Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Pass - I think I wil go with an iMac

H

hannahwildcat

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 12, 2010
13
0
Tucson
I think what some of us were predicting has come true. They are phasing out their pro users, or at the very least forcing them onto the iMac. Its not a bad product, in fact I think it will be my next mac as it runs final cut pro just fine.

Oh well, Sucks to be us pro users. **** you apple. If your products weren't only available on your machine and if windows 7 didn't suck so much, i would switch back.

Oh, and **** the iPhone too. Its because of that piece of **** that we are even having this conversation. Now I probably wouldn't support it even if it wasn't on the ********* ****ing network.
 
LOL - in all my time on this forum I have never seen so many '*' bleeps :D:D
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

Yup. I've decide to go with the iMac too. I'm loving the SSD & HDD option, not to mention I can get 8 gigs of 1333 RAM at fairly lenient Apple BTO pricing, compared to the quad core MP at $2499.

It's absolutely funny to me. For $20 cheaper than the base Mac Pro I get 8gigs of 1333 RAM plus the 27" display.
 
Fast Shadow said:
If an iMac is a viable alternative then a Mac Pro was the wrong choice for you in the first place.
Click to expand...

I wanted SATA and a Kona Card, But with the extra costs, it just doesn't make sense. I currently have a PowerMac G5 which runs great, problem is that it wont run the latest version of final cut.
 
Actually, I don't know now. I might still go for the quad Mac Pro. If I upgrade the RAM via OWC and keep my refurb 24" ACD, the price is still about the same.

Hmmm, decisions, decisions...
 
Personally I wouldn't part from my 2009 Quad MP... I love the flexibility and connections... the only practical thing I miss from my former iMac is the webcam - which I never used anyway... and the lower power bills...

But I also have to admit that for some prosumers that weren't sure about getting a MP, the latest iMac upgrades are a great deal.

Go for the iMac... if later you find out it doesn't suit you, you can always sell it and upgrade to a MP. But if it does, you just saved yourself a bunch of cash. A good thing about macs is that they tend to keep their value over time better than PCs... and it'll be easier to sell the iMac than the MP.

cheers!
 
diazj3 said:
Personally I wouldn't part from my 2009 Quad MP... I love the flexibility and connections... the only practical thing I miss from my former iMac is the webcam - which I never used anyway... and the lower power bills...

But I also have to admit that for some prosumers that weren't sure about getting a MP, the latest iMac upgrades are a great deal.

Go for the iMac... if later you find out it doesn't suit you, you can always sell it and upgrade to a MP. But if it does, you just saved yourself a bunch of cash. A good thing about macs is that they tend to keep their value over time better than PCs... and it'll be easier to sell the iMac than the MP.

cheers!
Click to expand...
There's also the ability to take advantage of the 14 day return policy (there is a restocking fee, but may be cheaper than selling a used system off even if it still has Apple Care on it).
 
Mac Pro = Workstation -> Targeted at research/creative professionals who value expansion and max performance

iMac = All-in-one -> Targeted at Consumers/SOHO who value simplicity and value

If you are somewhere in-between, you need to decide if bang-for-buck or expansion are your key value drivers. The iMac is very capable and tremendous value, but limited in expansion. The Mac Pro can be equipped to be the most capable Mac ever made... but it costs dearly.

@OP... I don't see how they are phasing out the Mac Pro. They've just improved the performance across the line for what seems like the same pricing as last year, bringing added value.
 
hannahwildcat said:
They are phasing out their pro users, or at the very least forcing them onto the iMac.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but more likely I think they're focusing the Mac Pro for its intended audience: creative professionals who need the raw power. They look at the high end, where a difference of a few minutes rendering time can make a company more profitable.

My PowerMac was purchased for its expandability, which has kept the machine vibrant for me for six years. I've replaced the hard drives, memory, and added more USB expansion. The machine has lasted well beyond its intended life cycle and I'm pleased. Bottom line, however, is that I didn't need, nor have I ever really used, the full power of the PowerMac, let alone a MacPro.

Therefore, my guess is that Apple is just coughing up what the serious users need, which is raw power at a price. As others have pointed out, for most of us a high-end iMac serves well. And that's exactly what I bought this morning.
 
Let's not sugar coat the fact that the high end iMac got bumped even further above the low end Mac Pro despite the fact that the Mac Pro received an update at exactly the same time.
 
Ravich said:
Let's not sugar coat the fact that the high end iMac got bumped even further above the low end Mac Pro despite the fact that the Mac Pro received an update at exactly the same time.
Click to expand...

Nobody's sugar-coating anything here. Again, you continue to beat the dead horse on perceived value between the quad-core iMac and the quad-core Mac Pro. You're looking at it from a purely out-of-box performance perspective and conveniently forget about everything else. The simple matter is that:

1. iMacs are for consumers that want a speedy, value-oriented Mac.
2. Mac Pros are for professionals that value internal expansion and hardware longetivity.

Try reasoning with say, a Pro Tools HD user whose needs may not justify a dual-CPU Mac Pro (versus say, a video editor that's constantly rendering), but still needs that PCI-E expansion to interface with his expensive gear. Didn't think you could do that. ;)

Obviously, your immediate needs for a computer fall more in line with a normal consumer and the iMac is clearly a better value in YOUR CASE. But this certainly ISN'T the case for others...
 
I dont recall saying anything that indicated there not being people who would prefer the Mac Pro over the iMac for a variety of possible reasons.



Were you under the impression that my post meant "the low end Mac Pro is now useless next to the iMac"? I'm wondering what I might have said that made you think so.
 
iMac been there, been there, been there. You have by an entirely new computer every 2 years to keep up with the software. This time, I'm building my first hackintosh, heck, my first computer ever.
 
I dont recall saying anything that indicated there not being people who would prefer the Mac Pro over the iMac for a variety of possible reasons.



Were you under the impression that my post meant "the low end Mac Pro is now useless next to the iMac"? I'm wondering what I might have said that made you think so.
Click to expand...

I'm just observing the rhetoric that people are spouting across several threads regarding the endless Mac Pro Quad vs. Quad-core iMac debate. Too many people are quick to point out that quad-core iMacs are better values, purely based on performance benchmarks, yet they oh-so conveniently forget about why the quad-core Mac Pro actually exists.

I apologize if I was in any way offensive. That isn't my intention. ;)
 
Well... the reason all of that stuff is being spouted is because prior to the October 2009 iMac update, there was a clear division between the iMac and the Mac Pro. There are plenty of legitimate threads that get made since that update of people asking whether they should go with an iMac or a Mac Pro. While prior to October 2009, there wouldnt really have been any question between the 2, now it really depends on their needs. The thing is that until today, no one knew whether the overlap was just a matter of the fact that the iMac received a very significant update 7 months after the Mac Pro's previous update.

Today, though, they received simultaneous updates, and for the users asking whether they should buy a Mac Pro or an iMac, the answer was pushed even further toward the iMac, with the simultaneity of the updates indicating that it will stay that way. Now people who cant efficiently use only 1 internal drive but dont need to constantly swap out 3 or 4 can get what they need from the iMac (now without doing dodgy maintenance).

There IS a professional market that gets covered by the iMac now. Whether or not you call them professional is semantics. The point is that the Mac Pro used to the be only choice, and it no longer is.


No offense taken. I understand your point, and it is an important point, but the reason people are reacting this way is because there is a window of professional users who used to be in the market for the Mac Pro, who are now getting pushed toward the iMac and they arent terribly satisfied with the situation.
 
Very good points. :)

Yes, and there are indeed varying definitions of "professionals".

I know some professional photographers who use iMacs and are content with using external FW drives for storage. In contrast, I know other professional photographers who wouldn't be caught dead using an iMac display (which is actually quite a good IPS panel) because they like their $4,000 Eizo monitor better and perhaps they want to run an internal RAID system - thus, they insist on Mac Pros, even if they do opt for a quad-core.

All semantics.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back