I give up. Apple os NEVER coming out with an adult size, larger new iMac in non-crayon colors. I’ve been waiting 4 years. What should I buy?

[Suzzzabelle]

I own a late 2013 iMac which I love but it’s way past being useful. It has 3 TB of storage, 64 GB of memory and a 3.5 Quad core Intel Core processor. Was VERY fast.

I MUST have at least this much storage, memory and speed in a new Mac. I don’t like using the cloud or attaching storage devices for my files.

What should I buy? 2 options please. 🙏

This is my 5th and last Mac. 👵🏻
Thank you 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏

Thank you. Thank you

Sue

 

[picpicmac]

64 GB of memory and a 3.5 Quad core Intel Core processor. Was VERY fast.

I MUST have at least this much storage, memory and speed in a new Mac.

The only desktop Macs left for which you can order 64GB of RAM are the Mac Studio and the Mac Pro. The latter is big and very expensive.

You can get a Mac Studio on the Refurb store, with 64GB of RAM, for $3149 in the 4TB SSD model, if you want the older M1 Max processor processor. M2 Max version is newer but very rarely shows up on the Refurb store. A new M2 Max Mac Studio w/ 64GB RAM is only $2179 on the discount store but it only comes with a 512GB SSD and it costs (discount store) $3239 if you want the internal 4TB SSD.

The Mini w/ 32GB RAM is much less expensive, if you can live with less memory.

Many of us expect the Studio and Mini to be moved onto the M3 realm Real Soon Now.

 

[AL2TEACH]

I own a late 2013 iMac which I love

I feel your pain because I have a 2015. I would opt for a refurb 2019/20 iMac and it can run Sonoma, of course, Apple can't wait to be able to kill updates for it, lol.
You can always get ram for it and put in or take it to a shop for a SSD and still come out spending less money. If you want to have updates for the next 6 years or so then you will have to buy newer.

 

[theorist9]

Option1: I own a 27" 2019 iMac. Until such time as Apple releases a new large iMac (and no one knows if they will; though there are rumors they may do that in 2025), the Apple Silicon replacement for the large iMac is the Mac Studio + ASD (Apple Studio Display). If you don't want to shell out too much, you could get a used M1 Studio (or wait for the M3 Studio to be released, which may happen as early as June, and pick up an M2 at discounted prices).

Here's an example from eBay. I'd strongly recommend getting one with AppleCare+, which this one had:

As for the monitor, I personally wouldn't recommend anything other than a Retina Display (in 27", that's 5k), since that's what I'm used to. However, if you're OK with your 2013's display, which is lower resolution, you could save a lot by getting a 27" 4k (≈$500). Alternately, if you don't mind a matte screen the 5k 27" Samsung might work for you, but it's not much less than the glossy ASD. I prefer glossy for my text work, and that's what the iMac is.

Option 2: You could get a used 27" 2019 or 2020 iMac, both of which come with beautiful glossy 5k Retina displays--though they won't be supported for much longer.

[If Sonoma is the last OS for these, that gives you until ≈Oct 2026 that Apple will send out OS security updates; it's possible they could allow one more OS, which would give you until ≈Oct 2027; of course, since you're using a 2013 machine, you may not mind running the machine beyond that.]

If you do that, I'd recommend getting at least an i9 for the 2019 or an i7 for the 2020. You can easily upgrade the RAM in both. If you get a 2020 you'd need to buy it with a 4 TB SSD, since it's soldered and not upgradeable. The SSD in the 2019 is upgradeable, so you could buy one with, say, 512 GB and upgrade it. That's what I did--I found a 2019 i9 with Apple Care in pristine condition, but its SSD was too small, so I upgraded it with a 2 TB WD SN850. But that requires taking it apart, which I didn't want to do, so I paid my local Apple authorized service center (my university's bookstore) $100 for the labor.

 

[macguru9999]

Hi, you could buy and Apple Mac studio M2 max, 64gb ram, 4tb ssd and an LG 5k monitor
Then plug in the monitor and away you go. You actually should probably wait a few weeks for the M3 max version, or even in an M3 max mac mini, but either way I would NOT get an intel mac now, of any description, unless you need to run intel only software like windows 10 in parallels ... its simply not worth the trouble anymore. (also, you probably dont need 64gb ram but i suppose it wont hurt!)

 

[theorist9]

Hi, you could buy and Apple Mac studio M2 max, 64gb ram, 4tb ssd and an LG 5k monitor
Then plug in the monitor and away you go. You actually should probably wait a few weeks for the M3 max version, or even in an M3 max mac mini,

Agree with waiting until the June WWDC to see if they release an M3 Studio, if the OP wants to go with a Studio.

But I'd be leery of the LG 5k. They seem to have a lot of QC issues, and LG's customer support on these is reportedly not very good.

Also, I don't think there's any way they'd offer an M3 Max Mini. The best you could hope for would be for them to switch to LPDDR5x and offer 64 GB RAM on the M3 Pro Mini, but that's unlikely.

(also, you probably dont need 64gb ram but i suppose it wont hurt!)

That's too presumptuous. You might be right, but you have no idea what the OP's RAM needs are. Maybe she's running a VM.

 

[macguru9999]

Agree with waiting until the June WWDC to see if they release an M3 Studio, if the OP wants to go with a Studio.

But I'd be leery of the LG 5k. They seem to have a lot of QC issues, and LG's customer support on these is reportedly not very good.

Also, I don't think there's any way they'd offer an M3 Max Mini. The best you could hope for would be for them to switch to LPDDR5x and offer 64 GB RAM on the M3 Pro Mini, but that's unlikely.


That's too presumptuous. You might be right, but you have no idea what the OP's RAM needs are. Maybe she's running a VM.

Yes thats true, the M3 max would mean waiting for the lower spec M3 studio, but thats coming in the middle of the year, probably. Monitor wise, I have always been happy with Dell 4k offerings myself, but I know others with sharper eyes prefer 5k. RAMwise, the M computers have better virtual memory, so you generally do not need as much. I have an M1pro MBP in clamshell mode and it runs Win 11/Parallels in 16GB ram just fine (but i am not doing much with it). Also , photoshop nearly always uses VM anyways so you could actually see an improvement with M series VM over intel.... just saying.

 

[curnalpanic]

Mac Pro (that you can stuff with internal drives) and an XDR display should tick all off your boxes I believe.

 

[chrono1081]

I own a late 2013 iMac which I love but it’s way past being useful. It has 3 TB of storage, 64 GB of memory and a 3.5 Quad core Intel Core processor. Was VERY fast.

I MUST have at least this much storage, memory and speed in a new Mac. I don’t like using the cloud or attaching storage devices for my files.

What should I buy? 2 options please. 🙏

This is my 5th and last Mac. 👵🏻
Thank you 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏

Thank you. Thank you

Sue

You're not going to need as much ram with an M series chip, not even close. I used to need 64 gigs on my Intel machines and can use a "measily" 16GB on an M series just fine with better results than my intel chips.

You can get silver Macs but Apple straight up said they're not going to make 27 inch iMacs. I'd suggest either a beefed up Mac mini (which are way faster than people realize) or a Mac Studio + display of your choosing.

Or if you want to go the laptop route the MacBook Pro's are fantastic and you could hook one to any monitor and then take it on the go.

 

[theluggage]

I MUST have at least this much storage, memory and speed in a new Mac. I don’t like using the cloud or attaching storage devices for my files.

Short answer, is that the replacement for the higher-end iMacs is a Mac Studio Max or Mac Mini Pro + a Studio Display. C.f. the last 27" iMac, even the original M1 Max Studio was usefully faster, with more I/O bandwidth, than the outgoing 2020 i9 iMac, and the combo was only "more expensive" because the iMac let you upgrade the base 8GB RAM with cheap 3rd party RAM. If you paid Apple prices to upgrade the top-end iMac to 32GB RAM, the cost was spookily similar to the Studio Max + Studio Display combo. If you're coming from a 2013 iMac and haven't been spoiled by a 5k display, you can save a packet by going for a 4k display.

One thing to consider: even if Apple suddenly did a U-turn and released a new, large-screen iMac, we have a pretty clear idea of what the range of stock CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD specs, and the upgrade prices, would be - i.e. the same as any existing Mac with the corresponding processor - and it wouldn't be coming with 64GB and 4TB of SSD as standard.

So, if you look at the M3 Max MacBook Pro, the highest stock model is 36GB/1TB, and upgrading that to 64GB/4TB adds $300 for the CPU bump required to support 64GB RAM, $200 for the RAM and $1000 for the 4TB SSD. Ouch! Please don't shoot the messenger - I'm not defending those upgrade prices, but if you choose to stick with Apple, that's the current reality. It will also influence the cost of any second hand/refurb option you go for.

So it is pretty important to make sure that you really need that 64GB/4TB spec - in 2013, maxing out the RAM with 3rd party modules was a no-brainer, today you have to justify it. Look at "memory pressure" in Activity Monitor: "Memory used" is meaningless - Mac OS will "use" as much RAM as it can find for caches etc. but "Memory Pressure" indicates that the system is doing a lot of swapping etc. and is actually being slowed down by lack of memory - if its staying in the green you can probably get by with less RAM. In terms of SSD size - what is taking up the space? You can hang 4TB of fast, external storage off Thunderbolt or USB 3.1G2 for a fraction of the price of Apple's internal upgrade, and offload photo/music/sample libraries and your data files to it - creating a few aliases on the desktop/user folder makes it transparant. Unless you're editing raw 8k or something, the advantage from Apple's super-fast internal SSDs comes from fast access to the system, temporary files, applications and swap, and 512GB-1TB is plenty for that.

...of course, any modern SSD storage, even external, is going to be night-and-day faster than the mechanical HD/fusion drive on your old iMac, and while Apple Silicon is still slowed down if it runs out of RAM and has to swap to disc (32GB doesn't magically become 64GB) it is far more efficient at swapping, which reduces the impact. Reality is that even a base MacBook Air would probably outperform your old iMac.

As for the screen: a Mini Pro or Studio + Studio Display will give you the closest thing to the "iMac Experience" but a 5k display would be a massive upgrade from the 1440p screen in your iMac. A decent 4k, 27" display at a fraction of the cost will still be better than your old screen, if not quite up to Studio Display standards. There's a lot of FUD about 4k displays from people who like doing A/B comparsions with displays costing 3x as much. There are some issues with fractional scaling which you probably won't notice unless you go hunting (or someone shows you a 4x zoom of a worst-case scenario) but it's important to remember that "looks like 1440p" actually means 5k downsampled to 4k and contains a lot more detail than true 1440p - and it only takes seconds to switch to a true 4k 2:1 or 1:1 mode if you need it.

 

[Suzzzabelle]

The only desktop Macs left for which you can order 64GB of RAM are the Mac Studio and the Mac Pro. The latter is big and very expensive.

You can get a Mac Studio on the Refurb store, with 64GB of RAM, for $3149 in the 4TB SSD model, if you want the older M1 Max processor processor. M2 Max version is newer but very rarely shows up on the Refurb store. A new M2 Max Mac Studio w/ 64GB RAM is only $2179 on the discount store but it only comes with a 512GB SSD and it costs (discount store) $3239 if you want the internal 4TB SSD.

The Mini w/ 32GB RAM is much less expensive, if you can live with less memory.

Many of us expect the Studio and Mini to be moved onto the M3 realm Real Soon Now.

What is “real soon” in Apple language. Lol

 

[theorist9]

If you paid Apple prices to upgrade the top-end iMac to 32GB RAM, the cost was spookily similar to the Studio Max + Studio Display combo.

Yup. I recall running the figures myself.

One thing to consider: even if Apple suddenly did a U-turn and released a new, large-screen iMac, we have a pretty clear idea of what the range of stock CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD specs, and the upgrade prices, would be - i.e. the same as any existing Mac with the corresponding processor - and it wouldn't be coming with 64GB and 4TB of SSD as standard.

They said they wouldn't be releasing a 27" iMac, and I believe them. There are rumors we may be getting a 32" 6k iMac in 2025. If so, it will probably be pricey.

As for the screen: a Mini Pro or Studio + Studio Display will give you the closest thing to the "iMac Experience" but a 5k display would be a massive upgrade from the 1440p screen in your iMac. A decent 4k, 27" display at a fraction of the cost will still be better than your old screen, if not quite up to Studio Display standards. There's a lot of FUD about 4k displays from people who like doing A/B comparsions with displays costing 3x as much. There are some issues with fractional scaling which you probably won't notice unless you go hunting (or someone shows you a 4x zoom of a worst-case scenario) but it's important to remember that "looks like 1440p" actually means 5k downsampled to 4k and contains a lot more detail than true 1440p - and it only takes seconds to switch to a true 4k 2:1 or 1:1 mode if you need it.

Yeah, I also mentioned to the OP that she might be happy with a 4k 27", which run ≈$500, given what she's used to from her 2013 iMac.

But it's too dismissive to say those that significantly prefer a 5k 27" over a 4k 27" are just spreading FUD. I'm one of them. I was happy as a clam with my 4k 27" until Mojave came along, and suddenly I wasn't happy at all, and didn't know why. Then I found out it was because they had abandoned subpixel text rendering. The only solution to restore my happiness (read: having text that looked pleasingly sharp) was to upgrade to a 5k Retina. I now have that as my central display, and have lower-res displays, including my 4k 27", on either side. And I can certainly see the difference. Not because I "like" comparing them, but because the difference is staring me in the face.

It's purely personal preference. Those who see the difference as minor need to understand that other eyes find the difference significant. And those who see the difference as significant need to understand that other eyes find the difference minor.

 

[MajorFubar]

I'm making a massive assumption of your useage here, but just because you needed 64GB RAM in an 11 y/o iMac, doesn't necessarily mean you need the same now in a modern solution. They are not like-for-like comparisons.

A modern Mac Mini with say 16GB RAM will obliterate your antique iMac on every measurable, and you can still kit it out with all the internal storage you need, though the price of doing that will r*pe your wallet at g*npoint down a dark alley. EDIT all you need to buy then is a monitor, can be any size you want. Or even buy two.

 

[theluggage]

The only solution to restore my happiness (read: having text that looked pleasingly sharp) was to upgrade to a 5k Retina.

I'm not suggesting that 5k Retina isn't visibly better than 4k - but it means paying a significant premium and severely limiting your choice w.r.t. other display features.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If you didn't have big storage & RAM needs, I'd point you to many of the same Macs offered above. But since you do, I'll throw out the more radical option: go PC. There's much competition there for upgraded commodity items like RAM & SSD, which drives those costs wayyyyyyyyyy down. There's ZERO competition for those in Mac, so Apple takes full advantage- and then some- as sole, "Company Store" charging 3X-5X market rates for stuff like that.

Not being so resolution finicky, Windows will nicely scale to ANY monitor resolution, so that will also let you off the "5K Retina or bust" train that demands an expensive premium for (minimal competition) 5K monitors. So you can save a LOT of relative cash there too.

PC is about Power vs. PPC. While you won't use the least power possible for select tasks, more power generally means faster computing, so you'll get computing intensive tasks done faster by using more power. Yes, your desktop may run a little hotter, fans may run a little faster, etc... as one should expect when using more power. But the long-term pursuit of computing has always been FASTER computing, not maximum power efficiency. The latter has only popped up among us Apple people as part of the rationale for "why silicon?"... and then Apple wins all such contests when PPC is made out to be a big deal vs. raw power. I notice no difference in the monthly electric bill.

PC will run far more software than Mac. If you have interest in software not available for Mac, you'll likely find it for PC. Much of the Mac stalwarts run on PC too. However, PC also has key Apple apps such as Music, TV, etc, so you can easily move synching of Apple iDevices to PC, managing a big music and/or video collection there, etc.

If there is a few things that only Mac can do, maybe put the heavy lifting stuff (that needs all that RAM & SSD) on a new PC and add perhaps a modestly-equipped Mac Mini or MBair for the Mac apps that have no equivalent.

In embracing Silicon, we lose "bootcamp", which is a tremendous loss for those of us who want Mac but need Windows (too). So when I went Silicon, I added a Mac Mini-like PC too (like this one), which I loaded up with 10TB of FAST SSD and 32GB of RAM (and a good graphics card). The whole thing cost LESS than only the 8TB SSD upgrade at Apple "maximize for shareholders" pricing.

THE COLD HARD NUMBERS PART
Applying OPs hardware target by rounding up to 4TB SSD, Apple's $1200 price for that SSD upgrade alone would buy that entire PC, OP could put in a fast 4TB m.2 drive and the 64GB RAM and still have some money left over for more... plus 2 more SSD slots open for whenever OP would like MORE internal storage. Both parts would be upgradable and/or replaceable at any time in the future should either fail or OP just needs to grow into 8TB SSD... and that computer also offers 2 more empty SSD slots in which OP could fatten up storage many times above the current need (to 24TB internally as soon as NOW). Choose a Mac and need more RAM OR SSD at some point or have either part go bad and OP has to replace the entire computer... exactly what OP is facing now with that iMac.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong: compare that PC with 4TB and 64GB for < $1200 vs. the equivalent config in a Mac... which I think is the minimum Studio MAX with 64GB and 4TB of Apple upgrades at $3599. The only other choice would be MBpro in clamshell mode but that config requires significant upgrades resulting in a $4699 price. So basically, OP can pay about $1200 for a 64GB/4TB PC vs. either $3599 or $4699 for the 2 most accessible Macs that can be configured that way.

Unless I'm missing a cheaper Mac that can be configured with 64GB RAM and 4TB SSD as OP wants, my suggestion might be to shift the heavy lifting to a PC and pair it with maybe a refurb M2 Mac mini with 24GB RAM and 1TB SSD for $1189. Spend $2400 to get BOTH that loaded PC and a pretty good Mac for Apple-specific needs or:

1. spend $3599+ for only a 64GB/4TB Mac new... or
2. refurb Mac Studio with aging M1 for $3149... or a
3. minimal "internal" storage refurb Mac and then buying third party SSD in an external.

The lowest cost option for #3 appears to be a new minimal spec M2 Mac Studio upgraded to 64GB at Apple pricing but only 512GB SSD for $2399... and then paying a couple hundred for a 4TB external SSD on top of that... basically approx. doubling the price of the PC with 4TB SSD and 64GB RAM INSIDE. OP says he doesn't want attached storage, so this cheapest Mac option #3 is barely an option at about TWICE the price. If OP rejects #3, hello nearly 3X the price.

MY OWN iMAC-TO-SILICON+PC EXPERIENCE
When I added a PC to my own Silicon Mac setup, I thought I would use it for Windows-only apps for client work but, over time, I've been giving it more and more to do: the more compute-demanding tasks because Power is faster than PPW.

Contrary to popular spin by fans, Windows 11 is quite good. If you think you'll need some "old fashioned bootcamp" too (as ARM Windows is NOT full Windows), this should influence choice of monitor... likely ruling out ASD in favor of one with at least 2 inputs so it can be used with both platforms. After > 10 years of iMac, I chose the Dell 5K2K 40" ultrawide and it is fannnnnnnntastic! Screen looks as good as the old iMac but it provides so much more screen R.E. It has multiple inputs so both Mac and PC share it... and it can even split screen to have both on screen at the same time. A built-in (loaded) hub can make both share the same keyboard and mouse too.

I'm a 24-year Apple everything guy... but modern Apple Inc is eroding my goodwill/halo view by charging way too much relatively for RAM & SSD, applying too much "lock down" etc. So while it may seem crazy for a long-term Apple guy to suggest consideration for a PC, it's only as crazy as thinking through how much of your "load" could possibly shift to PC and then perhaps putting a modest Mac in place with it for whatever app needs remain... or for a little Apple app polish.

 

[icanhazmac]

I own a late 2013 iMac which I love but it’s way past being useful.

I don't know why you want an iMac in the first place. The screen on your 2013 is still perfectly functional but it will be tossed aside when you upgrade. Just get a mini or studio and an external monitor.

Edit: Or can a 2013 be used in Target Display Mode?

 

[James_C]

I feel your pain, I was holding on to my late 2014 top spec at the time iMac, hoping that Apple would release an Apple Silicon 27” iMac, but gave in last year when they released the M2 Studio’s. I also bought the Studio Display as well. At least now I hopefully will only need to upgrade the Studio in a few years time.

 

[za9ra22]

I feel your pain, I was holding on to my late 2014 top spec at the time iMac, hoping that Apple would release an Apple Silicon 27” iMac, but gave in last year when they released the M2 Studio’s. I also bought the Studio Display as well. At least now I hopefully will only need to upgrade the Studio in a few years time.

I think that's the very benefit of going 'modular', because the one thing you don't really need is to have to switch screens over and over.

That said, I did switch my 27-inch iMac for an M1 24-inch, which I didn't even begin to regret, and that's even before it gave me an excuse to plug in an external second display to house a whole bunch of regularly used stuff such as tool palettes and app windows. Rather easier to work with too since it was no longer like sitting behind a big door.

If I could go back and do it all again, I'd probably wait to replace the 27-inch iMac and get a Studio and two monitors instead. I must say though that the 24-inch iMac is extraordinarily pleasing to use.

 

[picpicmac]

But the long-term pursuit of computing has always been FASTER computing, not maximum power efficiency.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is changing.

The world of computers is changing.

Buying big black/gray/beige boxes with kilowatt power supplies and big noisy fans is a thing of the past.

Intel/AMD/Nvidia are all chasing Apple in the race for lower powered silicon.

The only reasons to buy a Windows machine are 1) your job says you have to, or 2) you just really like Windows.

Since the OP mentioned Macs and their history with such, we presume that is what they want.

 

[vinegarshots]

In case you haven't noticed, the world is changing.

The world of computers is changing.

Buying big black/gray/beige boxes with kilowatt power supplies and big noisy fans is a thing of the past.

Intel/AMD/Nvidia are all chasing Apple in the race for lower powered silicon.

The only reasons to buy a Windows machine are 1) your job says you have to, or 2) you just really like Windows.

Since the OP mentioned Macs and their history with such, we presume that is what they want.

Your opening line there is ironic. Actually both opening lines are ironic.

The funny thing is that Apple made big bets on low-power computing, but they didn't forsee the AI boom that's happening. And it just so happens that training AI requires powerful, incredibly power-hungry PCs. So, big black boxes with kilowatt power supplies are actually NOT a thing of the past. In fact, I just put together a rig that runs off of TWO 1600watt power supplies 😅

The reason to buy a Windows machine is when it does stuff that the Mac can't do. Which is a lot more than you think.

 

[macguru9999]

In case you haven't noticed, the world is changing.

The world of computers is changing.

Buying big black/gray/beige boxes with kilowatt power supplies and big noisy fans is a thing of the past.

Intel/AMD/Nvidia are all chasing Apple in the race for lower powered silicon.

The only reasons to buy a Windows machine are 1) your job says you have to, or 2) you just really like Windows.

Since the OP mentioned Macs and their history with such, we presume that is what they want.

My power bills went down when I switched from mac pro to apple silicon

 

[Chuckeee]

Your opening line there is ironic. Actually both opening lines are ironic.

The funny thing is that Apple made big bets on low-power computing, but they didn't forsee the AI boom that's happening. And it just so happens that training AI requires powerful, incredibly power-hungry PCs. So, big black boxes with kilowatt power supplies are actually NOT a thing of the past. In fact, I just put together a rig that runs off of TWO 1600watt power supplies 😅

And if AI goes bust, you can go back to mining cryptocurrency

 

[za9ra22]

And it just so happens that training AI requires powerful, incredibly power-hungry PCs. So, big black boxes with kilowatt power supplies are actually NOT a thing of the past. In fact, I just put together a rig that runs off of TWO 1600watt power supplies ...

Well, I doubt that there are many regular users who have any interest in 'training AI', and if doing this takes so much power, I suspect the problem is with AI, and not the computer. It's a very narrow use case at best.

The reason to buy a Windows machine is when it does stuff that the Mac can't do. Which is a lot more than you think.

With all due respect, that's about as out of date as the power supplies. There's a whole lot more choice of software, certainly, but much is not that good. And for mainstream use, there is not much at all that can be done in Windows that can't in macOS. In macOS though, you get some quite interesting serious-hobbyist software right out of the box.

 

[theorist9]

The only reasons to buy a Windows machine are 1) your job says you have to, or 2) you just really like Windows.

Or:

3) The actual substance of your work precludes MacOS, which is qualitatively different from #1. Examples include scientists needing NVIDIA/CUDA, and engineers needing Ansys, CATIA, or COMSOL.

4) The amount of RAM and/or internal storage your use cases require would put you at the top end of what AS Macs offer, and your budget doesn't allow for that.

5) Your use cases require more RAM than the 192 GB max available with AS Macs.

6) You're a serious gamer.

 

[vinegarshots]

Well, I doubt that there are many regular users who have any interest in 'training AI', and if doing this takes so much power, I suspect the problem is with AI, and not the computer. It's a very narrow use case at best.


With all due respect, that's about as out of date as the power supplies. There's a whole lot more choice of software, certainly, but much is not that good. And for mainstream use, there is not much at all that can be done in Windows that can't in macOS. In macOS though, you get some quite interesting serious-hobbyist software right out of the box.

You sound like someone who is very inexperienced with computers. I've used both MacOS and Windows extensively. Have you?