Originally posted in the wrong forum; please reply here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1158220 I will be purchasing a new iMac soon, and was wondering whether I should purchase a refurb 2010 model 2.93Ghz Quad-core i7 with a 256Mb SSD for $1999, or should I spend the +$200 for a brand new 2011 3.4Ghz Quad-core i7 with the standard 1Tb hard drive. I'm a programmer, and want a new powerhouse to minimize the build times on my Adobe Flex applications. Honestly, that's my primary consideration for this machine. I will not be playing games, doing any video or graphics processing, nor have the need for large amounts of data storage -- I'm currently using about 130Gb, and I could trim that to half if I needed to. Macworld results put these machines nearly head-to-head: http://www.macworld.com/article/153602/2010/08/mid201_corei7imac.html http://www.macworld.com/article/154660-3/2010/10/speedmark_65_results.html It would appear to me that the optimal machine would be the newer model because of the faster processor (and thus faster Flex build times). Can anyone else please weigh in? Also, has anyone heard of connecting 2 external monitors to through the new dual Thunderbolt connections, thus having 3 monitors with the new iMacs? (I have two 28" monitors now, and I'm thinking three could either be a) awesome or b) way too much real estate for what I do.) And lastly, would I be remiss in not considering a mac pro? According to the speedmark results posted by macworld, I'm better off with the two above iMacs vs a similarly priced (if not $500-$1000 more) mac pro -- I don't want to spend $3k+ on a machine. Thanks for the advice!