User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

Late '12 iMac


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Late '12 iMac
Page 4 of 10 Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next Last Thread Tools
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-10-29, 14:55

Heat really isn't an issue with modern iMac's, so I don't buy that, unless you are using CPU intensive apps. In any case the new chips actually run a little warmer than the previous generation.

Weight, if that is an issue you are better off buying a better desk than upgrading your Mac.

Thickness, seriously? How narrow is your desk? With the stand the new iMac takes up the same amount of space, so you gain nothing by it being thinner at the top and the bottom of the screen.

Noise? The new machine will either use the same fans or even smaller ones, which would be equally or more noisy. There might be less noise if you get an SSD, but otherwise you'll gain nothing by upgrading.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-29, 16:44

I just can't get my head around - or get excited about - this new iMac. And it's a bittersweet kind of thing, as I've been such a fan and cheerleader of the model for more than a decade.

This is the first time in all these years that my desire to own one (and time spent thinking about which features/specs to get) has dropped to zero.

Simply too many "changes for the worse" for me to be happy for.

For every good, cool thing introduced (display, Fusion Drive, USB 3.0, etc.) it's offset/canceled out by an odd "why?!" aspect (5400rpm drives, false/trick "thinness", the 21.5" model completely welded shut, price increase, the inability to BTO anything nice/useful from the $1,299 base model, etc.).

I wouldn't have minded the $100 increase if they'd added, or even kept, some things that always existed (user RAM access, 7200rpm hard drives).

It truly never occurred to me that they'd a) close the system up even tighter, b) downgrade/remove longstanding features and c) raise the price...all to achieve a sleek, stylish appearance than isn't necessary (not at the expense of what is lost) and that nobody is asking for. And the thinness is a useless illusion, important only in matters of perception or to those putting them in their living rooms as "tech art" to impress visitors. It'll look great in a showcase living room or hipster loft...but is that the basis for design? Because that's the very definition of "style over substance". Apple has always flirted with that, but this seems like their first huge leap into it...with no apologies.

It's hard for me to believe this will sell in numbers as high as previous models. The $1,299 model will appeal to regular consumers who don't notice the trade-offs. But with the Mac Pro being what it is, those looking to the iMac for their serious work machines (in whatever field) are now going to spend much more to get the RAM and hard drive they want.

My "dream" 2012 iMac would've been all the things done right on this one: new display tech, latest processors/guts, USB 3.0, solid base RAM amounts, Fusion Drive), but take the time to design a case that offers the same, if not more, user access (it is a desktop, after all...they have some wiggle room to play with in regards to weight, thickness, etc.). If the new iMac had all the above, but allowed for both RAM and hard drive access across all models, and still charged $100 more...I'd have no problem.

As it is, they went low and slow on some components and then made damn sure you couldn't do anything about it...except spend $200-500 to BTO to a more acceptable solution.

Don't put 5400rpm drives in a desktop machine after years of the faster models...and then weld it shut even tighter and then not even offer the Fusion Drive option on the $1,299 model.

Any way you slice it, that's a jerk move and automatically demands $450 from a user wanting one...first you have to jump up to the $1,499 for no good reason, then you have to pay for the Fusion Drive upgrade ($249 on the Mac mini, so we'll assume it's the price here until we hear different) from there. $450. A machine you could get for $1,549 now costs $1,749.

Why?

All this "WTF?!" And aggravation due to the pursuit and implementation of a false/optical illusion "thinness" that 95% of the final users/customers aren't going to give two damns about because they're not using it in a way where such a thing is even noticed or appreciated. Seriously.

From the front, and from the back, it's the same iMac as 2011. And only from a specific angle is anyone led to believe "wow, that's iPad thin!", but how long does that illusion last? Moreover, who gives a rip? Are you bringing entirely new sets of friends over to the house 3-4 nights a week just to have them dazzled by your new computer (as long as they view it only from a particular angle)?

I was so excited about what a long-awaited 2012 iMac would be. Now that it's here, I couldn't be more crestfallen about it. And I think my reasons are sound and valid. You guys know me...I'm not a spec whore. I don't get on here and yammer on about MHz, nanometers, frame rates, bus speeds, etc. I do, however, care about real world stuff like price, useful features, practicality, etc.

This new iMac throws those types of things overboard in pursuit of a MacBook Air type of design that doesn't make sense and isn't required for such a machine. The trade-offs were too steep.

It bums me out a bit that I can't get excited about the iMac - the iMac! Me! - for the first time in 14 years. It's a step backwards in all the real, meaningful ways. And it's a step forward in only the fleeting, more superficial aspects. It's the "Air-ification" of the iMac...done wrong.

IMO. YMMV.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-29, 16:58

Thing is, this is the new design. It's not like Apple is going to go back, right? The last time they went thicker on a product (the iPad 3) people raised holy hell. So the chances of them undoing this "magical 5mm thinness" are practically zero.

The best we can hope for, then, is for tech and components to catch up to this design. By that I mean that perhaps in another year or two, they'll have Fusion Drives and/or SSDs as the stock, built-in drives and, once again, you can get a truly modern, current-tech iMac for $1,299. But that'll probably be a while. At least two cycles?

Until then, your only options are a) going backwards to a slower hard drive than on any recent iMac or b) paying at least $450 extra for the opportunity to have one of the other options.

And I just can't get excited about either of those.
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-10-29, 18:36

I'd actually forgotten about the 5400 drives.

Based on my problems with the iMac drive recall, this machine's my last iMac.
(For those of us doing real work on a Mac, you can't surrender your machine to an Apple Store for 3-5 days, especially without notice.)

That 2013 Mac Pro upgrade had better be brilliant.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-10-29, 19:40

The drive recall is from Seagate, hardly something you can blame on the iMac, but I know what you mean.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-29, 19:47

The one hope is that the new iMac isn't yet available for order at the online store. They're just showing specs/details, but no actual ordering or BTO procedures are in place. My hope, then, is that maybe Schiller and Cook have gotten an earful of "why?" emails (and will continue to get others) during this time. Perhaps when the new iMac "goes live", they will offer some additional options on that $1,299 model? Apple's reversed themselves on things like this on occasion, due to customer outcry and so forth.

I'd like to think a Fusion Drive-equipped 21.5" iMac for $1,500-1,600 isn't a total lost cause...

It's just unfortunate they put in the slower drive but, on the low-end model, provide no other options. Marketing/upsell tactics or not, that's just a bit raw and uncalled-for. You can't a) go backwards/slower, b) provide no upgrade options and c) charge $100 more. Pick two of those, but not all three! Jeez...

I'd be completely happy with a 7200 as the only option on the $1,299 (at least it's as it's always been on these types of models, for five years now). Or I'd be cool with the $1,299 offering SSD, 7200rpm and Fusion Drive options. Either of those, even with the $100 increase in place, wouldn't bother me. But all three in place just seems a bit much and so arbitrary/petty.

I just can't stomach the notion of $1,800+ for an iMac. This isn't 2002 and this isn't the first-generation of LCD-based models on a novel dome stand and articulated chrome arm. This is the same damn basic design they've been doing for, what...eight years now, starting with the white iMac G5 from autumn 2004. They've changed materials, sizes, inside tech, etc. but the basic overall design has been in place for a good while now.

And if your only two choices are "make it thinner at the expense of performance and drive away lots of buyers" or "keep a bit of heft, update what needs to be and still provide some reasonable BTO choices for everyone", you should err on the side of caution and go with the latter. If Fusion Drive/SSD pricing isn't to the point where these things can be included as the stock, built-in drives (and they're obviously not), then either offer them across the entire line or design the systems in such a way that a customer can put their own SSD in...just as you allow with the notebooks.

That's not asking too much, IMO. Especially for a desktop machine which is expected to get a way with a bit more weight, thickness (and provide some basic upgradeability over most notebooks, Apple or otherwise).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-30, 09:20

Hopefully, the BTO options err on the side of being reasonable. I haven't bought memory in along time, but based on a quick scan of crucial, and providing for a little Apple tax, reasonable translates as follows:

Absolutely no more than $100 to bump to 16GB.

I didn't even realize they weren't providing any upgrade options on the base model. Wow. Forget Fusion then. That makes me very pessimistic, and if 1 GB fusion is all that will be available on the $1499 machine, then it really ought to be no more than $150. A crucial M4 128GB is only $100, and the 1GB HDD is already included, so I think I've adequately accounted for the Apple Tax.

Still, that's $1749 for a reasonably future proof machine. Not good. They could shave the margins on the upgrades, assuming Apple has access to OEM prices, but that might save $100 from the cost of an upgraded machine. Still expensive. I think to make this right, they have to both allow for upgrades to the entry level machine and keep them very reasonably priced.

It does put the mini into an interesting light. The base i7 quad 2.3 benchmarks very well and you have some flexibility in spec'ing it out because you don't have to rely on Apple. Weirdly enough, the processor upgrade, the only one you absolutely have to rely on Apple to get, is only $100. RAM is utterly ridiculous: $300 for a 16GB upgrade you can get for $80. The Fusion and SSD options aren't great either: 128GB 3Gb/s SSD can be had for $80, and a 6Gb/s drive for $100. Apple charges $250 which is so-so, since you have to figure $100 for the SSD and maybe $50 more for the 1GB HDD they pair it with. Their 256GB drive is similarly overpriced, they're out there in the marketplace for $150-200 now.

Too bad we don't know whether Apple supports TRIM on any 3rd party drives yet. or whether you can enable a fusion drive by installing your own drives internally.

The point is, you have plenty of options to make a fast little machine for under $1000. That leaves $299 to match the iMac's 21.5" display.*

A good accurate, matte, sRGB IPS display can be had for the money. If you shop around, you might even be able to score an aRGB 24" for just a few pennies more.

*From my point of view we really have to see the new display. The old one was very good in an idiosyncratic way. While only an sRGB display it somehow struck a great balance between accuracy and pleasing rendition. Photos had a contrasty "fat" look under it's glossy screen - sort of like a nice chrome print - yet it wasn't too hard to match to consistent print output. It was a bitch, however, when dimmed to photo-editing brightness - it then reflected like mad and not every calibrator liked looking through the glass cover. So, the new one is interesting. Still sRGB, but not the end of the world. It's got a new surface coating, like nano-coat on some modern optics, and no more glass cover. These should help calibration considerably... However, it's going to have to be stunning, and even then it will really only argue in favor of a higher end model, the entry level is too closed down.

.........................................
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-30, 15:56

I don't know why there is so much negativity directed at the new iMac but I want one! I'm using an old white MacBook 2 GHz core 2 duo with 1 GB of RAM. A new iMac would be a night and day difference.

"We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond." - Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-30, 16:15

One has nothing to do with the other. I'm sure anything from the past year or two would be a good step up from what you have (same with me and the 2007-era iMac I have). A 2010 MacBook Air would seem like a rocket to me!

But I, along with others, have laid out our gripes/concerns clearly. You may not agree with them, but you can't say "I don't know why there is so much negativity directed at these new iMacs".

Read the thread...it's all spelled out.
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-30, 16:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
One has nothing to do with the other. I'm sure anything from the past year or two would be a good step up from what you have (same with me and the 2007-era iMac I have).

But I, along with others, have laid out our gripes/concerns clearly. You may not agree with them, but you can't say "I don't know why there is so much negativity directed at these new iMacs".

Read the thread...it's all spelled out.
But none of the gripes listed would make someone upgrading from my situation want to think twice about the iMac as a step up.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-10-30, 16:21

Upgrading because you need to is one thing, buying the newest model makes sense regardless. For people who upgrade just for the sake of upgrading to the newest model, that is something else.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-30, 17:04

If you're upgrading the only Macs that make sense are Ivy Bridge (USB3 enabled) models. Not having USB3 will just be a growing inconvenience going forward, even if you have Thunderbolt on your machine. I still haven't seen a single thunderbolt breakout that supports USB3, and if you do any kind of video and digital imaging, short of the very highest end applications, you're going to want USB3.

.........................................
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2012-10-30, 17:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
I'd actually forgotten about the 5400 drives.

Based on my problems with the iMac drive recall, this machine's my last iMac.
(For those of us doing real work on a Mac, you can't surrender your machine to an Apple Store for 3-5 days, especially without notice.)

That 2013 Mac Pro upgrade had better be brilliant.
I'm going to have a "2012" model queued up in teh refurb cart just in case when the announcement hits. If they suck, I'm going old school.
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-30, 18:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
If you're upgrading the only Macs that make sense are Ivy Bridge (USB3 enabled) models. Not having USB3 will just be a growing inconvenience going forward, even if you have Thunderbolt on your machine. I still haven't seen a single thunderbolt breakout that supports USB3, and if you do any kind of video and digital imaging, short of the very highest end applications, you're going to want USB3.
The only things I connect to a Mac are my iPhone and iPod shuffle. I suspect most people fall into that category.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-30, 18:26

It's not a "performance/power" issue that the griping is centered around, Messiahtosh. It's a fine machine, performance-wise (and I've said as much on a couple of posts).

It's the price increase, the removal of longstanding components/features/capabilities and the fact they tout this cool, interesting new tech...and then arbitrarily keep it from being used on the most affordable, entry-level model. All under the "look how thin it is!" banner...which nobody was asking for, demanding or cares about (on a desktop). Not at the trade-off that resulted.

It's more stuff like that than "it's a sucky, slow piece if crap". Because its not. Apple has just made some annoying decisions regarding its design and marketing.
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-10-30, 18:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
If you're upgrading the only Macs that make sense are Ivy Bridge (USB3 enabled) models. Not having USB3 will just be a growing inconvenience going forward, even if you have Thunderbolt on your machine. I still haven't seen a single thunderbolt breakout that supports USB3, and if you do any kind of video and digital imaging, short of the very highest end applications, you're going to want USB3.
The Belkin Thunderbolt Dock has been often delayed, but is still scheduled for early 2013.
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-10-30, 18:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
I'm going to have a "2012" model queued up in teh refurb cart just in case when the announcement hits. If they suck, I'm going old school.
That only works if somebody makes a Mac-compatible Thunderbolt PCI card.

And you don't mind having four outdated Firewire ports and five outdated USB 2.0 ports on the outside of your 'new' machine.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-30, 22:19

That Belkin breakout box is way too expensive - $399 - you could buy a Mac Mini for just a couple hundred more. I don't know why there isn't a cheaper solution by now. There ought to be. Apple breaks out all sorts of I/O through their thunderbolt display, just not USB3, which wasn't prevalent at the time of the Thunderbolt display launch. It is now and an updated display should provide it as well - maybe next year, alongside new Mac Pro models?

.........................................
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-30, 22:27

With pics of the Thunderbolt Display paired with various MacBooks and the Mac mini throughout Apple's site, it's weird that they don't update it now, with plenty of USB 3.0-based Macs to pair with it. I always get the impression that these standalone alone displays occupy a priority level somewhere slightly above the iPod socks. Years can pass (and have) between updates, price adjustments, etc.

Still puzzles me why they don't offer a more affordable 21.5" model for the Mac mini/MacBook Air users who don't need the huge 27" (and don't want to spend $1,000 for it). Seems like a no-brainer. I bet it would sell a hell of a lot more than the 27" model too...1920x1080 is hardly anything to sneeze at or ridicule. It's a fine size/resolution for so many users.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-31, 07:26

The 27" display, while expensive, isn't really badly priced. When it came out, other quality panels looked like they would dip in price faster, but haven't really; you're going to spend roughly $750 for a similar quality 27" 2560x1440 sRGB LED IPS display from a 3rd party. There's lots of decent 1920x1080 stuff at the 27" size, and a lot of cheaper TN panels, but not really useful for color work. The only really issue with the Apple Display has been the glossy reflective screen.

Only Dell's u2711 offers near 100% Adobe RGB, but it is a CCFL backlit model. Nothing wrong with this, plenty of excellent professional monitors use CCFL. The newer u2713 is w-LED, but standard (sRGB) gamut only, and about the same price, $799. Not sure if the screen is now glossy, Dell's website is a mess and I don't like looking at it.

Over at Apple, the new coatings, lamination and USB3 should be reason enough to replace the current thunderbolt screen, and given the convenience and interconnectivity, probably OK to stay in the same price range, though 799 would be a better fit. If they wanted to go up-market, they could give it RGB-LED backlighting, 10 bit control, and AdobeRGB gamut. I'd pay for this, and so would mac pro customers. $1299 would be fair. Dell does it for 899-999. NEC and Eizo for considerably more.

But getting back to meat and potatoes customers. A 21.5" Thunderbolt display would be brilliant. Standard IPS, sRGB, 8-bit panel is just fine. It's fine for pro use too. What's more these panels can be quite a bit cheaper than the 27". Good ones are available from 3rd parties for about $300. Let's just forget about the crappy office displays you can get for $150-200. Add Apple design and all the connectivity and $499 isn't too much at all. Especially when it doubles as a charging doc. One wire, well two wires, for everything. Charging, display, speakers, all your USB/FW/TB peripherals. Nice. They'd sell like the proverbial hot-cakes to anyone buying an MBA or 13" MBP.

.........................................
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-10-31, 07:39

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
A 21.5" Thunderbolt display would be brilliant.
I never understood why Apple expected the Mac Mini customers to buy a 27" monitor in the first place.

It's meant to be a budget computer. Why does Apple sell the keyboard and mouse, but not the corresponding monitor?
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2012-10-31, 08:29

I recently bought my mom a Mac Mini and paired it with a Samsung monitor.

She hated it.

I sent everything back and put her back on her eMac.

You people and your newfangled computers.


...

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon.
Captain Drew on Twitter
  quote
thegeriatric
geri to my friends
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Heaven
 
2012-10-31, 09:22

Sometimes us older folk resist change. Live with it!..
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-10-31, 10:59

The AIO has a certain accessibilty that people find comforting. We used to think it was just non-geeks that appreciated this, your mom, youngsters in the classroom, etc... But that's not really the case, it has a far broader appeal. The AIO dominates unit sales if you consider that every laptop and iPad - increasingly a self contained computer in its own right - that each of these is an AIO computer. People value something they can just pick-up or turn on and use. I'll bet your mom loved that she didn't have to do anything other than tap the keyboard to fire-up her eMac. No big boxes, well, no other big boxes since the eMac is a bit chunky all by itself. But, there are no wires, no clutter. Very Zen, people like that.

Which is all the more argument for a second, smaller, Thunderbolt display. You can't get that same experience from 3rd party displays that ruin the elegance of your mac set-up, especially laptops, where suddenly you're plugging in chunky cables and dongles, and have to have a little ritual every time you want to "dock". That, or you have to ante up for a 27" thunderbolt displa) for which you might not have the $$$ or space?
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-31, 16:58

Exactly. I don't think it's outrageous to ask why it never came, and why Apple is pinning all their display hopes in a single size that many (most?) folks would consider prohibitively expensive and overkill.

And it goes beyond just "good looks" and "matching hardware" (although those are nice benefits). Why buy something sleek and streamlined like a MacBook Air and then have to fool with dongles and adapters...dongles and adapters that still won't provide the convenience of the Apple displays (charging), nor will these things act as hubs. And for those with a Mac mini, the Apple display acts as their FaceTime cam too.

Just seems weird to get a $599-1,299 Mac mini or Air and your only two options are a) pair it with third-party plastic that provides 1/3 the convenience/functionality of an Apple model, or b) spend as much, if not more, on a soul-swallowing 27" Apple display that is twice the size as you could ever want.

I bet these graphics cards in these lower-priced Macs would have an easier time driving a 21.5" display as well.

It's not like I'm asking for some crazy size/resolution Apple isn't already creating and using by the boatload. And the very machines that would most likely be paired with it are the ones that are selling in huge numbers (Air) and/or just got updated (mini).

The "one cable + charging + hub" aspect of these Apple displays is very attractive. A shame they offer only one high-priced model.
  quote
Kraetos
Lovable Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston-ish
 
2012-10-31, 17:44

Agree 100%, the lack of a 21.5" Thunderbolt display for $499 is just baffling. Especially if they can make a retina one.

But it seems that Apple's official stance on the 21.5" iMac is "fuck you, cheapskate" so I wouldn't hold my breath. Everyone I know who was eyeing a new 27" iMac is thrilled, everyone in the 21.5" camp is livid. The 21.5" iMac exists for two reasons:

- You want the cheapest desktop AIO Mac you can find and you don't care about specs, or
- You do care about specs in which case the $1,299 iMac is supposed to get you in the door so they can upsell you the 27".

pscates, you fall into the second camp. If you walk into the Apple Store and the words "Pixelmator," "Photoshop," or "Illustrator" escape your lips, the blueshirts will be falling over themselves to sell you a 27" iMac with a Fusion Drive and AppleCare.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-10-31, 17:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Agree 100%, the lack of a 21.5" Thunderbolt display for $499 is just baffling. Especially if they can make a retina one.

But it seems that Apple's official stance on the 21.5" iMac is "fuck you, cheapskate" so I wouldn't hold my breath. Everyone I know who was eyeing a new 27" iMac is thrilled, everyone in the 21.5" camp is livid. The 21.5" iMac exists for two reasons:

- You want the cheapest desktop AIO Mac you can find and you don't care about specs, or
- You do care about specs in which case the $1,299 is supposed to get you in the door so they can upsell you the 27".
Well, I'm eyeing a new 27" iMac and I am far from thrilled. The same seems to go for many others in this thread.

I seem to be in the minority in thinking that the 21.5" while not appealing to me is actually a nice package for the price. I wish it was $100 cheaper... but I don't really think much separates it from the 27" base model except for screen size and I think for the majority of people it exceeds their needs.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-10-31, 17:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraetos View Post
Agree 100%, the lack of a 21.5" Thunderbolt display for $499 is just baffling. Especially if they can make a retina one.

But it seems that Apple's official stance on the 21.5" iMac is "fuck you, cheapskate" so I wouldn't hold my breath. Everyone I know who was eyeing a new 27" iMac is thrilled, everyone in the 21.5" camp is livid. The 21.5" iMac exists for two reasons:

- You want the cheapest desktop AIO Mac you can find and you don't care about specs, or
- You do care about specs in which case the $1,299 iMac is supposed to get you in the door so they can upsell you the 27".

pscates, you fall into the second camp. If you walk into the Apple Store and the words "Pixelmator," "Photoshop," or "Illustrator" escape your lips, the blueshirts will be falling over themselves to sell you a 27" iMac with a Fusion Drive and AppleCare.
The blue shirts can go to hell because I, not those guys, know what I want, what I want to spend, etc. I use these apps now on five-year-old hardware, so I'm not needing/demanding cutting-edge, top-of-the-line muscle.

Upselling doesn't work on me. I know what I want, when and why. Chances are, I know more about the thing I'm buying than any salesman ( except for maybe an Apple Store). But other places? I'm often educating them on specs, features, release cycles, etc. Been that way for years...hell, I've probably sold more Apple gear at Best Buy than any employee. They should give me an honorary name tag and commission.
  quote
sebatlh
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
 
2012-11-01, 05:04

A bit weird that so many here don't like the thinness of the new iMacs. Isn't that what the iMac is all about?
If the situation had been reversed and it had been thicker rather than thinner and packed with performance. Would that make sense?
I think the iMac had to go thinner sooner rather than later to keep up with Apples other offerings and staying ahead of the competition. This design looks future proof for another 3 years or so.

Isn't it the same as with the original iMac? Looks and form factor over performance, because performance isn't that important to many.
Really, for lighter use, 5400 rpm drives are enough. If all one does is surf/facebook/blogging, importing and printing pictures of ones kids, email, word processing, etc. Drive speed does not come that much into play. Neither does the 8GB stock RAM. Hell, I'm sitting here on a 5 year old MBP with 2GB RAM running Tiger (work machineā€¦) and the only thing that annoys me is the OS. And that is including daily comparisons with my 3? year old iMac and newly bought Air both running Mountain Lion.

It is a bit unfortunate with the price though for those who wants a little bit more performance.
21.5" + fusiondrive + 16GB RAM seems to be $1499 + $250 + $200 = $1949 based on mac mini upgrade pricings.
I guess one could just get a fast external drive and boot from that instead and use the internal one for backups.
A base model with a RAM upgrade would then suffice, saving $450 for that external drive that clutter up the desk.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-11-01, 05:47

For the 17th time nobody's squawking over the thinness/design, in and of itself. It's the thinness with al...ah, screw I'm tired of writing it out. Just read my 2-3 (okay, 5-6) posts here on the matter.

I'd like to have one. But I'm not going down to a slower drive. And those prices you laid out are the exact ones I used to make my "it's now out of my price range" case.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 4 of 10 Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Late '09 iMac chucker Apple Products 304 2010-03-16 01:27
Late '09 Mac mini chucker Apple Products 67 2009-11-20 03:04
Late '09 MacBook chucker Apple Products 183 2009-11-19 16:08
It is a bit too late for freescale! Quagmire General Discussion 6 2005-06-21 17:02


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:45.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova