User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

Late '12 iMac


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Late '12 iMac
Page 5 of 10 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next Last Thread Tools
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-11-01, 06:59

The entry level iMac has always been a love it "as is" proposition. I think what Paul is getting at, is that Apple has gone out of it's way to drive that home, it seems almost antagonistic. We're not offended by the thinness - at least I'm not - I quite like the new aesthetic. It just didn't need to be hermetically sealed to achieve its look. Not in the least. A tiny little door to replace the RAM was all it needed. Really should be a door to access BOTH drives and RAM, but Apple has always tried hard to thwart that.

In the following link to iFixit's 2011 iMac tear-down we can see that the old machine had four DIMM slots, and could handle 32GB, though Apple didn't advertise or sell it that way.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+...eardown/5485/2

I'll wait for someone to do a tear down first, just so we can know the extent of Apple's treachery:

Level 1. It's quite a different board with less parts and is closed off because it doesn't have any more RAM slots or 2nd drive connectors (needed for fusion) basically just two RAM slots and one SATA connector = the bad.

Level 2. Maybe the 21.5 has the same basic main board as the 27" and they've just sealed it against user access = Even worse.

Level 3. It has essentially an identical board - minus GPU differences - and they've not only sealed it against user access, they've also taken the extra ordinary measure of castrating the firmware so even if you open it up yourself it won't accept your modifications. = Go to fucking Hell you pricks.

.........................................
  quote
sebatlh
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
 
2012-11-01, 07:11

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
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.
No I get it.
My point was rather that I think it's a trade off that is right for Apple.

Just felt a bit peculiar that so few are positive towards the update.

No, actually. Thinking a little bit more about it. It's really weird to not have the fusion drive as an upgrade on the base model.
Ok, I'm stupid, I'll shut up
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-11-01, 07:13

I just wonder why they've always made user RAM and hard drive upgrades so easy on the notebooks but not the larger iMac. They could've, so it was a deliberate decision. I've just always been curious why.
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-11-01, 08:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
I just wonder why they've always made user RAM and hard drive upgrades so easy on the notebooks but not the larger iMac. They could've, so it was a deliberate decision. I've just always been curious why.
For the longest while, it was to protect Mac Pro sales.
But when the 27" debuted, the Pro languished and the 27" iMac became the 'Pro' machine in the range, Apple lost the plot.

Now that there's a new Pro coming next year, they will use the protect-the-Pro excuse again.
  quote
ttmall
 
 
2012-11-01, 12:10

Another cool Apple product! Like it!

Last edited by ttmall : 2012-11-01 at 12:13. Reason: I need to add somethink
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-11-01, 12:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebatlh View Post
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.
like pscates said, most of that has been discussed to death and i think he, myself and others in here now sound like a broken record.

but.... just quickly.

1. I don't think the iMac has ever been about being thin. I think it has been about producing the best desktop mac experience for an affordable price. This was true of the original iMac in 1998 and still remains true even with this most recent update. Recently for Apple, designing a great experience has also meant thin and lighter designs.... which for cell phones, tablets and notebooks makes complete sense. It makes a bit less sense to make tradeoffs for thinness and lightness on a 27" desktop computer that was already 1.5" thin and lighter than any other competitor's 27" desktop.

2. I don't get what you mean when you say the "imac had to go sooner or later". why? Like I said, it already was thin. And thinness isn't something that I think is really a true selling point of the product. Like I have said repeatedly. The iMac remains 8" deep. Nothing has changed that and until Apple develops a new stand design which seems increasingly unlikely, the iMac will remain 8" deep and nothing they do to the body will change that. Aesthetically I completely agree, the new iMac looks cool. But I'm not as certain looking cooler from one orientation and identical in 2 others is worth the trade-offs.

3. You suggest that the iMac has always been form over function. I think the iMac has actually been a case where the two have always balanced remarkably well... with the exception of 2000-2001 when Apple refused to put a larger than 13.8" viewable screen in the iMac despite intense market demands. This was because the design just would not work at those dimensions. The other example has been on the design we have had for many years now with the ports on the back. The ports on the back are most definitely form over function and are a constant annoyance of mine.

4. for lighter use... 5400RPM drives may ok. That's fine. But why should a modern day computer that sells for $1299-$3000 be restricted to "lighter use" and why should that even meet your expectations?
  quote
sebatlh
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
 
2012-11-01, 17:11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
like pscates said, most of that has been discussed to death and i think he, myself and others in here now sound like a broken record.

but.... just quickly.

1. I don't think the iMac has ever been about being thin. I think it has been about producing the best desktop mac experience for an affordable price. This was true of the original iMac in 1998 and still remains true even with this most recent update. Recently for Apple, designing a great experience has also meant thin and lighter designs.... which for cell phones, tablets and notebooks makes complete sense. It makes a bit less sense to make tradeoffs for thinness and lightness on a 27" desktop computer that was already 1.5" thin and lighter than any other competitor's 27" desktop.
No, it's not about being thin, it's about removing the computer from the picture as much as possible. All iMacs have looked liked screens or monitors. And more over, screens or monitors that look good, or as with the first iMac, friendly.
So, now when the iMac is basically defined by the flat panel display, thinner means more true to the design goal.

Quote:
2. I don't get what you mean when you say the "imac had to go sooner or later". why? Like I said, it already was thin. And thinness isn't something that I think is really a true selling point of the product. Like I have said repeatedly. The iMac remains 8" deep. Nothing has changed that and until Apple develops a new stand design which seems increasingly unlikely, the iMac will remain 8" deep and nothing they do to the body will change that. Aesthetically I completely agree, the new iMac looks cool. But I'm not as certain looking cooler from one orientation and identical in 2 others is worth the trade-offs.
I think it is, especially going forward.
I think they need to keep pushing the designs if they want to stay cool in the perception of the public.
It's a bit unfortunate with the price points at the moment though.

Quote:
3. You suggest that the iMac has always been form over function. I think the iMac has actually been a case where the two have always balanced remarkably well... with the exception of 2000-2001 when Apple refused to put a larger than 13.8" viewable screen in the iMac despite intense market demands. This was because the design just would not work at those dimensions. The other example has been on the design we have had for many years now with the ports on the back. The ports on the back are most definitely form over function and are a constant annoyance of mine.
Actually, form over function is the wrong way to put it. The form gives function that other computers don't have.

The iMac has many times been built with components originally designed for portables. I would say that that simple fact supports my argument enough that performance is not the top priority with the iMacs.

Quote:
4. for lighter use... 5400RPM drives may ok. That's fine. But why should a modern day computer that sells for $1299-$3000 be restricted to "lighter use" and why should that even meet your expectations?
If I where to guess, I would say 70% of all people don't need a better drive. Lighter use isn't a bad thing. And really, when does the hard drive become a real problem as opposed to a slightly slower computer? When does it hurt the computing experience?
What I'm trying to say is, building something is about compromises. A 5400RPM drive is not a big compromise for most people, hence they are still hanging around whether we like it or not.

I do agree though that not having BTO options on the entry level is weird.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-11-01, 17:30

It shuts out some potential buyers. All I ever wanted was an iMac with an SSD. Since my current hard drive sits at right around 73GB (and I've had it since September 2008) I feel that a 256GB SSD is more than enough for now, and some room to grow. I've already got all the good music in the world, and I don't take pics as much as I used to. I guarantee you, two years from now I'll still be below 100GB.

I can't get that now. At least not for under $1,800 or so. And they don't seem to offer anything under 768GB for the 27". I don't even want to imagine the price for that, assuming I even wanted - or could afford - a 27" (I like compact and affordable and stuff that isn't "overkill"). But I also don't like going backwards. After all this time, I don't want to go down to a slower, laptop-speed hard drive, silly or not. I just don't.

For someone who only updates everyb3-5 years - and doesn't mind paying up to $1,500 to do so - I shouldn't have to.

They took things away. People can frame it however they want, but they stepped down (and closed off) what was before.

Not the end of the world, no. Just a surprise and a disappointment, that's all. I wasn't planning in spending nearly $2,000. I never thought I'd have to.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-11-01, 17:35

Thanks for the well thought out responses. It's been interesting to hear the other side, especially when it makes so little sense to me (that's not a swipe, just the truth).

Quote:
No, it's not about being thin, it's about removing the computer from the picture as much as possible. All iMacs have looked liked screens or monitors. And more over, screens or monitors that look good, or as with the first iMac, friendly.
So, now when the iMac is basically defined by the flat panel display, thinner means more true to the design goal.
As far as I can tell, the appearance from the front does nothing to change that. I would have been more excited about Apple removing the "chin" than Apple reducing the thickness. That would be more in line with "removing the computer from the picture" and making the computer look more like just a screen.

I don't think thinner necessarily means that it is more true to that design goal. I don't think it can be stated enough that the iMac remains 8" deep and its appearance from the front and behind remains identical.

Quote:
I think it is, especially going forward.
I think they need to keep pushing the designs if they want to stay cool in the perception of the public.
It's a bit unfortunate with the price points at the moment though.
This is the part/argument that I don't understand. Yourself and others who like the new product say that it is a great design and "necessary" to push design forward. What makes a good design to you? Simply appearances? Good design is a balance of form and function and creativity in achieving that. As a designer myself (of architecture) I have found Apple's recent designs to be very beautiful but their primary innovation and gee whiz factor has been their thinness. I think that's lazy design. I think it is an easy way out (although obviously with engineering hurdles). And I think their design decisions as far as problem solving and facilitating function have been poor and beneath their design teams.

That may seem harsh but take the example of the SD card slot. It may seem like a minor feature/function element.... but it is an element that exists. It is something the user interacts with on a regular basis, for some, like myself, on a daily basis. This little slot is a part of the product and a part of its design. Previous iMacs have had the slot on the side below the optical drive. This was better than the ports on the back, but still poor design in my opinion as there was no visual indicator from the front of the device about the location of that slot. But... it was accessible, you didnt have to rotate the iMac and get out of your chair and look behind the iMac and figure out where the slot was and use two hands to shift any cables out of the way to clear the slot. And you didnt have to do that again when you took an SD card out... and you knew an SD card was in the slot because it protruded from the computer.

That's all gone now. The SD slot is on the back now, inline with the ports. Presumably because the 5mm edge is to thin for the slot and Apple's designers were too lazy to come up with a more functional solution so there design expertise and wisdom dictated that it simply be placed on the back and the user won't care.

This is what design is.... this is industrial design of consumer products. And this is poor design. It is lazy design. It is not functional design. It is a lack of problem solving, and a lack of creativity. Graduated thinness to create false perceptions of overall thinness at the expense of function, features, and price is poor design.

It may look cooler... but it is poor and lazy design.

Quote:
The iMac has many times been built with components originally designed for portables. I would say that that simple fact supports my argument enough that performance is not the top priority with the iMacs.
I agree performance is not the top priority. I didn't say it was. But it has always struck a great balance and the high end iMac has often been faster than other Power Macs or Mac Pros (if releases were scheduled certain ways).


Quote:
I would say 70% of all people don't need a better drive.
I know you mean well, but I hate when people start to dictate what people "need". Most people for the current day facebook usage only need an iPad.... there is a reason people look at an iMac and computers. And Apple needs to protect the point of their existence by making them have these advantages.

Quote:
And really, when does the hard drive become a real problem as opposed to a slightly slower computer? When does it hurt the computing experience?
What I'm trying to say is, building something is about compromises. A 5400RPM drive is not a big compromise for most people, hence they are still hanging around whether we like it or not.
Hard drives are actually THE limiting factor for speed on computers these days. Hence Apple's big push toward solid state. Hard drives are slow and a major bottleneck. 5400 is even worse.
  quote
Boomerangmacuser
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
 
2012-11-01, 23:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherer View Post
In Apple land, this is the first time I have actually agreed with this statement. The new model truly is form over function.
+1

They sacrificed too much for the aesthetic. The new design only has a place in high design areas like fancy reception desks, modern homes, and Steve's new boat.

If Apple thinks the optical disc is dead, fine, take it out. But there was no reason to go so thin as to not have room for the SD card slot or decent access to RAM.

I know a lot of people don't like the 'chin' on any of the iMacs but I think it serves a purpose. It keeps the centre of gravity low and the screen at a proper height above the tabletop.

Won't go back
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-11-02, 06:38

Apple has sort of miscalculated with regards to its fusion technology. It's a great idea, but it is not a high end solution, rather it's perfect for people who don't want to manage their data across multiple drives, they just want to keep all their "stuff" on a simple snappy computer.

Pro's should excercise caution. The system is software/OS based. It's probably quite good, but it could be something that may interfere with an existing application under 10.8. If that's the case they'll have to wait for either their software package to be updated, or OS/fusion to be patched accordingly. There's also the slim possibility that the shuffling of data could affect reliability under certain circumstances. I notice there's no fusion option on the mini server, for example...

So, naturally, I'm a bit cautious after getting over the initial wow factor of the idea. There may be some small issues in the first iteration. I'm 100% sure Apple will figure them out if/when they arise, but if you're work depends on it, you may want to wait until it's fully vetted out in the wild.

However, it is still a great technology for the consumer who wants speed and storage, but only if you price it accordingly. You can get a 480-512GB SSD for $400, isn't that better than a 1GB fusion for $300? Especially if you just make a tiny effort to manage your files? The basic fusion option should be $100, that's the retail cost of a 128GB SSD now, the HDD is already included, and the implementation of the technology is in the OS, so it doesn't cost Apple more than that to include it.

$100 makes it well worth trying out. $300? Not so much. Right now I'm basing this off the Mac mini BTO prices because I have nothing else to go on.

.........................................
  quote
lpgorbet
 
 
2012-11-04, 18:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebatlh View Post
If I where to guess, I would say 70% of all people don't need a better drive. Lighter use isn't a bad thing. And really, when does the hard drive become a real problem as opposed to a slightly slower computer? When does it hurt the computing experience?
What I'm trying to say is, building something is about compromises. A 5400RPM drive is not a big compromise for most people, hence they are still hanging around whether we like it or not.
.
But 5400rpm drives are not status quo. 7200rpm drives were available on the smallest screen iMac in 2004 and my 2005 20" was *only* available with a 7200rpm drive. I realize that true SSD drives make slower HD's faster, and *hope* that reviewers will find that the Fusion Drive is actually faster than a typical 7200rpm drive with an older SSD. For those who will be handling a lot of data and want to process it faster, I also suspect that a 2011 iMac with stock 1TB HD and OWC's faster SSD's will be faster than a 2012 with Fusion
Drive in terms of data transfer rates. If so, I see Apple as offering somewhat faster data transfer than the previous stock iMac and perhhaps significant improvements in processor speed. I think it is delusional or dishonest (depending on who says it) to say that the thinning of the iMac was done at no cost to performance.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-11-14, 16:51

More bad news for those waiting for the new iMac, AI reports that shipments might be delayed into early next year now. Yikes, really bad move Apple.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-11-14, 17:05

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
More bad news for those waiting for the new iMac, AI reports that shipments might be delayed into early next year now. Yikes, really bad move Apple.
If true, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Not only is this design over function, it is design over business. What a dumb move if true.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-11-14, 18:34

I just now saw this at AI. I'm very happy I'd already "made my peace" with the new iMac weeks ago, and truly stopped thinking about getting/wanting one. Assuming this is all true, of course. I retract my earlier post because some of these "rumors" lately seem like malicious, boneheaded leaks (and are usually disproven within 1-3 days). I'm willing to wait and see what the official word is. I need to give the poor iMac a break anyway.

Last edited by psmith2.0 : 2012-11-14 at 20:12.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-11-27, 17:45

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
If true, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Not only is this design over function, it is design over business. What a dumb move if true.
The good news for Apple is that the rumor turned out not to be true. They are supposed to start shipping this Friday.
  quote
709
Ā”Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2012-11-27, 18:11

I'm really on the fence about this. On the one hand, I love my iMac (Mid-2010, Quad 2.93). Hands down the best machine I've ever had. On the other hand, I travel with this machine. A lot. So a few lbs. off couldn't hurt.

I'm leaning towards keeping it regardless, but TB and USB3 are somewhat enticing.

No idea really. I'm torn. This is such a great machine - not sure I need to upgrade (I don't), but I'm really, really temped.

So it goes.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-11-28, 18:52

I was 95% resolved to trick out a mini rather than get an iMac. However, it'll be instructive to see some benchmarks of the desktop i5 in the iMac vs the mobile i7 in the mini. If the processor bump in the iMac is reasonable priced it may still be the best option for crunch CS5/6 - short of a Mac Pro. The desktop 3.4Ghz i7 is supposed to be about 50% faster than the 2.6Ghz mobile version in CS5, according to this

Have to think about it a bit...

.........................................
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2012-11-28, 19:38

Re: this design. I think Apple is trying out production methods for the rumored TV. it'd be a lower level of production so they can get the kinks worked out. As such, it's definitely a trial run so all the usual rev. a caveats apply, IMHO.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.

Last edited by torifile : 2012-11-28 at 23:53. Reason: cavalry? Dumb auto correct.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-11-28, 20:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile View Post
Re: this design. I think Apple is trying out production methods for the rumored TV. it'd be a lower level of production so they can get the kinks worked out. As such, it's definitely a trial run so all the usual rev. a cavalry apply, IMHO.
Interesting theory.

It will make for one incredibly expensive TV I fear though.

But you may be right about that.
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2012-11-29, 12:03

Anyone here ready to fork over $ 4,500 for the top spec 27" iMac?



Buying RAM from Apple is still not a good idea.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-11-29, 12:40

Hmmm... the article covers it pretty well. Photoshop users will want the i7 options, but perhaps not ahead of a fusion drive option for similar money. It's all going to depend on how easy it is to open the machine and add your own drives...

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-11-29, 13:56

Opening the machine looks like it could be tough, and not worth voiding the warranty over.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-11-29, 14:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Hmmm... the article covers it pretty well. Photoshop users will want the i7 options, but perhaps not ahead of a fusion drive option for similar money. It's all going to depend on how easy it is to open the machine and add your own drives...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
Opening the machine looks like it could be tough, and not worth voiding the warranty over.
Shouldn't be an issue on the 27". Should be just as easy as ever and covered by warranty. The 21.5" can not be upgraded.... at least easily.
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-11-29, 14:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Hmmm... the article covers it pretty well. Photoshop users will want the i7 options, but perhaps not ahead of a fusion drive option for similar money. It's all going to depend on how easy it is to open the machine and add your own drives...
You're not going to be able to do that yourself. I'm speaking as someone who owns an iMac, and once pulled apart his MacBook Pro to switch a drive.

After having to deal with the recent hard drive recall, I'm done with iMacs. It's either the 2013 Mac Pro revision, or the Mini from here on.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-11-29, 14:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
Shouldn't be an issue on the 27". Should be just as easy as ever and covered by warranty. The 21.5" can not be upgraded.... at least easily.
The hard drive on the 2011 27" iMac isn't considered a user accessible part, (you have to remove the screen to reach it) so I'm not sure how changing it yourself would be covered by the warranty (I suspect the new one hasn't changed).
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2012-11-29, 14:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
The hard drive on the 2011 27" iMac isn't considered a user accessible part, (you have to remove the screen to reach it) so I'm not sure how changing it yourself would be covered by the warranty (I suspect the new one hasn't changed).
I'm sorry you are right. The hard drive use to be accessible... a number of years ago.

I actually misread it and thought he was referring to RAM upgrades though.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-11-29, 14:46

I kind of figured that, but wasn't sure.
  quote
psmith2.0
Mr. Vieira
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
 
2012-11-29, 14:55

If I remember correctly, the hard drives were easily accessible/user upgradeable on the iMac G5 models from late 2004, when they went from the iMac G4 "sunflower" design to the new "flat panel on aluminum stand with guts behind display" look. The rear panel of those white iMac G5 models did come off, and I remember that being one of the things Schiller talked about onstage...I think this was Paris, right?

Those white models transitioned to the Intel stuff and I think it was at that point they stopped being accessible. And the aluminum ones, except for RAM, were always closed up and impossible for mortals to upgrade. It's only gotten more so with these new ones, in that the 21.5" model doesn't let you do anything. Like the MacBook Air, you better order the RAM you think you want/need at the time of purchase because you ain't putting any more in 8-15 months down the road. The 27", you can.

The iMac...what a long, strange trip it's been. A little space-age colored plastic jellybean and now a welded-shut aluminum terminal. Same $1,299 price, though. So it's all come full circle.

I just wish, being a desktop, they could've (or would've) taken a little more time and thought to design and engineer the iMacs to allow both RAM and hard drive upgrades. So what if it meant a seam line or panel? It's on the damn back, which is never seen anyway. But in their pursuit of sleek lines and thinness, it's just one chunk of inaccessible aluminum these days. For the design monkeys and stylish living room types, great. You win. But for those who don't want to pay Apple's 350% markup on RAM or SSD prices, it kinda sucks.

"Have your iMac any way you want it...as long as you order it that way from us. And, brother, we're gonna squeeze you like a grape on this BTO stuff, so go ahead and prepare...".
  quote
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2012-11-29, 15:05

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
The hard drive use to be accessible... a number of years ago.
Yes it was briefly, though in Apple's typical crazy way.

The hard drive lockup in the iMac has always been a stumbling block for prosumers, who occasionally realize that a hard drive can get damaged or outdated.

So after making clamshell iMacs with various degrees of difficulty with this task, Apple went Full Retard with the flatscreen white iMac and allowed users access to the full guts of the entire machine.

It is, of course, a supremely foolish thing to allow Mac newbies full access to the machine's innards -including the power supply - and Apple said afterward that this "experiment" did not yield any real cost savings in repairs for them. No kidding.

If Apple wasn't so obsessed with thinness, the current 27" iMac could have a hinge on the inside allowing users to open the machine from the front to access only the RAM and hard drives. The back could be sealed and allow access to the rest of the innards only to service providers.

That's the kind of compromise needed here. Hopefully, the costs involved in the latest iMac hard drive recall has taught them this lesson.
  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 5 of 10 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  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 22:51.


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