Skip to Content

Five reasons why I still like the iMac

I'm about to buy a new iMac to replace the 20" that's been gracing my desktop since the Intel iMacs first arrived on the scene back in 2006. It's still a pretty good machine, with a 2 GHz Intel Core Duo CPU and 2 GB of RAM, but it's been somewhat sluggish for me lately and I want to replace it with something with a bit more horsepower. It's not that it's getting slower, but some of the apps I'm using on the iMac are severely taxing its capabilities and the 20" display is too small.

When I expressed my desire for a 27" Quad-Core iMac last week, a couple of my TUAW cohorts wondered why. Several asked why I didn't just get one of the new i5 or i7 MacBook Pros, while another said I should just go out and purchase a Mac mini and a good cheap 27" display. But no, I still like the iMac. While I really don't need to justify my personal purchasing decisions to my co-workers, I thought this might make good fodder for a post about an Apple product that doesn't get a lot of attention these days.
When I thought about it, my reasoning boiled down to five main points:

It looks good
: Thank you, Jonathan Ive, for making the iMac sexier as it gets older. The iMac has gone from hideous bright translucent color plastic to the first flatscreen G4 models, then to the white plastic all-in-ones to the current aluminum and glass models. The displays have become better over the years, with the 27" LED-backlit screen being the latest example of Apple's display prowess (initial manufacturing glitches notwithstanding). The thought of having that gorgeous aluminum slab sitting on my desktop has actually motivated me to do something I haven't done in years -- clean my desk!

Nice to have everything in one box:
One thing I loved about my original 512K Mac was that everything was in one box. You picked it up by the built-in handle, and you could stack the chunky keyboard and mouse on top for an easy two-handed carry. When Apple got into the weird years in the early 90s, we all had a box -- the computer -- and a display sitting on top or to the side of it. The iMac brought the concept of all-in-one computers back to desktop machines. When I have to move an iMac, I don't have to worry about unplugging a monitor and moving it separately. I just unplug any USB and Firewire cables I have jammed into the ports on the back of the iMac and pick it up. In that respect, the iMac is very much the desktop equivalent of a laptop.

I want to get down to two devices -- iMac and iPad: I'm serious about this, and I'm moving in this direction. I don't feel that I need a laptop computer for my mobile work anymore. Instead, I will use the iMac for most of my writing, video, and photography work, and opt to use the iPad when I'm not in my office. If I need to use some of my "real business apps" when I'm bound to the iPad, I just use iTeleport or LogMeIn Free (still trying to decide which one I like the best) to control my existing iMac. Sure, it'll be interesting to crunch that 27" display onto the 9.7" iPad display, but I'm used to scrolling around my 20" iMac on the iPad so there shouldn't be too much of a learning curve.

Faster and cheaper than a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro:
The 27" Quad-Core 2.8 GHz Intel i7 iMac that I have my eye on will dent my wallet to the tune of about $2,568, including AppleCare, 1 TB of storage, and 8 GB of RAM. A Mac Pro with a single 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor, AppleCare, 1 TB of storage, 8 GB of RAM, and a 24" Cinema Display would cost me about $4,087. If I wanted to go with a 17" MacBook Pro as my primary machine (I don't, as I want more screen space than I currently have), I could get the new 2.66 GHz i7 model and add AppleCare, get the 500 GB drive (1 TB isn't available), and install 8 GB of RAM. The total? $3,248.

Lots of real estate on that screen: That's my biggest reason for wanting the 27". Especially when I'm setting up my weekly TUAW TV Live show, I'm very constrained by the 20" screen I have right now. Erica Sadun thought I should go with a Mac mini and then buy an inexpensive 27" monitor. While that would be less expensive than the iMac solution, it doesn't give me a top-of-the-line CPU or that all-in-one design that I like so much. When I buy desktop machines, I expect them to last me at least four years, and by 2014 I don't think I'll be happy with the 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor that's currently the fastest in the mini.

While it has been overshadowed by its flashier portable cousins in the MacBook family and isn't the computer of choice for professional designers (who all seem to flock to the Mac Pro), the iMac still has a lot of life left in it.

Before I get a lot of comments telling me that I'm insane to want an iMac, just remember that every person has their own set of personal requirements. What's right for me probably isn't going to work for you, and vice-versa. All I know is that I'm going to enjoy all that screen space and speed in a few weeks.

Categories

iMac

I'm about to buy a new iMac to replace the 20" that's been gracing my desktop since the Intel iMacs first arrived on the scene back in...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

102 Comments

Filter by:
Loren

What should I do? Please please please help, should I get the iMac now or wait for a refresh? Mac buyers guide says to wait but the refurb iMacs are on sale for a limited time right now and cheaper than buying new! What could be in a refreshed iMac? Is it worth it? What month would they refresh? if not newer processor then maybe 30" screen, more ports, faster gpu, etc?

May 03 2010 at 11:51 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
henk

I was torn too between the mini with the separate 24", keyboard and mouse and the 27" i7 iMac.

When I configure both systems with 4GB and a 2.66 Ghz CPU, they come out at nearly exactly the same price (~$1950). For that money, the iMac has a larger screen with a higher resolution, 2 extra cores on a CPU that's a complete generation newer (i7 vs C2D), a better GPU and more options for memory expansion.

At this price point it's almost silly. How can the less powerful computer be exactly the same price as the more powerful one from the same brand? It's quite hard to think of any situation where it would be worthwhile to buy a complete new system based on the mini. Although I love the look of the mini, it's pricing is just ridiculous compared to the iMac. Either the iMac is too cheap, or the mini is too expensive. But currently, it just doesn't make sense.

The only semi sensible scenario would be if you already had the screen, mouse and keyboard and wanted to re-use them. Truth be told, this actually IS the scenario Apple advertised the mini with. You could see the iMac as a kind of discount for buying both the computer, screen, keyboard and mouse at the same time. On the other hand, the could offer the same 'discount' when you buy exactly that combination of hardware based on the mini.

Thus, in parts the mini + 24" + keyboard + mouse is ~$1950, but when all bought together it would be say $1400. -that- would be a somewhat okay deal...

May 01 2010 at 4:19 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
homan2

iMac i7 + iDevice + Logmein Ignition + Dropbox = quad core in your pocket.

April 21 2010 at 1:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mikebikemusic

Each iMac I've bought lasted 5 years - still functional, just either slow or won't run newer software/OS. The PCs at work need an upgrade every 2-3 years. That makes the Mac cost half to own.

I upgraded from a G5 to the 27" iMac i5 in November, and I can't imagine it being obsolete 5 years from now - but I know it will.

Reason 6: It screams. Barely uses 2% CPU for most apps.
Reason 7: It's quiet!!! Even when I run the occasional multithreaded 370% CPU apps.

It feels like I have two monitors. If my wife didn't already have a MacBook, I'd get an iPad, but for now, the iPod Touch fits in my pocket and satisfies my mobile needs.

April 20 2010 at 1:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dano

Thanks for the article - I completely agree w/ you. I've been in a similar self-debate and have come to the same conclusion - the 27" iMac is simply the best value out there, and is the only machine that could replace my 24" white 2.33GHz "fatboy".

April 20 2010 at 6:55 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Loren

The appeal is pretty basic. Huge beautiful screen and and high performance computer in a thin profile. No need to bother with parts and components beyond plugnplay USB. Easy. An appliance that makes sense for people who appreciate its simplicity and power.

This goes against your idea of a computer which you must have access to its internals at all times so that you can administrate and maintain it to your specific technical tweaks. A lot of people just don't care for that.

I think your real problem here is with the concept of a computer as an appliance.

April 20 2010 at 1:19 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jeff

"I want to get down to two devices -- iMac and iPad:"

Agreed. Having an iMac and now an iPad, I will make the bold statement and say that I will never buy a laptop in my lifetime. Unless you need a ton of mobile power, and I'd venture to say that the majority of the people buying laptops these days do not, a tablet (Apple or otherwise) makes much more sense.

April 19 2010 at 9:50 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
sodajerk

If you end up going with a MacBook Pro or MacMini and find yourself in a quandary for a large monitor, here's some advice: Don't settle for 1080 resolution for anything larger than 20".

I recently purchased a Samsung 27" monitor for my MacBook Pro after struggling with my CAD (Architecture) software on the laptop's 15" screen. When sitting 18" - 24" away from the monitor, at that size, it just doesn't cut it. Actually is was ok for CAD but web text and photo editing was just too blurry. I took the monitor back and purchased a refurbished 24" LED Apple Cinema with a resolution of 1200. This monitor is sweeeeet!

April 19 2010 at 8:16 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jonathan

I wish I could get a 27 iMac, but I need the mobility and power on the go, plus my wife wants my 13 Macbook. If only I could do real web design work on the iPad!!

April 19 2010 at 8:08 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Brewstermax

I personally own both a Macbook, iPad, and iPhone, and they are far from mutually exclusive. I use all equally for their own suitable uses. MacBook is my portable powerhouse. It can handle everything I throw at it, and is good for viewing and doing several things simultaneously. iPad is great for relaxing away from my work area, and is sufficient for many basic tasks and games. iPhone needs no justification. I couldn't live without it period.

April 19 2010 at 6:56 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.