[Quagmire]

Apple has updated the iMac to Haswell.

21.5-inch
- $1299: 2.7 GHz quad-core i5 and Intel Iris Pro graphics
- $1499: 2.9 GHz quad-core Intel i5 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 1 GB video memory

27-inch
- $1799: 3.2 GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M with 1 GB video memory
- $1999: 3.4 GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M with 2 GB video memory

Interesting enough the base iMac now has an integrated GPU. The high end 27" iMac has the 780MX with 4 GB of VRAM available. Is the i7 really worth it for only 100 Mhz more on the high end 27"?

[Matsu]

Any word on the SSD bus architecture?

[Partial]

The day these get an SSD by default and a retina display is the day this becomes my latest piece of art. Soooo pretty.

[Mugge]

You can BTO a GeForce GTX 780M 4GB GDDR5 on the high end iMac. Considering that, over time, the GPU usually ends up as the weakest part in most Macs, I think it's a worthwhile option even if you are only slightly into games or other 3D stuff. If nothing else because it can't be upgraded later.

The i7 BTO option is more nebulous and I would argue that it's a case of only needing it if you have a specific reason to need it. When I bought my present iMac three years ago, I passed on the i7, sticking with the high end i5, and to this day I have never ever felt the need for more CPU power. Those desktop Core i5 chips are beasts! CPU advancements these days are usually more about power efficiency than maximum power.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Partial The day these get an SSD by default and a retina display is the day this becomes my latest piece of art. Soooo pretty.

We'll be waiting awhile for a retina iMac. A retina 27" panel today will probably be expensive and tax the GPU a lot.

Originally Posted by Mugge You can BTO a GeForce GTX 780M 4GB GDDR5 on the high end iMac. Considering that, over time, the GPU usually ends up as the weakest part in most Macs, I think it's a worthwhile option even if you are only slightly into games or other 3D stuff. If nothing else because it can't be upgraded later. The i7 BTO option is more nebulous and I would argue that it's a case of only needing it if you have a specific reason to need it. When I bought my present iMac three years ago, I passed on the i7, sticking with the high end i5, and to this day I have never ever felt the need for more CPU power. Those desktop Core i5 chips are beasts! CPU advancements these days are usually more about power efficiency than maximum power.

Yeah I think I would pass on the i7 and spend the money on the 1 TB Fusion drive on the high end 27" iMac.

If I was to get an iMac( which I am always temped to since I want to play X-Plane, but only can when I am home on my parents Late 2009 iMac), I would get the i5, 8 GB of ram( would bump it to 16 GB at a later date), 1 TB Fusion drive, and the 780M.

[psmith2.0]

I'd get the second-tier 21.5" model. Since I tend to keep these things for a while (this month is the 5th anniversary of my current iMac), and technically the 6th since it was part of the August. 2007 release).

With that in mind, I'd go ahead and:
- get the i7
- step up to the 16GB RAM
- 256GB flash drive

Comes to $2,099. Breaks my $1,500 rule, but for something I use every single day - and plan to keep around for at least four years - I'll make an exception.

They've lowered the price of something because doing this configuration before was always $2,199. Either the RAM or SSD is $100 cheaper now.

I hate to do RAM through Apple, but it's not user-upgradeable in the 21.5" models. And seeing as how most if my stuff is Illustrator-based and small, I'd feel totally comfortable with 256GB of storage. I'd rather have a full-on SSD at 256GB than a Fusion at 1TB.

Everything I've ever done, along with all my music and photos, I'm right at 90GB usage on a 320GB hard drive. I don't ever see me crossing the 200GB mark. Certainly not in 3-4 years. Not with what I do.

I've already got all the good, cool music that's ever been recorded, so I know my music library isn't going to drastically increase.

[Matsu]

Haswell would make a very decent Mac Mini update by the looks of it, not entirely sure about it's value for these macs.

My requirements are driven by photoshop, and these days a tiny wee bit of InDesign. Still evaluating Lightroom, some things on it are so convenient, others I'm not sure.

But back to macs, of course any of those machines will be way way faster than my old MBP, but with an SSD and 10.6.8 finally installed, I'm learning the virtues of patience

Things this mac doesn't (appear to) have, and the likelihood that they may be just around the corner or in the next update?

TB2.0
This one should be easy, since the chipset seems to be available elsewhere and it will soon appear on the Mac Pro. It comes with other goodies too, like support for 4K displays, and depending on how long you're planning to keep this machine, you might miss that functionality in 3 years time, when the machine should otherwise still be pretty solid. 4K displays are falling rapidly in price. They were $25,000 items last year. They're $5,000 this year, they'll be $3,000 next year, and range from $1000 the year after that. It might be too expensive to build in a 4K display right now, but you might want one before your next iMac is too old to be useful. Just a thought.

PCI based SSD***(EDIT below) It's not mentioned, but it's in laptops and the upcoming mac pro, and it makes a real difference in performance. Should be here too. Maybe it is, but I can't tell from Apple's pages. Probably not, or they would have given it a little ink I imagine...

Built in 4K display

Maybe in 2014 as a high end option, but there still isn't a 27" panel in the market place, only 31.5" panels, and they cost more than an iMac.

aRGB gamut

Probably not fully supported until Mavericks anyway, and likely not until we see Apple's 4K cinema display. If I'm not mistaken aRGB and a minimum 10bit precision are part of the 4K standard. Probably still some time before it trickles all the way down.

***EDIT, Interestingly, Apple claims that both Fusion and straight SSD are 50% faster than the previous generation, and this may suggest an improvement in the bus as much as the SSDs in use?

[Quagmire]

Macrumors states it is a PCI SSD.

[Matsu]

That should make for a nice upgrade so long as you opt for a minimum fusion drive.

Apple's closed these things up just a little too tight though. User inaccessible RAM in the 21.5" is a non starter, but that's been the case for a while now.

Pscates, you might be better off with an i5 27" vs an i7 21.5". You can add your own RAM for about $8-10/GB, versus paying Apple $200 for 8 additional GB. Not sure if there's a real difference in the video cards, but you can bump the RAM all the way to 32GB on your own, you get an extra TB port and the bigger screen probably for similar money.

[PB PM]

Not to mention that getting the 27" model means you get a faster 3.5" drive (even better for a fusion drive combo), rather than a slow 5400rpm notebook drive. Frankly it's a joke that they are putting a 5400rpm 2.5" drive in a $1500 machine.

[psmith2.0]

Two things: I'm not gonna have a slow 5400rpm drive. I'll never have anything than an SSD, starting with my next Mac.

I don't want the 27", for various reasons.

Although Apple's $200 for 8GB RAM is goofy, it's a one-time thing to keep me in the machine/size I prefer. I'm five years with 3GB, so I know 16GB is more than enough for my needs for the next ~4 years.

Also, I don't know what I'd do with one Thunderbolt port, let alone two. So that feature is zero enticement/appeal for me. Four USB 3.0 ports. (vs. the three USB 2.0 I've had all this time) is perfect. I have no peripherals beyond a couple of thumb drives and my iPhone.

[Matsu]

Well, if the bigger screen intimidates you, then the i7 21.5" makes sense. The rest of us will overcompensate in the traditional way.

[psmith2.0]

Ha!

[Brave Ulysses]

well… that was a boring update.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, it wasn't splashy or earth-shattering but these mid-life/Rev. B/C/D updates usually aren't. It got the latest processors and bumped up some of the other specs (and adjusted the pricing on some BTO options).

It just got that chassis redesign a year ago, so it wasn't slated for another one so soon. No "next-generation" redesigns had been rumored or leaked.

What, specifically, were you kinda expecting/ hoping for? Different graphics options? Thunderbolt 2? Retina Displays (wouldn't those be insanely pricey)?

I don't know, I'm asking. Seemed like a solid, reasonable update (processors, hard drive, graphics, new wifi, pricing tweaks, etc.) to me when you factor in the above. About what anyone could reasonably expect, considering.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 It got the latest processors and bumped up some of the other specs (and adjusted the pricing on some BTO options). It just got that redesign a year ago, so it wasn't slated for another one so soon. What, specifically, were you expecting/ hoping for? Different graphics options? Thunderbolt 2? Retina Displays (wouldn't those be insanely pricey)? I don't know, I'm asking. Seemed like a solid, reasonable update to me when you factor in the above. About what anyone could reasonably expect, considering.

I'd like to see Apple keep pushing the envelope with their desktops in ways beyond making them thinner. The Mac Pro is very encouraging, but they have played it incredibly safe with the iMac in the last 5 years.

Think back to 1998-2005. During that time period Apple was relentless with reinventing the iMac and pushing its design and really using it as a design statement.. and they really weren't scared to take chances and even quickly abandon designs.

It's fine and all but they haven't done anything to jolt that product in quite some time… even last year's update was very underwhelming, and a step back in many ways.

Just my opinion.

[PB PM]

I agree with BU about the iMac, it's not an exciting product, the question is what should they be doing with it? Design wise it is very minimalist already. What is there left to change? A new case style? If so, to what? Short of moving the guts under the screen like to 2004 models, making it a Mac Mini with a screen attached, there isn't much they can do.

Maybe the real answer is to abandon the AIO and make a Mac Mini with iMac specs.

[psmith2.0]

I understand. It could be on the drawing board. They may very well do to the iMac what they're about to do to the Mac Pro. But I would've been shocked to see it this soon, after just a year. They'll want to milk that current design for at least another cycle or two. Mac designs stick around longer than iPod and iPhone ones.

Plus, we know good and well Apple doesn't see the iMac the way they once did 10-15 years ago. It's not their company-defining flagship anymore. That's the iPhone. And someday, it'll be something else.

I bet we're a solid 18-24 months away from any radical new approach to this model.

PB PM makes some points. I've said for years that they've got this thing distilled down to such a simple, basic thing. It's tough to imagine something new/different that didn't look forced or busy in comparison.

Years ago we relished - and expected - colors, curves/swoops, etc.

I do think something based on the iMac G4 design (an AIO with two separate, connected main components) is interesting to think about. They could then satisfy their thinness fetish by making something "notebook display" thin, no longer having to worry about fitting the guts behind it (and compromising in various ways to maintain almighty thinness). Then some sort of separate housing below with the guts that doesn't have to be do thin and limiting, and with a bit more basic, reasonable upgradeability provided (RAM and hard drive is not asking too much), for those who want to.

It's insane that you buy a $1,299 or $1,499 desktop(!) from them and can't upgrade the RAM as needed...something they allow on the much cheaper mini and the much pricier MacBook Pros (not to mention the 27" version of the iMac itself). And the MacBook Pros (and white MacBooks) both supported user-upgradeable hard drives. And if you remember that first white iMac G5...it did too! So there is precedent, and the notion isn't unheard of or unimaginable.

In fact, I think that's a reasonable trade-off. The more Apple is going to focus on iOS and its devices - and put out fairly pedestrian Mac updates, at long-ish 9-12 month cycles, the least they could do is provide user access to the RAM and hard drive. Seems like a fair compromise

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by PB PM Maybe the real answer is to abandon the AIO and make a Mac Mini with iMac specs.

I have no problem with a Mac mini with equal hardware sans display, but there's no reason to abandon the iMac from a marketing standpoint. The iMac is infinitely more presentable for branding purposes...it looks nicer on a desk. They may overlap a bit, but Apple's so large now a minimalist product line-up does not make sense.

[Matsu]

In hardware design there's little left to do to the iMac but refine it in increasingly subtle ways. It's an invisible computer attached to a display, and the form itself will never deviate too far from that ideal. The hardware spec will improve as contemporary needs dictate, including at some point in the next three years, wide gamut 4K display with 10 bit precision.

What I'm not seeing is any mention of whether this new iMac supports 4K externally. Haswell is supposed to use the Redwood Ridge Thunderbolt controller, and this is a quiet bump to Thunderbolt, it doesn't increase the overall speed, but does add support for Displayport 1.2, which delivers 4K. There is no mention from Apple, though, as to what exactly is in this iMac, and it would be useful to know just little more about the basic spec of the machine.

It's going to take little things to make a big impact now. One such thing could be a stereoscopic iSight camera that tracks the user, or users', head, eyes and hands. Xbox proves this is not really expensive to do, and it could make for some really incredible UI changes. Imagine just being able to gesture to the machine, unbound by either a control surface or touch surface. Just sit in front of it where you feel comfortable, and use an intuitive set of signs to wipe the desktop clean, or bring up a window, or refile a document. The desktop itself has just a little depth to it, so when items are staked on top of each other, a little movement of the user's head from one side to the other provokes just the slightest parallax on screen, you literally "peek" behind that icon/tile/folder etc...

It's software from here on out, hardware is merely whatever is adequate to run the software. Even in my proposal, working out the details, and movement/sensor thresholds involved in making perfectly seamless will be much harder than incorporating some cheap hardware parts.

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by PB PM Maybe the real answer is to abandon the AIO and make a Mac Mini with iMac specs.

Now you're talking my kinda language.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by PB PM Maybe the real answer is to abandon the AIO and make a Mac Mini with iMac specs.

I think you are wildly underestimating the iMacs popularity. I also think the reason why Apple hasn't been changing the general design idea since the iMac G5 is because they genuinely believe that this is the ideal form factor for a desktop computer.

It's funny how fans always complain about Porsche when they try do something unconventional with the 911 and approve of all minor refinements, while with Apple it's the opposite.

[psmith2.0]

Very true.

The design does work.

[Matsu]

That would suck. At the end of the day, an iMac is not quite the impulse purchase that a low end iPad is, or a subsidized iPhone. My fricken laptop is 7 years old. It cost a lot of money, graciously paid by employer at the time. Any machine, though, has got to work for me for at least 3 years. Financially 4-5 makes more sense.

A desktop needs a modicum of upgradability (RAM and Storage), even more so than a laptop, because we'll be throwing heavier work loads at it, and more demanding applications.

It's funny how Apple closes these machines down more, and a little industry is born to open them back up. iFixit has guides on doing your own battery, 2nd HDD, SSD, RAM upgrades to a number of Apple products that hey designed to be closed. Hell, they even have an adhesive strip cutter and replacement adhesive strip kit so you can open up the ivy-bridge/haswell macs. Apple could simply accept that a little bit of modularity is needed by most users and make this easy with the addition of a single door to cover RAM and SSD. Makes the machine a bit easier to repair and update.

It's actually not so hard to open the iMac and swap RAM and drive components by the looks of it. Certainly, not much harder than dismantling a MBP to get at the drives.

EDIT: my post was in reference to pscates reference to welded shut iMacs of the future. Which may very well be what happens, but I still hate the idea.

[psmith2.0]

I agree. I don't like the idea of "welded shut" on a $1,299+ desktop. It's insane, I don't care how sleek and snazzy it looks. I lost my mind over all this a year ago, when these redesigned iMacs came out and they no longer had user access to RAM(!) on the 21.5" models.

I could have that on their $599 and $2,499 desktops - and even their MacBook Pro - but not an iMac? It really cooked my bacon.

[DMBand0026]

I'm totally with you, I don't need a 27" display, I'd be happy with the 21" especially because I have a nice 21" display hooked up to my Mac Mini right now that would go to be the 2nd display on an iMac. The idea that I'm going to pay that much money for a machine that I can't even put additional RAM in without entirely disassembling it is insane. I'm still feeling out what my replacement machine will be for my recently stolen MBP. I'm probably going with an iMac and some notebook, but I'm not sure what exactly yet.

I won't spend that much money on a machine that I can't upgrade the RAM in. I need a reasonably fast machine and I like a lot of RAM, but I won't pay Apple's prices to upgrade. Only having this Mini is driving me nuts, it's a slug now, but I'm holding off. Hopefully the next generation of MBP is just around the corner.

[Matsu]

iFixit teardown suggests that they haven't used redwood ridge controller for thunderbolt, so you're stuck with DP1.1a output, no 4K externally then. That sucks. And it highlights the problems with these machines. There's a lot of advantages to the AIO if they come fully featured, but if they're defeatured in any way, you're stuck. That's OK for a $500 computer that you can replace, not so OK for a $2000 computer that you should keep around for a while...

[PB PM]

Considering that Apple isn't shipping any 4k displays, they likely don't feel the need to have such options available. Very typical move for Apple.

[psmith2.0]

I'd still get one in a heartbeat. That's why I like these long periods between updates...I truly appreciate the difference/step up, and it's something I'll definitely notice, after so long.

Hey, I bought a lottery ticket for the first first time in ages, for tonight's Mega Millions drawing ($173M). So once I win, I'm gonna drop about $2,100 on a new, tricked-out 21.5" iMac.

EDIT: you know, if I've got several million I'll spend $2,499 on it because I'll go ahead and spend the extra $300 to go from the 256GB to 512GB flash drive (in addition to the i7 and 16GB RAM). Just in case I get a bit "download-y" with my new money, and go on a music/app-buying spree. I'll have the extra room!

[Matsu]

If you win 173 million can I get an iMac too?

How cool would that be, just walk into an Apple store and buy a round, "iMacs for everyone!"

If I ever win a huge boatload of cash, I'd like to walk into the student assistance office in September, close the doors behind me, and just cover it for everyone inside, whatever it is, this years' on me. You figure out the rest.