Given that the iMacs have traditionally been horribly unreliable machines with all sorts of heating problems, I think you're completely wrong. Having twice been an iMac customer, I will never again be one.
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.
New iMac or Mac Mini?
- Thread starter jpa66
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Given that the iMacs have traditionally been horribly unreliable machines with all sorts of heating problems, I think you're completely wrong. Having twice been an iMac customer, I will never again be one.
It looks like they have addressed these issues with the new imac and hopefully we won't seem much more of that.
I do think it's a bit harsh to describe the iMacs as unreliable. I've never lost any data and 99% of the time, my has worked perfectly.
I work at an Apple Authorized Service Provider and have for a few years now. Guess which Mac I see come in for more non-accidental-damage repairs than any other? Yup, iMacs. No, I'm not talking about hard drive failures exclusively; that's only one of several components that could fail under that kind of heat under so thin of a thermal envelope...the 2009-2011 iMacs have more thermal sensors than any other Mac in the event of such failures. I don't think it harsh at all to describe the iMacs as unreliable.
That said, no one knows about these new iMacs until they ship. Given the switch to 2.5" drives and lower-end graphics, I'm confident that the 21.5" iMac will have improved in this regard, while it seems like there's no reason to assume that the 27" iMac will have worsened.
Stupid given that these are desktops where room shouldn't be so constrained.
That's cool that you work there and stuff, but the Mac mini has literally 0 advantages over the iMac aside from its "portability." No onboard graphics card and relies on Intel's integrated chip, has 2.6GHz max while the iMac starts at 2.7 for its cheapest model. Relies on you buying an external monitor, and let's say you choose to get Apple's Thunderbolt Display - you've now paid, at most $1799 dollars for a subpar computer that has less valuable specs than the iMac and you've paid more than the third tier iMac would be by $200 while you've sacrificed really everything. You've lost the all-in-one machine, you've lost decent specs, you've completely given up on a useful graphics card, and, on top of that, you've somehow managed to pay more.
Getting a Mac mini is stupid unless you can't afford an iMac or all you do is browse in Safari and waste your time commenting on foru...oh wait.
Getting a Mac mini is stupid unless you can't afford an iMac or all you do is browse in Safari and waste your time commenting on foru...oh wait.
Oh, right. I assumed Photoshop would be better on the Nvidia 640m.
From what I understand there still isn't a ton of GPU acceleration in Photoshop, you might see a negligible performance increase but unless you're on super high res files I don't think you'll really see a major difference.
I'm looking forward to more complete benchmarks of the mini to test this theory
From what I understand there still isn't a ton of GPU acceleration in Photoshop, you might see a negligible performance increase but unless you're on super high res files I don't think you'll really see a major difference.
I'm looking forward to more complete benchmarks of the mini to test this theory
Yeah, the HD4000 isn't too bad but it's still underpowered compared to other options.
It is, but I'm also under the impression that most people think they need way more power than they actually need.
Unless you're doing super high res Photoshop or 3d/video work or gaming you shouldn't have any issues with most of the current Mac lineup to run your software.
Oh, right
I think Photoshop is more of a CPU monster than GPU monster as it isn't the GPU manipulating images, blending them, adjusting mid-tones, doing RAW conversion etc. Perhaps where a decent GPU comes into play with PS is in having a decent amount of video memory for working on images and shifting them about the screen.
He already said he doesn't like glossy screens and that 27" is too big, so adding in a Thunderbolt display to deliberately inflate the price by $1000 for comparison is a bit pointless... How about including a decent 23" like the Dell UltraSharp which is also non-glossy?
Mac Mini (with 2.6GHz and Fusion drive) = $1149
23" Dell UltraSharp = $300
Total cost = $1449
That is $50 less than the higher spec 21" iMac. The only downside for spending $50 less is it being 0.1GHz slower (not noticeable) and having a lower spec GPU. The Intel 4000 is being used to power the 13" retina display on the new rMBP so it is likely to be a quite reasonable GPU for Apple to use it for a retina display otherwise they would have used something with a bit more power behind it.
And in writing this I think I've made my decision on how I plan to replace my 2006 iMac and go Mac Mini myself. If I add the money I save to what I'd get in selling my 13" MBP I'd be a good way towards getting a 13" rMBP....
Of course, in two years when the mini doubles in speed again I can sell one, make back about 2/3 or so of the purchase price, and get the newest fastest one (which is now more than enough to run pretty much any app outside of high end 3d and audio/video) for about a $300 total investment.
I can also easily swap out the hard drive and RAM myself, replace just the screen if it goes bad, or use it as media center if I decide to get a different Mac as my primary machine.
Contrary to popular belief, most people don't need the horsepower they think they do.
lower end graphic cards ?
The new imacs have better cards than the 2010 and 2011 models?
Yes, and the cards used then were still lower-end models for their time.
----------
What about "iMacs are unreliable garbage" are you not understanding? Yes, with a redesign, it's worth waiting and seeing if this changed at all. But it is stupid to simply go based on specs and specs alone when out-of-warranty repair costs and lack of upgradability make it a horrible buy.
It's very simple and you answered in your post. Get a mid model Mac mini with quad i7, buy matte screen (Dell Ultrasharp line, they make 24" monitor) and external superdrive for your DVD needs.
Compared to your current iMac, this little machine will be 10x faster. Plus you don't have to shell out so much money, harddrives and RAM can be upgraded later on. I'd get 8GB RAM (not from Apple but Newegg/OWC) right away however and consider buying additional SSD drive (again not from Apple) to replace your boot drive which you can use for data after upgrade. If you decide to do it, find local official repair center (not Apple store) and pay them to add SSD along with HDD to your Mac mini - you won't lose any warranty and professionals will do it for you.
If you do all these upgrades, you're looking for a price range approximately to base 21.5 iMac but with SSD drive, HDD for your data, optical drive and matte screen that you prefer.
Seems like a nobrainer to me.
EDIT: Why people assume that if you get a mini you HAVE to go with Thunderbolt display? You don't,there are many great displays out there with good specs and far better prices. Having TB functionality is nice but a bit pointless if you connect it to desktop machine, its main advantage is for connecting laptops.
As someone in this thread said: in two or three years you can still sell the mini for a very good price, maybe 50 or more percent. This will make your upgrades very cheap if you keep your display and peripherals. Instead of throwing money at expensive/difficult iMac upgrades, its really easy to just go to your local Apple store, grab the newest mini and bring it home. You then use Thunderbolt/LAN cable when setting up new machine to bring all your data to new Mini, done in 20 minutes, no hassle, no big money.
Yes Mac mini is not iMac but in current form, mini is just better value proposition, especially for people like you who are limited with glossy displays. Seriously, I wasn't too keen on new iMacs and after seeing european prices here I just went ahead and bought 2nd hand 2009 Mac Pro which is somewhere in the area if i7 mini performance. I don't mind, I prefer expandability right now and figured it will serve me very good in next 3 years. After that, I might go for mini too because I have display already, external sound card, etc. In 2015/16, if mini or sth like that is around, my MP will probably be something like G5 Powermacs today and I'll probably get mini then.
For all the people who complain about cable clutter there is such thing as cable management. If you get a good desk and put your computer somewhere else and set up cable holes, you'll have a clean desk, just a display cable and USB extender cable for thumb drives/card reader (that I keep in drawer). Mouse and keyboard are wireless. It's not an iMac but it's not disaster either.
Compared to your current iMac, this little machine will be 10x faster. Plus you don't have to shell out so much money, harddrives and RAM can be upgraded later on. I'd get 8GB RAM (not from Apple but Newegg/OWC) right away however and consider buying additional SSD drive (again not from Apple) to replace your boot drive which you can use for data after upgrade. If you decide to do it, find local official repair center (not Apple store) and pay them to add SSD along with HDD to your Mac mini - you won't lose any warranty and professionals will do it for you.
If you do all these upgrades, you're looking for a price range approximately to base 21.5 iMac but with SSD drive, HDD for your data, optical drive and matte screen that you prefer.
Seems like a nobrainer to me.
EDIT: Why people assume that if you get a mini you HAVE to go with Thunderbolt display? You don't,there are many great displays out there with good specs and far better prices. Having TB functionality is nice but a bit pointless if you connect it to desktop machine, its main advantage is for connecting laptops.
As someone in this thread said: in two or three years you can still sell the mini for a very good price, maybe 50 or more percent. This will make your upgrades very cheap if you keep your display and peripherals. Instead of throwing money at expensive/difficult iMac upgrades, its really easy to just go to your local Apple store, grab the newest mini and bring it home. You then use Thunderbolt/LAN cable when setting up new machine to bring all your data to new Mini, done in 20 minutes, no hassle, no big money.
Yes Mac mini is not iMac but in current form, mini is just better value proposition, especially for people like you who are limited with glossy displays. Seriously, I wasn't too keen on new iMacs and after seeing european prices here I just went ahead and bought 2nd hand 2009 Mac Pro which is somewhere in the area if i7 mini performance. I don't mind, I prefer expandability right now and figured it will serve me very good in next 3 years. After that, I might go for mini too because I have display already, external sound card, etc. In 2015/16, if mini or sth like that is around, my MP will probably be something like G5 Powermacs today and I'll probably get mini then.
For all the people who complain about cable clutter there is such thing as cable management. If you get a good desk and put your computer somewhere else and set up cable holes, you'll have a clean desk, just a display cable and USB extender cable for thumb drives/card reader (that I keep in drawer). Mouse and keyboard are wireless. It's not an iMac but it's not disaster either.
Last edited:
An integrated graphics chip is never good. Even reviews say it's sluggish.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3585082/13-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review
Also, the higher spec 21" inch has a 2.9 QUAD core with 6MB of cache, while the Mac mini has a 2.3 dual core at its cheapest. The Mac mini is a worse machine and even in your post you're trying to justify it. You can buy one if you want, but you're sacrificing its use for...nothing? Money?
----------
The part I'm not understanding is how you're making your opinion a fact. It's like you're 12 and don't want to hear facts over a baseless opinion of your own."The machine sometimes has problems, it's a horrible buy!" That's the case for all computers, goose.
If the Benchmarks found in May are in fact true, the 2.6 mini is nearly as fast as the new 3.4 iMac. Pick up the dell u2410 and you will have a system with a CPU that is faster than the 21" iMac - with a better monitor that has a higher resolution and a wider color gamut, and ssd for @ $1600.
The OP wasn't questioning the expense of iMac vs Mac Mini, the only person that brought money into the discussion was yourself by deliberately adding a $1000 to the cost of a Mac Mini to make a completely moot argument about the price of one versus the other. And comparing an entry level Mac Mini to the top end 21" iMac is no comparison either, so once again making a false comparison to make a baseless argument, you may as well compare the iMac to a C64. However, FYI the higher spec Mac Mini is quad-core with 6MB cache.
I believe so. They are better than the 2011 iMac screen. I am hoping the new iMac screens will be even better than they were previously. But, I am worried about the first run of these screens having quality issues like the first run did in 2009.
Thanks, I'm kind of edging towards a mac mini with U2410 instead of a base iMac.
I think it might be a safer bet for the long run.
I'm a current mac mini (2006 (!)) owner and was waiting on this iMac refresh to make a serious jump.
Looking at the lineups I'm also torn between staying with the mac mini and going for the iMac.
Over the years the Mac Mini has served me well: CPU upgrade to Intel Core Duo 2.16GHz, EFI upgrade to get 4GB RAM (although only 3 are effective), SSD instead of HD. Of all changes the SSD drive upgrade was by far the most impressive. I've seen Tiger, Leopard and Snow leopard and kept away from Lion for the moment. Yes video rendering is slow ... so I let handbrake run at night !
iMac 21'5 with soldered memory is a no go for me. Fusion drive ? nah ... it's full SSD for me. Super thin iMac enclosure ? I'm not impressed ... I'd prefer it was a bit thicker with more power under the hood and the good ol' optical drive, it's purpose is to be a desktop!
With the mini, I can see myself upgrading memory, SSD drive and maybe haswell CPU in a year if the HD4000 is really such an issue for my movie editing.
IMO this line-up means mac mini (Core i7 and buy your memory+SSD elsewhere) or 27 iMac and then the prices start having an impact. I'll hang on to see if the new iMac 27 can be opened !
Looking at the lineups I'm also torn between staying with the mac mini and going for the iMac.
Over the years the Mac Mini has served me well: CPU upgrade to Intel Core Duo 2.16GHz, EFI upgrade to get 4GB RAM (although only 3 are effective), SSD instead of HD. Of all changes the SSD drive upgrade was by far the most impressive. I've seen Tiger, Leopard and Snow leopard and kept away from Lion for the moment. Yes video rendering is slow ... so I let handbrake run at night !
iMac 21'5 with soldered memory is a no go for me. Fusion drive ? nah ... it's full SSD for me. Super thin iMac enclosure ? I'm not impressed ... I'd prefer it was a bit thicker with more power under the hood and the good ol' optical drive, it's purpose is to be a desktop!
With the mini, I can see myself upgrading memory, SSD drive and maybe haswell CPU in a year if the HD4000 is really such an issue for my movie editing.
IMO this line-up means mac mini (Core i7 and buy your memory+SSD elsewhere) or 27 iMac and then the prices start having an impact. I'll hang on to see if the new iMac 27 can be opened !
That's basically what I bought. Had an 08 24" iMac. It's been feeling sluggish and I'd been thinking I'd buy a new iMac when they were released. I looked at the new mini and thought that looked like a very good value machine. Last weekend my iMac died; I suspect some of the slowness was related to the failure, after doing some on line research. I also do quite a bit of photo editing and wanted a good monitor, though didn't want to spend ridiculous money on a monitor. The U2410 seemed well regarded as a photo editing monitor, folks on photo forums said there are better monitors but the Dell is a very good value. If you're not concerned about things like photo or video editing and things like color calibration you can get pretty nice monitors for even less $. I ordered an i7 2.6 mini, added 16gb of ram from crucial, and went for the fusion drive. Everything came over from my last Time Machine backup without a hitch. Haven't gotten the monitor yet so I'm using an el-cheapo 10" that I was able to barrow from work. If I was a heavy duty gamer I'd be concerned about the integrated graphics. Of course, if I was a heavy duty gamer I'd probably be looking at a Windows based machine.
If this is true, this helps with my decision making a lot.
I've never been great with GPU vs CPU vs whatever, and what program uses what. I do a reasonable amount of graphic design at home with the Adobe Suite and photo tweaking etc. but the heavy work is done at work.
Right now I have a mid-2010 i7 MBP with 4gb RAM. It's starting to slow down a bit but I think two things may help that...
1) a fresh restart with cleaned hard drive etc.
2) a cheap 4gb RAM boost up to 8GB.
Otherwise - I may sell it and pickup either a Mini or iMac. The Mini looks tempting...