that equation gets more favorable to the non retina.
And it's a much better bargain than the nMP, unless you need something very specific about that machine.
I've owned a bazillion new Macs. The riMac has fewer glitches and is less like the "first year car" (if such even exist anymore) than many Macs I've purchased. In fact it's actually only an evolutionary model, more like a change in an old model lineup . Still the old processor line, form factor, etc, and as others here have noted very much last year's model with just the addtion of the screen and it's support.