Max £1500 on a 4K - where's the sweetspot?

[Jonny1989]

Although my iMac is mid2010 model I think it can hold on for another year, i'll buy buying option 2 but getting 32gb ram and smaller SSD with an external hdd.

 

[kmpowell]

Popped into John Lewis this morning to look at the 4K screen. The 4K was sat directly next to the 5K, and I explained to the Mrs about the size dilemma. Out of the blue and without hesitation she said "get a 27, it's so much nicer, we can just buy a new desk for the spare room!". So with that in mind I'm going to close this thread, and start a new "sweetspot" thread.

Thanks so much for everybody's input. The 4K was always going to be a compromise, and you were right.

 

[bent christian]

Look at the OP's case. 2007 iMac still in use today. Would you rather pay less and had the computer soldered with 2 GB of ram for all these years or would you rather pay extra money to have 4 GB soldered in? (I'm using an analogy of the ram not being upgradable in 2007 like today). I don't think many people today would say he wasted his money on having the extra ram all these years.

These are not analogous. There is only so much power that is necessary for watching MP4 video, looking at photos, Internetting, using Microsoft Word, etc. 2GB is probably barely enough for Internet use, yet four is plenty. Even today. It will be enough tomorrow. It might still be enough power in five years.

Why are we still using dual core and quad core processors? The basic technology is at least ten years old. That's a lifetime in Computerworld. Why are we not using eight cores?

Because it's unnecessary. Manufacturers sell dual core and quad core processors because people buy them. They haven't moved past this basic architecture, because the demand does not exist. We are reaching a point at which computer systems are beginning to plateau. People should become accustomed to that idea. Others will continue to waste their money, as is their right.