Would you buy an iMac now?

[Stephen13]

Same boat. My 2011 iMac is painfully slow. Simply launching Lightroom and importing a few dozen RAW files takes the patience of a saint.

I could do just fine with any of the 2017 iMacs, but I think I will wait for the spring. Hoping for a new form factor/redesign. I keep my hardware a long time and really hate the idea of essentially starting with a 1.5 year spec handicap.

If Apple doesn't release at least a spec-bump in the spring, I'll be pretty annoyed.

As for the Fusion/SSD comments - based on my research, the 2TB and larger Fusion drives are definitely the ones to get.

 

[theluggage]

If Apple doesn't release at least a spec-bump in the spring, I'll be pretty annoyed.

I can't see any excuse for them not having already bumped the 5k iMacs to the same 8th Gen chips used in the new Mini. (Not so sure about the 21.5 but I think that would use the same chips as the 2018 MBP?)

As for the Fusion/SSD comments - based on my research, the 2TB and larger Fusion drives are definitely the ones to get.

The 1TB is the turkey - only a 32GB Flash portion. 2TB/3TB at least have a 128GB Flash portion which stands a much better chance of holding all your files (remember that SSD may lose a lot of performance if it gets close to 100% full).

However, I really think that Fusion drives had their day when anything over 128GB of SSD got really expensive and the only decently fast external drives were expensive Thunderbolt ones. Now, 256 or 512GB SSDs are more affordable and USB3 is faster than most single external drives (and there's 3.1g2 for the bleeding edge external SSDs). Fusion is never going to be as fast as pure SSD, adds complication and if either the SSD or HD portion fails, your data is toast.

YMMV but whereas maintaining a <=128GB system drive alongside external bulk storage might require a bit of inconvenience and discipline, for most people 256GB - and certainly 512GB - will easily hold your system, apps, temporary files (which is where you see the big SSD speedup) and most of your daily work-in-progress, while your media libraries and archives can live on infinitely extensible external media, and still give you a bit of headroom for sloppy organisation. Plus, if your iMac goes off to hospital for some reason, you don't have to entrust your archive to Apple.

You're going to need some sort of external storage or NAS for backups anyway.

 

[EugW]

It's actually cheaper to get a 256 GB SSD than it is to get a 2 TB Fusion drive, and a 512 GB SSD is reasonable too.

That's why I think most should not get a Fusion drive, unless looks are paramount. If 256 GB or 512 GB storage is not enough, then just add an external drive for cheap. (Or you can even add a super fast expensive external drive at some point. The choice is up to you.)

I actually went with a 1 TB SSD, but it was easier to justify since I could claim much of the cost through my business.

It's strange though. I see so many people getting the i7, but getting the Fusion drive. That seems so bass ackwards to me. I realize everyone has different needs, but I've always said for most usage, the CPU is probably the least of your worries. More important are things like RAM, SSD, screen, etc.

 

[kazmac]

If my situation was slightly different, I would definitely buy now.

If you do not need the latest specs or more cores, why not?

I’d be fine with a high end almost max specc’d 21.5 or middle tier 27.

Yet, I have two computers that will get me through school, so I do not need another desktop. If I did need one, I’d buy either one of those iMacs mentioned, and just told my ex-boss this morning that the 2017 21.5 would be a good replacement for her. Considering her usage it is fine.

 

[theluggage]

If 256 GB or 512 GB storage is not enough, then just add an external drive for cheap.

I agree - although, it has to be said, that when you're buying an all in one there's a certain desire to have it, you know all in one - but then you'll need external storage for backup, anyway. However, if I was speccing up a desktop PC I'd probably still go with a 256GB fastest-available SSD for the system and a separate slower/cheaper SSD (or even a spinner) for data. It would be nice if the iMac had an easily accessible slot for a second internal drive, but it doesn't and it ain't gonna - and there's something to be said for not having all of your files glued into the computer.

I think one distraction is that people are rather over-obsessed with the headline "sustained read/write speed" statistic for drives, which often looks disappointing for external drives. The big, big improvement of an SSD, in genera use, is the access time (always an order of magnitude faster than a mechanical drive) when it comes to all of the thousands of OS files, application components, temporary files, caches, virtual memory etc. that a modern computer is constantly accessing in the background - and the best way to ensure those are always on the super-fast SSD is to have a that SSD as your system drive. Fewer MB/s when loading in your documents from externals or NAS is less of a big deal by comparison.

 

[EugW]

I agree - although, it has to be said, that when you're buying an all in one there's a certain desire to have it, you know all in one - but then you'll need external storage for backup, anyway. However, if I was speccing up a desktop PC I'd probably still go with a 256GB fastest-available SSD for the system and a separate slower/cheaper SSD (or even a spinner) for data. It would be nice if the iMac had an easily accessible slot for a second internal drive, but it doesn't and it ain't gonna - and there's something to be said for not having all of your files glued into the computer.

I think one distraction is that people are rather over-obsessed with the headline "sustained read/write speed" statistic for drives, which often looks disappointing for external drives. The big, big improvement of an SSD, in genera use, is the access time (always an order of magnitude faster than a mechanical drive) when it comes to all of the thousands of OS files, application components, temporary files, caches, virtual memory etc. that a modern computer is constantly accessing in the background - and the best way to ensure those are always on the super-fast SSD is to have a that SSD as your system drive. Fewer MB/s when loading in your documents from externals or NAS is less of a big deal by comparison.

You can actually get Thunderbolt SSDs that are as fast as Apple's. Unfortunately, they are expensive.

Your idea of fast SSD for boot drive and slower SSD for storage is a good one. In fact, I have 1 TB USB C (non-Thunderbolt) Samsung T5 which works well. However, I've been using it for temporary backups and large file transfers, not as a primary drive, since I still have 450 GB left on my internal 1 TB SSD.

 

[JoshuaMoraski]

I also agree, having it all-in-one is great, but why lose the benefits of the SSD storage! If you can afford to buy the bigger SSD that's great but if not buy the lower storage amount and buy a cheaper external device when you run out of space. I personally owned a Fussion Drive and sold my computer due to the small SSD that is paired with the HardDrive.

 

[jschmitt]

I'm about to pull the trigger too, may I ask what's the resolution of your 30-inch Dell display? Is it necessary to get one with 5k or will 4k do just fine with the iMac 27"?

The Dell is a 4K monitor ….. it works great with the 27" 2013 iMac

 

[BigBoy2018]

For those of you still holding-out, I hope your patience is rewarded with more than a spec bump and get a modified form factor (smaller bezels, better thermal mgt, faceid, who knows what else).

Meh, what they'll get 'rewarded' with is a moderate spec bump, but then a design and T2 chip that once and for all prohibits upgrades of the hard drive and ram, in the name of 'security' that no one actually asked for. Because, after all, I could count the number of times a foreign entity broke into my iMac and destroyed my life by using the data on it ... on, hmmm, let's see, zero fingers.
[doublepost=1541821076][/doublepost]

It's actually cheaper to get a 256 GB SSD than it is to get a 2 TB Fusion drive, and a 512 GB SSD is reasonable too.

That's why I think most should not get a Fusion drive, unless looks are paramount. If 256 GB or 512 GB storage is not enough, then just add an external drive for cheap. (Or you can even add a super fast expensive external drive at some point. The choice is up to you.)

I actually went with a 1 TB SSD, but it was easier to justify since I could claim much of the cost through my business.

It's strange though. I see so many people getting the i7, but getting the Fusion drive. That seems so bass ackwards to me. I realize everyone has different needs, but I've always said for most usage, the CPU is probably the least of your worries. More important are things like RAM, SSD, screen, etc.

I would even change the list of 'most important' things to SSD first, then Screen, then RAM, then CPU (at least if we're talking i5 vs i7).

Translation: What EugW and I can't emphasize enough is that the i7 is overrated, and the fusion drive is crap.

 

[294307]

I like how people say the Fusion Drive is crap without really providing a real-world example as to why that might be the case. Is it really hard for people to put aside feelings about particular technology and actually provide concrete facts? Let's talk about facts.

I've had my iMac for over a year – with a 1 TB Fusion Drive – and I regret to inform those that appear to litter the entire forum with misinformation about the Fusion Drive that my iMac is as fast as it was when I first unboxed it. I'm using 415 GB of storage. I'm a software engineer and this is my primary work machine.

There are some cases where an SSD is recommendable over a Fusion Drive, but it would be far more ideal to be informed when you make that decision instead of just reading "Fusion Drive crap, go with an SSD" with no further explanation from those that put this across. I go back to my previous post in October on this topic, in which I listed the benefits and drawbacks to both options:

The advantages of an SSD:

• They retain maximum performance until they reach end of life and malfunction.

The disadvantages of an SSD:

• They are far more expensive than a Fusion Drive.

The advantages of a Fusion Drive system:

• Good value to performance ratio: SSDs are still far too expensive for equivalent storage capacity.
  
• Faster than a standard hard drive and as close as you are going to get to SSD performance without the expense of a standalone SSD system.

The disadvantages of a Fusion Drive system:

• They will slow down as the hard drive in the Fusion Drive system starts to reach the end of its life. However, I've used a 2013 iMac with a 7200-rpm hard drive at work and five years on, it's still as fast as I would come to expect from a hard drive. I imagine a few more years and that machine may start to show its age.

To summarise very simply, if you want GOOD performance, get a Fusion Drive system. But if you want the BEST performance, get an SSD only system.

If you do heavy I/O work – video production for example – then an SSD only system is the obvious choice and you should not even be considering a Fusion Drive system. But there are a lot of workflows where this is not the case and you will not notice as significant an impact as people are misleading you to believe (unless we're comparing mechanical drives to SSDs, then the difference is far more noticeable). And I know this, because my work machine is a 2.3 GHz 2017 MacBook Pro with a 256 GB SSD and for whatever reason, apps often seem to take just as long to launch on that thing as they do on my iMac at home.

Again, if you want good performance, a Fusion Drive system is a great choice. If you want the best performance, then an SSD only system is what you need.

I would even change the list of 'most important' things to SSD first, then Screen, then RAM, then CPU (at least if we're talking i5 vs i7).

Sure, the iMac design is getting dated. If you ask me I would much rather see a built-in adjustable stand on the iMac. That would be pretty unique as far as AIO computers are concerned. Are there any other AIOs that have this?

There are plenty of things Apple could do to innovate once again and it's rather surprising – well, perhaps less surprising under Tim Cook's leadership – that they haven't done anything remarkably different with the iMac yet. It would be nice to have the option of either a 21-inch, 27-inch or 30-inch iMac with either a 4-core or 6-core Intel Core processor and a built-in adjustable stand. That would be a rather excellent update.

 

[zama36]

So since I started this thread, I thought I should update it with what I decided to do.

Essentially, I couldn’t stomach spending so much money right now knowing that I truly only wanted it for several scenarios which my 2013 MBP 2.4 i7 can still handle even if it is a little slow at times.

Basically, I was looking at $2800 for an iMac w/ 7th Gen 4-core 4.2 i7, 16GB, 3 TB FD or at least $2700 for the Mini w/ 8th Gen 6-core 3.2 i7, 16 GB, 256GB SSD, 2TB Ext SSD, 4K monitor, keyboard and mouse.

On top of that I discovered two HDDs I was using for backups have crashed hard and aren’t recoverable.

So to address the issues on the MBP, I started by updating the original 256GB SSD to a 2TB SSD from OWC. Since swapping out the drive, I have had zero kernel panics, which lead me to believe that there was some corruption in the system files. The issues with the HDMI port seem to have stopped and I’m wondering if the USB dropping wasn’t just a result of the drives getting ready to finally crash, which one of them finally did. So only time will tell if there truly is a hardware issue with the ports.

To address the desire for a desktop, I repurposed my home server AKA a 2010 Mac Mini. I swapped out the old 320 GB HDD with a 1TB SSD making it usable again and banishing the beach ball so far.

I also bought a 27” QHD monitor the Mini can support, a MiniU Mount to hang the Mini off the back and an external 1TB SSD for Time Machine backups. I did try upping the RAM from Apple’s supported 8GB to 16GB that 3rd parties claim it can support but no love. Just the dreaded beep every five seconds at startup. I still have a working wireless keyboard from an old iMac and the mouse I use with my MBP, so I didn't need to buy those. Since the Mini is a Core 2 Duo, it is fine for basic things like email, web, etc. But for things it can’t handle I can hook up my MBP to the monitor and away I go.

This should cover my needs for a while. When the day comes that I’m stuck, I’ll go and get a new Mini. Then I’ll keep using my MBP and go old school treating it as a terminal when I need more processing power remotely. That is until it finally dies. My Wallstreet PowerBook lasted eight years, which gives me hope my MBP will last another few even though Apple will probably stop supporting it with OS updates before then.

So how much did it cost you’re probably wondering. Excluding the external SDD drive for backups, less than $1000 thanks in part to Black Friday/Cyber Week discounts. May not be the sexiest solution but it seems to be the most cost effective for now.

 

[BigBoy2018]

I like how people say the Fusion Drive is crap without really providing a real-world example as to why that might be the case. Is it really hard for people to put aside feelings about particular technology and actually provide concrete facts? Let's talk about facts.

The fusion drive IS crap. If you don't think so, then you've never used a system that's full SSD. If you had, you would realize what you're missing.

I've used several of both, and the fusion drive systems are horrible in comparison. Just opening folders, launching simple programs, any loading of files are ALL noticeably slower with a fusion drive system. Whenever I've used one, I'm just stunned how bad it is (and I've used several fusion drive systems here at work).

Simple as that.

If you still want to argue the point, I challenge you to use an SSD only system for a week straight, then go back to your crappy fusion drive iMac. Then, and only then ... will you understand. It's usually only when you've experienced the faster option and you come back to the slower iteration do you really see the difference. We all used to think 20gb per second internet was awesome, but now that you're on 130gb per second, we would be appalled how sluggish the 20gb now feels if we went back to it.

So, YOU still think fusion drives are fine, because you have't lived the better life of SSD only.

That's a fact, Jack.

Bottom line: Fusion drives are a 'compromise' technology from half a decade ago whose time has passed.

 

[Porkchop Sandwich]

If my situation was slightly different, I would definitely buy now.

If you do not need the latest specs or more cores, why not?

I’d be fine with a high end almost max specc’d 21.5 or middle tier 27.

Yet, I have two computers that will get me through school, so I do not need another desktop. If I did need one, I’d buy either one of those iMacs mentioned, and just told my ex-boss this morning that the 2017 21.5 would be a good replacement for her. Considering her usage it is fine.

I bought a 21" iMac (i7/512/16) out of necessity and received it just a few days b/f the last anticipated unveiling of either an updated, or newly designed iMac.

I really had no intention of returning it unless the iMac received a compelling new design but with no T2, which wouldn't have been likely.

Been a Mac user for quite awhile and still have a 2010 27" i7 iMac that's running strong w/no sign of slowing down. HS runs unbelievably well on it, unlike the way in which it runs somewhat poorly on other Macs I have/had. I'm used to a 27" desktop screen and like most here, would typically recommend the 27" to someone in the market..

..however. I absolutely love the 21" and I'm also really, really liking Mojave. This little machine runs smooth as silk. It's fully upgradable and I can upgrade it myself. I have had a beachball a time or two, but that's rare, and it usually occurs when I'm doing a few things kind of all at the same time across a couple of apps. Really hasn't been an issue. It's powered up at all times. It's silent. All in all, it just really hasn't missed a beat. Opening folders is basically instant and as fast as you can open them. It runs cool, task depending. It really is a nice computer and I'd heartily recommend one to someone with limited desk space, or any other space limiting requirement. Another nice thing about it, for my use - it's light, and easy to move around if the need arises. I do wish Apple would have found a way to keep the sd slot on the side though, dammit.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

If I needed it ~ yes.

 

[EugW]

I bought a 21" iMac (i7/512/16) out of necessity and received it just a few days b/f the last anticipated unveiling of either an updated, or newly designed iMac.

I really had no intention of returning it unless the iMac received a compelling new design but with no T2, which wouldn't have been likely.

Been a Mac user for quite awhile and still have a 2010 27" i7 iMac that's running strong w/no sign of slowing down. HS runs unbelievably well on it, unlike the way in which it runs somewhat poorly on other Macs I have/had. I'm used to a 27" desktop screen and like most here, would typically recommend the 27" to someone in the market..

..however. I absolutely love the 21" and I'm also really, really liking Mojave. This little machine runs smooth as silk. It's fully upgradable and I can upgrade it myself. I have had a beachball a time or two, but that's rare, and it usually occurs when I'm doing a few things kind of all at the same time across a couple of apps. Really hasn't been an issue. It's powered up at all times. It's silent. All in all, it just really hasn't missed a beat. Opening folders is basically instant and as fast as you can open them. It runs cool, task depending. It really is a nice computer and I'd heartily recommend one to someone with limited desk space, or any other space limiting requirement. Another nice thing about it, for my use - it's light, and easy to move around if the need arises. I do wish Apple would have found a way to keep the sd slot on the side though, dammit.

I'm using my 2010 27" i7 iMac as an external monitor for my 2017 27" i5 iMac.

Only issue is the Mojave turns off sub-pixel rendering. That has no visible effect on Retina screens, but doesn't look so good with non-Retina screens. Fortunately, there is a terminal command that can turn sub-pixel rendering back on which helps restore text quality, although of course it still no way compares to the Retina screen's text quality.

 

[Porkchop Sandwich]

I'm using my 2010 27" i7 iMac as an external monitor for my 2017 27" i5 iMac.

Only issue is the Mojave turns off sub-pixel rendering. That has no visible effect on Retina screens, but doesn't look so good with non-Retina screens. Fortunately, there is a terminal command that can turn sub-pixel rendering back on which helps restore text quality, although of course it still no way compares to the Retina screen's text quality.

Appreciate the info - I've relegated the 27" to an 'upstairs' computer for hard-wired printing and other various tasks and it's shared by everyone for, whatever. It sees a good bit of use but is basically on stand-by should all hell break loose w/primary computer. I installed some RAM in it a few yrs ago and also installed an ssd. I reluctantly upgraded it to hs, from lo, b/c I really didn't like hs. Much to my surprise, and as stated in my previous post, hs runs great on it. It's been a great pc of kit for alot of yrs. Every time I think about gifting it to someone..I just can't do it b/c I really do still like it..it's a tank!!

Now, on the 21", I must confess that I miss the screen space from time to time. I like having two folders, or a document and a folder (or other pc of software) open, side by side. That said, I've adjusted and can basically do the same thing, it's just not quite as roomy. If I have a project with docs, notes, spreadsheets, and reference materials to work with said docs, et al - out comes the lg5k. The 21" drives it without breaking a sweat. Also, due to its size (21), I can now have it on the desk I'm most comfortable at, and that also happens to be right where our FIOS router is, underneath the desk. So, I have uber-fast wi-fi, and now, for the first time ever (for me)..ethernet. (just never had a computer close enough, or in a spot worth taking it to). That does play into some of my affinity for the 21", to be fair.

I say it's just a good-a-time to buy an iMac, as ever. In fact, considering the 21" recently grew an extra two-cores on the cpu side, it's literally the best time ever, to buy a 21" iMac. Unless you don't need one and would rather await a refresh, of course.

I'm betting the entire iMac line-up, including the pro, gets a refresh in one fell swoop...maybe in 2019..or '20, or..

Hopefully Apple has this 'T2 thing' sorted before that happens.

 

[kazmac]

Selfish wish, but I hope they won’t announce new iMacs before I get my tax return in March.

I do not want a Mac with a T2 chip and am considering going back to a 21.5”. I like the 27 a lot, but space etc. is a limitation now.

@Porkchop Sandwich thanks for the details and congrats on your new iMac.

 

[fathergll]

I've had an iMac for 4 years now. My biggest regret was the fusion drive(to be fair I bought it because it was on sale and got a very good deal on it so wasn't a total bonehead move).

 

[StellarVixen]

We might be just several months from 2019 iMacs.


I would be patient.

 

[worldvga]

I wouldn't be happy if I paid full price for an iMac and a month later they introduce faster, better, and redesigned models!

 

[Geert76]

I wouldn't be happy if I paid full price for an iMac and a month later they introduce faster, better, and redesigned models!

you forgot the (worldwide) yearly 10-20% price increase...but hey, that's just a minor detail not worth to mention

 

[Cashmonee]

This is a lot tougher question than it really should be. At this point the CPU in the iMac is two generations old. The GPU is going on two years old. Many configurations still use a spinning drive. The next one should include a 9th-gen (hopefully) Intel CPU, Vega graphics, and all SSD. That would make for a rather large upgrade and probably is worth the wait.

However, it will also undoubtedly have the T2 chip which has been finicky and even worse in my view, has a very good chance of being fully sealed up (no RAM upgrades). Add to that the very likely 10-20% price increase and possibility that the standard configuration will be a 128 GB SSD and 8 GB of RAM that would need to be upgraded (at Apple's ever larger upgrade prices) at the time of purchase. It seems likely that this iMac will be rather pricey and possibly a step back similar to the way the 2016 MacBook Pro was. From that perspective, it may be a good idea to get in on the better computer now.

 

[Stephen13]

At this point the CPU in the iMac is two generations old. The GPU is going on two years old. Many configurations still use a spinning drive. The next one should include a 9th-gen (hopefully) Intel CPU, Vega graphics, and all SSD. That would make for a rather large upgrade and probably is worth the wait.

I share this perspective. I don't feel comfortable dropping $2,000 on a piece of tech with essentially 2 year old guts, especially if a newer version is ~6 months away.

 

[fathergll]

I like how people say the Fusion Drive is crap without really providing a real-world example as to why that might be the case. Is it really hard for people to put aside feelings about particular technology and actually provide concrete facts? Let's talk about facts.

I've had my iMac for over a year – with a 1 TB Fusion Drive – and I regret to inform those that appear to litter the entire forum with misinformation about the Fusion Drive that my iMac is as fast as it was when I first unboxed it. I'm using 415 GB of storage. I'm a software engineer and this is my primary work machine.

There are some cases where an SSD is recommendable over a Fusion Drive, but it would be far more ideal to be informed when you make that decision instead of just reading "Fusion Drive crap, go with an SSD" with no further explanation from those that put this across. I go back to my previous post in October on this topic, in which I listed the benefits and drawbacks to both options:



If you do heavy I/O work – video production for example – then an SSD only system is the obvious choice and you should not even be considering a Fusion Drive system. But there are a lot of workflows where this is not the case and you will not notice as significant an impact as people are misleading you to believe (unless we're comparing mechanical drives to SSDs, then the difference is far more noticeable). And I know this, because my work machine is a 2.3 GHz 2017 MacBook Pro with a 256 GB SSD and for whatever reason, apps often seem to take just as long to launch on that thing as they do on my iMac at home.

Again, if you want good performance, a Fusion Drive system is a great choice. If you want the best performance, then an SSD only system is what you need.

I've had a 1TB Fusion drive(128 GB SSD) for 4 years now. Here's my two pain points;

-Hosting large photography files on the internal drive seriously stinks. Trying to quickly preview files from a 36mp camera is not fun(external drive is needed)

-Bootcamp which traditionally would be an easy process with SSD turned into a massive project in itself which ended up in my spending many hours and having to purchase a thunderbolt drive for Windows and additional cloning software.


I went with fusion drive because of the amount of money I was saving at the time was pretty significant due to sales on base model iMacs. Hindsight I should have just waited longer and picked up a SSD version.

 

[pappkristof]

I can't see any excuse for them not having already bumped the 5k iMacs to the same 8th Gen chips used in the new Mini. (Not so sure about the 21.5 but I think that would use the same chips as the 2018 MBP?)

Unless they skip 8th gen and go straight to 9th gen.