Apple / Mac new hardware discussion

[fuse]

I'm aware of a couple of forumites who share this perversion and are forced underground to discuss this in quiet corners away from suspecting eyes, so consider this a rallying cry to anyone else who has forsaken the call of the mighty PC. Are there other keen Mac users around? What are you using, and do you like it? Eyeing an upgrade? Waiting for a particular announcement?

My current system is a 27" iMac that's from 2013 and while I've loved using it, there's no hiding that it is on its very last legs. I've been waiting for an M1/M2 machine in the same size as while they are nice, I don't want to drop to a 24" display instead. Given new 27" iMacs remain very much in rumour territory, the announcement of new M2 Mac Minis today presents a whole set of new dilemmas. Do I abandon waiting for the iMac, if so what spec, and then comes the question of whether a 5K display worth the extra over a 4K one...

I am open to thoughts and comments but I would also like to set the following ground rules. I am fully aware of the following:

• Windows is better
• PCs are better value
• Mac users are elitist
• You can't spend a grand to stick a new graphics card in them
• Macs don't have RGB lighting
• PCs are far more phallic

Ok now I'm reverse trolling, but you get my point. Please leave us strange folk be with our inferior computers.

[QualityChimp]

Any unhelpful posts are going to be deleted.
Please stay on-topic in the Get Answers section.

Cheers in advance.

[Lebowski]

it really feels like their is a hole in the market for the Pro Imac, we just purchased two new Mac Studios, one has a studio display where as the other has a really nicely reviewed 4k monitor, that was half the price, (it felt a bit extravagant getting two mac studio displays)

We have had imacs, before but apple only doing an £1200+ under powered 24inch model is what forced us to go the mac studio route, starting at £2000 a machine without a display is hard to justify but when your getting a tiny machine that can out render a top of the range 4090 on final cut pro, then i suppose it makes sense why they cost so much.

[Brad]

I'd just add, check that you can actually use the resolution of the display. My work MacBook Pro has a pretty high res display but essentially makes me use it as though it's about 1440x900 by doubling up pixels to make the display look nice. It does look nice but I'd give that up for more data on the screen. When hooked to my 1440p ThinkVision it does utilise all the pixels though so I'm not sure what the criteria is. Also, maybe you don't care but I saw you mentioned 5k and that sounds like a candidate for superscaling shenanigans!

[MartyG]

I use a Macbook Air 2017 as my everyday laptop, though I have been considering changing this to a used M1 - I initially got it as it was very lightweight and had superb battery life, although there are equivalent Windows laptops now with regards to the battery life.

If you like the OS then why not - I have access to Linux, Windows, and Apple OS, so I'm not restricted and that would really be my major misgiving with being wall-gardened into Apple's ecosystem (that and overpriced hardware upgrades and support), and if you're gaming then you are at a disadvantage.

OS restrictions aside, it just comes down to which you prefer to use, they all do the same job ultimately. I just wouldn't run a Mac as my main gaming rig.

[wakka]

*waves* Mac pervert checking in.

I've liked Macs since I first started using PowerPC ones in the early 2000s. Nowadays I'm self employed and my computer is primarily a work machine first, general personal computing machine second, and an entertainment device a distant third, so gaming is not really a consideration in my computer purchases (happily, or Macs wouldn't be an option!).

I currently use a 14" MacBook Pro with an M1 Pro chip, which I went and bought at the Apple Store the day it came out like a big dork. GOAT laptop, imo. It rocks.

Anyway, @fuse, to your quandary, my thoughts:

- The base spec M2 Mac mini will be perfectly equal to your needs in terms of general personal computing for many years.

- However, the M2 Pro will give you more options, longer term, for tinkering about with emulators and the few Mac-compatible games that are out there (I'm not much for playing games at a desk, personally, but I do find that cursor-driven games work a lot better at a desk with a mouse - and these types of games do coincidentally seem to be the ones that get most readily ported to macOS). Plus it's fun to tinker around with stuff like emulators, more of which do seem to be trickling out for Macs these days, and the Pro chip will give you better performance on them.

- On the other hand, the M2 Pro is £750 more. Which is a major, major chunk of change. At least, if you weren't already going to upgrade the internal storage and RAM (if you were, the Pro is an easier choice since it's £350 more than a base M2 with doubled RAM and storage).

- Displays wise, the Studio Display is clearly really nice. But it's £1500, which is a lot for something for casual use. Maybe worth it if it's in your living room or something and you want something that's going to look really slick, though. A cheaper 5K option is the LG Ultrafine 27" 5K, which is £900. That's not going to be a million miles away in performance, but it looks like a basic ass black plastic PC monitor. You may care about that, or you may not!

- When you consider 27" 4K displays, obviously the options are practically infinite. But you won't get quite the same level of pixel density. With that said, when we discussed this before, I assumed your current iMac was already a 5K display model. Since it's a 2013, it's only got 1440p. So even a 4K 27" is going to provide a major uplift in pixel density.

Basically you have a ton of options ranging from a base Mac mini at £649 with a £300 Dell/LG/etc 27" 4K monitor (total £949) up to an M1 Pro mini at £1399 with a Studio Display (total £2900).

Kind of a fun problem to have though?

I'd just add, check that you can actually use the resolution of the display. My work MacBook Pro has a pretty high res display but essentially makes me use it as though it's about 1440x900 by doubling up pixels to make the display look nice. It does look nice but I'd give that up for more data on the screen. When hooked to my 1440p ThinkVision it does utilise all the pixels though so I'm not sure what the criteria is. Also, maybe you don't care but I saw you mentioned 5k and that sounds like a candidate for superscaling shenanigans!

See, the thing is, I like the superscaling shenanigans!

I deliberately sourced a 24" 4K monitor, which by default on macOS runs with everything sized to 1080p. Everything looks super detailed and rich. I spend most of my day looking at text, which looks much smoother when pixel doubled, so it's preferable to having everything sized to native resolution to me.

By the way, you should be able to use a third party tool to achieve the resolution usage you want. I haven't used one in donkey's years but the software that springs to mind is SwitchResX. A quick google reveals it's still around so maybe look into that.

[Brad]

[MENTION=5490]wakka[/MENTION] I'd just like the option. It's apple's worst 'thing' they do: we know best attitude. Good luck [MENTION=3822]fuse[/MENTION]!

[wakka]

Agreed. They should allow you to manually select it from system preferences.

[kryss]

we know best attitude

I think this is where my hate stems from. The devices work like a treat, it's the turtleneck wearing owners who also adopt the same attitude that get on my tits.

See, I can behave.

[CMcK]

Must admit I do like the super scaling too. My antique Mac mini is hooked up to my 4K TV and the text is rendered beautifully. Shame it’s only at 30 Hz. Might be time to look into a M2 based replacement.

[fuse]

Everyone's been very helpful and now I look like a jerk, but that is my cross to bear. Thanks for all the thoughts!

it really feels like their is a hole in the market for the Pro Imac, we just purchased two new Mac Studios, one has a studio display where as the other has a really nicely reviewed 4k monitor, that was half the price, (it felt a bit extravagant getting two mac studio displays)

We have had imacs, before but apple only doing an £1200+ under powered 24inch model is what forced us to go the mac studio route, starting at £2000 a machine without a display is hard to justify but when your getting a tiny machine that can out render a top of the range 4090 on final cut pro, then i suppose it makes sense why they cost so much.

I watched the Studio launch event and was coveting one so hard, but unlike what you're describing here, I just don't have the use case for something with that much heft! Dent in wallet aside, how do you find the Studio Display?

- However, the M2 Pro will give you more options, longer term, for tinkering about with emulators and the few Mac-compatible games that are out there (I'm not much for playing games at a desk, personally, but I do find that cursor-driven games work a lot better at a desk with a mouse - and these types of games do coincidentally seem to be the ones that get most readily ported to macOS). Plus it's fun to tinker around with stuff like emulators, more of which do seem to be trickling out for Macs these days, and the Pro chip will give you better performance on them.

- On the other hand, the M2 Pro is £750 more. Which is a major, major chunk of change. At least, if you weren't already going to upgrade the internal storage and RAM (if you were, the Pro is an easier choice since it's £350 more than a base M2 with doubled RAM and storage).

I think it's this line of thinking that's convinced me to stump for the Pro model. I've got some money sat in a reward program thing through work which I'm *hoping* should just about cover this, but I have to wait for the catalogue to update with the new bits before I can know for sure - it's relatively up to date, just not 'same day as Apple' up to date.

- Displays wise, the Studio Display is clearly really nice. But it's £1500, which is a lot for something for casual use. Maybe worth it if it's in your living room or something and you want something that's going to look really slick, though. A cheaper 5K option is the LG Ultrafine 27" 5K, which is £900. That's not going to be a million miles away in performance, but it looks like a basic ass black plastic PC monitor. You may care about that, or you may not!

- When you consider 27" 4K displays, obviously the options are practically infinite. But you won't get quite the same level of pixel density. With that said, when we discussed this before, I assumed your current iMac was already a 5K display model. Since it's a 2013, it's only got 1440p. So even a 4K 27" is going to provide a major uplift in pixel density.

It's going in an office where there's already a fairly generic looking laptop & monitor setup, so I'm not too put off by the looks of the LG one. I'm thinking if I did go that route I'd probably also VESA mount it and stick it on an arm too, which makes it a bit more functional but also takes the stand out of the equation too. I'd love the Apple display but just as with the Mac Studio, I would agree it is overkill. I did some digging and saw that the LG 5K job was down to £750 at Costco in December - gutted.

[Lebowski]

Everyone's been very helpful and now I look like a jerk, but that is my cross to bear. Thanks for all the thoughts!


I watched the Studio launch event and was coveting one so hard, but unlike what you're describing here, I just don't have the use case for something with that much heft! Dent in wallet aside, how do you find the Studio Display?

The studio display is amazing, and the build quality of it is right up their with what you'd expect from Apple, I'm not sure if i would purchase one for home unless i was freelancing again, but for a screen that I'm using 40+ hours a week and will be in use for a good long time its worth the cost, Most of the rest of the office use Dell pcs,with bog standard cheap Hannspree monitors and when you go look at something on someone elses screen its super noticeable, Im not sure how office PC users put up with such dull blurry screens. comparing it to the mid range Dell 4k monitor we got for our secondary mac its night and day too, you go to a quite plastic looking build with colour representation that's just not as accurate as the the apple display.

I had to go to the apple store in Manchester to get the Mac studio as anything but the base model is really tricky to come by at the moment, we where waiting a good six months for one to show up before i got an alert that the Manchester shop had got one in, was super nervous carrying 4ks worth of computer through Manchester city center.

[wakka]

I would feel like such a boss walking out of an Apple Store with a Mac Studio with an Ultra chip

@fuse All makes sense. Certainly with a Pro chip you'd be all set for anything you might want to do gaming-wise for a long while, as the most demanding AAA games don't come to Mac anyway (and you'd probably rather play them on PS5 - or at least, I would, and I think you might be the same). And 16GB RAM and 512GB storage are def worth having, as well.

Annoying about the Costco £750 deal on the Ultrafine - that was a good offer.

I would just add that if you are looking to VESA mounting, I'm not sure if you've spotted but there is an option to order a VESA version of the Studio Display from Apple directly. The only caveat is that having made that decision, you are locked in - no way to add the official stand in future. And likewise, if you buy the version that comes with the stand, it can never be removed to convert the display to a VESA version.

EDIT: Actually coming back to this...I think I might be wrong on my last point. I remember reading that Apple Stores can add/remove Studio Display stands for a fee. But it's not something they particularly market and I don't know what they charge for this service.

[fuse]

Either way that sounds like a pain with the Apple option. Great work highlighting it though, another plus for the cheaper option

Your reminder of the storage is another thing I'm slightly stuck on. I appreciate we're now talking apples vs oranges, but it is funny to me that due to the shift to speedy SSDs I'm going to be getting a downgrade in terms of raw storage space. What's the generally accepted way folks use higher capacity drives with these? If you say Time Machine I may cry a little.

[wakka]

What do you mean exactly - are you asking how people connect higher capacity drives, or what they use them for?