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

Would be 21.5" buyers - what will you do now?

What will you do?

  • I'll buy the new 21" and am not disappointed.

    Votes: 5 8.8%

  • I'll suck it up and buy the new 21" despite my disappointment.

    Votes: 3 5.3%

  • I'll buy a 27" instead.

    Votes: 18 31.6%

  • I'll buy a refurb 21".

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'll buy a different mac entirely or a Windows PC.

    Votes: 14 24.6%

  • I'll stick with my current system for now.

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Total voters
    57
QCassidy352

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Original poster
Mar 20, 2003
12,198
6,372
Bay Area
I was eagerly awaiting the new 21" iMac but am very disappointed in what they unveiled today. Too many compromises (no Skylake, no dGPU option, 5400rpm HD standard, soldered RAM, etc etc).

After weighing the options, I think I'll be sticking with my still very capable late 2013 rMBP 13". How about you all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ka-spot
I share that concern, I was hoping the 21.5 would be a bit closer to the specs of the 27, as I don't really need that size of monitor on my desk. The question is what level of performance is lost on the 21.5 as compared to the 27, due to the different i7 cpu and the lack of a discrete gpu. (Given of course a similar amount of memory and an SSD). Guess I'll have to sit back and wait for the reviewers.
 
I am also so disappointed. There really was no love for the 21"
The upgrade options for the 21 and 27 are a joke. £160 to upgrade from a 1tb to 2tb hdd on the 27", £160 to upgrade 8 to 16gb of ram.
I will stick with my MBP for OSX needs and build a windows ITX system for everything else
 
I was all pumped to get myself 21 leading up to today...and then I saw what Apple dished up. Made the choice to order a 27 very easy.
 
Apart from my dream xMac, my sweet spot would be a 24" iMac with i7-6700K @4GHz, 32 GB, and a descent dedicated DESKTOP GPU (doesn't need to be TITAN-URANUS-SUPER-CHARON-Class, but still decent). I want to upgrade my 21.5" mid-2010 - but Apple will most probably be successful in luring more money out of my pocket for an upgraded 27".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crosscreek
SkyLake - big deal, this will give only 5-10% faster processor, maybe better graphics. i don't play modern games.
No dGPU - big deal, I have no real use if it. Same, I do not play modern games.
5400 RPM HDD standard - big deal, one can always upgrade to SSD. In my view, these fusion drives are more of a gimmick than something awful good. Never used one, never going to.
Soldered RAM - big deal. 21.5" is viewed as a home computer, graphics pros go for the 27" for many reasons. For home usage 8GB is plenty enough. Besides, RAM was not accessible even on the previous model, so it is really a big deal.

In summary - I do not see any shortcomings in this computer. If I take into account that I'd use it for at leat 5 years I do not think that $2000 (iMak 4k + 512 SSD) is very expensive, it is still cheaper than a 15" MacBookPro with similar specs. The current Apple offering fits perfectly my needs.

Note: my 2010 iMac is still pushing it well so that I am not really in need for an upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deany
I don't want the 27" so I am going back to a self built Skylake PC instead. I was hoping the update would be exciting enough to overcome the advantages of having a Windows PC right now for my work, it's not.
 
Perhaps it's a blessing in disguise for me :p For months I've been waiting patiently for the 21inch iMac to receive the Retina display and I was all set to order yesterday. But a few things contributed to me buying the 27inch instead.
The small difference in price between the two machines, the deplorable graphics card on the 21inch iMac, the user-upgradable ram which is important considering how extortionate it is to buy it from Apple, and the next-generation processors included on the 27inch. I already have an iMac, but I've always had an affinity for high-res displays with high pixel density. To say I'm excited to see this display would be an understatement!
 
Amazing Ox Space Monkey said:
SkyLake - big deal, this will give only 5-10% faster processor, maybe better graphics. i don't play modern games.
No dGPU - big deal, I have no real use if it. Same, I do not play modern games.
5400 RPM HDD standard - big deal, one can always upgrade to SSD. In my view, these fusion drives are more of a gimmick than something awful good. Never used one, never going to.
Soldered RAM - big deal. 21.5" is viewed as a home computer, graphics pros go for the 27" for many reasons. For home usage 8GB is plenty enough. Besides, RAM was not accessible even on the previous model, so it is really a big deal.

In summary - I do not see any shortcomings in this computer. If I take into account that I'd use it for at leat 5 years I do not think that $2000 (iMak 4k + 512 SSD) is very expensive, it is still cheaper than a 15" MacBookPro with similar specs. The current Apple offering fits perfectly my needs.

Note: my 2010 iMac is still pushing it well so that I am not really in need for an upgrade.
Click to expand...

will you get it with 8 or 16 GB RAM? If you had Parallels 11 & Windows 10 and want five years use?

cheers
 
Surely these have USB C / 3.1 ??? As per their Macbook??
Have I read this wrong??
 
To be honest, I have no idea what I'll do. I could spend nearly 1,6000 for a brand new iMac that has some inferior components (read slow) but I'll get a 21" 4k display. Or I could pony up more money and get the 5K model with some better components (read dGPU) for nearly 2k.

For that money I could get a brand new rMBP which in the past is what I typically did. The larger display of the iMac is something that I think I could really use and my current 24" monitor is getting old.
 
deany said:
will you get it with 8 or 16 GB RAM? If you had Parallels 11 & Windows 10 and want five years use?

cheers
Click to expand...
I would get it with 8GB RAM. I have no opinion on Windows since I got my iMac in early 2011. As far as I can remember, Windows can be a very hungry dog, so, depending on your usage, you might need 16GB of RAM even today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deany
Samuelsan2001 said:
Why would they USB C is the same bandwidth as USB 3 until the USB C/ Thunderbolt 3 combination port is released.
Click to expand...

Still, the XPS 15’s screen high-end specs are a reason to choose it. My $2,100 review unit—with a quad-core i7 processor, 500GB SSD, 16GB of RAM and an Nvidia GTX 960 graphics processor—can drive two 4K displays. It has a new kind of USB Type-C port that includes the Thunderbolt 3 interface, meaning it’s capable of driving the monitors and powering itself at the same time.

Taken from this review.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/review-...-worst-thing-about-windows-laptops-1444308529
 
ChinkyBob said:
Still, the XPS 15’s screen high-end specs are a reason to choose it. My $2,100 review unit—with a quad-core i7 processor, 500GB SSD, 16GB of RAM and an Nvidia GTX 960 graphics processor—can drive two 4K displays. It has a new kind of USB Type-C port that includes the Thunderbolt 3 interface, meaning it’s capable of driving the monitors and powering itself at the same time.

Taken from this review.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/review-...-worst-thing-about-windows-laptops-1444308529
Click to expand...

It is out then, oh well no idea why it wasn't used....
 
Like many, I am highly disappointed with Apple's choices for the "new" 21.5" iMac range. As far as I'm concerned, even the "top" model doesn't give any reason at all to upgrade as far as I am concerned, and could be considered a DOWNGRADE in terms of specs. I'm a big fan of Apple products, but there is not way I would even consider yet another gutted product. The latest model range of iMacs now joins the growing number of stripped down Apple products, made with borderline unusable entry level models and forced upgrades to bring them up to useable specs. All done to generate as much profit as possible, but having the net effect of antagonising both long term users and new users of Apple products alike.

For the price of the 4k model I don't expect:
  • No discrete graphics.
  • No significant increase in processor speed.
  • A DEAD SLOW mechanical drive that on most machines would only be suitable as a data drive.
  • Soldered memory
  • The same lack of ports. It's 2015, 4 usb ports is in no way enough for a lot of people.
It comes to something when even the reviewers don't seem excited about the 4k model. When a trackpad, keyboard and mouse get more space in reviews than the release of a computer, something is wrong.
 
Amazing Ox Space Monkey said:
In summary - I do not see any shortcomings in this computer. If I take into account that I'd use it for at leat 5 years I do not think that $2000 (iMak 4k + 512 SSD) is very expensive, it is still cheaper than a 15" MacBookPro with similar specs. The current Apple offering fits perfectly my needs.

Note: my 2010 iMac is still pushing it well so that I am not really in need for an upgrade.
Click to expand...
Sure, that's a fair viewpoint. There's a poll option for buying the new 21" and not disappointed. :)
 
I went with the higher non-retina model and added the 256GB flash. It's an upgrade in every way for me coming from a mid-2011 model with the GeForce 6750. And I can rest assured the Iris 6200 pro will perform much better at this res than the retina one. I considered the refurb GT 750M, but in the end the Thunderbolt 2 and the enhanced SSD speed won me over.

Note: OWC did not mention it, but I noticed from their teardown that the PCI connection was not there on non-SSD/non-Fusion models, so you cannot be cheap and add your own SSD chip. If you want PCI-E speed you have to at least get their SSD or a Fusion drive.
 
No really good 21.5 option for me. Would need to get the 16 GB memory and at least 256 GB SSD to just be equivalent in terms of storage to my existing 2011 21.5 iMac. So close to $2000 for a meaningless processor speed increase. Only real benefit is the better screen, but I've had no complaints with my existing one. Hard to cough up $2K for a machine without a dedicated graphics card.

Will probably either go to a 27 inch in the next few months, or maybe a Mac Pro (if they ever update it) with a 24 inch 4K display.
 
colodane said:
No really good 21.5 option for me. Would need to get the 16 GB memory and at least 256 GB SSD to just be equivalent in terms of storage to my existing 2011 21.5 iMac. So close to $2000 for a meaningless processor speed increase. Only real benefit is the better screen, but I've had no complaints with my existing one. Hard to cough up $2K for a machine without a dedicated graphics card.

Will probably either go to a 27 inch in the next few months, or maybe a Mac Pro (if they ever update it) with a 24 inch 4K display.
Click to expand...

I think of the new 4K iMac as an Apple bait and switch scheme: "Hey, check out the shiny new high-res screen!" Just don't notice the slow HD, soldered RAM, lack of dGPU, and total lack of USB-C (they couldn't include at least one for a modicum of future proofing?).

Fortunately my 2010 21.5" with SSD mod is running just fine; in fact I bet it's faster to use in every day tasks than the brand new base model 21.5". As far as any future purchase, I'll probably go with a Mac laptop when USB-C is common and 4K displays are abundant: I would like to have a laptop that will spend most of its time docked, but is easy to grab and go when traveling.
 
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