121 replies to this topic 3 votes

[+RisenTyranade]

threetonesun, on 07 September 2012 - 19:00, said:

Nope. Especially not as far as Macs go.

Awesome

Bizkit, on 08 September 2012 - 00:23, said:

If you are still thinking about getting the Retina MacBook Pro and are worried about the upgrading of the harddrive, I just watched the newest episode of Know How where they showed how to switch the harddrives out. It was super easy, but the harddrives are stupid expensive. On the episode, he said it was like 400gb harddrive for like $550us. That's pretty crazy, but atleast you can see how easy it is.

Here is a link to said episode: http://twit.tv/show/know-how/10

Yeah but their more expensive than a Standard SSD so yeah, it just seems stupid to me why they did that with the Retina MBP, Soldered RAM and a Proprietary SSD.

@Leo, on 08 September 2012 - 00:28, said:

Why not just get a Mac Mini?

I already explained why...

BUT if they added a Core i7 Quad Core (Even as an upgrade, and I know the Mac Mini Server has one but yeah It comes with OS X server and I don't want that and it only has Integrated Graphics) the same one in the Macbook Pro and It then can support 16GB of RAM and had the GT 650m Graphics Chip in it I would.

Bizkit, on 08 September 2012 - 01:50, said:

I think he wants something more powerful. Seems he's leaning toward a MacBook (good idea imo).

Thanks. Although like I just said above, the Mini is due for a Refresh soon and I am hoping for a Quad Core in that and 16GB of RAM support then the mini could be perfect for me.

Kami-, on 08 September 2012 - 02:09, said:

There aren't many; I use mine on a desk stand (opened as a mini secondary display) plugged into an external monitor, it's very comparable to the power of the iMac, only I'd advise buying a nice external screen

I don't like dual screens unless they are the same Size and Resolution otherwise it feels odd X_X, But I got a decent 1920x1080 screen.

Bizkit, on 08 September 2012 - 03:29, said:

Also I have been reading from various news sites that Apple is going to be refreshing the iMac line. If that is true, it might be worth waiting to see what happens, and a new iMac might be something you are looking for.

Link: http://www.foxnews.c...w-lineup-imacs/ (I know its Fox News but this was only one of the sites, just happened to be the one I had open at the time.)

I was thinking about an iMac at first but Adding a second drive to those is a PAIN IN THE ASS to put it one way ><.

[+DJ Dark]

threetonesun, on 05 September 2012 - 14:56, said:

If you didn't like the Mac Mini, you want an iMac then. The current laptop-based Macs only take up to 8GBs of RAM, and honestly that's all you need. You'd have to go up to a 15'' Macbook to get a decent video card.

And yeah, the 27'' iMac with an SSD + HD + 16 GBs of RAM + a decent GPU is going to cost you mint.

Did you try gaming in OSX, or Windows? The performance can be vastly different for most Mac games. A lot of things that are unplayable on my Macbook (320M) run fine at native resolution in Windows.

Thats not entirely true. It officially only supports 8GB but unofficially they do indeed support 16GB. I have 16GB in my late 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro.

[+RisenTyranade]

DJ Dark, on 08 September 2012 - 06:59, said:

Thats not entirely true. It officially only supports 8GB but unofficially they do indeed support 16GB. I have 16GB in my late 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro.

That is one thing I don't get with apple. They could make more money if they offered a 16GB option yet they are saying it isn't supported and most people believe them.

[+RisenTyranade]

Sorry for the double post. Edit is disabled.

Anyway, As someone suggested I think I will wait till the iMac refresh and see what that is like before I decide on the MacBook Pro or the iMac since it will be used as a desktop anyway so portability is a non factor (I am looking into a MacBook Air as a laptop as I like them to be portable and light which is going to cost me £1500 itself). If I do go with the iMac what I will do is Add 16GB of RAM myself, and if a 256GB SSD is not standard I will buy my own and put it in there as changing the hard drive, while not as easy as I'd like is much easier than trying to cram a second one in there. And If 256GB SSD is standard on the top end 27 inch Model that means I don't have to tear it apart at all and I will just go for External Storage.

Or if some Miracle happens and the Mac Mini gets a Quad core i7 and the same Graphics chip as the iMac when they both eventually get refreshed I might go for a Mac Mini if the benchmarks show the Mac Mini to be close or on par with the iMac. *Shrug who knows with apple xP.

I have set aside about £350 - £400 for Accessories for whichever Mac I but and I was wondering what accessories do you like.

3 Thing I am particularly set on is Good quality small speakers (don't have to be audiophile quality), a 2TB+ External HDD (USB 3 or Thunderbolt) and a USB Headset.

[Shadrack]

DJ Dark, on 08 September 2012 - 06:59, said:

Thats not entirely true. It officially only supports 8GB but unofficially they do indeed support 16GB. I have 16GB in my late 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro.

Hmm... I wonder if I can get 16GB in my mid-2009 MBP, then... hmm....

[Javik]

Spirit Dave, on 05 September 2012 - 23:21, said:

But I'd much rather have the Ferrari Sometimes, the speed at which something runs isn't the only factor. A cheap PC instead of a Mac is the equivalent of buying a Vauxhall Corsa instead of a BMW M3. I'd rather work in comfort, on the best screens, the best trackpads, the best keyboards, the best build quality etc, and still smokin' fast.
.

Which would be a great argument if Apple computers were the only ones capable of doing that with. The computer I built myself can do all of that, and it cost me just over £1400 to build including the monitor. The closest iMac I could get to that configuration would have cost me £1999 and that's with an inferior CPU (2600k vs 2700k), inferior GPU (6970M vs 6950 dedicated), and no SSD. Being ripped off doesn't always guarantee a better setup.

Now some actual advice for the poster: If you're intent on a mac don't build a hackintosh. In the long run you're more likely to have issues.

[.Neo]

Javik, on 08 September 2012 - 14:08, said:

Which would be a great argument if Apple computers were the only ones capable of doing that with. The computer I built myself can do all of that, and it cost me just over £1400 to build including the monitor. The closest iMac I could get to that configuration would have cost me £1999 and that's with an inferior CPU (2600k vs 2700k), inferior GPU (6970M vs 6950 dedicated), and no SSD. Being ripped off doesn't always guarantee a better setup.

Does your configuration also fit into a slim all-in-one design? Despite to what you might think some people actually do care about that. When I bought my iMac there wasn't a single other company that offered me the same specs in an all-in-one.

That said the iMac is long overdue for an update. Apparently Apple's suppliers are having issues with the new displays being used.

[+RisenTyranade]

Javik, on 08 September 2012 - 14:08, said:

Which would be a great argument if Apple computers were the only ones capable of doing that with. The computer I built myself can do all of that, and it cost me just over £1400 to build including the monitor. The closest iMac I could get to that configuration would have cost me £1999 and that's with an inferior CPU (2600k vs 2700k), inferior GPU (6970M vs 6950 dedicated), and no SSD. Being ripped off doesn't always guarantee a better setup.

Now some actual advice for the poster: If you're intent on a mac don't build a hackintosh. In the long run you're more likely to have issues.

Yeah but one of the reasons I wanted an iMac is I can have a screen and a computer all in one, it runs OS X AND it looks pretty darn sleek, and I want to modernize my work area so I am going for a nice glass desk, hard wood floors, and going kind of minimalist but nice and sleek at the same time.

.Neo, on 08 September 2012 - 14:21, said:

Does your configuration also fit into a slim all-in-one design? Despite to what you might think some people actually do care about that. When I bought my iMac there wasn't a single other company that offered me the same specs in an all-in-one.

That said the iMac is long overdue for an update. Apparently Apple's suppliers are having issues with the new displays being used.

The iMacs are getting new displays?

[SoCalRox]

threetonesun, on 05 September 2012 - 14:56, said:

The current laptop-based Macs only take up to 8GBs of RAM

Please don't tell my Macbook Pro (June, 2012) that. It thinks the 16GB I installed works. Here I've been all happy with 16 gigs...

[.Neo]

threetonesun, on 05 September 2012 - 14:56, said:

The current laptop-based Macs only take up to 8GBs of RAM, and honestly that's all you need.

Yet two of my close friends have 16 GB installed in their MacBook Pros. How very interesting. Also, you're hardly in any position to decide what others need.

Attached Images

• 

[+RisenTyranade]

.Neo, on 08 September 2012 - 15:15, said:

Yet two of my close friends have 16 GB installed in their MacBook Pros. How very interesting. Also, you're hardly in any position to decide what others need.

Awesome so I guess that settles it then. I can add 16GB of RAM if I buy the MBP.

I am leaning towards the iMac right now and I need help with choosing the accessories as I listed above...
I have £350-£400 to spend total on a Thunderbolt/USB 3.0 HDD, USB Headset and some decent but not Audiophile quality speakers.

Thanks for all the help guys.

[Bizkit]

One of the rumors is that the iMacs are getting new displays but that they aren't retina. It would be stupid IMO, for them to not have a retina, but rumors are rumors.

Either way, let us know what you end up getting. I'm hoping to get a MacBook pro by the end of the year and want to hear what you like and dislike about what you get.

[+RisenTyranade]

Bizkit, on 08 September 2012 - 19:25, said:

One of the rumors is that the iMacs are getting new displays but that they aren't retina. It would be stupid IMO, for them to not have a retina, but rumors are rumors.

Either way, let us know what you end up getting. I'm hoping to get a MacBook pro by the end of the year and want to hear what you like and dislike about what you get.

I will do, I just need to get a few things for it (as i listed in my previous post) and I had one more question.

I did some googling but it didn't turn up very much. The iMacs have glossy screens and I was wondering if there was some Anti-Glare film I could but to put on the top of it or a replacement glass cover (to replace the one that comes on the iMac over the screen) that is Anti-Glare because I hate glare on my screen as my room gets a lot of sun light.

[threetonesun]

.Neo, on 08 September 2012 - 15:15, said:

Yet two of my close friends have 16 GB installed in their MacBook Pros. How very interesting. Also, you're hardly in any position to decide what others need.

First, I said early it was 8gbs on Apple's site, but that they could support more. Second, a screenshot that shows it's been installed? Post some benchmarks showing the difference between 8gb and 16gb, otherwise I'm sticking with the recommendation that they not waste their money.

[SMELTN]

You know I wouldn't mind putting a anti-glare on my Macbook Pro?