iMac - worth it?

Zola.

Looking at imacs on - http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/imac/desktop-pcs/desktop-pcs/317_3055_30057_xx_ba00010707-bv00308584/xx_xx_xx_xx_5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-criteria.html

Mainly used for Photography, graphic design and web development.

They are expensive but thinking it would be more portable than a PC, easy fitting in our living room, but more powerful than a laptop...

missile

I love my iMac.

However if you have a TV in your living room(?) you could connect via HDMI or cast from a laptop to the TV.

Lap tops are much more powerful than they once were.

Zola.

I have the full Adobe Creative Suite package through work on my work pc, but I can also use this when I am at home. The package covers a licence of two machines, so long as they are both not logged in at once.

We only have one TV in the house. I like the thought of working in the living room, at the dining table whilst my partner can watch tv or whatever at the other end of the room. Dont really have space or putting it in the bedrooms.

jshm2

iMac's are rarely worth it. It's really just a premium branded AIO running Mac OSX. You're far better getting a real PC instead.

You do not need a Mac for web development (quite the opposite) For photography and graphic design unless you're used to Mac software there is nothing that cannot be done better elsewhere.

If you're after portability then Mac is not the way to go. Get yourself a 17" laptop with dedicated 970M Nvidia or R9 card instead.

But even there if you're an amateur then you do not need that power and could make do with a i5 or A10 laptop instead.

System

Wow a whole lot of ignorance in this thread. The one reason to get an iMac is the screen, particularly its colour accuracy. You're spending north of £700 to get a monitor for a PC with a screen with a similar colour accuracy. Factor in £700+ for an IPS monitor with a Delta E below 1 and accurate gamma tracking instead of an £89 Ebuyer VN panel below 1000:1 contrast special which goes inverted colours when looking at it at any angle when speccing a PC and all of a sudden iMacs don't start to look that expensive.

If you're doing graphic design and photography unlike DavidP24's vastly incorrect post your number 1 priority isn't software, its image quality and in particular colour accuracy.

Not one person commenting in this thread has the first clue of what is important when it comes to a computer for doing graphic design and photography because not one single one of them has mentioned the screen quality.

knightstyle

Don't forget to check prices on Apple UK refurbished and your local dealer for ex display models. DS has several Macs for his business, similar requirements to you and after many years will not consider anything else.

20aday

Personally I have a second hand mid-2015 iMac 27" model purchased by eBay.

Yes they aren't money saving and granted sometimes the specifications can be bettered elsewhere but I do like the colour accuracy of my screen and the level of detail.

If I'm to add my opinion I'd personally wait (if you can) as the last model was launched in October 2014; Apple are "rumoured" to be launching some newer models later on in the year.

If the latest and greatest specs aren't overly important to you OP then you may bag yourself a "bargain".

It's worth pointing out the RAM in the 21.5" models is soldered to the motherboard and not user-replacable.

jshm2

Tarambor wrote: »

Wow a whole lot of ignorance in this thread. The one reason to get an iMac is the screen, particularly its colour accuracy. You're spending north of £700 to get a monitor for a PC with a screen with a similar colour accuracy. Factor in £700+ for an IPS monitor with a Delta E below 1 and accurate gamma tracking instead of an £89 Ebuyer VN panel below 1000:1 contrast special which goes inverted colours when looking at it at any angle when speccing a PC and all of a sudden iMacs don't start to look that expensive.

If you're doing graphic design and photography unlike DavidP24's vastly incorrect post your number 1 priority isn't software, its image quality and in particular colour accuracy.

Not one person commenting in this thread has the first clue of what is important when it comes to a computer for doing graphic design and photography because not one single one of them has mentioned the screen quality.

Seems you're among those who have no clue and a bit of a Apple fanboy to boot. A Mac screen like most other laptop screens are made by LG or Samsung. You can buy better colour accuracy screens for real laptops in many models depending on their market.

But screen estate and graphics capability is important, especially if you're not using Mac software or a Mac machine. You're not going to do much with colour if the machine is lagging in processing the graphics.

I doubt OP is looking at high end photography to require a HP Dreamcolor screen. Hence no one has bothered to mention what you're on about.

thescouselander

I've used Macs for years (and I'm typing this on one) but the attraction is wearing off for me now. OSX hasn't had any real updates to it for years and is now feeling quite dated in comparison to the latest iterations of Windows. To me it's clear Apple are concentrating on their mobile platforms (Phones etc) at the expense of their computer platforms and I cant see how they can continue to justify the (currently increasing) premium for their machines. I wont be buying Apple when my current computer is due for a change.

zagubov

Zola. wrote: »

I have the full Adobe Creative Suite package through work on my work pc, but I can also use this when I am at home. The package covers a licence of two machines, so long as they are both not logged in at once.

We only have one TV in the house. I like the thought of working in the living room, at the dining table whilst my partner can watch tv or whatever at the other end of the room. Dont really have space or putting it in the bedrooms.

OP, you've presumably got a Windows version of the Adobe Suite. You'd need to find out if you're automatically entitled to the mac version for your new imac. If not, you'd maybe be better off getting a windows laptop.

I'm a big fan of macs but their new ones aren't great value (although if you've a family member involved in education, you can get a discount). I'd always recommend getting a secondhand one refurbished on ebay or from apple themselves.

I'm not upgrading to the latest OSX version as invariably some software stops working and needs expensive replacement.

System

jshm2 wrote: »

Seems you're among those who have no clue and a bit of a Apple fanboy to boot. A Mac screen like most other laptop screens are made by LG or Samsung. You can buy better colour accuracy screens for real laptops in many models depending on their market.

I'm a systems technician and I work on Windows, Linux and OSX. I spend all day working with computers on both hardware and software levels I expect WAY above what you do. Quite clearly you don't know of what you speak and seem to be one of those thickos who think that all panels are made equal by a manufacturer. They're not or even close because if they were then you'd get the same picture quality from an entry level Samsung TV as you would a top end one but you don't or anywhere close. The panels used in the iMac are the same panels used in the Dell U27xx range and in both cases they're very well calibrated at the factory for colour accuracy which is why I know that an equivalent quality and calibrated screen for a PC is going to be north of £700. Whilst you can buy SOME laptops, usually those north of £1000, with screens CAPABLE of equivalent colour accuracy they tend not to be calibrated as well out of the factory. Why? Well if you want to get your TV calibrated by a professional using a colorimeter you're going to be paying £250 upwards.

So what it boils down to is that if you're doing graphic design or photography work you're either going with an iMac or you're buying one of the previously mentioned Dell u27 series monitors or you're paying someone £250 to calibrate what you have.