4 ms·
> Apple never claimed any iMac was for Pros except the iMac Pro. Apple explicitly claims the iMac is for "pros" in the article this page is discussing: "iMac
by kbutler 8y ago
> Apple never claimed any iMac was for Pros except the iMac Pro.
Apple explicitly claims the iMac is for "pros" in the article this page is discussing:
"iMac is ideal for pros"
"iMac is loved by consumers and pros alike."
"the most demanding pro workloads."
"even a pro studio."
and more.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/imac-gets-a-2x-performance-boost/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/imac-gets-a-2x-perfor...
- scarface74 8y agoNot the same iMac. If all iMacs should be for consumers and Pros should they also sell them all with the highest performing graphics card and 64GB of RAM?
- kbutler 8y agoSo, yes, Apple describes some iMacs that are not iMac-Pros as "for Pros". > should they also sell them all with the highest performing graphics card and 64GB of RAM? Nope, those are each about $400 retail (well, the delta from 32GB->64GB is only about $200 retail), and won't benefit everyone. But at this point, every iMac they sell with the HDD or fusion drive will meet your description of "the margins were both ridiculously high and the Mac’s were slow." They should deliver the OS installed on a 128GB SSD ($25 retail) just to preserve the reputation of the platform.
- scarface74 8y agoThe difference is that you could not get a Mac as fast as the then current PC at any price until the switch to Intel. Even during the brief period where the PowerPC was faster than the current Intel processors, Macs were hobbled by an OS that was still partially emulated and bus speeds that were slower than PC motherboards. Not to mention the anemic graphics hardware.