I think I like the idea of being able to run whatever monitors I want and also just swapping out components at will and not being held a slave to apple's update cycle. Tempted to try a hackintosh but it looks like a major pita.if you love cables and windows, by all means go for it...i love the clean design , but maybe next year if the studio will update the internals....who knows
that is one of the main things I miss about my pc days .. but I've become very attached to OS Xhmm an hackintosh is not worth, but building a pc its a better idea...swapping the internals from one year/years to another is the main advantages for decades
from my perspective since from year to year there is no real big improves in cpu/gpu/ram, i think if apple could update every mac from 2 to 2 years will be fine. I know people with pc that even they upgrades the internals from 3 to 3 years
I am somewhat in the same boat... I have the choice of maybe getting a loan for a new iMac now, or saving up my money until March 2017.
Intel makes a quad core NUC ( Skull Canyon ) i7 similar to a mini's form factor. OS X would need to be installed but the hardware is mostly complete except for inserting RAM sticks and an m.2 flash drive. If you don't need a quad core i7, Intel's other NUCs are less money. Some have successfully hacked these machines with OS X.I'm looking to replace a 2009 mini. I've always resisted AIOs, but I'm pretty resigned to the mini's fate.
Agreed. Plus additional Apple quality control checks/vigilance might delay delivery a bit more ( a good thing in the end ) given Apple's recent experience with the MBP ( no recommendation from Consumer Reports etc. )Personally, I think the wait will be longer than most as apple may be waiting for intel to drop new gen processors.
We don't.
People are expecting a March rollout, but we have no idea if that will be the case. I remember back in 2011, when waiting for the expected refresh of the MBP. Everyone said, January, then March. We finally saw the refresh in June.
So is it greed on Microsoft's part for putting in an old CPU into their Surface Studio?This is nothing but greed on apples part, look at the current MacBook pro it has and 'old' cpu in it today.
I'm more than ready for an updated iMac, but I'm beginning to think people just want to see something new and shiny. I fail to see what Apple could add to the iMac that would make someone who already owns a 5K iMac feel they must upgrade.
A faster processor is practically meaningless at this point—unless they can double the speed. A faster GPU, that's great for 3D-rendering and such—but if you get the upgraded card now it's more than fast enough for any video or print creation work. Faster drive speed? The SSD in my 2013 (pre-5K iMac) writes 800MB PSD files pretty damn quick—I know there are faster SSDs, but I highly doubt they'll make that noticeable a difference.
For me updating a 2013 27" iMac with 32GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M w/4GB VRAM, and 500GB SSD, the only reason to upgrade is to get a 5K Retina display.
So is it greed on Microsoft's part for putting in an old CPU into their Surface Studio?
The 45w Kaby lake CPU isn't out yet, and can you imagine if Apple put a slower CPU into their top of the line MBP? The complaining would be even worse.
Don't move the goal posts. You called Apple out for being greedy because they used the Skylake chipset instead of Kaby lake. I refuted that with two examples, one Microsoft did the exact same thing (used Skylake) and secondly, mentioned that there is no 45w Kaby lake chipset.How do you explain the price increase?? Those cpu's have been out for a while and doubt the cost that much...pure greed on apple's part, no justification...
One other point, while my iMac (2015 5k) is virtually sealed up, I will say its insanely great. Its the best computer I've had.no longer dedicated to 'insanely' great products.