Seriously, I did that and I regretted it so much that I ended up reselling it and buying the 2017 21.5 Retina 4K (of course, I lost a few hundred $/€ with that). I wasn't aware before that there is such a HUGE difference between a Full HD and a 4K display, but there actually is and it's big. The 4K display is like the glossy pages of a high-end design, architecture of fashion magazine or book whereas on the Full HD display you can actually spot the individual pixels of the screen which is unaesthetic and I find it gets my eyes tired much more quickly. Besides, you get a discrete Radeon graphics card whereas on the Full HD model you only get the CPU's. And all this for only +200$/€! I think Apple shouldn't even sell that Full HD model, it's like an outdated laptop in an all-in-one frame.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple product are outdated , compare to old days.. I use base line 2017 with 0 issue .. 4K mean nothing to me at all since i using two monitor..
You always lose on both ends of the spectrum... if you choose the cheapest option you lose a lot of quality and power much more than the money you saved. If you choose the maxed out option the gain in quality and power is much less than the extra money you pay. Diminishing return.
4K should be standard, I have my Mini connected to a 32" HD TV, you can easily see it's to that good, even with bad eyesight.
Text is way, way nicer on the retina screen.
In fact, I’d say Retina is even more important for text (eg. programming) than it is for say watching video.
Any why exactly shouldn't Apple have a lowest-cost model for those who just need a computer, want a Mac, and don't have any money to spare? Obviously it sells or they wouldn't bother offering it.
If I were buying a new iMac I'd get the retina, but I'm not the entry level target market, and apparently neither is the OP. That doesn't mean Apple shouldn't offer anything to that market.
If I were buying a new iMac I'd get the retina, but I'm not the entry level target market, and apparently neither is the OP. That doesn't mean Apple shouldn't offer anything to that market.
The only reason why the basic model exists is to sell you the next or even the top of the line model.
Even my previous 2008 iMac had a 1080P screen. “Full HD” is just a fancy marketing term in 2008.
upselling
why does pixelize mean ? i see as normal text .. no diff at all Render more pixel does mean the text distort like above.. It just more data.. Really bad advise.Text is way, way nicer on the retina screen.
In fact, I’d say Retina is even more important for text (eg. programming) than it is for say watching video.
[doublepost=1515983894][/doublepost]
Reality RAM.
Because mac a bit lack on optimisation .. That the truth. In windows still survive on 4 GB RAM.. for linux 1GB is enough.
Display
If you retina to see those 8K or 4K video is justify. Normal word or programming is enough for 1920 x 1080.. No need retina fancy to me. For my logical thinking , more pixel dense only need more good graphic card to cater it..That why intel not chosen for it.
For currently, i don't ever knew how to reduce or add ram in basic integrated because APPLE don't allow it.. I do love and want to knew each segment on ram on how ram usage for integrated graphic card.
About SSD Issue.
Yes,Maybe Apple thinking fusion is the best way but i don't have it..
IF Apple push all the important library and app into fusion..That a good thing.
Will 1TB consider slow ?
not much if normal user can wait loading time.
Don't have money to spare ?
Yeah,maybe to me.. mac product not cheap .Maybe in USA maybe cheap..But reality not.. But if the future i just add on SSD ( Western Digital Passport USB 3 gen2) or add one E-GPU if needed..(E-GPU not cheap).
Apple shouldn't offer anything to market?
That's their business not yours.
Last edited:
I have a 2017 iMac 27" 5K Retina and a 2010 27" iMac non-Retina side by side.
The difference in text quality is instantly obvious. Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and the Retina is much easier on the eyes. I am actually using the non-Retina as a secondary monitor but mainly because I am cheap. I didn't want to spend the money on a second 5K monitor, especially since the current LG 5K monitor that is compatible with the iMac has had some problems with bugginess.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dual-imacs.2052555/#post-24790730
From afar, the screens look very similar, at least with SDR content. But once you get up close and try to read small fonts, the Retina screen is much less tiring.
maybe the new one a bit diff .. the only diff between samsung monitor and imac just it's colour. Being cheapskate is not issue if the colour between monitor is same.
?maybe the new one a bit diff .. the only diff between samsung monitor and imac just it's colour. Being cheapskate is not issue if the colour between monitor is same.
The quality is difference is exactly like illustrated in the text comparison picture I posted above. Small text is not nice to read on a non-Retina screen. It's got rough angulated edges on non-Retina when looking up close, and that appears as being slightly fuzzy when sitting 2 feet away. On Retina, it's very smooth and much more clear.
Really, it is a world of difference. Therefore for programmers and designers, I would never recommend a Mac in 2018 without a Retina screen, unless you have a low budget.
A novice didn't care about boot time and application launch time. A real novice would said, why so slow loading or are this system correct "To quick"
[doublepost=1515988235][/doublepost]
i have the budget. But i don't like to overspend it on it. At first i want those MacBook pro, but when i saw the port and the size of storage .. kinda disappointed . It nice to show off to people, but not for working environment. I just need a semi big monitor 2 . One for debugging.. one for output.
For artwork, i don't do detailing because been outsource to other people.
No weird edges on my both monitor.
I agree with haruhiko. IMO the best things to have are SSD and Retina and sufficient RAM, even for a novice user. CPU speed is nowhere near as important.
If you're a Mac user and buy a 2017 Mac without Retina, IMO you may be wasting money, because Macs are pricey to begin with, so to spend money on a non-Retina Mac doesn't make a lot of sense, unless it's for an institutional purchase for students or something.
The very existence of this thread is a testament to that. US$200 more for Retina (and a much faster CPU with much faster and discrete GPU) over non-Retina is a very easy decision to make. Spend the extra $200.
If you're a Mac user and buy a 2017 Mac without Retina, IMO you may be wasting money, because Macs are pricey to begin with, so to spend money on a non-Retina Mac doesn't make a lot of sense, unless it's for an institutional purchase for students or something.
The very existence of this thread is a testament to that. US$200 more for Retina (and a much faster CPU with much faster and discrete GPU) over non-Retina is a very easy decision to make. Spend the extra $200.
Last edited:
No point argue if you're willing dwell to specific . Mac Price is nonsense from beginning. If you said base line is useless. So be it. I had no problem on it. The only lack is speed upon loading. I do prefer intel chipset for long term survival instead of graphic card.
I don't think i waste money because it job specific instead.I still have acer laptop for travel,samsung tablet for moving around. I use linux,windows,mac same time. In the end for me, some code editor,web browser, iPhone simulator, android simulator,note.
I think, waste of money if wanted specific role like video editing or running multiple VM.
My Conclusion, if baseline is bad , do complain to apple instead not me..I'm just a buyer whom buy on need as basis only.
No it’s not it’s a function of the screen size and the distance you sit away from it.
the retina imac's screen is crisper. Letters don't appear to be surrounded by a thin halo of light grey pixels.
It's kind of like the difference between reading a mass market paperback, and reading a hardback book. One is cheaper, the other has certain marks. of quality-- crisper text, better quality paper, a spine that doesn't break, or bend.
The baseline qualities that define a mac as a great computer-- something special-- are SSDs and retina displays. Certain software design decisons made at apples software engineering divisions assume that these will be present, and those who don't get the castoff code.
It's kind of like the difference between reading a mass market paperback, and reading a hardback book. One is cheaper, the other has certain marks. of quality-- crisper text, better quality paper, a spine that doesn't break, or bend.
The baseline qualities that define a mac as a great computer-- something special-- are SSDs and retina displays. Certain software design decisons made at apples software engineering divisions assume that these will be present, and those who don't get the castoff code.
Last edited:
While the retina screen is nice, it is not totally necessary on larger monitors IMO. I enjoyed using my old 21” 1080p IMac. While it was nice to look at I ended up returning my 2017 27” 5k IMac. Ended up switching to a 24” “low” resolution 1920 x 1200 monitor. 27 was a bit too big and 21 slightly too small. 16:10 24” is much better for me. I have my 2016 15” mbp and 2010 cMP hooked up to it.
Just recently picked up a 2008 24” IMac as well. Same 16:10 1920 x 1200 resolution as my current monitor and it looks just fine as well.
Just recently picked up a 2008 24” IMac as well. Same 16:10 1920 x 1200 resolution as my current monitor and it looks just fine as well.