The general gist of "don't get it" boils down to two arguments - "You don't really need it," and "You can't upgrade/fix it."
The first, is, of course, a matter of personal preference. It wouldn't matter what computer you'd buy - do you really need both a desktop and laptop?
The second? Show me one contemporary laptop that is easier to fix/upgrade (and effectively, an iMac is an over-sized laptop). The chorus of do-it-yourselfers and hardware heads is not going to go away. Just as car fanatics would rather tinker with/hot-rod pre-microprocessor/pre-environmental-regulation vehicles, there will be people who'd prefer that every computer be a tower with card slots, drive bays, and power supplies large enough to drive such a box when fully loaded. The question is whether you are one of them. (Though if you are, it's not likely you'd be asking this question.)
Before there were PCs, I saw the same debates in consumer audio circles - component systems vs. all-in-ones. There were people vehemently opposed to what we now call an A/V receiver - control pre-amp, power amp, and tuner in a single box. If you didn't have a separate box for every function, you were boxing yourself in! "If you get new speakers that require a bigger power amp, you have to replace the pre-amp and tuner as well, what a waste!" However, the integrated receiver ("A" without the "/V") became the standard of Hi Fi by the 1970s (those who refused to go along often owned, ironically enough, a McIntosh power amp). The basic truth was (and still is), putting all those functions into a single chassis, with a single power supply, single main circuit board, and far fewer interconnecting cables, substantially reduced the cost and footprint, improved reliability, and was more of a convenience than a hindrance over the life of the equipment.
If you don't need to tinker and you have the money, your real decisions revolve around hardware specifications - CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD/SSD - In that regard, iMacs and Apple laptops are little different - buy as much as you can now, because it's not so easy (or impossible) to upgrade later. If it breaks, you can expect it'll have to go to the shop, just like your car.
If you need more computing power than your laptop delivers, if you're in a multi-user household, then a separate iMac could well be the solution. If your laptop is all you need, then a separate monitor may be the better solution - you're always saving to the same HDD, so it avoids the issues you can have with document versioning, iTunes and iPhoto libraries, etc.
The first, is, of course, a matter of personal preference. It wouldn't matter what computer you'd buy - do you really need both a desktop and laptop?
The second? Show me one contemporary laptop that is easier to fix/upgrade (and effectively, an iMac is an over-sized laptop). The chorus of do-it-yourselfers and hardware heads is not going to go away. Just as car fanatics would rather tinker with/hot-rod pre-microprocessor/pre-environmental-regulation vehicles, there will be people who'd prefer that every computer be a tower with card slots, drive bays, and power supplies large enough to drive such a box when fully loaded. The question is whether you are one of them. (Though if you are, it's not likely you'd be asking this question.)
Before there were PCs, I saw the same debates in consumer audio circles - component systems vs. all-in-ones. There were people vehemently opposed to what we now call an A/V receiver - control pre-amp, power amp, and tuner in a single box. If you didn't have a separate box for every function, you were boxing yourself in! "If you get new speakers that require a bigger power amp, you have to replace the pre-amp and tuner as well, what a waste!" However, the integrated receiver ("A" without the "/V") became the standard of Hi Fi by the 1970s (those who refused to go along often owned, ironically enough, a McIntosh power amp). The basic truth was (and still is), putting all those functions into a single chassis, with a single power supply, single main circuit board, and far fewer interconnecting cables, substantially reduced the cost and footprint, improved reliability, and was more of a convenience than a hindrance over the life of the equipment.
If you don't need to tinker and you have the money, your real decisions revolve around hardware specifications - CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD/SSD - In that regard, iMacs and Apple laptops are little different - buy as much as you can now, because it's not so easy (or impossible) to upgrade later. If it breaks, you can expect it'll have to go to the shop, just like your car.
If you need more computing power than your laptop delivers, if you're in a multi-user household, then a separate iMac could well be the solution. If your laptop is all you need, then a separate monitor may be the better solution - you're always saving to the same HDD, so it avoids the issues you can have with document versioning, iTunes and iPhoto libraries, etc.
