New Apple iMac - I want one, but how can I get a discount?

Leopard

But the £949 iMac to which you refer has only a fixed 20" display (which is nastily glossy and reflective :mad: ) whereas the BenQ monitor has a magnificent 24" (matte ) display which is adjustable and which also pivots.

I know which I'd far prefer (even though the mini comes with no keyboard or mouse - which would eliminate the £18 price advantage of this combination).

Comparing like with like, however, in terms of display size, the 24" iMac costs, as you pointed out earlier, £1,199.

Which is £269 more expensive than the Mac mini + 24" BenQ combination.

More important, economically, is the fact that the BenQ monitor is likely far to outlive the ever eroding sufficiency of the iMac as operating systems and performance requirements (of all computers) advance. The £620 Mac mini would eventually become obsolete, along with the £1,199 iMac: which investment would you rather bin, in five years time?

The BenQ monitor, however, would live on - attached to a newer computer. (As I fully expect my 30" Hewlett-Packard monitor to do.)

Although it may have a somewhat more powerful CPU, the iMac - to me - is a hopelessly compromised alternative.

I'm thinking, incidentally, of buying a new Mac mini (with 2.26 GHz CPU). The HP LP3065 monitor that I have provides 3 dual-DVI (HDCP-compliant) inputs - which is extremely handy. The mini (now that it comes with Firewire 800) could take the load off the poor MacBook Pro that I use as a desktop with everything plugged into it.

This, for £620, would free up a £1,600 laptop.

I had previously been considering the purchase of a Mac-hackable PC desktop to perform routine tasks such as emailing, word-processing, spreadsheets and surfing (in Mac OS X). But the mini (now) is a more appealing solution.

If I were to park the MacBook Pro in a Bookendz, attached to one of the HP 30" monitor's dual-DVI ports, and attach a mini to one of its two others, I could switch instantly between the two of them, depending upon what task(s) I want to perform. And doing this would prolong the working life (and value) of my MacBook Pro.

Marty_J

Leopard wrote: »

But the £949 iMac to which you refer has only a fixed 20" display (which is nastily glossy and reflective :mad: ) whereas the BenQ monitor has a magnificent 24" (matte ) display which is adjustable and which also pivots.

I know which I'd far prefer (even though the mini comes with no keyboard or mouse - which would eliminate the £18 price advantage of this combination).

Comparing like with like, however, in terms of display size, the 24" iMac costs, as you pointed out earlier, £1,199.

Which is £269 more expensive than the Mac mini + 24" BenQ combination.

Ah, but you're not comparing like with like. A Mac Mini with a 320 GB HDD (which is half the size of the 24-inch iMac's 640 GB HDD), a 2.26 GHz processor (still slower than the iMac's, not that it really makes much difference) and an Apple keyboard and mouse actually comes to £831. Add your Benq monitor on and that brings the total to £1143.

The 24 inch iMac also comes with 4 GB of RAM. Let's assume that the OP is competent enough to disassemble the Mac Mini in order to install the RAM, and so can buy from Crucial. 2 GB is about £25, bringing the total to £1163 (buying the RAM from Apple incidentally, if the OP isn't mechanically inclined, brings the total to £1223).

So, they'd either be saving £36, or spending £24 more.

More important, economically, is the fact that the BenQ monitor is likely far to outlive the ever eroding sufficiency of the iMac as operating systems and performance requirements (of all computers) advance. The £620 Mac mini would eventually become obsolete, along with the £1,199 iMac: which investment would you rather bin, in five years time?


The BenQ monitor, however, would live on - attached to a newer computer. (As I fully expect my 30" Hewlett-Packard monitor to do.)

Although it may have a somewhat more powerful CPU, the iMac - to me - is a hopelessly compromised alternative.

Well, that remains to be seen. One could employ the same argument for not choosing a laptop.

I'm thinking, incidentally, of buying a new Mac mini (with 2.26 GHz CPU). The HP LP3065 monitor that I have provides 3 dual-DVI (HDCP-compliant) inputs - which is extremely handy. The mini (now that it comes with Firewire 800) could take the load off the poor MacBook Pro that I use as a desktop with everything plugged into it.

This, for £620, would free up a £1,600 laptop.

I had previously been considering the purchase of a Mac-hackable PC desktop to perform routine tasks such as emailing, word-processing, spreadsheets and surfing (in Mac OS X). But the mini (now) is a more appealing solution.

If I were to park the MacBook Pro in a Bookendz, attached to one of the HP 30" monitor's dual-DVI ports, and attach a mini to one of its two others, I could switch instantly between the two of them, depending upon what task(s) I want to perform. And doing this would prolong the working life (and value) of my MacBook Pro.

Do you really need the 2.26 GHz processor option? I don't know what you'd be doing with the Mac Mini, but most people wouldn't notice a speed increase that small, and the £120 you'd save could be more usefully employed elsewhere.

Ad-Hoc

Discounts

Have a quiet word with your local postman/woman they get upto 17% off Apple products, if you go down the mac-mini + monitor route then upto 25% off Hewlett Packard, discounts available on Samsung as well but depends on whats available.



Ad-Hoc

Marty_J

Leopard wrote: »

To be honest, Red Nose Day 'n all, I was being a little mischievous...

I wanted to see if anyone would spot that a Mac mini can't support a 30" monitor (and comes with a 5,400 rpm hard drive).

Nevertheless... a 2.26 GHz Mac mini - 120 GB version - running off a 500 GB 7,200 rpm external drive through Firewire 800, with 4 GB of RAM and a BenQ FP241W monitor would be a seriously nice combination, unless you need killer graphics: I'd prefer it to an iMac.

Ah...lol.....sneaky!

The Mini can output 2560 by 1600; I have no idea what resolution a 30-inch monitor is.

I don't know what I'm going to do with my iMac when it kicks the bucket. The G3 iMac used to make a pretty good fish tank, but alas, they're too thin for that now.

Maybe an ant farm?

KimYeovil

Millionaire wrote: »

I know, but early performance indications show not much difference between the 2. Atheistically its identical.

I know the Apple fans like their Mr Jobs but I don't think they worship him to that extent. A close thing, admittedly.

Leopard

Marty_J wrote: »

Ah...lol.....sneaky!

The Mini can output 2560 by 1600; I have no idea what resolution a 30-inch monitor is.

I don't know what I'm going to do with my iMac when it kicks the bucket. The G3 iMac used to make a pretty good fish tank, but alas, they're too thin for that now.

Maybe an ant farm?

Nice one, too, matey!

Actually, that joke's on Apple. The 30" does display at 2560 x 1600 but Apple U.K.'s web page for it shows it as being unsupported by the Mac mini. Yet the Mac mini is listed, at some length, as being capable of supporting 2560 x 1600 through dual-DVI.

Maybe they were having a Red Wine Day, instead.

Looks like I should become a greater friend of my postman, anyway!