@ApfelKuchen,
Very enlightening post!
Good points about my fears about repairs compared to laptops.
So why do people choose an iMac over a Mac Mini?
I guess you are saying it is the "simplicity" of things?
When it comes to buying a used computer, would there be an advantage one way or the other between buying a Mac Mini versus an iMac?
And are there certain iMacs that are better than others? (
@Reflej0 was pretty set on choosing a *2012* Mac Mini, for instance.)
Of course, my co-workers preferences will drive a lot of this, but just trying to do as much homework in advance as possible!
Thanks!
Yes, simplicity is a big part of the iMac's appeal vs. Mini.
Connecting a small box to a display may seem like a small thing to a fan of traditional computers. From a fan's perspective, while Mini may not have card slots, at least it preserves one aspect of the traditional computer configuration - the freedom to replace the CPU without replacing the display (or vice versa). They rightfully point to the environmental and financial benefits of being able to use the same display long after they have to update the CPU.
However, that freedom and environmental benefit does come with costs. Desktop clutter is probably the biggest in most folks minds. Clutter can be a huge consideration for some (maybe even "many") people - cramped apartments, tiny office cubicles, etc.
Next (or maybe even first)... Although it takes seconds to connect a CPU to a display, there are plenty of people who get no joy whatsoever from the process of setting up new purchases. The easier the better, even when "easier" is little different than "harder." "Just plug it into the wall and press the power button" has enormous appeal, even when all the macOS setup/configuration steps that follow are the same whether you're configuring a Mac Pro, Mini, MacBook Air, or iMac.
And there's a certain amount of "domestic peace" involved - one spouse who loves the equipment, the other who hates it and wants to see as little of it as possible. (This is why Man Caves exist.)
Home audio/video is the classic example, and probably the example that put Steve Jobs firmly in the all-in-one camp. In the home entertainment market all-in-ones have always sold far more units than components. Individual components have only been popular among audiophiles - the joy of creating the "best possible" system by mixing and matching products from a variety of manufacturers, the challenge of connecting it all together, the delightful complexity that comes with the knobs and buttons festooning a half-dozen boxes...
But audio/videophiles are vastly outnumbered by people who just want to keep it simple - open the box and start listening/watching in a matter of moments. Boom boxes, the home entertainment centers of the 1960s, Smart TVs, one-shipping-carton bundles containing five or more speakers and an A/V receiver, etc. The manufacturer would rather sell every single part of that entertainment system, and the vast majority of consumers are happy to give them that business. One buying decision, not many.
Among audiophiles, "all-in-one" is generally said with a condescending sneer. The cheapest, lowest-quality gear available tends to be all-in-one. But there's nothing to stop a "quality" manufacturer from producing high quality all-in-ones, and over the course of history, many of the most respected names in home entertainment gear have done just that. Apple is just following in that tradition.
iMac is a prime example of a high-end all-in-one. There is no fundamental performance difference between an iMac and a Mini, and actually, high-performance iMac configurations are easier to come by than high-performance Minis. The displays in iMacs tend to be at the high end of quality as well. Conspiracy theorists may say that Apple is forcing consumers to buy iMac by limiting Mini, but my feeling is that Apple is selling exactly what most people really want. The notion that a display must be separate from the CPU is long dead among most consumers. Laptops are 2/3 of all computers sold. iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch... all-in-ones all.
"Separates" are a niche market in computing, just as they are in home entertainment. Most people who buy TVs use the built-in speakers. They don't buy A/V receivers, they plug their cable boxes and BluRay players into the back of the TV. It's not because the stores wouldn't like to sell them separate A/V receivers and surround sound speaker systems... in most cases, the only add-on they manage to sell is an ultra-simple sound bar (and an extended warranty). Simply said, "Simple sells."
Speaking as someone who did corporate IT back in the 90s... If flat screen all-in-ones had been available, 90% of the systems I'd have specified and deployed would have been AiOs. Workers' desks were cluttered enough to begin with. Finding space for a bulky CRT and bulky card-slotted CPU was a real challenge - and positioning those components plus keyboard and mouse into something approaching an ergonomic configuration (without replacing the existing office furniture) nearly impossible. Most assistants' desks (the term "secretary" having only recently been replaced) were L-shaped, with attached typewriter platforms. Those typing "returns" were at the correct height for ergonomic typewriter use, but were too shallow to accommodate a CRT and keyboard (an iMac would have fit perfectly). That meant the CRT and keyboard went on the main desk - huge added clutter, big ergonomic issues. And 90% of those systems never needed upgrade/modification. They were word-processing. Spreadsheets weren't yet a thing outside of the comptroller's office. No, for those users give me a flat screen iMac (or the Dell equivalent) any day of the week.
Are there certain iMacs that are better than others? Of course. iMac has been sold in much larger numbers, in more varied configurations. "Better" may be a matter of whether they have spinning HDDs (least attractive) vs. Fusion Drives (better performance at a low price, but still with spinning HDDs to fail), or SSDs. You can get 4K or 5K displays vs. standard definition, better/poorer CPUs and GPUs, 21" vs. 27" displays...
But I'm not going to get into "Which model year was better?" That kind of discussion is best reserved for wine lovers debating the best vintage of Chateau Lafitte. Some will similarly debate a particular generation of Intel CPU, but those fine points tend to be tertiary concerns for most uses and users. For computing equipment, older is nearly always worse, as older hardware may not support the current OS or specific features of that OS. Buy something that's likely to be good for two or three years, rather than something approaching end of useful life.
Are there advantages to a Mini? Cost and ease of DIY HDD replacement. Since HDD replacement isn't likely to happen more than once, if you/your friend have no intention of doing a DIY repair, then cost is the only concern - the economy of keeping the display he has and buying only the CPU.
