PDA

View Full Version : 21.5" iMac Has No User-Upgradable RAM; 27" Has Four Accessible RAM Slots




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Oct 23, 2012, 02:19 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/23/21-5-imac-has-no-user-upgradable-ram-27-has-four-accessible-ram-slots/)


Consistent with Apple's quest to make its new computers as thin as possible at the expense of expandability, the new 21.5" iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/23/apple-announces-lighter-thinner-imac-models-with-fusion-drive/) contains no user-accessible RAM slots. Instead, it can be configured with 8GB or 16GB of RAM direct from the factory. This was first noticed by Cult of Mac (http://www.cultofmac.com/197623/new-21-inch-imac-wont-let-users-upgrade-ram-themselves-but-27-inch-imac-will/).

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/10/NewImage37.png
The 27" model, on the other hand, can be equipped with up to 32GB of RAM, and has four user-accessible RAM slots via an "easy-to-access memory panel" on the rear of the machine.

From one of Apple's iMac marketing pages (http://www.apple.com/imac/performance/):
The 21.5-inch iMac comes with 8GB of memory and can be configured online with 16GB. On the 27-inch iMac, 8GB of memory comes standard, and you can upgrade to 16GB or 32GB. Configure and buy your iMac at the Apple Online Store and it will arrive with the memory already installed. Or add more memory to the 27-inch model yourself by popping open the easy-to-access memory panel on the back.The 21.5" model ships in November, while the 27" model will begin shipping in December.

Article Link: 21.5" iMac Has No User-Upgradable RAM; 27" Has Four Accessible RAM Slots (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/23/21-5-imac-has-no-user-upgradable-ram-27-has-four-accessible-ram-slots/)



supernaut
Oct 23, 2012, 02:23 PM
It also has a slower hard drive - 5400rpm rather than 7200 previously.

zin
Oct 23, 2012, 02:23 PM
The 21.5" iMac's also are limited to 5,400 RPM HDDs.

nagromme
Oct 23, 2012, 02:24 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

The Phazer
Oct 23, 2012, 02:24 PM
The 21.5 model seems to have been made considerably worse in many ways.

At least the 27 inch hasn't been ruined to the same extent it seems.

azentropy
Oct 23, 2012, 02:24 PM
Oh well, cross it off my list now too.

connor.e
Oct 23, 2012, 02:24 PM
You don't say?

george-brooks
Oct 23, 2012, 02:26 PM
Good to hear, I was worried.

iScott428
Oct 23, 2012, 02:26 PM
YES this is going to save me a couple hundred dollars, thanks Apple! Hey December hurry the FFFFFFFFF up.:p

BreuerEditor
Oct 23, 2012, 02:26 PM
Thankfully we can upgrade the RAM so we don't have to pay for extremely expensive RAM from Apple and get it from good ol' reliable MacSales.com for a fraction of the cost. Looks like I'll be upgrading my Late '09 27" i7... :D:D:D:D:D

petsounds
Oct 23, 2012, 02:27 PM
RAM slots on the iMac? Is this what Tim Cook meant when he said he had something great in store for Mac Pro users?

george-brooks
Oct 23, 2012, 02:28 PM
The 21.5" iMac's also are limited to 5,400 RPM HDDs.

Apple clearly wants to make the iMac a "consumer" machine again, forcing pros to buy a mac pro. I think this new iMac update almost certainly means that we will see a revived mac pro, rather than a discontinuation

funkright
Oct 23, 2012, 02:29 PM
I guess we now have truly disposable computers at much higher than disposable prices :(

zorinlynx
Oct 23, 2012, 02:30 PM
Has anyone found out if the new iMacs use 3.5" or 2.5" hard drives?

I keep thinking they might have switched to 2.5" drives to make them thinner...

AppleMacFinder
Oct 23, 2012, 02:31 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

You tell it like "There are only 17 iMac users who can buy and install new RAM by themselves" :eek::eek::eek:

AcesHigh87
Oct 23, 2012, 02:32 PM
I'll keep my 2011 21.5" iMac thanks. I get a 7200 RPM drive and can upgrade the RAM myself up to 32GB. I don't care if my computer is thin, I care if it's functional. Apple is going too far with their drive for thinness.

zombierunner
Oct 23, 2012, 02:32 PM
Apple, check ya self before ya wreck ya self.

Rudy69
Oct 23, 2012, 02:35 PM
I've never really been a fan of the 21" anyways. I really wish they would say when you'll be able to order (pre order?) the 27" though

Yamcha
Oct 23, 2012, 02:41 PM
Thats too bad, personally not an issue for me as the entry level comes with 8GB, but I'm sure it'll bother a lot of people..

Not sure why making an iMac this thin was necessary, seems we are continuing to make sacrifices..

- No DVD Drive
- 2.5" Hard Drive 5400RPM
- Memory not upgradable..
- $100 more expensive..

At least the graphics card is faster, the 640M is slightly faster then the 6770M..

DivineEvil
Oct 23, 2012, 02:49 PM
F*... it . I'll buy some nice Haswell Mobo and CPU next year and will make myself a Power Mac G5 hackintosh!

MrXiro
Oct 23, 2012, 02:50 PM
I'm glad to hear that the 27 inch model is upgradable the second I saw the new design I was thinking... "Oh crap... no upgradable ram?"

I'm still on last years 27 inch though and I'm poor now, so I shall be sticking with my Fat 27inch iMac.

I wonder if they'll upgrade the Thunderbolt monitor to look this sexy...

J.Appleseed
Oct 23, 2012, 02:55 PM
No comment

Hey, also a Galaxy Note & Mac user! :D

OT: A shame, really. I'd have bought it if it were user-expandable, such a beautiful machine.
Oh well, seems like I'll be buying another 2007-2009 iMac then after all.

PeterQVenkman
Oct 23, 2012, 02:58 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

Add to the list: pray to whatever god you worship that those ram chips never have a problem! it's the difference between a cheap, 5 minute fix by installing a new ram chip, or shipping your entire computer back to apple if it happens to still be under warranty.

It's a sad trend. Let me fix the most common things that break in a computer, Apple.

----------

RAM slots on the iMac? Is this what Tim Cook meant when he said he had something great in store for Mac Pro users?

I think he meant the new Mac Mini with SSD options, but no more discrete graphics. ;)

aquaboy
Oct 23, 2012, 03:03 PM
Does it have a Kensington Lock Slot?

Sjhonny
Oct 23, 2012, 03:04 PM
Picture by anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6402/up-close-with-the-new-27inch-imacs-user-serviceable-memory-panel) of the slot:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6402/DSC_8854_575px.JPG

milo
Oct 23, 2012, 03:05 PM
Shouldn't the model with 4 slots be able to handle 4x16= 64 gigs of ram?

afd
Oct 23, 2012, 03:15 PM
I think the lack of an optical drive is more off putting than soldered in memory. I can understand getting rid of it on a portable, you can plug in a USB drive when you need it, but on a desktop if you ever need it you'd plug it in and leave it cluttering up your desk, filling up a USB port. Plenty of us want to watch a DVD, or rip it, rip a cd a losslessy or burn a cd or DVD.
I know someone that just bought last year's iMac and I felt bad I didn't warn about the upcoming iMacs. Now I know he's got a computer that suits his needs better, I just feel bad that he could have probably got it cheaper.

Lancer
Oct 23, 2012, 03:15 PM
Do we think the 21.5" has soldered RAM or is it just like the HDD and Apple needs to upgrade it?

IMO most base model users will never upgrade the RAM and 8Gb will probably outlive the useful life of the computer.

Either way I'm looking at the 27" and will add 8Gb more RAM later.

bearda
Oct 23, 2012, 03:16 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

I guess I'm one of the 17. Only 16 more to go...

I had 16G of RAM from Crucial waiting for my iMac the day I bought it. The 27" is too big for my desk and the extra RAM helps when testing VMs. No reason to pay Apple's insane prices for memory.

Mike Oxard
Oct 23, 2012, 03:26 PM
It also has a slower hard drive - 5400rpm rather than 7200 previously.

They still make 5400 rpm drives? :eek:

GR33NIE
Oct 23, 2012, 03:27 PM
Really dissapointing, makes me think of keeping mine upgrading the RAM and chucking in a big fat SSD more appealing:(

afd
Oct 23, 2012, 03:35 PM
Really dissapointing, makes me think of keeping mine upgrading the RAM and chucking in a big fat SSD more appealing:(

Me too. How do-able is the SSD? I seem to remember reading that the HD used some custom cable with a heat sensor or something?

zone23
Oct 23, 2012, 03:42 PM
deleted off topic..

macleod199
Oct 23, 2012, 03:45 PM
I think the lack of an optical drive is more off putting than soldered in memory. I can understand getting rid of it on a portable, you can plug in a USB drive when you need it, but on a desktop if you ever need it you'd plug it in and leave it cluttering up your desk, filling up a USB port. Plenty of us want to watch a DVD, or rip it, rip a cd a losslessy or burn a cd or DVD.
I know someone that just bought last year's iMac and I felt bad I didn't warn about the upcoming iMacs. Now I know he's got a computer that suits his needs better, I just feel bad that he could have probably got it cheaper.

I guess we could always hook up a Mac Mini server somewhere and use the drive from that. :rolleyes: Although it doesn't look like you can rip from a remote drive. Sigh.

LimeiBook86
Oct 23, 2012, 03:46 PM
Do we think the 21.5" has soldered RAM or is it just like the HDD and Apple needs to upgrade it?

IMO most base model users will never upgrade the RAM and 8Gb will probably outlive the useful life of the computer.

Either way I'm looking at the 27" and will add 8Gb more RAM later.

That's what we need to wait and see. Although if taking off the iMac case (which from the explanation of how it's welded together) reveals RAM slots that doesn't really help us out either. :p

GR33NIE
Oct 23, 2012, 03:53 PM
Me too. How do-able is the SSD? I seem to remember reading that the HD used some custom cable with a heat sensor or something?

Not as bad as you think, lots of guides on YouTube ;)

trip1ex
Oct 23, 2012, 03:55 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

Yeah and there are 10 million others who swear (hand to god) that they would have bought a smaller imac if only they could install the RAM themselves and if only it was $30 cheaper.

Rend It
Oct 23, 2012, 03:56 PM
Used to be, the best bang for your buck in buying a Mac was to buy the bottom of the line, and upgrade hard drive and RAM over its life. However, even with the last gen iMacs, changing the hard drive was no small feat. Now, the 21.5" model has no user-serviceable features.

Apple is re-jiggering the value equation by only giving people who pay more (by getting the 27") the option to service RAM (no word on the hard drive or Flash storage).

Having said that, I have a mid-2007 iMac which was purchased with 4 GB RAM, and I haven't found a clear need to upgrade that. So, in some ways, I think Apple is trying to partially future-proof by including 8 GB in the new base model. It's not a ton, but the reality is that most people can use that computer for 4-5 years and never see the need for more RAM. This notion is further supported by the fact that the new Mini — which does have user-serviceable RAM — still starts with only 4 GB.

I don't know if I like this new anti-DIY Apple or not. But, I do know that paying an extra $400 or so to get a bigger screen (that I don't really need) and the ability to replace/upgrade RAM is not worth it for lots of folks.

nrose101
Oct 23, 2012, 03:59 PM
Unfortunately it is for me when trying to run final cut and also windows with fusion.

Used to be, the best bang for your buck in buying a Mac was to buy the bottom of the line, and upgrade hard drive and RAM over its life. However, even with the last gen iMacs, changing the hard drive was no small feat. Now, the 21.5" model has no user-serviceable features.

Apple is re-jiggering the value equation by only giving people who pay more (by getting the 27") the option to service RAM (no word on the hard drive or Flash storage).

Having said that, I have a mid-2007 iMac which was purchased with 4 GB RAM, and I haven't found a clear need to upgrade that. So, in some ways, I think Apple is trying to partially future-proof by including 8 GB in the new base model. It's not a ton, but the reality is that most people can use that computer for 4-5 years and never see the need for more RAM. This notion is further supported by the fact that the new Mini — which does have user-serviceable RAM — still starts with only 4 GB.

I don't know if I like this new anti-DIY Apple or not. But, I do know that paying an extra $400 or so to get a bigger screen (that I don't really need) and the ability to replace/upgrade RAM is not worth it for lots of folks.

trip1ex
Oct 23, 2012, 04:00 PM
Used to be, the best bang for your buck in buying a Mac was to buy the bottom of the line, and upgrade hard drive and RAM over its life. However, even with the last gen iMacs, changing the hard drive was no small feat. Now, the 21.5" model has no user-serviceable features.

Apple is re-jiggering the value equation by only giving people who pay more (by getting the 27") the option to service RAM (no word on the hard drive or Flash storage).

Having said that, I have a mid-2007 iMac which was purchased with 4 GB RAM, and I haven't found a clear need to upgrade that. So, in some ways, I think Apple is trying to partially future-proof by including 8 GB in the new base model. It's not a ton, but the reality is that most people can use that computer for 4-5 years and never see the need for more RAM. This notion is further supported by the fact that the new Mini — which does have user-serviceable RAM — still starts with only 4 GB.

I don't know if I like this new anti-DIY Apple or not. But, I do know that paying an extra $400 or so to get a bigger screen (that I don't really need) and the ability to replace/upgrade RAM is not worth it for lots of folks.

Yeah 8gb is somewhat future proof so kudos for them doing that because I have seen plenty of Macs with not enough memory in the base model.

A 5400 rpm hard drive though? Ouch. I think they should have just put a 128gb SSD in there. I mean I can always add an external drive for storage. Many will have a Time Machine back up drive connected anyway. :)

I can even mount it (out of sight) to the back of the Imac. There is a company that makes such a mount or shelf for this sort of purpose.

Hakone
Oct 23, 2012, 04:28 PM
For my needs, the iMac was the best announcement today. I was worried about upgrading the RAM but this is good news that we still can.

I'll take the high config 27", but add the Fusion drive. Doubt i'll need the i7 CPU, though.

I kind've think the rest of the hardware announcements flopped. =(

patohi
Oct 23, 2012, 04:31 PM
This new iMac only makes me think hackintoshs will be more appealing....
Less user upgradeable and no optical drive..... not to mention still very pricey...

iBug2
Oct 23, 2012, 04:36 PM
This is the first iMac which makes me consider switching to iMac when I "upgrade" my Mac Pro. 32GB Ram and GTX680MX should be enough for several years. The only question I have now is about the fan noise. I love the silentness of my Mac Pro and can't really trade that off.

Lancer
Oct 23, 2012, 04:37 PM
That's what we need to wait and see. Although if taking off the iMac case (which from the explanation of how it's welded together) reveals RAM slots that doesn't really help us out either. :p

But it would make it upgradeable so later someone could refurbish the iMac with more RAM and bigger SSD when they come down in price. I'm sure it would be long before DIY instructions come out and videos appear on YouTube.

ArthurDent-
Oct 23, 2012, 04:38 PM
How is the RAM distributed in the 27"? Is it between all 4 slots, or between 2 of them?

marc.cizravi
Oct 23, 2012, 04:39 PM
reading people whine is really exhausting D:

longofest
Oct 23, 2012, 04:41 PM
RAM slots on the iMac? Is this what Tim Cook meant when he said he had something great in store for Mac Pro users?

No... Tim has something even better planned. The new Mac Pro will be the... you guessed it: Mac Pro Mini.

"Starting at $2999, the Mac Pro Mini is the best Mac we've ever made for the professional market. How can such small device be such a giant leap forward? Now with our state of the art Thunderbolt technology(1), there isn't a need to use internal PCIe expansion, but rather we can make our Aluminum and Glass (2) chasis thinner than ever and customers can expand using our optional Thunderbolt to PCI breakout box, which starts at $15,000.

(1) Thunderbolt technology originally introduced in early 2011
(2) Glass added for the heck of it"

Rend It
Oct 23, 2012, 04:41 PM
A 5400 rpm hard drive though? Ouch. I think they should have just put a 128gb SSD in there. I mean I can always add an external drive for storage. Many will have a Time Machine back up drive connected anyway. :)

I can even mount it (out of sight) to the back of the Imac. There is a company that makes such a mount or shelf for this sort of purpose.

I can't agree more. I think this is clearly a lame move. Now, if I purchase one of these new iMacs, I plan on getting the Fusion drive, so I was holding out hope that the Fusion combo would include a 7200 rpm drive. I'm not particular optimistic, however. :rolleyes:

Clearly, this wasn't motivated by costs. 7200 rpm drives are not that much more expensive. I'm guessing it's heat. It's also likely that the hard disks in the 21.5" iMacs are 2.5", rather than 3.5", since the max size is 1 TB. So, once again Apple, why must you make a desktop system so vanishingly thin that you have to move to mobile-sized hard drives?

It's a DESKTOP, for crying out loud!

snebes
Oct 23, 2012, 04:45 PM
I only skimmed the thread, but this article is only based on speculation. Not sure if anyone else had this opinion.

How many times has Apple said things are not upgradable, only because it was difficult to get to them? My guess, is the memory isn't soldered in this case. Neither is the HD. Opening the iMac, though, would be the problem.

I will hold my judgement until November--not that I am one of the 17, but because I sell memory and HDs to those 17 people :)

wikus
Oct 23, 2012, 04:49 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

Yes, lets downplay individuals who do more than send photos to grandma and grandpa.

Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, and neither do you.

george-brooks
Oct 23, 2012, 04:54 PM
Does it have a Kensington Lock Slot?

Yes it appears to, based on the photo in the first post on the second page

patohi
Oct 23, 2012, 04:59 PM
I can't agree more. I think this is clearly a lame move. Now, if I purchase one of these new iMacs, I plan on getting the Fusion drive, so I was holding out hope that the Fusion combo would include a 7200 rpm drive. I'm not particular optimistic, however. :rolleyes:

Clearly, this wasn't motivated by costs. 7200 rpm drives are not that much more expensive. I'm guessing it's heat. It's also likely that the hard disks in the 21.5" iMacs are 2.5", rather than 3.5", since the max size is 1 TB. So, once again Apple, why must you make a desktop system so vanishingly thin that you have to move to mobile-sized hard drives?

It's a DESKTOP, for crying out loud!

lol!!!! It is a DESKTOP, for crying out loud!!!
We really don't need smaller and lighter do we???? How often do you move your iMac around or put in your messenger bag????? I was hoping for desktop graphics cards.... GT 640M graphics to start? :(....

thelead
Oct 23, 2012, 05:02 PM
it'll be fun to see one of the teardown sites take these apart.

shanmugam
Oct 23, 2012, 05:07 PM
Officially today Apple announced they are adding "i" in front of their name and it is going to be called iApple ;)

Death to the Mac desktops! :o

longofest
Oct 23, 2012, 05:19 PM
They still make 5400 rpm drives? :eek:

It's a common speed for 2.5" drives. Laptop manufacturers will use them to get better battery life. Now why you'd ever use it in a desktop is beyond me.

milo
Oct 23, 2012, 05:21 PM
Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, and neither do you.

I'd think that "professionals" would probably get either the bigger imac or a different model entirely. While I'm a fan of expansion, especially ram, it doesn't really bug me when the other model has four ram slots.

GenesisST
Oct 23, 2012, 05:31 PM
I'd think that "professionals" would probably get either the bigger imac or a different model entirely. While I'm a fan of expansion, especially ram, it doesn't really bug me when the other model has four ram slots.

I'm a professional... I make a living with memory hogs like XCode and Eclipse (and the terminal, b****! To mimmick Mr Pinkman :D)... And I use a 21.5" iMac... Would I love a 27"? Sure! Can I live with 22" (rounded) and use the $$ difference somewhere else, hell yeah.

With my 2006 iMac (still running!) and 2010 MBP, I started with the stock ram and maxed it out. I don't see why I wouldn't do that... if I could...

sauceman38
Oct 23, 2012, 05:32 PM
I checked the Apple site, and there's no way to see build options for the iMacs. Does this mean we can't see them until Nov/Dec.?

DJJAZZYJET
Oct 23, 2012, 05:32 PM
The 21.5" has a 5,400 RPM HDD? LOL!

brdeveloper
Oct 23, 2012, 05:35 PM
I would blame the non user-upgradeable storage, but these SSD caches work pretty well.

I've tested a Samsung ultrabook with just 16GB SSD cache and it boots and wakes up pretty fast, so it's a better approach bringing 128GB SSD cache plus an 1TB HDD than only installing an expensive 256GB SSD.

Of course, Apple's "ExpressCache" it's not as innovative as they say. Actually it's pretty outdated. I would hope this approach in the new MBPro retina. It would be nice having a 500GB HDD cached in a 32GB SSD.

trims
Oct 23, 2012, 05:39 PM
I'll take the high config 27", but add the Fusion drive. =(

Lovin' the Fusion drive.

OS and apps on SSD with programs and data on the HDD? Brilliant!

Just like my RiscPC has had for >15 years!

flopticalcube
Oct 23, 2012, 05:39 PM
It's a common speed for 2.5" drives. Laptop manufacturers will use them to get better battery life. Now why you'd ever use it in a desktop is beyond me.

To make a slimmer desktop?

mcfrazieriv
Oct 23, 2012, 06:01 PM
iMac mini

WatchTheThrone
Oct 23, 2012, 06:01 PM
I need some advice....ive been waiting for an iMac since June and I thought waiting for the new one would be worth it but after seeing it im now a lil disappointed. Not disappointed with the loss of the optical but the upgradable ram.
I plan to use it for logic pro so should I wait and get this with 8 gb or buy current version (which is cheaper) and just upgrade the ram myself and for cheaper!!

USB 3 isn't really that important for me yet specially since the current version has thunderbolt. Also it being thinner is cool but useless for a desktop. I'd rather they made the ram upgradable and the hd 7200

wikus
Oct 23, 2012, 06:06 PM
I'd think that "professionals" would probably get either the bigger imac or a different model entirely. While I'm a fan of expansion, especially ram, it doesn't really bug me when the other model has four ram slots.

Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely. Like I said, Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, the different model available is the Mac Pro which has been completely ignored for the last 4 years.

These new iMacs are a joke. I keep saying Apple is obsessed about limiting choice for consumers, but everytime they make a small incremental change like this that is detrimental for users, the hoards of apple fanboys *always* overlook the criticisms.

What could have POSSIBLY been so wrong with letting users upgrade the ram on their own? Would an iMac not be as good if it had that ability? Would an iPhone be worse off if the battery was replaceable? Would the original iPod not be the same if it didn't force the use of iTunes?

What the hell is so wrong with CHOICE? These normal optional things make *zero* of a difference for the complete noobs, it doesnt make things any more complicated.

baryon
Oct 23, 2012, 06:07 PM
Is the 16 GB RAM upgrade online fairly priced though? Because it's worth maxing out your machine when you order it anyway, since you will eventually need the extra RAM at some point, might as well get the most out of it from the start. Unless throwing away the 8GB that came with it and replacing it with 16GB of your favorite brand is still cheaper?

wikus
Oct 23, 2012, 06:10 PM
lol!!!! It is a DESKTOP, for crying out loud!!!
We really don't need smaller and lighter do we???? How often do you move your iMac around or put in your messenger bag????? I was hoping for desktop graphics cards.... GT 640M graphics to start? :(....

If you want horsepower, your better off with a PC and Windows, clearly Apple is catering to the tech illiterate.

Or you could try a Hackintosh.

----------

Is the 16 GB RAM upgrade online fairly priced though? Because it's worth maxing out your machine when you order it anyway, since you will eventually need the extra RAM at some point, might as well get the most out of it from the start. Unless throwing away the 8GB that came with it and replacing it with 16GB of your favorite brand is still cheaper?

You can bet your life that it will NOT be fairly priced. Apple has the *worst* track record for ripping off customers for simple RAM upgrades.

314631
Oct 23, 2012, 06:18 PM
5400 RPM is fine because for me battery life is much more important than drive speed.

wikus
Oct 23, 2012, 06:19 PM
I suspect that Apple purposely got rid of user replaceable parts like the hard drive in order to push their agenda of the FAILURE that was Thunderbolt and get people to buy devices that use the port. Looks like theyre trying to save thunderbolt. I won't be using it. USB3 is a safer route seeing how its compatible with basically every computer on the planet.

Nice move, Apple :rolleyes:

trip1ex
Oct 23, 2012, 06:26 PM
I can't agree more. I think this is clearly a lame move. Now, if I purchase one of these new iMacs, I plan on getting the Fusion drive, so I was holding out hope that the Fusion combo would include a 7200 rpm drive. I'm not particular optimistic, however. :rolleyes:

Clearly, this wasn't motivated by costs. 7200 rpm drives are not that much more expensive. I'm guessing it's heat. It's also likely that the hard disks in the 21.5" iMacs are 2.5", rather than 3.5", since the max size is 1 TB. So, once again Apple, why must you make a desktop system so vanishingly thin that you have to move to mobile-sized hard drives?

It's a DESKTOP, for crying out loud!

yeah heat and Fusion too gave them a reason to put a slower drive in there. The thinness necessitated a 2.5" drive. And once that was a requirement then ....5400 rpm became an easier decision. They did go 1TB which is twice what they offered before. Just twice the size will help the transfer rate everything being equal. IN this case since everything isn't equal, it will lessen the effect of the slower rpm compared to the 500gb 7200 rpm drive before.

YOu can already see too that they had to raise their pricepoint so cost was an issue relatively speaking. I mean obviously they have a nice profit margin on all their products.

afd
Oct 23, 2012, 06:29 PM
5400 RPM is fine because for me battery life is much more important than drive speed.

Now that I think about it, this also explains lack of optical drive, that'd be a drain on the battery too

mslide
Oct 23, 2012, 06:35 PM
I guess if I ever want to buy a non-portable laptop, I know where to go. Just like Apple... form >>>>> function.

126351
Oct 23, 2012, 06:37 PM
No replaceable RAM is one too many FU's from Apple.

Stick it, Cook. I'm done.

Rend It
Oct 23, 2012, 06:40 PM
5400 RPM is fine because for me battery life is much more important than drive speed.

I'm assuming you're joking.

Battery life in a desktop system? Are you referring to the battery life of the UPS?

Dekard
Oct 23, 2012, 06:49 PM
I think the lack of an optical drive is more off putting than soldered in memory. I can understand getting rid of it on a portable, you can plug in a USB drive when you need it, but on a desktop if you ever need it you'd plug it in and leave it cluttering up your desk, filling up a USB port. Plenty of us want to watch a DVD, or rip it, rip a cd a losslessy or burn a cd or DVD.
I know someone that just bought last year's iMac and I felt bad I didn't warn about the upcoming iMacs. Now I know he's got a computer that suits his needs better, I just feel bad that he could have probably got it cheaper.

I haven't used my superdrive 2 times in over 2 years. I can plug in a external one if I need to use one. It's like a floppy drive now a days. Even cars are coming with memory card slots..

blackcrayon
Oct 23, 2012, 06:55 PM
I guess we now have truly disposable computers at much higher than disposable prices :(

I guess if you ordered your 2011 or just about any previous iMac with maxed out RAM, those were disposable too? I mean there has never been much you could do internally with an iMac.

nuckinfutz
Oct 23, 2012, 06:55 PM
No replaceable RAM is one too many FU's from Apple.

Stick it, Cook. I'm done.

Buy a 27". Go big or go home son.

damitssam
Oct 23, 2012, 07:01 PM
who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.

----------

5400 RPM is fine because for me battery life is much more important than drive speed.

Dunno if this guy is trolling or just plain stupid. :p:p:p

thefourthpope
Oct 23, 2012, 07:01 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

I'm more concerned that this restriction will filter up the product chain and include other hardware elements

wikus
Oct 23, 2012, 07:03 PM
who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.

----------



Dunno if this guy is trolling or just plain stupid. :p:p:p

I think youre trolling as you basically answered your own question although with limited knowledge.

16gb is a necessity for some. Spending thousands on a computer like a pro user but not being able to upgrade RAM like a noob is ridiculous.

nuckinfutz
Oct 23, 2012, 07:07 PM
I think youre trolling as you basically answered your own question although with limited knowledge.

16gb is a necessity for some. Spending thousands on a computer like a pro user but not being able to upgrade RAM like a noob is ridiculous.

Then those people can upgrade the RAM to 16GB in the store. Case closed

patohi
Oct 23, 2012, 07:39 PM
If you want horsepower, your better off with a PC and Windows, clearly Apple is catering to the tech illiterate.

Or you could try a Hackintosh.

----------




I've been using hackintoshes for the last 4 years and have been quite happy with them....
I'm always looking for Apple hardware updates that might make me reconsider a new build....
yet once again Apple disappoints and time for a new build for around 500-600 that will equal the 1799 imac in performance....

ronm99
Oct 23, 2012, 08:02 PM
[QUOTE=damitssam;16114445]who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.[COLOR="#808080"]

Most people probably don't need more than 8GB (at least for now), but I personally need at least 16GB (I have 18GB on my Mac Pro). I often have two Parallels virtual machines running, XCode, Aperture, Photoshop, and other applications and if I'm not careful I have got into situations where my performance dropped due to paging.

I'm going to buy myself a new 27" iMac to replace my almost 5-year old Mac Pro, and I'll probably get the 16GB of memory directly from Apple (and buy OWC memory if I ever need more). Looking at the upgrade pricing on the Mac Mini, going from 8GB to 16GB will cost $200 vs. $130 or so from OWC for 16GB. I'm willing to pay a small premium for Apple memory.

gmm421
Oct 23, 2012, 08:05 PM
I have been waiting a few months to see what the new iMacs would be before buying a machine. Initially, I was impressed by the new 21.5 model; but, the limit of 16GB, slow hard drive, and lack of upgradability post-purchase is a deal breaker. I had planned on buying the 21.5" iMac for my business, and I don't plan on buying a new computer every couple of years. At least kits are available to upgrade the 2011 model; I doubt that will happen for the 2012 models. I accepted that my PPC G5 had no upgradable CPU, and I can't easily upgrade my 27" 2011 iMac. Its much more difficult to accept that the RAM cannot be upgraded in the 2012 21.5" iMac. Even the RAM in my 1985 Mac was upgraded with the turn of a torx wrench. Refurbs are in my future. I'm still an Apple fan of 27 years, but losing control over upgrading my machine sucks.

Rich2Putt
Oct 23, 2012, 08:23 PM
Could be Apple decided to change from 7200 to 5400 was because of the heat factor.

http://www.ehow.com/info_12085368_5400-rpm-vs-7200-rpm-hard-disk.html

Qgirl
Oct 23, 2012, 08:29 PM
Nobody's mentioning the displays. I'm pretty excited, actually. I still have my 2006 white 20" iMac, which has become a bit of a pain, but vowed not to replace it till the new ones have a non-glare display. (Can't STAND the reflective displays.) Well, they do now, almost. Not as non-glare as my old one, but much better. 16 gb RAM is enough for me; I will be in for a 21". (Not happy about the need for an external cd/dvd drive but my son has the same issue with his MBA and as it turns out, has hardly ever used his Superdrive.)

flopticalcube
Oct 23, 2012, 08:32 PM
Could be Apple decided to change from 7200 to 5400 was because of the heat factor.

http://www.ehow.com/info_12085368_5400-rpm-vs-7200-rpm-hard-disk.html

I doubt it since the few watts saved on the hard drive will be nothing compared to the GPU, CPU and PSU.

nuckinfutz
Oct 23, 2012, 08:37 PM
I have been waiting a few months to see what the new iMacs would be before buying a machine. Initially, I was impressed by the new 21.5 model; but, the limit of 16GB, slow hard drive, and lack of upgradability post-purchase is a deal breaker. I had planned on buying the 21.5" iMac for my business, and I don't plan on buying a new computer every couple of years. At least kits are available to upgrade the 2011 model; I doubt that will happen for the 2012 models. I accepted that my PPC G5 had no upgradable CPU, and I can't easily upgrade my 27" 2011 iMac. Its much more difficult to accept that the RAM cannot be upgraded in the 2012 21.5" iMac. Even the RAM in my 1985 Mac was upgraded with the turn of a torx wrench. Refurbs are in my future. I'm still an Apple fan of 27 years, but losing control over upgrading my machine sucks.

Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM. 5 Years ago few Mac apps could even address more than 2GB of RAM. I know people thinking that software will continue to use more RAM and it will but within reason. The only people that seem to need gobs of RAM are

Servers that are heavily used
Design
Multiple VMs
Porn

jk on the pr0n

Jayse
Oct 23, 2012, 08:41 PM
Does it have a Kensington Lock Slot?

Might be needed to stop it floating away given its thinness and lightness now...

coolspot18
Oct 23, 2012, 08:43 PM
Oh well, cross it off my list now too.

Yeah, considering there are several attractive All-in-One PCs now ... Apple should really make the iMac more powerful not less!


Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM.

True, but as a power user I often run 2 VMs at the same time along with several other apps - that gobbles memory.

Yes, not every needs this much memory, considering the Mac Pro is so expensive, the iMac is really the only option and therefore should cater somewhat to (economy) power users.

MeFromHere
Oct 23, 2012, 08:49 PM
... At least kits are available to upgrade the 2011 model; I doubt that will happen for the 2012 models. I accepted that my PPC G5 had no upgradable CPU, and I can't easily upgrade my 27" 2011 iMac. Its much more difficult to accept that the RAM cannot be upgraded in the 2012 21.5" iMac. ...

I still think the new 21.5" iMac might have upgradeable memory, just not very easy to upgrade. It depends on how easy it is to open the case. An Apple-authorized service shop or a capable DIY owner with the right tools will hopefully be able to open it up.

The specs say "8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory, Configurable to 16GB." I don't think the memory is soldered onto the motherboard, because it says "two 4GB". I think there will be two removable memory modules; maybe not SO-DIMMs like the 27" will use, but still removable. That hopefully means there's an upgrade path from Apple and/or 3rd parties.

Contrast the iMac specs with the rMBP, which says "8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory, Configurable to 16GB." It does NOT say "two 4GB" because the memory chips are integrated onto the motherboard and aren't removable.

Qgirl
Oct 23, 2012, 08:51 PM
Also, everybody's making jokes about the thinness, given that it is after all a desktop, but I actually take mine with me when we travel (by car) so that's a plus for me.

timbloom
Oct 23, 2012, 09:02 PM
Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM. 5 Years ago few Mac apps could even address more than 2GB of RAM. I know people thinking that software will continue to use more RAM and it will but within reason. The only people that seem to need gobs of RAM are

Servers that are heavily used
Design
Multiple VMs
Porn

jk on the pr0n

I routinely get complaints from people running 16 GB of RAM complaining of lack of RAM. 4-6 years ago people like you screamed that there was no way people would ever need more than 4 and today those same machines are choking on a base install running iPhoto. A user can't anticipate RAM needs of 2 years from now, let alone 4. My problem here is a user finds they need more for a new use/job/hobby, and is told by the apple retail "genius" that their "premium" computer is too crappy to be upgraded to suit their needs even while still in AppleCare. This kills the brand loyalty.

Don't even try to tell me only designers will need this much RAM, a properly equipped designer will show you how fast they can burn up 32+, and I have residential iPhoto users who had to upgrade to 16 a year ago. 16GB really isn't even all that much today, let alone 3 years from now.
Background: many years in Support for both residential and professional IT consulting.

cgk.emu
Oct 23, 2012, 09:06 PM
I routinely get complaints from people running 16 GB of RAM complaining of lack of RAM. 4-6 years ago people like you screamed that there was no way people would ever need more than 4 and today those same machines are choking on a base install running iPhoto. A user can't anticipate RAM needs of 2 years from now, let alone 4. My problem here is a user finds they need more for a new use/job/hobby, and is told by the apple retail "genius" that their "premium" computer is too crappy to be upgraded to suit their needs even while still in AppleCare. This kills the brand loyalty.

Don't even try to tell me only designers will need this much RAM, a properly equipped designer will show you how fast they can burn up 32+, and I have residential iPhoto users who had to upgrade to 16 a year ago. 16GB really isn't even all that much today, let alone 3 years from now.

What are you on about? In my IT support experience, the most users seem to need is 8GB at MOST. When I'm using FCPX on my 2009 Mac Pro, the most I have used is 9GB editing 1080p video...

----------

I still think the new 21.5" iMac might have upgradeable memory, just not very easy to upgrade. It depends on how easy it is to open the case. An Apple-authorized service shop or a capable DIY owner with the right tools will hopefully be able to open it up.

The specs say "8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory, Configurable to 16GB." I don't think the memory is soldered onto the motherboard, because it says "two 4GB". I think there will be two removable memory modules; maybe not SO-DIMMs like the 27" will use, but still removable. That hopefully means there's an upgrade path from Apple and/or 3rd parties.

Contrast the iMac specs with the rMBP, which says "8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory, Configurable to 16GB." It does NOT say "two 4GB" because the memory chips are integrated onto the motherboard and aren't removable.

Configurable = at checkout
Upgradeable = user serviceable

gmm421
Oct 23, 2012, 09:21 PM
Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM. 5 Years ago few Mac apps could even address more than 2GB of RAM. I know people thinking that software will continue to use more RAM and it will but within reason. The only people that seem to need gobs of RAM are

Servers that are heavily used
Design
Multiple VMs
Porn

jk on the pr0n

As I said in my message, its to be a business computer; and, it will run multiple VMs and many programs simultaneously. Until the G5, my upgradable Apple computers were usable for almost 10 years. 16GB today may be the equivalent of 2GB in the future, so the more RAM options, the merrier.

Why would porn require high GBs?

WatchTheThrone
Oct 23, 2012, 09:28 PM
Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM. 5 Years ago few Mac apps could even address more than 2GB of RAM. I know people thinking that software will continue to use more RAM and it will but within reason. The only people that seem to need gobs of RAM are

Servers that are heavily used
Design
Multiple VMs
Porn

jk on the pr0n


Well 8 gb might be good for 1 or 2 years but as time passes programs begin to use more and more ram and eventually will make your iMac feel sluggish when running multiple apps!! That's why it's good to future proof your iMac by having upgradable RAM!!
Also the base iMac only has 8 an upgrading it to 16 by apple is WAAAYYY more expensive than buying it online and upgrading it yourself!!
I'm still debating whether to get the current iMac or wait for the new one!! But that 5400 drive is steering me towards the sandy bridge

tipp
Oct 23, 2012, 09:29 PM
Wooo! Breaking out the smelling salts!

Oh well, cross it off my list now too.

Yes, because I want a 21.5" iMac, but CANNOT get 16GB preinstalled? No way!

I guess we now have truly disposable computers at much higher than disposable prices :(

If I cannot buy this now with 8GB of memory and then buy and install 16GB on my own, this thing is disposable!

I'll keep my 2011 21.5" iMac thanks. I get a 7200 RPM drive and can upgrade the RAM myself up to 32GB. I don't care if my computer is thin, I care if it's functional. Apple is going too far with their drive for thinness.

A computer with 16GB of memory is NOT functional, people! It just won't work! I am going to keep my current iMac forever.

------------------

People sure do love to complain about Apple, but then the next day, the world keeps turning and we all manage. If you need a computer with 16GB of memory, and let's be honest, very few do, get it preinstalled. If you want a more powerful machine, with higher options, get the 27". It's not as fun as whining about Apple, but it will let you get your extreme, memory-intensive work done.

WatchTheThrone
Oct 23, 2012, 09:34 PM
I still think the new 21.5" iMac might have upgradeable memory, just not very easy to upgrade. It depends on how easy it is to open the case. An Apple-authorized service shop or a capable DIY owner with the right tools will hopefully be able to open it up.

The specs say "8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory, Configurable to 16GB." I don't think the memory is soldered onto the motherboard, because it says "two 4GB". I think there will be two removable memory modules; maybe not SO-DIMMs like the 27" will use, but still removable. That hopefully means there's an upgrade path from Apple and/or 3rd parties.

Contrast the iMac specs with the rMBP, which says "8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory, Configurable to 16GB." It does NOT say "two 4GB" because the memory chips are integrated onto the motherboard and aren't removable.

If that's the case, then why didnt apple just add the removable door like in the 27?? Makes no sense not to let people upgrade their 21 but let them upgrade the 27??

MeFromHere
Oct 23, 2012, 09:34 PM
Configurable = at checkout
Upgradeable = user serviceable

I agree about "configurable".

However, I think the 21.5" iMac will be "upgradeable" (by an Apple technician) but not (easily) "user serviceable" to upgrade RAM. The case will be hard to open and there's a good chance the memory modules will be some nonstandard form factor. The "two 4GB" description gives me hope that the memory will be removable modules, not soldered onto the board.

On the other hand, the 15" rMBP is neither "upgradeable" nor "user serviceable" for RAM. Not even an Apple technician can replace the memory in that system.

Ping Guo
Oct 23, 2012, 09:40 PM
I've never really been a fan of the 21" anyways. I really wish they would say when you'll be able to order (pre order?) the 27" though

Just got off the phone with Tim, and they were all devastated when they found out you've never been a fan of the 21". He added that they'll keep selling it for a while as a few other people might like one, if that's OK with you?

stiligFox
Oct 23, 2012, 09:40 PM
If that's the case, then why didnt apple just add the removable door like in the 27?? Makes no sense not to let people upgrade their 21 but let them upgrade the 27??

It more than likely has to do with where the RAM has to be on the motherboard. With the 27 inch there was more room to put the RAM in an accessible place, but not so with the 21 inch.

Question though -- any ideas why the 27 inch is almost exactly twice the weight of the 21 inch?

timbloom
Oct 23, 2012, 09:42 PM
What are you on about? In my IT support experience, the most users seem to need is 8GB at MOST. When I'm using FCPX on my 2009 Mac Pro, the most I have used is 9GB editing 1080p video...

You're using 9 today for probably quite basic single-track video, I assume? What about intensive plugins or lots of effects? How about running after effects, photoshop, illustrator, Lightroom, autocad, maya, logic, motion or anything else in combination? What about 4 years from now? Just because you aren't, doesn't mean there aren't a ton of users out there doing it. Sure, your home user won't need 32 today, but who is to say that they won't in 3 years? My own minimum ram needs, and I don't do nearly as intensive work on my MP as my clients, have doubled approximately every 2.5 years since 1999.

MeFromHere
Oct 23, 2012, 09:45 PM
If that's the case, then why didnt apple just add the removable door like in the 27?? Makes no sense not to let people upgrade their 21 but let them upgrade the 27??

Maybe they couldn't squeeze the door into the smaller space. Maybe the RAM is on the wrong side of the board, or behind some other component. Maybe the modules use a weird connector that requires special tools. I really have no idea; I'm just guessing.

But they describe the memory as "two 4GB", which it NOT how they describe the soldered-on memory in the 15" rMBP. Can you think of another reason for the "two 4GB" description?

I guess we'll have to wait for someone to buy one and take it apart.

Rend It
Oct 23, 2012, 10:05 PM
I doubt it since the few watts saved on the hard drive will be nothing compared to the GPU, CPU and PSU.

The major difference is that the GPU/CPU have dedicated and efficient cooling systems. Hard drives in most desktops and laptops simply rely on conduction through thin mounting brackets, and not much else. So, a 3.5" hard drive spinning at 7200 rpm, and hanging out at 110°F is in fact a large source of heat in the chassis.

It's really not a problem for other components in the system, but in a compact enclosure like the new iMac, the hard drive would likely fail. I'm not saying they should have such a small enclosure, but I do think the move to 5400 rpm laptop-sized drives is a result of little space, and therefore limited thermal budget.

flopticalcube
Oct 23, 2012, 10:21 PM
The major difference is that the GPU/CPU have dedicated and efficient cooling systems. Hard drives in most desktops and laptops simply rely on conduction through thin mounting brackets, and not much else. So, a 3.5" hard drive spinning at 7200 rpm, and hanging out at 110°F is in fact a large source of heat in the chassis.

It's really not a problem for other components in the system, but in a compact enclosure like the new iMac, the hard drive would likely fail. I'm not saying they should have such a small enclosure, but I do think the move to 5400 rpm laptop-sized drives is a result of little space, and therefore limited thermal budget.

Could be but I doubt the thermals where as important as the thickness resulting from using a smaller drive. Tight, low-flowing enclosures never stopped Apple from putting in 3.5" 7200RPM drives before.

wikus
Oct 23, 2012, 11:00 PM
Wooo! Breaking out the smelling salts!



Yes, because I want a 21.5" iMac, but CANNOT get 16GB preinstalled? No way!



If I cannot buy this now with 8GB of memory and then buy and install 16GB on my own, this thing is disposable!



A computer with 16GB of memory is NOT functional, people! It just won't work! I am going to keep my current iMac forever.

------------------

People sure do love to complain about Apple, but then the next day, the world keeps turning and we all manage. If you need a computer with 16GB of memory, and let's be honest, very few do, get it preinstalled. If you want a more powerful machine, with higher options, get the 27". It's not as fun as whining about Apple, but it will let you get your extreme, memory-intensive work done.

For people like you who don't earn their living from the tools they use, as in, a computer, you are in no position to criticize them for their complaints.

DakotaGuy
Oct 23, 2012, 11:20 PM
To make a slimmer desktop?

If your main concern is how thin it is wouldn't you buy a MacBook Air? Now I can understand why being thin and light is important in a notebook, but for a desktop? I understand that they are aiming for the crowd that puts style above everything else, but still it is not like the last generation iMac was ugly.

Apple has been blamed before for putting style ahead of function, but I'd say this is the most egregious example yet.

I will happily continue to use my 2011 iMac and I wonder if maybe we would have been better served by Apple just refreshing that line with updated specs. At least they would have been more functional and with the additional space they could have made a real powerhouse out of it.

flopticalcube
Oct 23, 2012, 11:34 PM
If your main concern is how thin it is wouldn't you buy a MacBook Air? Now I can understand why being thin and light is important in a notebook, but for a desktop? I understand that they are aiming for the crowd that puts style above everything else, but still it is not like the last generation iMac was ugly.

Apple has been blamed before for putting style ahead of function, but I'd say this is the most egregious example yet.

I will happily continue to use my 2011 iMac and I wonder if maybe we would have been better served by Apple just refreshing that line with updated specs. At least they would have been more functional and with the additional space they could have made a real powerhouse out of it.

Oh yes. I thought the G5 iMac was perfectly fine. Easy to service and plenty of space. Thin on a phone I understand but thin on a desktop I don't.

darcyjames
Oct 24, 2012, 12:26 AM
Definitely the most estheticly appealing all-in-one; if you really need more upgradability (the majority of consumers don't) they probably don't care that you won't buy it. Maybe its all a conspiracy to drive Applecare sales!

They have to be bringing out a new Pro so I'll be waiting for that...and waiting...and waiting...

AmazingRobie
Oct 24, 2012, 12:52 AM
Just so everyone knows, I purchased the mid 2011 iMac with Lion preinstalled & a 250GB SSD and upgraded the RAM to 32GB from OWC. It ran like sh#t and I had nothing but problems, even after a couple of fresh reinstalls which took literally days to set up. I downgraded it to Snow Leopard and it's the fastest computer I've ever owned and I do ALOT of video editing and graphics work. If you don't have a way to run Snow Leopard, don't expect a whole lot from the 32GB of RAM in the new iMac's. It's not the computers fault, it's going to be the OS. Lion/Mountain Lion are bloated turd OS's.

That said, after today's keynote, I don't regret my purchase of the mid 2011 system literally AT ALL. In fact given the chance to do it all over again, I'd take the previous generation iMac over what I saw today. Apple has lost me as a customer on future hardware purchases. I can not understand their, almost psychotic, obsessive urge to make everything thinner. I have not been impressed by anything they've announced this entire year and they've refreshed everything they've got except the Mac Pro.

I've said it before and I'll reiterate it here, Apple may be selling phones, tablets and computers now in 2012, but in about a couple of more keynotes, with all of their products being soo expensive, unsubstantial in size and disposable, people are going to realize that a little heft in a device and upgradeability is not a bad thing, especially if it prolongs the devices lifecycle. I still have my pre-unibody 2008 MacBook Pro with a user replaceable battery and I'd take that any day over the new disposable computers. It still runs Snow Leopard and I've maxed out the RAM in it. If I ever want a faster laptop, I'll upgrade it's hard drive to an SSD. And if my iMac ever fails and can't be repaired, I'll be building a hackintosh which can run Snow Leopard since none of their current lineup is backwards compatible. Future Apple software is dead to me unless by some miracle they pull their heads out and are able to turn their current direction around.

It's like Cook and Co. have set their sites on failure and can't see anything until the numbers start to drop. Which of course, they will, maybe not soon...definitely not this year, but they will and when they do, there will be a mass migration the size of which you haven't seen since Apple released the iPhone and Jobs will not be back to save them.

Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it.

Imhotep397
Oct 24, 2012, 01:10 AM
I'm starting to feel like there needs to be series of public demonstrations condemning the forced eradication of optical media. To me it just sounds as if tech/media companies don't want to allow any users to own any piece of software/movies etc. I mean if I buy a copy of Photoshop and want to sell it to a colleague to help me pay for a copy of Painter how do I do that when all physical copies of software are finally gone? If I want to own a copy of a movie so that I can watch it anywhere, at any time without having to get permission from some server somewhere or determine if it's available at the time I want to watch it or not how do I do that? I prefer to buy things that are physically put in my hands that I can control, sell, trade or lend if I want to.

MacDav
Oct 24, 2012, 01:25 AM
So is the new 27 inch iMac the replacement for the MacPro?

----------

I'm starting to feel like there needs to be series of public demonstrations condemning the forced eradication of optical media. To me it just sounds as if tech/media companies don't want to allow any users to own any piece of software/movies etc. I mean if I buy a copy of Photoshop and want to sell it to a colleague to help me pay for a copy of Painter how do I do that when all physical copies of software are finally gone? If I want to own a copy of a movie so that I can watch it anywhere, at any time without having to get permission from some server somewhere or determine if it's available at the time I want to watch it or not how do I do that? I prefer to buy things that are physically put in my hands that I can control, sell, trade or lend if I want to.
No one is stopping you from buying and owning as many CD's DVD's or BluRays as you can afford. You just can't play them without dropping extra money on an external drive, or transfering them to SD Cards. Apple is making your life less convienient thats all. It's not the end of life as we know it. :eek:

wikus
Oct 24, 2012, 01:37 AM
Just so everyone knows, I purchased the mid 2011 iMac with Lion preinstalled & a 250GB SSD and upgraded the RAM to 32GB from OWC. It ran like sh#t and I had nothing but problems, even after a couple of fresh reinstalls which took literally days to set up. I downgraded it to Snow Leopard and it's the fastest computer I've ever owned and I do ALOT of video editing and graphics work. If you don't have a way to run Snow Leopard, don't expect a whole lot from the 32GB of RAM in the new iMac's. It's not the computers fault, it's going to be the OS. Lion/Mountain Lion are bloated turd OS's.

That said, after today's keynote, I don't regret my purchase of the mid 2011 system literally AT ALL. In fact given the chance to do it all over again, I'd take the previous generation iMac over what I saw today. Apple has lost me as a customer on future hardware purchases. I can not understand their, almost psychotic, obsessive urge to make everything thinner. I have not been impressed by anything they've announced this entire year and they've refreshed everything they've got except the Mac Pro.

I've said it before and I'll reiterate it here, Apple may be selling phones, tablets and computers now in 2012, but in about a couple of more keynotes, with all of their products being soo expensive, unsubstantial in size and disposable, people are going to realize that a little heft in a device and upgradeability is not a bad thing, especially if it prolongs the devices lifecycle. I still have my pre-unibody 2008 MacBook Pro with a user replaceable battery and I'd take that any day over the new disposable computers. It still runs Snow Leopard and I've maxed out the RAM in it. If I ever want a faster laptop, I'll upgrade it's hard drive to an SSD. And if my iMac ever fails and can't be repaired, I'll be building a hackintosh which can run Snow Leopard since none of their current lineup is backwards compatible. Future Apple software is dead to me unless by some miracle they pull their heads out and are able to turn their current direction around.

It's like Cook and Co. have set their sites on failure and can't see anything until the numbers start to drop. Which of course, they will, maybe not soon...definitely not this year, but they will and when they do, there will be a mass migration the size of which you haven't seen since Apple released the iPhone and Jobs will not be back to save them.

Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it.

Ditching Lion and Mountain Lion for Snow Leopard is not a downgrade, its an upgrade. OS X 10.7 and 10.8 being bloated turd OSes is spot on. I've got 4 laptops in my house, all of which recently got fresh installs of OS X 10.6.8 and all of them run significantly better than Mountain Lion.

What Apple's done with OS X is put out an amazing operating system over a decade ago and taken huge DUMP on it. This whole notion that apple seems to think consumers want an iPadified OS is ridiculous. Leave that garbage for the computer illiterate and the people who do more than just facebook should have a proper MACHINE.

I've been calling out apple for their psychotic obsession of limiting options for consumers, but for some reason when I voice this FACT there is always a hoard of minions blasting me for it.... as if the proposal to do more with a computer was ever a bad thing.

I'm with you on everything you said, I've got an early 2011 MacBook Pro, I wouldnt dare sell it for anything newer, I hate 10.7 and 10.8.

gibkibonzo
Oct 24, 2012, 03:20 AM
Me too. How do-able is the SSD? I seem to remember reading that the HD used some custom cable with a heat sensor or something?


this seems a nice options for us 2011 iMac owners:

http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10599

199$ for a 128gb ssd connected through TB (supplied with the drive) isn't bad for a fast external boot drive (and it doesn't harm your extended warranty if you have one). :)

peace

SimonTheSoundMa
Oct 24, 2012, 03:22 AM
This is nothing new. The old iMac G5 17inch had RAM only soldered on to the logic board. The 21inch had RAM on the logic board and one slot.

gnurf
Oct 24, 2012, 03:37 AM
The only people that seem to need gobs of RAM are

Servers that are heavily used
Design
Multiple VMs


Sound and music. Even 32GB is too little for some who use EWQL instruments and other gigantic packages. A selection of specific instruments at 1.5GB each quickly add up when you basically need a small orchestra.

Macist
Oct 24, 2012, 03:50 AM
As someone that spends a fair bit of time on foot with a laptop, smaller and lighter is always a great thing.

But a desktop? Who the heck cares if it's this thin after the initial 'Wow, cool' reaction? Form over function is poor design not good design.

314631
Oct 24, 2012, 04:14 AM
I'm assuming you're joking.

Battery life in a desktop system? Are you referring to the battery life of the UPS?

Yes sorry my APC UPS.

till213
Oct 24, 2012, 04:27 AM
So now they finally did it! They introduced the "iPad Maxi" (Steve would NEVER have allowed this!).

Anyone has a clue of when we'll see updated iMacs?

MacSince1990
Oct 24, 2012, 04:49 AM
Shouldn't the model with 4 slots be able to handle 4x16= 64 gigs of ram?

Assuming the chipset Apple used supports it, yes.

Apple's historically under-rated what their machines can actually handle.

I think the lack of an optical drive is more off putting than soldered in memory. I can understand getting rid of it on a portable, you can plug in a USB drive when you need it, but on a desktop if you ever need it you'd plug it in and leave it cluttering up your desk, filling up a USB port. Plenty of us want to watch a DVD, or rip it, rip a cd a losslessy or burn a cd or DVD.

Especially given the "feature" that allows you to use "another computer's optical drive for your MacBook Air/Retina Pro etc".... count the iMac out as that computer :/

Anyone still asking about Blu-Ray? :D

They still make 5400 rpm drives?

Lower power consumption, potentially larger numbers of platters/more HDD space, less heat.... and especially in a 2.5" form factor... uh, yes.

This is the first iMac which makes me consider switching to iMac when I "upgrade" my Mac Pro. 32GB Ram and GTX680MX should be enough for several years. The only question I have now is about the fan noise. I love the silentness of my Mac Pro and can't really trade that off.


>_> If you're thinking about an iMac, you never needed a Mac Pro....

----------

So now they finally did it! They introduced the "iPad Maxi" (Steve would NEVER have allowed this!).

Anyone has a clue of when we'll see updated iMacs?

Nah, this is old news..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs (Predates the actual iPad, lol).

anthonyp01
Oct 24, 2012, 05:06 AM
Is this real now? A new iMac? or another rumor!

Scrub that, just seen it on Apple. OMG, it's sooo thin! That's on my buy list for sure.

the8thark
Oct 24, 2012, 05:07 AM
At least the graphics card is faster, the 640M is slightly faster then the 6770M..
According to this guy in another topic that is not the case.
2011 27" GPU: 6970M - 3Dmark score: 2821
2012 27" GPU: 660M - 3Dmark score: 2320
My messages were before Apple updated the store here, before we knew they had other GPU options. So that is the reasoning behind that. There are your real facts. Can I remove the mic now?
So I don't know now which one is better. I'll have to research it more I think. And I've read people say it's same story for 6770M vs 640M.

the8thark
Oct 24, 2012, 05:20 AM
Is the 16 GB RAM upgrade online fairly priced though?

For the new Mini going from 4GB -> 16GB (8GB x 2) is
$300 in the US
$360 in Australia.

From Ram City (random Australian site I use) I can get the 8GB sticks for $75 a pop. That's $150 for 16GB. Or a little under 50% of Apple's prices.

the8thark
Oct 24, 2012, 05:31 AM
People sure do love to complain about Apple, but then the next day, the world keeps turning and we all manage. If you need a computer with 16GB of memory, and let's be honest, very few do, get it preinstalled. If you want a more powerful machine, with higher options, get the 27". It's not as fun as whining about Apple, but it will let you get your extreme, memory-intensive work done.
Not everyone can afford a 27" or wants a 27" screen. I for one don't. For me the 21.5" size is perfect. It is not upgrade time for me any time soon. I own a 2011 21.5". But If trends continue I'll have to seriously think about this. This new line of upgrades are not a simple, newer is better. To me it's more a side grade. Some things better, some not better. I'd have to really think about it.

And about 16GB RAM. I don't need 16 GB now. But I have 16 GB now. Was cheap ti buy 3rd party. And I don't know if in the future I will need 16 GB or not. It's nice to know if I ever do, the RAM is there.

steveash
Oct 24, 2012, 06:21 AM
Great news. This means I can buy a discounted 2011 model with no fear that the latest version is more powerful. If Apple continue to focus on thinner rather than better I may never have to upgrade again!

RichardI
Oct 24, 2012, 06:31 AM
It is painfully obvious that no one left at Apple, or any group of people left at Apple can hold a candle to Mr. Jobs. Blinders where there was once vision. Sad.

The Phazer
Oct 24, 2012, 06:58 AM
People sure do love to complain about Apple, but then the next day, the world keeps turning and we all manage. If you need a computer with 16GB of memory, and let's be honest, very few do, get it preinstalled. If you want a more powerful machine, with higher options, get the 27". It's not as fun as whining about Apple, but it will let you get your extreme, memory-intensive work done.

Given the last few editions, I would be very surprised if the next edition of OSX doesn't require 16GB of RAM to run at a reasonable pace.

There were plenty of people who said that the 2010 Macbook Air had "plenty" of RAM and it really struggled with Lion a year later.

the8thark
Oct 24, 2012, 07:08 AM
It is painfully obvious that no one left at Apple, or any group of people left at Apple can hold a candle to Mr. Jobs. Blinders where there was once vision. Sad.

Jobs was a genius in 2 ways.

1. He hired the right kind of genius.
2. No. I actually do mean his ability to say No. Redesign this, it's crap, start again. It ensured only the best came from Apple. This includes the removal of so many superfluous Apple products in the 1997 line up.

timbloom
Oct 24, 2012, 07:10 AM
This is nothing new. The old iMac G5 17inch had RAM only soldered on to the logic board. The 21inch had RAM on the logic board and one slot.

This is incorrect.

skier777
Oct 24, 2012, 07:28 AM
I'll keep my 2011 21.5" iMac thanks. I get a 7200 RPM drive and can upgrade the RAM myself up to 32GB. I don't care if my computer is thin, I care if it's functional. Apple is going too far with their drive for thinness.

By removing the drive...

gpat
Oct 24, 2012, 07:45 AM
who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.[COLOR="#808080"]


Who the hell needs a $1299 computer. Jesus christ. Unless you run intensive applications or are a gadget whore, your 2 year old eMachines desktop with whatever hardware can handle just about everything you throw at it.

labars
Oct 24, 2012, 08:39 AM
I'm a bit confused as to what Apple's target audience is. Their pricing suggests that their main consumer base would be premium users or professionals. Yet at the same time they are slowly but steadily removing functionality that said users would require. I don't really get what Apple is trying to achieve with their latest iMac and Mac mini "updates".

revelated
Oct 24, 2012, 08:43 AM
Does it have a Kensington Lock Slot?

The old one didn't, and in any case, you loop it through the convenient cable hole in the back. That way it's easy access when someone cuts said cable.

Gemütlichkeit
Oct 24, 2012, 08:51 AM
Bummed but I feel ram is such a non issue these days.

daniel335e
Oct 24, 2012, 08:57 AM
I think the lack of an optical drive is more off putting than soldered in memory. I can understand getting rid of it on a portable, you can plug in a USB drive when you need it, but on a desktop if you ever need it you'd plug it in and leave it cluttering up your desk, filling up a USB port. Plenty of us want to watch a DVD, or rip it, rip a cd a losslessy or burn a cd or DVD.
I know someone that just bought last year's iMac and I felt bad I didn't warn about the upcoming iMacs. Now I know he's got a computer that suits his needs better, I just feel bad that he could have probably got it cheaper.

Optical media is now obsolete, just like when Apple killed the floppy drive for the same reason. It is time to let go of old legacy technology and embrace new technology.

As Phil Schiller stated during the keynote, the external optical drive is for "those living in the past".

----------

I'm a bit confused as to what Apple's target audience is. Their pricing suggests that their main consumer base would be premium users or professionals. Yet at the same time they are slowly but steadily removing functionality that said users would require. I don't really get what Apple is trying to achieve with their latest iMac and Mac mini "updates".

Thinness. While it is unfortunate that the 21.5" model no longer offers the ability to upgrade RAM, I would gladly give it up for the incredibly thin new design. I personally avoid keeping product for too long and sell them when a new product comes out. This way I don't really have any need to upgrade!

Macboy Pro
Oct 24, 2012, 08:58 AM
I'll keep my 2011 21.5" iMac thanks. I get a 7200 RPM drive and can upgrade the RAM myself up to 32GB. I don't care if my computer is thin, I care if it's functional. Apple is going too far with their drive for thinness.

WOW, I TOTALLY AGREE! I have been screaming that for 6 months now. Who cares if they make a Macbook Pro 3/16 of inch thinner and trade that for productivity, reliability, and the ability to do basic upgrades like memory and drives yourself. Now they roll out an iMac that is not really an upgrade (more a downgrade) but a different look.

Apple seems to be a one trick pony. Make it thinner and then roll out a presentation that says how great it is using the same clichés. Rinse and repeat.

I am glad they still are providing the option of standard Macbook Pro lines.

daniel335e
Oct 24, 2012, 09:04 AM
WOW, I TOTALLY AGREE! I have been screaming that for 6 months now. Who cares if they make a Macbook Pro 3/16 of inch thinner and trade that for productivity, reliability, and the ability to do basic upgrades like memory and drives yourself. Now they roll out an iMac that is not really an upgrade (more a downgrade) but a different look.

Apple seems to be a one trick pony. Make it thinner and then roll out a presentation that says how great it is using the same clichés. Rinse and repeat.

I am glad they still are providing the option of standard Macbook Pro lines.

Do you really want thick clunky machines like many of the PC manufacturers produce?

Even the non-retina MacBook Pros are too thick and should be discontinued. The optical drive is a useless waste of space.

scott911
Oct 24, 2012, 09:09 AM
Do you really want thick clunky machines like many of the PC manufacturers produce?

Even the non-retina MacBook Pros are too thick and should be discontinued. The optical drive is a useless waste of space.

You have a point in asking for laptops to be more portable, thinner.

You have no point in asking a desktop is be thinner - to the point where you can't service or upgrade it.

Eduardo1971
Oct 24, 2012, 09:11 AM
Thats too bad, personally not an issue for me as the entry level comes with 8GB, but I'm sure it'll bother a lot of people..

Not sure why making an iMac this thin was necessary, seems we are continuing to make sacrifices..

- No DVD Drive
- 2.5" Hard Drive 5400RPM
- Memory not upgradable..
- $100 more expensive..

At least the graphics card is faster, the 640M is slightly faster then the 6770M..

In addition, (for those that care) you also end up losing Firewire on the new iMac's. I have two Firewire 800 external HD's connected to my mid-2011 27 inch iMac.

Macboy Pro
Oct 24, 2012, 09:17 AM
Do you really want thick clunky machines like many of the PC manufacturers produce?

Even the non-retina MacBook Pros are too thick and should be discontinued. The optical drive is a useless waste of space.

Do you notice that the other manufacturers offer Ultrabooks and they offer laptops? The Macbook Pro is a laptop and it is significantly thinner then most if not all Windows laptops. The Macbook Air is an Ultrabook. Where is Apple's mainstream laptop line if not for the Standard Macbook Pro. The retina Macbook Pro is nice to be thin, but give us too much for so much cost. It is unacceptable to not be able to replace your RAM or plug in gigabit ethernet, or replace your flash drive with a larger flash drive.

The point I am making is that Apple is looking like a one trick pony and that their philosophy is "thinner" = "innovation"

damitssam
Oct 24, 2012, 09:17 AM
Who the hell needs a $1299 computer. Jesus christ. Unless you run intensive applications or are a gadget whore, your 2 year old eMachines desktop with whatever hardware can handle just about everything you throw at it.

Not really... considering i have 50+ windows open usually, using a triple monitor screen while im working.

takes a decent power computer to do that. Surprised my refurbed $700 ASUS still is alive and churning.

baleensavage
Oct 24, 2012, 09:33 AM
I'm starting to feel like there needs to be series of public demonstrations condemning the forced eradication of optical media. To me it just sounds as if tech/media companies don't want to allow any users to own any piece of software/movies etc. I mean if I buy a copy of Photoshop and want to sell it to a colleague to help me pay for a copy of Painter how do I do that when all physical copies of software are finally gone? If I want to own a copy of a movie so that I can watch it anywhere, at any time without having to get permission from some server somewhere or determine if it's available at the time I want to watch it or not how do I do that? I prefer to buy things that are physically put in my hands that I can control, sell, trade or lend if I want to.
As much as I agree with this sentiment, sadly, those days are long gone. With software activation, tiered upgrade costs, annual updates and forced obsolescence of hardware before the warranty is even over, we are living in a disposable world. The software companies have been trying for years to just get everyone on a subscription model, and at least in the business world, they are mostly there already. It makes you wonder if in 20 years we'll have anything to pass on to our children or if everything will just be disposable virtual goods.

milo
Oct 24, 2012, 09:39 AM
Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely.

Well, there's the mac pro, the laptops, and the mini. I agree that the MP is a shame, hopefully they'll finally get back to that. In the meantime I build a hackintosh and it works great.

What the hell is so wrong with CHOICE?

Nothing. And if someone needs more ram, the bigger iMac is an option. Even if it was user swappable, it looks like the smaller one only has two ram slots anyway, so those who need lots of ram would rule it out regardless. The imac simply isn't designed for user upgrades, and it's been that way for years. Really, is it a shocker that the iMac is primarily aimed at consumers, and the low end model more than the high end?

Considering the high end iMac can probably handle 64 gigs of ram (same as the low end mac pro), I don't really see the problem here.


who the hell needs 16 GB of ram.

I'm doing music with huge sample libraries and I have 40 and use all of it.


Do you really want thick clunky machines like many of the PC manufacturers produce?

For a desktop? Hell yes. Function over form, please.

Nightarchaon
Oct 24, 2012, 09:39 AM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

I have 16gb in current 21.5" iMac and i need it for Paralleled Virtual machines, thr 27" is just too big for the desk and space in which i work which is a corner unit, the 27" cant go far enough back so i end up with a screen in my face and a load of unusable space in the corner behind it.

I thought when they announced the 2012 iMacs i would have regrets about buying my 2011 iMac so late in its product cycle, instead i feel i got the better deal, at least mine is "kind off" upgradable by the new iMacs standards

neuropsychguy
Oct 24, 2012, 09:53 AM
who the hell needs 16 GB of ram...

Those of us who use iMacs for serious work that requires a lot of RAM. I could use an iMac with 256 GB of RAM if they made one. But then again, I'm dealing with single files that range in size from 5 GB to 60 GB (neuroimaging files) that need lots of RAM and graphics to display.

Nightarchaon
Oct 24, 2012, 10:17 AM
It is painfully obvious that no one left at Apple, or any group of people left at Apple can hold a candle to Mr. Jobs. Blinders where there was once vision. Sad.

This is true, they are now blindly following what they "think" Steve wanted, and what they "think" made apple a innovative profitable company, which is to make everything Thinner, Lighter, Less user friendly, less powerful, more profit margin ..

Nightarchaon
Oct 24, 2012, 10:40 AM
In addition, (for those that care) you also end up losing Firewire on the new iMac's. I have two Firewire 800 external HD's connected to my mid-2011 27 inch iMac.

But thats ok, you can spend more money on a Thunderbolt to Firewire 800 cable and waste one of those thunderbolt ports....better hope all your firewire devices are chainable (on a side note, has anyone seen a firewire HUB ? )

----------

I'm a bit confused as to what Apple's target audience is. Their pricing suggests that their main consumer base would be premium users or professionals. Yet at the same time they are slowly but steadily removing functionality that said users would require. I don't really get what Apple is trying to achieve with their latest iMac and Mac mini "updates".

Eventually they will just sell you a mirror strapped to an aluminium stand for $1700 and then the year after upgrade that to an empty box that costs $1700, or at least this appears to be where the design and functionality curve appears to be heading

ActionJax
Oct 24, 2012, 10:40 AM
With everything being cut from the new iMacs, particularly the 21.5" model, I think my 2011 21.5" iMac just went way up in value!

I think Apple's priorities with the iMac are just out-of-touch. We want a better computer, not a thinner computer. Sometimes making a computer thinner makes it better. Sometimes it's inconsequential or at least non-critical. How they can remove the optical drive, eliminate upgradeable RAM, and stick it with a slower HDD while charging more money is beyond me. And I'm not sure I've seen any discussion about how the SD card slot was moved to the rear of the machine. This is very inconvenient!

And all this to make a slightly thinner computer. Thin is nice, but it's not worth it. I have an iMac to *do stuff* with it, not look at it from a side profile and marvel at how thin the stupid edges appear to be.

Steev45
Oct 24, 2012, 10:55 AM
I do not understand Apple's drive to make everything they make thinner.
Who is asking for this?
Consumers want good and cheap.
Nice design is nice to have but does not enhance usability or value.
Who cares if this years product is .3 mm thinner than last years?
I would prefer they make something .3mm thicker if they could knock $500.00 off the price.
Ah, but that is where their profit margin is....
They do not like thin margins.

MacSignal
Oct 24, 2012, 11:25 AM
iMac 21.5 is now more like a disposable consumer appliance than a value leader (relative to other Apple computers) that would fit in spaces where a 27 might be too large. Unfortunate as well as stupidly thin.

rumplestiltskin
Oct 24, 2012, 11:38 AM
Let's see:

G5 and MacPro enclosures that require a complete gutting of the machine in order to replace the power supply. That was a really smart move, eh? (I'll assume he wasn't the one responsible for the CPU liquid-cooling which leaked.)

Ive's almost bulemic obsession with thinness is disturbing. While I do appreciate the light weight of my MB Air, how much would it have added in thickness to provide RAM slots? Probably nothing. How much would it have added in manufacturing cost? $10? $20? Fine; I'd pay that.

I suspect (but I don't know for sure) that Ive was not responsible for the old Blue & White G3 tower design. Why? Look at it: A door which opens wide to provide unparalleled access to everything in the machine. I've replaced the power supply on that model (and all up to the last Mirrored-Door unit) in 30 minutes. Try that with the MacPro tower abomination.

Should our Macs be beautiful? Of course; but they are computers, dammit! Upgradeability is highly desired and part of that feature is repairability.

I can understand why my iPad isn't upgradeable (although I'd still love a micro-SD slot and an iOS that knew what to do with it). Doing this to the 21.5" iMac (re: no RAM slots) is just horrific and I will have to recommend to my clients that they purchase the one with 16GB simply because we all know that the next iteration of OS X will require more RAM and what will you do when you can't upgrade??

However, if anyone ever tells you that Apple without Steve is different, think about what Tim wrought yesterday. It's all in a direct line from Steve's belief that computers are appliances.

I'll be ordering the 27" model (with RAM slots) and a Fusion drive. And you can be damn sure I'll be ordering AppleCare!

BornAgainMac
Oct 24, 2012, 12:38 PM
I do not understand Apple's drive to make everything they make thinner.
Who is asking for this?
Consumers want good and cheap.
Nice design is nice to have but does not enhance usability or value.
Who cares if this years product is .3 mm thinner than last years?
I would prefer they make something .3mm thicker if they could knock $500.00 off the price.
Ah, but that is where their profit margin is....
They do not like thin margins.

It isn't thin in the middle. It is fake thin. Notice how they try to hide the budge in the back of the iMac.

dalidrama
Oct 24, 2012, 12:38 PM
All I want to do it upgrade my 5 year old iMac with the cheap 21.5" model. But since I need it to edit HD video, I can't use the 5400RPM HD unless I buy a $400 TB external, which is about the same price as buying the 27" faster model, which I both dont want a screen that large or spend that much money. Bad spot. Spend too much money on an iMac or build a Hackentosh? Urgh.

Parkin Pig
Oct 24, 2012, 12:53 PM
Steve Jobs kept getting thinner and look what happened to him. His fate might just be analogous to Apple's future fortunes.

macnerd93
Oct 24, 2012, 01:06 PM
I went out and bought the previous gen 2011 model iMac. So disappointed of the new update.

Lack of an optical drive and charging more for it was a big issue personally.

I'm upping the ram to 32GB in this machine and it will see me easily for the next 2-3 years.:D

kyjaotkb
Oct 24, 2012, 01:19 PM
A not so user-serviceable iMac PLUS no upgrade to the TB Display (laminated glass or AR coating, like on the 27" iMac) definitely means that a new Mac Pro and a new Display are around the corner.

Well, I hope so.

BobMcBob
Oct 24, 2012, 01:38 PM
I really don't like not being able to upgrade parts myself.
I'm glad the ram can be upgraded in the 27".

Can the hard drive be replaced in the 27"?

Rend It
Oct 24, 2012, 01:41 PM
All I want to do it upgrade my 5 year old iMac with the cheap 21.5" model. But since I need it to edit HD video, I can't use the 5400RPM HD unless I buy a $400 TB external, which is about the same price as buying the 27" faster model, which I both dont want a screen that large or spend that much money. Bad spot. Spend too much money on an iMac or build a Hackentosh? Urgh.

You *might* be ok to get the upgraded 21.5" and add the fusion drive. I know that still puts you in the ball park of the 27" base model, but Flash plus 5400 rpm should be many times faster than only 7200 rpm drive. Note that all writes are pushed to Flash drive in the Fusion setup.

Apple is really trying to make it absolutely clear that the base models are just that: just enough for most people who don't care about all the specs and just want a decent all-in-one.

charlituna
Oct 24, 2012, 02:42 PM
Apple clearly wants to make the iMac a "consumer" machine again, forcing pros to buy a mac pro. I think this new iMac update almost certainly means that we will see a revived mac pro, rather than a discontinuation

My boss is ready to order 15 27 inch iMacs to use with the render farm we are also revamping

----------

Add to the list: pray to whatever god you worship that those ram chips never have a problem! it's the difference between a cheap, 5 minute fix by installing a new ram chip, or shipping your entire computer back to apple if it happens to still be under warranty.



But how many folks live in an area that has no Apple Store, no 3rd party certified shops etc.

tipp
Oct 24, 2012, 02:43 PM
For people like you who don't earn their living from the tools they use, as in, a computer, you are in no position to criticize them for their complaints.

Good job making completely wrong assumptions. I have a 2010 27" with 16GB of memory that I use every day for web and software development, and frequently for video/audio editing, but nice try. This computer is the main tool I use to make a living and I'm completely satisfied with it at the moment. I frequently have over 20 apps running, including 1 or 2 VMs, and I very rarely max out the full 16GB. If I do, it's usually because of one particularly intensive process (large media files usually), and then I will close down most of my other apps to work on that. My point is that having 16GB of memory is more than enough for most people, including those people who use an iMac for their jobs. If you actually do need that much memory, a) you can still get it preinstalled on the 21.5", and b) memory rarely dies these days. I just don't see the need to complain about 16GB being the max on the lower end model.

Not everyone can afford a 27" or wants a 27" screen. I for one don't. For me the 21.5" size is perfect. It is not upgrade time for me any time soon. I own a 2011 21.5". But If trends continue I'll have to seriously think about this. This new line of upgrades are not a simple, newer is better. To me it's more a side grade. Some things better, some not better. I'd have to really think about it.

And about 16GB RAM. I don't need 16 GB now. But I have 16 GB now. Was cheap ti buy 3rd party. And I don't know if in the future I will need 16 GB or not. It's nice to know if I ever do, the RAM is there.

Luckily, you can get a 21.5" with 16GB. If you're not a pro, you don't need 16GB, but yes, it is nice to have and very future-proof. If you're a professional and the iMac is your main tool and you can't afford the difference between a 21.5" and 27", well, that's another set of issues.

Given the last few editions, I would be very surprised if the next edition of OSX doesn't require 16GB of RAM to run at a reasonable pace.

There were plenty of people who said that the 2010 Macbook Air had "plenty" of RAM and it really struggled with Lion a year later.

Sarcastic? You could run 7 instances of 10.8 in VMs alongside the host OS with 16GB. Ram needs don't go up exponentially for the OS.

martinm0
Oct 24, 2012, 02:56 PM
All I want to do it upgrade my 5 year old iMac with the cheap 21.5" model. But since I need it to edit HD video, I can't use the 5400RPM HD unless I buy a $400 TB external, which is about the same price as buying the 27" faster model, which I both dont want a screen that large or spend that much money. Bad spot. Spend too much money on an iMac or build a Hackentosh? Urgh.

Why not a refurb iMac from the Apple Store? I'm running the last gen base model 21.5", 2.5 i5 quad, and 12GB RAM and it works just fine (and was sub $1000 last I checked). I'm running an SSD off the Thunderbolt port (Seagate makes a $99 2.5" sled that I just popped a 128GB SSD onto and make that my boot drive). Runs plenty fast. Only downside is that TB sled only has one TB port on it, so if I want to connect to another display or TB HDD, I'm sort of stuck.

Or you can always go for one of the 27" models as well for much less (and you get an optical drive). I really would like USB 3.0, but I'm not convinced an upgrade is worth it for me based on what is and is not included in the latest gen. (Nice to see both iMad models getting 2 TB ports now).

Anonymous Freak
Oct 24, 2012, 03:22 PM
There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

Yup. I know of no power users that have bought the small iMac. Power users buy the big iMac. And the big iMac remains completely configurable. (Also, you can get 32 GB of RAM for it WAY cheaper than Apple's prices.)

I wish I had a choice. I'm still on a first-generation-Aluminum iMac. And I only have that over the first-Core-2-polycarbonate iMac because I got it from a neighbor for free because it was broken (and already four years old.) (And I only got the polycarbonate iMac because *IT* was broken, and four years old, and paid $100.)

Yebubbleman
Oct 24, 2012, 04:54 PM
While this is bad news, indeed, I'm interested to know how and why this manifested technologically. Is the RAM soldered onto the main logic board like in the MacBook Air and the retina MacBook Pro? Or did Apple have to tuck it under a spot that would've made building a user-accessible slot nigh-on impossible. Really, the fact that they did this is unacceptable. Making a computer thin just for the sake of doing so, especially a desktop that needn't be any thinner is just plain wrong and stupid. If they made it thicker, we could have better hard drives, more hard drives, better expansion, better graphics. Hell, better everything. This is an area where they are making needless compromise. Stupid and unfortunate as for many, this is the sweet spot in the Mac product line.

That being said, I'll be really interested to look at and read the service manuals to these machines when they become available on GSX. If they neutered the 21.5" iMac by relegating its innards to solely use laptop innards, they may have fixed all of the thermal issues that were present on its predecessor. That being said, them not doing that on the 27" ought to be similarly interesting. Again, it'll be interesting to see what they end up having done once these things are more thoroughly revealed.

----------

There are only 17 people in the world who need to custom hand-install 16 GB of RAM in the smaller iMac.

But all 17 of them are about to post :p And I feel your pain: you need what you need!

Custom hand-install is a good $130 (at least) cheaper than custom Asian factory worker install. I don't know about you, but I could always use an extra $130 in my bank account. And even if the users don't need to custom hand-install the RAM, I'm sure they will likely need their computer-literate friends and/or family members to hand-install the RAM especially since the labor cost on doing that sort of thing aftermarket would be quite pricey depending on where you take it. It's nowhere near as small of an audience as you think.

Apple clearly wants to make the iMac a "consumer" machine again, forcing pros to buy a mac pro. I think this new iMac update almost certainly means that we will see a revived mac pro, rather than a discontinuation

No, really, what you're seeing is the beginning of true differentiation between Apple's focus within the iMac line. The 21.5" iMac, now more than it has ever been (also counting its time as a 20" and as a 17" model when the 20" was the higher model) is being positioned as a lower-end Mac, alongside the Mac mini, the MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pros. You are not expected to care about wanting a RAM upgrade down the road, and I'm sure Apple has numbers on the amount of 2009-2011 21.5" iMac customers that have performed their own RAM upgrades. This is unfortunate, but that's what happens when making things needlessly thin becomes the driving focus of engineering.

Thats too bad, personally not an issue for me as the entry level comes with 8GB, but I'm sure it'll bother a lot of people..

Not sure why making an iMac this thin was necessary, seems we are continuing to make sacrifices..

- No DVD Drive
- 2.5" Hard Drive 5400RPM
- Memory not upgradable..
- $100 more expensive..

At least the graphics card is faster, the 640M is slightly faster then the 6770M..

To be fair, the 27" iMac fares much better, still retaining user-accessible RAM slots and a 3.5" hard drive.

But still, agreed, they didn't need to make it thinner.

As far as the optical drive is concerned, however, while Apple had no real NEED to remove it, their internal optical drives were always lousy and failure-prone. Given that this is a desktop that is designed to be stationary, buying a $50 LG external DVD drive (especially if it's of the 5.25" tray-load form-factor) will actually result in (a) a more reliable drive, (b) a faster drive (both in terms of burning and reading), and (c) a cheaper drive than Apple's internal (or external for that matter) would be to replace if and when it inevitably fails. They do provide four USB ports with the FireWire 800 port being replaced by a Thunderbolt port, so it's not like even with an external DVD drive you're at all cramped for expansion. Still though, much more cumbersome than having it all-in-one as the name implies.

F*... it . I'll buy some nice Haswell Mobo and CPU next year and will make myself a Power Mac G5 hackintosh!

Hackintoshes are great! I've always said that a Hackintosh provides much more flexibility in terms of hardware and expansion than any desktop Apple has shipped in years!

Shouldn't the model with 4 slots be able to handle 4x16= 64 gigs of ram?

Not if 16GB SO-DIMMS aren't commonly available.

I think the lack of an optical drive is more off putting than soldered in memory. I can understand getting rid of it on a portable, you can plug in a USB drive when you need it, but on a desktop if you ever need it you'd plug it in and leave it cluttering up your desk, filling up a USB port. Plenty of us want to watch a DVD, or rip it, rip a cd a losslessy or burn a cd or DVD.
I know someone that just bought last year's iMac and I felt bad I didn't warn about the upcoming iMacs. Now I know he's got a computer that suits his needs better, I just feel bad that he could have probably got it cheaper.

Again, I would second the optical drive sentiment; after all, that is a good part of why I opted to go for a non-retina 2012 15" MacBook Pro over a retina model. With laptops, I'd argue that the convenience of it being integrated is much more important, though on a desktop, there's no good reason for it not to be. That being said, Apple's internal optical drives are failure-prone...almost as much as, if not more than hard drives are. It's terrible how failure-prone these drives are. Given that the iMac is a desktop, you can buy an external optical drive, hell, a traditional 5.25" tray-load form-factor USB drive, and not only will it be faster than what Apple's internal would've been, but it would be tons more reliable and much cheaper to replace if ever there's an issue. I know it sounds crazy, but frankly, as someone who still reads and burns optical media on the regular, I really feel like it's almost more preferable to what existed in the last generation. Still though the point still stands that it really didn't need to be thinner to begin with.

Me too. How do-able is the SSD? I seem to remember reading that the HD used some custom cable with a heat sensor or something?

Barring everything up until after removing the glass and the panel, it's pretty easy. The heat sensor refers to a drive plugged in the SATA slot that is used for the hard drive; there is a different one for the SSD. The heat sensor stuff referred to replacing the stock Apple drive with a third-party hard drive. I'm pretty sure that if you have no hard drive connected to that SATA slot, the logic board and SMC and sensors (as well as AHT and ASD) won't care. But I'm not 100% positive. I try to shy away from iMacs as the impressiveness of the design is only skin-deep. Under the hood, it really is a poorly designed computer.

reading people whine is really exhausting D:

Then don't do it. You always have that option.

I'd think that "professionals" would probably get either the bigger imac or a different model entirely. While I'm a fan of expansion, especially ram, it doesn't really bug me when the other model has four ram slots.

Yeah, this is definitely Apple further segregating the 21.5" iMac as a lower-end consumer-geared Mac from the 27" iMac as a higher-end consumer/pro-sumer Mac.

I checked the Apple site, and there's no way to see build options for the iMacs. Does this mean we can't see them until Nov/Dec.?

That would appear to be the case. Don't worry, you're not alone, I am also bummed as it would be helpful to see what options exist before I make recommendations to friends of mine that are prospective 2012 iMac customers.

I need some advice....ive been waiting for an iMac since June and I thought waiting for the new one would be worth it but after seeing it im now a lil disappointed. Not disappointed with the loss of the optical but the upgradable ram.
I plan to use it for logic pro so should I wait and get this with 8 gb or buy current version (which is cheaper) and just upgrade the ram myself and for cheaper!!

USB 3 isn't really that important for me yet specially since the current version has thunderbolt. Also it being thinner is cool but useless for a desktop. I'd rather they made the ram upgradable and the hd 7200

The 2009-2011 design that the 2011 models have was a very poor design. These new ones have the potential to remedy a lot of those problems. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. In the meantime, if you're talking about the 21.5" version from yesterday's announcement, I'd definitely up it to 16GB as you won't be able to later and doing so future-proofs the machine to last as long as the rest of the hardware will allow. If we're talking about the current 27" iMac, no worries, you can always expand the RAM later.

Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely. Like I said, Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, the different model available is the Mac Pro which has been completely ignored for the last 4 years.

Uh...the 2010 Mac Pro update, as I recall, was fairly impressive for the time at which is was released. Two years later, not so much. But to say that it has been neglected for four years isn't true. It's been neglected for two, soon to be two and a half. Still bad, but not quite that bad...at least, not yet.

No replaceable RAM is one too many FU's from Apple.

Stick it, Cook. I'm done.

While I agree that it is an FU from Apple, to have that be the final straw, when we're talking about Apple's most un-upgradable and worst-designed Macs is sort of ridiculous, especially since the RAM on the 27" iMac is still replaceable and since most 21.5" iMac customers tend to not care about upgrading their RAM aftermarket.

who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.

It's called "Future-Proofing". The practice of making sure that your hardware will still run everything you want it to down the road.

Then those people can upgrade the RAM to 16GB in the store. Case closed

Right, because spending $130 extra on the Apple RAM at the time of purchase is really preferable to going to Crucial or Kingston and spending substantially less money for what is essentially the same hardware upgrade. Because $130 is nothing. Because $130 just grows on trees. Go out into the world and learn the value of $130, because I'm pretty sure it's still worth more than you think it is.

Yebubbleman
Oct 24, 2012, 04:54 PM
Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM. 5 Years ago few Mac apps could even address more than 2GB of RAM. I know people thinking that software will continue to use more RAM and it will but within reason. The only people that seem to need gobs of RAM are

Servers that are heavily used
Design
Multiple VMs
Porn

jk on the pr0n

FUTURE-PROOFING!

If that's the case, then why didnt apple just add the removable door like in the 27?? Makes no sense not to let people upgrade their 21 but let them upgrade the 27??

Space constraints...also the new 21.5" iMac might have soldered on RAM (doubtful, but it's possible). Otherwise, it's possible that they had to stuff it someplace where there was no way that it could be user-accessible much like the iMac G4 had one of its two sticks of RAM in a user-inaccessible spot. My guess is that the 21.5" iMac uses much more laptop internals where the 27" iMac uses much more desktop internals.

Definitely the most estheticly appealing all-in-one; if you really need more upgradability (the majority of consumers don't) they probably don't care that you won't buy it. Maybe its all a conspiracy to drive Applecare sales!

They have to be bringing out a new Pro so I'll be waiting for that...and waiting...and waiting...

Sadly aesthetics is the only place where the iMac excels... In all other areas, it is extremely lacking as a computer, let alone as a Mac.

Ditching Lion and Mountain Lion for Snow Leopard is not a downgrade, its an upgrade. OS X 10.7 and 10.8 being bloated turd OSes is spot on. I've got 4 laptops in my house, all of which recently got fresh installs of OS X 10.6.8 and all of them run significantly better than Mountain Lion.

What Apple's done with OS X is put out an amazing operating system over a decade ago and taken huge DUMP on it. This whole notion that apple seems to think consumers want an iPadified OS is ridiculous. Leave that garbage for the computer illiterate and the people who do more than just facebook should have a proper MACHINE.

I've been calling out apple for their psychotic obsession of limiting options for consumers, but for some reason when I voice this FACT there is always a hoard of minions blasting me for it.... as if the proposal to do more with a computer was ever a bad thing.

I'm with you on everything you said, I've got an early 2011 MacBook Pro, I wouldnt dare sell it for anything newer, I hate 10.7 and 10.8.

While I'm not at all crazy about Lion, I'll argue that Mountain Lion is a good upgrade. Yes, they've opted to do things that I don't find preferable. And they went sort of all over the place in Lion. In Mountain Lion that has been drastically improved from everything I've seen. It's a refinement release, just as Snow Leopard was to Leopard. And really, I don't know anyone who preferred Leopard to Snow Leopard.

Not everyone can afford a 27" or wants a 27" screen. I for one don't. For me the 21.5" size is perfect. It is not upgrade time for me any time soon. I own a 2011 21.5". But If trends continue I'll have to seriously think about this. This new line of upgrades are not a simple, newer is better. To me it's more a side grade. Some things better, some not better. I'd have to really think about it.

And about 16GB RAM. I don't need 16 GB now. But I have 16 GB now. Was cheap ti buy 3rd party. And I don't know if in the future I will need 16 GB or not. It's nice to know if I ever do, the RAM is there.

Future-proofing is always a good idea. It's just unfortunate that in the case of the MacBook Airs, the retina MacBook Pros, and now the 21.5" iMac, this sort of thing HAS to be done at the time of purchase and can't be done cheaper at a later point as has been the case in previous Macs.

Optical media is now obsolete, just like when Apple killed the floppy drive for the same reason. It is time to let go of old legacy technology and embrace new technology.

As Phil Schiller stated during the keynote, the external optical drive is for "those living in the past".

Blu-Ray is the dominant form of 1080p HD media. Note the use of the word "is" as opposed to the word "was". Blu-Ray is a form of optical media. I'll agree, DVDs are showing their age, and they're gradually giving way to Blu-Ray. Similarly, I'll gladly concede to the notion that most software is either available for download/USB or download/USB AND DVD and that a DVD drive is no longer necessary to install software newer than three years. That being said, there are still those for whom the medium is not dead, and for those, having that medium is quintessential. I use my DVD drive on the regular, both for burning and reading of discs, as well as playing back the movies I spent thousands on over the course of the decade and a half of DVD's reign as the dominant form of film distribution. To say that I ought to repurchase those movies in iTunes format or rip them (on what? A DVD-drive? Surely you must be joking; for how can I do that without one?) is not at all practical and assumes that I have either thousands of hours to devote to ripping all of my DVDs (not to mention terabytes of storage) or thousands of dollars to spend on iTunes. NOT REALISTIC, MY FRIEND!

Thinness. While it is unfortunate that the 21.5" model no longer offers the ability to upgrade RAM, I would gladly give it up for the incredibly thin new design. I personally avoid keeping product for too long and sell them when a new product comes out. This way I don't really have any need to upgrade!

I'm sorry, but what does thinness buy you aside from superficial pizazz? If you're sacrificing functionality, what good is a thin machine? Honestly, it's not like anyone really needed a phone thinner than the iPhone 4/4S, or an iPod touch thinner than the fourth gen iPod touch, or a MacBook Pro thinner than the unibody design. At this point, they're just going thinner just for the sake of doing so. It's not buying anyone anything. If anything, we're losing functionality, and for a DESKTOP, that's simply unacceptable.

WOW, I TOTALLY AGREE! I have been screaming that for 6 months now. Who cares if they make a Macbook Pro 3/16 of inch thinner and trade that for productivity, reliability, and the ability to do basic upgrades like memory and drives yourself. Now they roll out an iMac that is not really an upgrade (more a downgrade) but a different look.

Apple seems to be a one trick pony. Make it thinner and then roll out a presentation that says how great it is using the same clichés. Rinse and repeat.

I am glad they still are providing the option of standard Macbook Pro lines.

Yeah, but don't count on the standard MacBook Pro to exist much past this refresh, if at all. It's obviously a dead-design walking, only kept around to ease the transition away from things like optical drives, FireWire 800, much like the iBook G4 and PowerMac G5 Quad were kept around for nearly a year after the completion of the Intel transition to ease the transition for schools and professionals that couldn't yet afford to transition everything. As soon as the Mac Pro has its epic 2013 redesign that was more or less admitted by Tim Cook, the transition away from optical drives will be complete.

Do you really want thick clunky machines like many of the PC manufacturers produce?

Even the non-retina MacBook Pros are too thick and should be discontinued. The optical drive is a useless waste of space.

The non-retina MacBook Pros are the perfect size. If you can't lift the 5 pounds that a non-retina 15" MacBook Pro weighs, you really should see a physician. Yes, the lighter weight of the retina MacBook Pro is nice. But at the cost of a battery that is glued to the frame of the computer, at the cost of RAM that I, myself, can't upgrade or replace without replacing the entire main logic board, and at the cost of ports and drives and drive capacities that I use on the regular, no ****ing thanks. Thin for thinness sake is stupid. End of story.

It isn't thin in the middle. It is fake thin. Notice how they try to hide the budge in the back of the iMac.

Sure, but that's still less of a thermal envelope. Here's hoping that the rest of the components collectively generate much less heat than their 2009-2011 predecessors.

I went out and bought the previous gen 2011 model iMac. So disappointed of the new update.

Lack of an optical drive and charging more for it was a big issue personally.

I'm upping the ram to 32GB in this machine and it will see me easily for the next 2-3 years.:D

I mean, it's not like the 2011 iMacs weren't plagued with tons of design issues that make it an unreliable Mac on average. It's not like you didn't just go for an alternative that isn't a whole lot better (and stands a chance of being worse from a reliability/usability standpoint). Charging more for it sucks. Bottom line. No optical drive is also an annoying loss, though, again, if you go out and buy an external optical drive with a traditional 5.25" tray-load form-factor, you will find that not only is the drive cheaper and more reliable than what Apple provided in previous generation iMacs, but it also offers much faster performance, both in terms of read and write speeds.

I really don't like not being able to upgrade parts myself.
I'm glad the ram can be upgraded in the 27".

Can the hard drive be replaced in the 27"?

No more easily than it could've been in the previous generation. Though this time, when one removes the glass, the screen comes off with it, minimizing lint left in by inexperienced techs.

Wild-Bill
Oct 24, 2012, 04:57 PM
Non-upgradable RAM + 2.5" 5400RPM notebook drive = FAIL.

AmazingRobie
Oct 24, 2012, 05:03 PM
All I want to do it upgrade my 5 year old iMac with the cheap 21.5" model. But since I need it to edit HD video, I can't use the 5400RPM HD unless I buy a $400 TB external, which is about the same price as buying the 27" faster model, which I both dont want a screen that large or spend that much money. Bad spot. Spend too much money on an iMac or build a Hackentosh? Urgh.

Do yourself a favor... if you want raw power computing, get the previous generation 27" iMac with the SSD option and i7 then upgrade the RAM aftermarket from OWC to 32GB. Call Apple and request that they sell you the Snow Leopard install disc from the mid-2011 iMacs, but only the OS install disc unless you need the disc with all of the extra apps on it. They charge for $17.99 a piece and unless you don't already have it, you shouldn't need it. Reinstall Snow Leopard and your computer will last you another 6-7 years for HD video editing. I edit video all the time under the same configuration and I've never been happier with an Apple product. It runs hot which bothered me at first, so I went out to Fry's Electronics and got some external Vornado stand fans and I barely notice it now.

When I had Lion/Mountain Lion on it, I about ripped all my hair out because it was such a suck experience.

Either that or build a Hackintosh and run Snow Leopard on it. If you're wanting to do any measure of video editing at all, I promise you, you'll enjoy it more on Snow Leopard. I haven't seen a beach ball since I went back to SL except once when Finder freaked out for whatever reason. I was getting them all the time with Lion/ML.

I know you said you wouldn't want a 27", but once you've had one... it's impossible to go back (at least for me, that's the case). Especially for video editing. Plus, you'll still have a DVD burner for anything you end up editing and want to put on disc. Why Apple even makes creation software if they're not going to give the user the means to publish it except to a USB drive is beyond me. It's as if they're getting out of the content creation department altogether.

Out of all of the changes Apple made to the current iMac lineup, I don't know why they kept "the chin" on the front. That's really the only thing I was hoping they would eliminate. For me, the thickness of the previous generation iMac's was perfect, it was just the silver bevel at the bottom in front that bothers me. I mean an Apple logo on the front & the back... is that really necessary??? Idiots.

Well, it's going to come back and bite them soon enough.

ljocampo
Oct 24, 2012, 06:51 PM
The major difference is that the GPU/CPU have dedicated and efficient cooling systems. Hard drives in most desktops and laptops simply rely on conduction through thin mounting brackets, and not much else. So, a 3.5" hard drive spinning at 7200 rpm, and hanging out at 110°F is in fact a large source of heat in the chassis.

It's really not a problem for other components in the system, but in a compact enclosure like the new iMac, the hard drive would likely fail. I'm not saying they should have such a small enclosure, but I do think the move to 5400 rpm laptop-sized drives is a result of little space, and therefore limited thermal budget.

I agree that heat is the most likely the reason in 5400 vs 7200 rpm drives in the two new iMacs. I have had 3 (THREE!!!) 7200 rpm drives fail in my 21" iMac. All where under Applecare with Apple drives. All were a total pain in the a$$ to get Apple to schedule diagnosis and fix them. If I could buy it over again, I would buy the 27" because it has more room in it to dissipate heat than the 21". This heat was a concern in my buying points back then but I went with the small 21" size and the 7200 rpm drive.

I made that heat mistake then, but not this time around. I'll get a BTO 27" iMac with Flash memory storage and depend on TB ports to add external storage and OWC flash storage upgrades in the future. It will run cooler with no moving parts, just like my 15" rMBP, which is totally quiet and runs pretty cool heat wise.

ArtOfWarfare
Oct 24, 2012, 10:29 PM
Mine maxes out at 4 GB (and I only have 3 GB in it... it came with 2 GB.)

I'd be happy with the 8 GB.

rockarollr
Oct 24, 2012, 10:34 PM
I checked the Apple site, and there's no way to see build options for the iMacs. Does this mean we can't see them until Nov/Dec.?

Apple knows that if they give you enough time to really think about your purchase and mull over the lack of affordable options and upgradeability, that impulse buy that might have happened quickly might not happen at all.

I'll be sticking with my (mid-2010) 27" iMac for quite some time, thank you Apple. When its usability has played out, I'm thinking it's back to Windows for this guy. This thin, disposable, "shrinking features" trend Apple is on lately is unsettling to me. A desktop computer that's either barely (or not at all) upgradeable? No thank you.

Apple is getting to be just like every other *****-bucket American company these days. Its goal is to figure out, with each progressive month, how to give a little less and charge a little more. The value proposition in Apple's products is slowly, but surely, disappearing.

revelated
Oct 25, 2012, 12:27 AM
Optical media is now obsolete, just like when Apple killed the floppy drive for the same reason. It is time to let go of old legacy technology and embrace new technology.

...

The optical drive is a useless waste of space.

who the hell needs 16 GB of ram.

Why in the world would you need more than 16GB of RAM? That's a sh**load of RAM.

In my IT support experience, the most users seem to need is 8GB at MOST.

FFhjDX-DUew

"Nobody needs to add more RAM..."

"Nobody needs DVD drives...."

"Nobody needs Bluray drives..."

Some of you guys are fighting hard to convince yourself that Apple can do no wrong. We tell rape victims that they need to stand up and speak out about what's happened. Apple is raping you. Accept it and speak out.

marc11
Oct 25, 2012, 02:11 AM
who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.[COLOR="#808080"]



I remember people said "who the hell needs 4 GB of ram anyway..." and then along came something called Lion and Mountain Lion, and well, you know how that went. 4 GB hardly gets the job done and 8 GB is really needed to run several apps comfortably. Software will continue to demand more HDD space and more RAM; faster than ever.

Apple wants you to buy more hardware, they want you to do it more often, what better way to do that then to:

1) Create hardware the user cannot upgrade to meet future demands.
2) Create software in ever increasing cycles that renders non-upgradable machines useless (from an upgrade path) sooner than later.
3) Create heavy incentives for people to upgrade the OS/Software which translates to hardware upgrades. A perfect example, iCloud and Snow Leopard. Siri on the iPad 3 and mini but not iPad 2, and so on.

How many threads have you read that said, of I have a 20xx machine that is running slow on ML and or with this software and I put 8/16 GB or ram and an SSD and now it is a new machine. I can go two more years before upgrading. Apple wants those days to end.

iSmack
Oct 25, 2012, 04:53 AM
Is this real now? A new iMac? or another rumor!

Scrub that, just seen it on Apple. OMG, it's sooo thin! That's on my buy list for sure.

This is what's wrong with Apple products these days - their consumers. They don't know what the **** they're buying as long as it has an Apple logo. If you don't believe me then watch the infamous "This is the new NEW iPhone 4" video.

"Oh, it's thinner - let me have it!"

Never mind it's crippled to the bone. No user-upgradeable RAM? 5400rpm HDD?! No CD/DVD-drive? SD-card slot placed on the back? Is it even serviceable?

I guess you Americans are lucky. I live in Denmark and a base 27" iMac costs around $2700. Max it out and it's closer to $6-7000.

The 21.5" iMac used to be a bang-for-the-buck all-in-one computer. That's why I went with the 21.5" Mid 2011 in the first place and upgraded the RAM myself.

Is the iMac still favorable to other all-in one computers? It's not that crystal clear anymore. Given the price increase and the heavy hardware crippling the 21" iMac is less desirable in my optics. But hey, if you don't know what you're buying then no trouble right? As long as it's thinner...and it's named Apple.

The blind follow the blind.

tegumentoso
Oct 25, 2012, 07:41 AM
I noticed now that they also removed the audio in jack!
I cannot plug a microphone in my desktop computer?? And on the website they say perfect for mounting videos :(

kingtj
Oct 25, 2012, 12:08 PM
Ok... but what I don't get is, why would you not want to go with the 27" screen anyway if editing HD video is your interest?

I know very few people who do a lot of video editing work who tell you they prefer a SMALLER screen!

All I want to do it upgrade my 5 year old iMac with the cheap 21.5" model. But since I need it to edit HD video, I can't use the 5400RPM HD unless I buy a $400 TB external, which is about the same price as buying the 27" faster model, which I both dont want a screen that large or spend that much money. Bad spot. Spend too much money on an iMac or build a Hackentosh? Urgh.

kingtj
Oct 25, 2012, 12:19 PM
The fact is, Apple is pushing very aggressively towards the future THEY think computing devices are headed. A lot of people disagree with their opinions, and that's fine. But all I'm saying is, as a guy who used only Windows machines for about a decade and is happily on the Mac side of the fence today? I don't find Apple's decisions wind up being nearly as problematic as people like to say they are.

Statements starting with "Nobody needs ..." are universally going to be incorrect. But that's not quite what Apple has said (or done).

1. If you buy a new Apple Macbook Pro today, you still have the choice to go with a non-Retina display version, and you'll get one with both an optical drive still in it AND ability to upgrade its RAM and hard drive, just by unscrewing the back cover. Apple could easily have discontinued all of those products and said, "Sorry... retina is the future and it's all anyone will ever want from us." They didn't, which says something.

2. Nothing in OS X prevents recognizing or using optical drives, on ANY of the systems they sell! Apple merely feels the optical drive is old tech, on the way out, and they'd rather not build it into the sides of their new machines. People who still want one can buy an inexpensive external USB drive to plug in, and they're all set to go. Why is that so horrible?

3. As Apple increases the default amount of RAM in their systems, the ability to upgrade it later becomes less of an issue. I'm not saying there's no benefit to being able to easily swap defective RAM yourself. But when's the last time you had defective RAM in your Mac? I know it happens, but I've owned something like 10-11 different Macs since around 2000, plus many I take care of at work each day, and I don't recall a single bad RAM chip - save for an incompatible one, out of the box, I bought for a 2006 Mac Pro one time as an upgrade. (It wasn't "bad" but didn't work right with the existing FB-DIMMs in the machine.)


FFhjDX-DUew

"Nobody needs to add more RAM..."

"Nobody needs DVD drives...."

"Nobody needs Bluray drives..."

Some of you guys are fighting hard to convince yourself that Apple can do no wrong. We tell rape victims that they need to stand up and speak out about what's happened. Apple is raping you. Accept it and speak out.

Nunyabinez
Oct 25, 2012, 12:34 PM
I'll keep my 2011 21.5" iMac thanks. I get a 7200 RPM drive and can upgrade the RAM myself up to 32GB. I don't care if my computer is thin, I care if it's functional. Apple is going too far with their drive for thinness.

I would never notice the thinness of a new iMac. When I use my desktop I'm looking straight on, and I don't move it around, so what difference does it make if it is thinner and lighter?

I think Apple has the technological equivalent of a body perception disorder. I can understand a thinner iPad and iPhone (to a point) since you are holding them in your hand. But, a thinner desktop makes no sense.

And while I think getting rid of the optical drive is great for laptops (I almost never use discs on my laptop), but I use my optical drive quite often on my iMac, sometimes sharing with my MBA when I do need it. Seems unnecessary to take it off the iMac just to make it thin.

Luap
Oct 25, 2012, 01:12 PM
Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely. Like I said, Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals,

Agreed. Oh wait. Didn't they just update Logic and FCP X?

the different model available is the Mac Pro which has been completely ignored for the last 4 years.

Wrong.. :rolleyes:

These new iMacs are a joke. I keep saying Apple is obsessed about limiting choice for consumers, but everytime they make a small incremental change like this that is detrimental for users, the hoards of apple fanboys *always* overlook the criticisms.

Kinda like how whiners *always* find something to whine about.

What could have POSSIBLY been so wrong with letting users upgrade the ram on their own? Would an iMac not be as good if it had that ability? Would an iPhone be worse off if the battery was replaceable? Would the original iPod not be the same if it didn't force the use of iTunes?

If you put a good enough battery in the phone to begin with, then the battery won't need to be replaced. 8gb to 16gb ram is actually a pretty decent amount. If it was 2 or 4gb, I could understand the whining. And you certainly don't need 32gb of user upgradeable ram just to write whiney posts on internet forums all day.
It's 2012, and all kinds of consumer and pro hardware alike is far less user serviceable than it used to be. This isn't just an Apple thing, and you'll see a lot more of this yet.

What the hell is so wrong with CHOICE? These normal optional things make *zero* of a difference for the complete noobs, it doesnt make things any more complicated.

You have choice. Go buy something else.

Ice Dragon
Oct 25, 2012, 01:44 PM
Yeah I'm disappointed in the lack of upgradeable RAM on the 21.5" iMac. Hopefully with the Haswell upgrade, they make fusion standard with the option for Flash storage.

wikus
Oct 25, 2012, 02:03 PM
Agreed. Oh wait. Didn't they just update Logic and FCP X?



Wrong.. :rolleyes:



Kinda like how whiners *always* find something to whine about.



If you put a good enough battery in the phone to begin with, then the battery won't need to be replaced. 8gb to 16gb ram is actually a pretty decent amount. If it was 2 or 4gb, I could understand the whining. And you certainly don't need 32gb of user upgradeable ram just to write whiney posts on internet forums all day.
It's 2012, and all kinds of consumer and pro hardware alike is far less user serviceable than it used to be. This isn't just an Apple thing, and you'll see a lot more of this yet.



You have choice. Go buy something else.

You've completely downplayed every valid criticism I've made against the lack of options in the new iMacs as if only to protect Apple's image.

What is wrong with you? And yes, the Mac Pro definitely has been ignored for the past 4 years.

Do the forum a favour and delete your account if you have nothing constructive to add to the topic.

jedimed
Oct 25, 2012, 02:10 PM
I can understand why my iPad isn't upgradeable (although I'd still love a micro-SD slot and an iOS that knew what to do with it). Doing this to the 21.5" iMac (re: no RAM slots) is just horrific and I will have to recommend to my clients that they purchase the one with 16GB simply because we all know that the next iteration of OS X will require more RAM and what will you do when you can't upgrade??

However, if anyone ever tells you that Apple without Steve is different, think about what Tim wrought yesterday. It's all in a direct line from Steve's belief that computers are appliances.

I'll be ordering the 27" model (with RAM slots) and a Fusion drive. And you can be damn sure I'll be ordering AppleCare!

This sort of thinking is why nothing will change. You don't like what a company is doing, the direction they seem to be on. And what do you do? Buy the more expensive option, with more than one expensive add-on. Instead, let's vote with our dollars. Buy used, buy a Mini, buy....Windows? If the profits soar when these design decisions are made, who's to blame Apple for continuing to make them?

Xikum
Oct 25, 2012, 03:28 PM
You've completely downplayed every valid criticism I've made against the lack of options in the new iMacs as if only to protect Apple's image.

What is wrong with you? And yes, the Mac Pro definitely has been ignored for the past 4 years.

Do the forum a favour and delete your account if you have nothing constructive to add to the topic.

Agreed. The guy just completely ignores every negative point about the new iMac (which only the foolhardiest fanboy could do...) and overlooks them all; "you're a whiner!", "you dont need to upgrade it yourself!", "dont buy it then!".

Non-user upgradable RAM, no CD drive on a desktop, slower 5,400rpm HDDs (albeit there is new fusion drives...for extra money); these are NOT GOOD THINGS. STOP DEFENDING THEM.

But what more can you expect from a guy who has an Apple badge with a Steve Jobs face in it for an avatar?

Rend It
Oct 25, 2012, 08:39 PM
This sort of thinking is why nothing will change. You don't like what a company is doing, the direction they seem to be on. And what do you do? Buy the more expensive option, with more than one expensive add-on. Instead, let's vote with our dollars. Buy used, buy a Mini, buy....Windows? If the profits soar when these design decisions are made, who's to blame Apple for continuing to make them?

While it would certainly be great if Apple had lower price points, or more flexible upgrade options, the reality of the situation is that Apple makes their own hardware for their own software. They can make any hardware they like, and make it is non-user-serviceable as they see fit.

Now, if someone pays more to have the option to upgrade, then you shouldn't fault them for that. Buying used or refurbished may not necessarily be wise for the consumer, either. Because while they may be able to upgrade RAM themselves in the older models 3-4 years down the line, the old models may be unable to run the current OS at that time.

It's a mixed bag, and while I agree that making a desktop über-thin is largely unnecessary, there are other aspects to the new iMacs that are compelling and not available in older iMacs, such as USB 3.0, calibrated displays with less glare, and the Fusion drive option.

keyseomen
Oct 25, 2012, 10:50 PM
Thats too bad, personally not an issue for me as the entry level comes with 8GB, but I'm sure it'll bother a lot of people..

anthonyp01
Oct 26, 2012, 11:04 AM
This is what's wrong with Apple products these days - their consumers. They don't know what the **** they're buying as long as it has an Apple logo. If you don't believe me then watch the infamous "This is the new NEW iPhone 4" video.

"Oh, it's thinner - let me have it!"

Never mind it's crippled to the bone. No user-upgradeable RAM? 5400rpm HDD?! No CD/DVD-drive? SD-card slot placed on the back? Is it even serviceable?

I guess you Americans are lucky. I live in Denmark and a base 27" iMac costs around $2700. Max it out and it's closer to $6-7000.

The 21.5" iMac used to be a bang-for-the-buck all-in-one computer. That's why I went with the 21.5" Mid 2011 in the first place and upgraded the RAM myself.

Is the iMac still favorable to other all-in one computers? It's not that crystal clear anymore. Given the price increase and the heavy hardware crippling the 21" iMac is less desirable in my optics. But hey, if you don't know what you're buying then no trouble right? As long as it's thinner...and it's named Apple.

The blind follow the blind.

Your right to some degree, I don't buy all Apple products just for the sake of it. I have Nexus 7, Galaxy S3 etc. But I buy Imac's for the way they look. As a designer I like my **** to look good. I also have a 3 grand PC, but on my work desk I like to have a Mac because they look good and most of all I love OSX.

kazmac
Oct 26, 2012, 11:14 AM
slower HD in the 21" or pay for a more expensive unknown drive?

and no ram upgrades?

Nope, my 2010 is indeed my last iMac.

I hope the mini will still be kicking cores all over the place in 2014, because if I still need a computer at that point, that is the Mac I will get. By then this fusion drive won't be so new.

CoolSpot
Oct 26, 2012, 11:15 AM
For people like you who don't earn their living from the tools they use, as in, a computer, you are in no position to criticize them for their complaints.

If you earn a living with the tools that you use, then you should be able to properly select the right tool for the job. If you are using gobs and gobs of RAM and have very demanding computing needs, then the imac may not be the correct tool for the job. Apple makes the very capable Mac Pro which may be a better fit for your application.

Idefix
Oct 26, 2012, 11:28 AM
I think Apple has the technological equivalent of a body perception disorder. I can understand a thinner iPad and iPhone (to a point) since you are holding them in your hand. But, a thinner desktop makes no sense.

I love that thought! Apple is anorexic!

That does fit in with the rest of the fashionable world, sadly enough...

cgk.emu
Oct 26, 2012, 12:38 PM
I love that thought! Apple is anorexic!

That does fit in with the rest of the fashionable world, sadly enough...

I'm glad you said "fashionable world", which most definitely doesn't include the U.S. What's wrong with the iMac losing some weight? Maybe it could serve as motivation to our obese nation :rolleyes:

rhoydotp
Oct 26, 2012, 12:51 PM
i agree with most of the complaints here (ie. non-upgradable RAM, no optical drive) and maybe partly for the 7.2k RPM against 5.4k RPM drives. However, you can't complain about this without really understanding technology. RPM alone doesn't tell the whole story, yes, of course 7.2k is faster than 5.4k but honestly, how many of you can push that much of IOPS from the existing 7.2k? Not everyone. If you know you are going to saturate the disk, this is not the machine for you.

Another point to consider: This is seems to be a clear indication that Apple will be moving their next set of machines to have Fusion Drive which by the way is not a new technology all in itself. Lots of big storage companies have started using this for over a year and more so this year (HDS, NetApp, etc).

anyway, I'm still on the fence with this on whether to wait or get the Mini.

Anuba
Oct 26, 2012, 01:23 PM
I would never notice the thinness of a new iMac. When I use my desktop I'm looking straight on, and I don't move it around, so what difference does it make if it is thinner and lighter?
Allow me to play devil's advocate (my jury's still out on my verdict on the new design): A desk pushed up against a wall may be the most common environment that iMacs end up in, but it's not the only one. Many will be situated in places where they need to look good from all angles. They will sit on reception desks. Tons of them will fill big open office spaces at ad agencies, web design agencies and such. Such offices are usually big on interior decoration, and a small forest of iMacs with wafer thin screens will be quite the sight to behold.

I think Apple has the technological equivalent of a body perception disorder. I can understand a thinner iPad and iPhone (to a point) since you are holding them in your hand. But, a thinner desktop makes no sense.
They certainly have developed dysmorphia, but if it's any consolation, they're very close to the brick wall now. The only way the next iMac could be thinner would be if the bulge at the back got a little flatter. That's hardly going to wow anyone. The iPhone has reached a point where some complain that it's so thin and light, it feels toyish. Apple has moved from 30-pin to Lightning, SIM cards are now nano-sized, the camera optics dictate a minimum thickness. On rMBPs they've ditched optical and started with soldered RAM and proprietary SSDs, there's really nowhere to go from there. Battery technology is unlikely to see any big breakthroughs in the near future, and since Apple has already gone from removable batteries to semi-removable batteries to glued-in batteries on MBPs, the only possible next step is shaving off some battery life, which will not be received well.
We are very close to a point where Apple will no longer be able to play the "ZOMG it's so THIN!" card, they'll have to find a new focus and I for one can't wait...

Anuba
Oct 26, 2012, 02:31 PM
For people like you who don't earn their living from the tools they use, as in, a computer, you are in no position to criticize them for their complaints.
Apple has never, ever marketed the iMac as a professional tool. The fact that it's gotten more capable doesn't change that. It was always an all-in-one for mainstream consumer use and it was always the most progressive model when it comes to ditching legacy tech. If anyone chooses to use it professionally anyway, it's their call, but they're not in a position to criticize Apple for 'de-professionalizing' a model that was never designed for that customer category in the first place.

On a personal note, a 21.5" iMac with "loads and loads of RAM" sounds like the weirdest choice of professional workhorse ever. That's like a trucking company buying a Mini Cooper and lamenting the fact that you can't fit it with the 650 bhp Cummins diesel engine it needs to pull an 80,000 lbs trailer.

macleod199
Oct 26, 2012, 03:40 PM
Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely. Like I said, Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, the different model available is the Mac Pro which has been completely ignored for the last 4 years.

These new iMacs are a joke. I keep saying Apple is obsessed about limiting choice for consumers, but everytime they make a small incremental change like this that is detrimental for users, the hoards of apple fanboys *always* overlook the criticisms.

What could have POSSIBLY been so wrong with letting users upgrade the ram on their own? Would an iMac not be as good if it had that ability? Would an iPhone be worse off if the battery was replaceable? Would the original iPod not be the same if it didn't force the use of iTunes?

What the hell is so wrong with CHOICE? These normal optional things make *zero* of a difference for the complete noobs, it doesnt make things any more complicated.

I'm not saying I agree with the removal of all these things, but adding access ports (especially ones that are precision made) is expensive, and complicates the internal design in a bunch of ways. You can disagree with the obsession with thin as the main design driver, but given that assumption, the other decisions aren't illogical.

Fuzzy.Dunlop
Oct 26, 2012, 03:54 PM
I love Apple for what they brought to the market but this was the refresh where they jumped the shark

The sooner they go back to what they're good at instead of being a multi billion dollar behemoth the better

Yebubbleman
Oct 26, 2012, 04:47 PM
The fact is, Apple is pushing very aggressively towards the future THEY think computing devices are headed. A lot of people disagree with their opinions, and that's fine. But all I'm saying is, as a guy who used only Windows machines for about a decade and is happily on the Mac side of the fence today? I don't find Apple's decisions wind up being nearly as problematic as people like to say they are.

Good for you, though you are in the majority it seems. I stopped being an iMac customer years ago when I came to the realization that I'd have used my 20" Early 2006 (Core Duo) iMac for another two more years if I had easier access to its hard drive in order to replace it. Alas, those days died off when the pre-iSight iMac G5s did back in 2005. The fact of the matter is that Macs cost money, and preventing upgrades beyond limitations of the hardware (like the Santa Rosa chipset not being able to take more than 4GB of RAM on laptops, for example) substantially shortens the time we have with them. I don't care how savvy you are or aren't, that's problematic. If you pre-stuff a 2012 21.5" iMac or a 15" retina MacBook Pro with the 16GB maximum, that's great, because you have likely maxed out the system chipset's ram capacity limit. But for those that don't opt to do that at the time of purchase, when a version of OS X comes along that requires 16GB, you're left in the cold, and slowly but surely, that will have you left out of updates for things like Safari, Adobe Flash Player, and iTunes. Sleekness is great. Sleekness is part of what made me a customer of the iPad, iPod touch, and non-retina MacBook Pro. But functionality is the other part of that equation, and dropping that isn't going to make people happy unless they're ignorant of what they're losing.

Statements starting with "Nobody needs ..." are universally going to be incorrect. But that's not quite what Apple has said (or done).

Uh...it's absolutely what they've done. Apple does pay attention to customer feedback, but nowhere near as much as they also don't.

1. If you buy a new Apple Macbook Pro today, you still have the choice to go with a non-Retina display version, and you'll get one with both an optical drive still in it AND ability to upgrade its RAM and hard drive, just by unscrewing the back cover. Apple could easily have discontinued all of those products and said, "Sorry... retina is the future and it's all anyone will ever want from us." They didn't, which says something.

First, you're wrong. Apple did state that retina is the future of the MacBook Pro line and, more or less, they did imply that it is going to be the future standard of a "Pro" notebook. Secondly, You are either naive or uninformed if you think that the non-retina MacBook Pro is going to last beyond this current revision. They will, far more likely than not, get discontinued in favor of the next rev of retina MacBook Pros which will be the only MacBook Pros. It's obvious that to ease the transition away from things like the optical drive, Ethernet on laptops, and FireWire 800, Apple is keeping this around and warning customers that need them that if they really need those features, the time to snag them is now. Yes, it is both a little unusual and very kind of them to do this for us; I myself, benefited greatly from them doing that. But take a look at them; no option for 16GB of RAM (when it is clearly not a hardware limitation), no option for a Fusion Drive, no PowerNap support, even for models custom configured with SSDs instead of hard drives, and no retina screens when it's not like the panels themselves would be incompatible with the non-retina MacBook Pro bezel. This is a lame-duck design. Discontinued computer walking. Given a stay of execution to help those of us reluctant to follow Apple's transition this time ease into this transition more gradually.

2. Nothing in OS X prevents recognizing or using optical drives, on ANY of the systems they sell! Apple merely feels the optical drive is old tech, on the way out, and they'd rather not build it into the sides of their new machines. People who still want one can buy an inexpensive external USB drive to plug in, and they're all set to go. Why is that so horrible?

On a laptop, I find it much more inexcusable given that carrying more things is inconvenient; though many more would disagree and take the opposite stance. It's inconvenient, as the cost of the machine stays the same (if not increases) and we're given one less feature. For a desktop, I see it as a blessing in disguise as Apple's internal optical drives were slow and failure-prone and I have no problem with an Apple desktop provided I can attach an external USB optical drive with a traditional 5.25" Tray-load form factor as that is (a) faster than Apple's internal drives were, (b) way more reliable than Apple's internal drives were, and (c) way cheaper to replace if they go bad than Apple's internal drives were. But that does add clutter to a desktop that is all about minimalism. Also, it's a desktop, there should be no limitations on desktops. No one needs a thinner desktop. Certainly not one that thin.

3. As Apple increases the default amount of RAM in their systems, the ability to upgrade it later becomes less of an issue. I'm not saying there's no benefit to being able to easily swap defective RAM yourself. But when's the last time you had defective RAM in your Mac? I know it happens, but I've owned something like 10-11 different Macs since around 2000, plus many I take care of at work each day, and I don't recall a single bad RAM chip - save for an incompatible one, out of the box, I bought for a 2006 Mac Pro one time as an upgrade. (It wasn't "bad" but didn't work right with the existing FB-DIMMs in the machine.)

Defective RAM, while rare, has always been a cheap fix. On either a MacBook Air, a retina MacBook Pro, or now a 21.5" iMac, it is now insanely expensive. In the case of the former two, that's a logic board replacement, and if you're out of AppleCare, that effectively totals your computer. So, while unlikely, if I have RAM die on my $3500 retina 15" MacBook Pro that I use for everything, I'm hosed.

In the meantime, I don't at all agree with your assertion that Apple bumping up the minimum supplied RAM lessens the blow of unupgradable RAM. The whole point of having RAM be upgradable to begin with is to increase the RAM later on to accomodate software that, long after the time of purchase, requires it. Most of the lower-end Mac models capable of running Lion shipped with less than the 2GB required to do so. Without the ability to upgrade to that, said systems are stuck at Snow Leopard, if not less, and thusly some of those machines are SOL when it comes to upgrading basic software like Safari, iTunes, and Adobe Flash Player. That is a problem, because Macs cost money. Without the ability to easily upgrade these Macs, more money will be spent and that is a problem.

slower HD in the 21" or pay for a more expensive unknown drive?

and no ram upgrades?

Nope, my 2010 is indeed my last iMac.

I hope the mini will still be kicking cores all over the place in 2014, because if I still need a computer at that point, that is the Mac I will get. By then this fusion drive won't be so new.

While I hate the lack of upgradable RAM as much as the next guy, simply maxing a 21.5" iMac out to 16GB at the time of purchase, while unfortunately costing more, sort of solves that problem as it's not like that machine will later be able to handle 32GB. Also, there's nothing unknown about the Fusion drive; it's a traditional hard drive in the hard drive bay and a 128GB mSATA SSD blade in the mSATA slot and software/firmware built into the builds of Mountain Lion that ship with those computers that tell Mountain Lion to treat it as one drive but to manage what is stored on that drive to optimize for speed. This is not a new feature. Technically the Mid 2011 iMacs had an Intel chipset capable of employing that feature, but it was never taken advantage of. The "Fusion Drive" isn't a special drive. It's two drives and software (in Mountain Lion) and firmware (on the logic board) guiding them to work together.

As for ditching iMacs, I agree, as desktops they are stupid; but sadly they're no more stupid than the Airs, the Retinas, or any of Apple's other non-upgradable machines.

I love Apple for what they brought to the market but this was the refresh where they jumped the shark

The sooner they go back to what they're good at instead of being a multi billion dollar behemoth the better

I'm sorry, but if you're of the mindset that THIS is where they jumped the shark, then you weren't paying attention. iMacs have long sucked for these reasons...pretty much ever since it got an iSight/FaceTime HD camera it has sucked in these regards.

nateo200
Oct 26, 2012, 05:43 PM
Allow me to play devil's advocate (my jury's still out on my verdict on the new design): A desk pushed up against a wall may be the most common environment that iMacs end up in, but it's not the only one. Many will be situated in places where they need to look good from all angles. They will sit on reception desks. Tons of them will fill big open office spaces at ad agencies, web design agencies and such. Such offices are usually big on interior decoration, and a small forest of iMacs with wafer thin screens will be quite the sight to behold.


They certainly have developed dysmorphia, but if it's any consolation, they're very close to the brick wall now. The only way the next iMac could be thinner would be if the bulge at the back got a little flatter. That's hardly going to wow anyone. The iPhone has reached a point where some complain that it's so thin and light, it feels toyish. Apple has moved from 30-pin to Lightning, SIM cards are now nano-sized, the camera optics dictate a minimum thickness. On rMBPs they've ditched optical and started with soldered RAM and proprietary SSDs, there's really nowhere to go from there. Battery technology is unlikely to see any big breakthroughs in the near future, and since Apple has already gone from removable batteries to semi-removable batteries to glued-in batteries on MBPs, the only possible next step is shaving off some battery life, which will not be received well.
We are very close to a point where Apple will no longer be able to play the "ZOMG it's so THIN!" card, they'll have to find a new focus and I for one can't wait...

Yeah I've been thinking about this for a while...dont know how much thinner they can go and I hope to God they don't take that line as a challenge :O I can't stand how everything is glued/soddered in...that way they can gouge you at the beginning...ugh...my next MBP would be a 15" Retina or even a 13" but the 13" needs a quad core. My iPhone 4 is like a tasty little wafer and its awkward to hold on to without a case...only time its "naked" is when I want to admire the design because it is pretty cool.

I would never notice the thinness of a new iMac. When I use my desktop I'm looking straight on, and I don't move it around, so what difference does it make if it is thinner and lighter?

I think Apple has the technological equivalent of a body perception disorder. I can understand a thinner iPad and iPhone (to a point) since you are holding them in your hand. But, a thinner desktop makes no sense.

And while I think getting rid of the optical drive is great for laptops (I almost never use discs on my laptop), but I use my optical drive quite often on my iMac, sometimes sharing with my MBA when I do need it. Seems unnecessary to take it off the iMac just to make it thin.
Excellent post...The removal of the optical drive is really a bad sign...IMO it should ship with a USB drive standard. Its like Apple is seeing everything anamorphically stretched...yeah thats whats causing their body perception issues LOL.

Agreed. Oh wait. Didn't they just update Logic and FCP X?



Wrong.. :rolleyes:



Kinda like how whiners *always* find something to whine about.



If you put a good enough battery in the phone to begin with, then the battery won't need to be replaced. 8gb to 16gb ram is actually a pretty decent amount. If it was 2 or 4gb, I could understand the whining. And you certainly don't need 32gb of user upgradeable ram just to write whiney posts on internet forums all day.
It's 2012, and all kinds of consumer and pro hardware alike is far less user serviceable than it used to be. This isn't just an Apple thing, and you'll see a lot more of this yet.

You have choice. Go buy something else.

Wow you seriously ignored the crap out of all of the very valid issues present...Mac Pro has been ignored pretty badly...it doesn't even have Thunderbolt or USB 3.0...So what if they updated FCP X...alas I won't continue your a troll or at least have Border Line Troll personality disorder secondary to Apple fanboyism. Your criticism of valid complaints is akin to a doctor responding to a bone/blood/skin cancer patient on their death bed asking for more than ibuprofen for pain. Everyone has different level of needs and while you might use your iMac to send emails some peoples computers are what they use to bring dinner home.

Apple has never, ever marketed the iMac as a professional tool. The fact that it's gotten more capable doesn't change that. It was always an all-in-one for mainstream consumer use and it was always the most progressive model when it comes to ditching legacy tech. If anyone chooses to use it professionally anyway, it's their call, but they're not in a position to criticize Apple for 'de-professionalizing' a model that was never designed for that customer category in the first place.

On a personal note, a 21.5" iMac with "loads and loads of RAM" sounds like the weirdest choice of professional workhorse ever. That's like a trucking company buying a Mini Cooper and lamenting the fact that you can't fit it with the 650 bhp Cummins diesel engine it needs to pull an 80,000 lbs trailer.

Apple doesn't need to market the iMac as a professional tool. Its one of Apples desktops which means that its expected to do everything that a Windows machine can do at a similar price line! Don't act like we are asking an iPad to handle editing 4K video or something stupid like that. Meanwhile the Mac Pro continues to sit untouched...Its basically stuck in 2010 without Thunderbolt, USB 3.0, etc...of course you can throw cards in to compensate but then again when your dropping $5k on a tower that should be included..so right now Apple really doesn't have the strong desktop I'm looking for...

Also your comment about the 21.5" iMac is not really that great of a point....its the whole BIGGER IS BETTER!!! If I want to master a film I should ideally have a computer the size of a small SUV then right?! WRONG we are not in the early days of computers where they were as big as warehouses. Screen size and performance should not be directly correlated. I want a 12 core Apple desktop to fly through video projects quicker...I'm an idiot because I should have a 72" iMac right? Pft. I would give up screen size for performance ANY DAY! I might be able to get over this if Apples Mac Mini had a discrete Graphics card that could make it the beast I and other video editors NEED to get stuff done...

thekev
Oct 26, 2012, 06:32 PM
Allow me to play devil's advocate (my jury's still out on my verdict on the new design): A desk pushed up against a wall may be the most common environment that iMacs end up in, but it's not the only one. Many will be situated in places where they need to look good from all angles. They will sit on reception desks. Tons of them will fill big open office spaces at ad agencies, web design agencies and such. Such offices are usually big on interior decoration, and a small forest of iMacs with wafer thin screens will be quite the sight to behold.




The problem with this statement is I don't think such a design update will push these offices over the edge on purchases. I would hope that they don't pick up noisy fans in exchange for a thin profile. There are other super thin all in one designs. It's just that they don't typically shove that amount of electronics behind the display.


Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely. Like I said, Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, the different model available is the Mac Pro which has been completely ignored for the last 4 years.

These new iMacs are a joke. I keep saying Apple is obsessed about limiting choice for consumers, but everytime they make a small incremental change like this that is detrimental for users, the hoards of apple fanboys *always* overlook the criticisms.

What could have POSSIBLY been so wrong with letting users upgrade the ram on their own? Would an iMac not be as good if it had that ability? Would an iPhone be worse off if the battery was replaceable? Would the original iPod not be the same if it didn't force the use of iTunes?

What the hell is so wrong with CHOICE? These normal optional things make *zero* of a difference for the complete noobs, it doesnt make things any more complicated.

It seems like a lot of people on here have a slightly skewed vision of the "average user", especially when they need to look at the average user or potential user for a given product line. A lot of people have mostly basic needs, but may have more demanding tasks that part of the time. Email and facebook doesn't require its own dedicated space. This is part of the reason why notebooks and smartphones are so popular. They have unrestricted placement. You don't need to dedicate any amount of permanent space to them. They can make the imac slimmer, but it still takes roughly the same amount of effective space in a house, office, apartment, etc while remaining stationary. At this point the advantages are trending toward a large display and not much else. I also hate how Apple allows things to run so hot in favor of thin form factors.

mrsir2009
Oct 26, 2012, 07:32 PM
Would an iPhone be worse off if the battery was replaceable?

Yes. Firstly, a back cover that you could take off would take up more space than a non-removable one, due to the fact that there has to be latches protruding into the phone that hold it on. Secondly, under the back cover and under the removable battery there would need to be another layer of plastic or metal so that the logic board is not exposed when you flip the back cover off. Thirdly, the removable back cover that would be needed to have a removable battery would diminish the build quality of the phone. It would no longer be unibody, so it would be more flimsy and creaky in hand - Whatsmore, if you remove and replace the back cover on a phone enough times the little plastic latches that hold it in wear out, so the cover literally falls off at the drop of a hat. Losing your phone's back cover is not fun.

chrisdee
Oct 27, 2012, 03:11 AM
What about phasing out the 21" and introduce an 32" next time ?
More space to put more and better hardware inside.

Anuba
Oct 27, 2012, 03:30 AM
Also your comment about the 21.5" iMac is not really that great of a point....its the whole BIGGER IS BETTER!!! If I want to master a film I should ideally have a computer the size of a small SUV then right?! WRONG we are not in the early days of computers where they were as big as warehouses. Screen size and performance should not be directly correlated. I want a 12 core Apple desktop to fly through video projects quicker...I'm an idiot because I should have a 72" iMac right? Pft. I would give up screen size for performance ANY DAY! I might be able to get over this if Apples Mac Mini had a discrete Graphics card that could make it the beast I and other video editors NEED to get stuff done...
Editing movies is one of the few jobs I wouldn't mind doing on a small screen, but that's just one out many things that creative professionals do. Take music software, like Propellerhead Reason 6.5. Do you know how incredibly grating and time consuming it is to work with its giant instruments & FX rack, dozens of sequencer tracks and mixer channels on a small screen? You spend more time scrolling, resizing, zooming, toggling, expanding & collapsing than you do making actual music. I feel the same about Adobe CS; having to tuck away all context-sensitive tool panels in order to preserve a decent workspace for the images, webpages, Flash animations etc is about as pleasant as sandpapering one's scrotum. Some people think I'm weird because I think one 1920x1200 screen or above (MBP 17" to iMac 27") is enough, they insist on multiple monitors.

Also, in this case we're talking about desktops. I can understand pros who sacrifice screen space for portability but when you have a desktop machine that isn't going anywhere anyway, why go small? Cramped desk? Stiff neck? The additional cost that you earn back in no time anyway?

Anuba
Oct 27, 2012, 06:20 AM
Professionals dont have much choice in a different model entirely. Like I said, Apple doesnt give a damn about professionals, the different model available is the Mac Pro which has been completely ignored for the last 4 years.
They're addressing the issue next year:

Thanks for your email. Our Pro customers like you are really important to us. Although we didn’t have a chance to talk about a new Mac Pro at today’s event, don’t worry as we’re working on something really great for later next year. We also updated the current model today.

We’ve been continuing to update Final Cut Pro X with revolutionary pro features like industry leading multi-cam support and we just updated Aperture with incredible new image adjustment features.

We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros.

Tim

What Cook means by "really great" remains to be seen, since the guy is a propaganda hyperbole machine of North Korean caliber. He could be referring to a .00000001% speed bump for all we know, or a "Cube 2".

What could have POSSIBLY been so wrong with letting users upgrade the ram on their own?
Nothing, but most users don't, just like most users never remove the battery on a phone or laptop, and Apple's philosophy about stuff like that is to prioritize form factor and weight. For those who don't agree with this philosophy there are countless other brands out there (if iMac 27" / Mac Pro / Mac Mini are the wrong models for your needs).

What the hell is so wrong with CHOICE? These normal optional things make *zero* of a difference for the complete noobs, it doesnt make things any more complicated.
Nothing. What's wrong is to stick with Apple if choice is important to you. Apple doesn't do choice. No computer manufacturer has fewer models and fewer options for each model. Customizing a Dell machine online is like filling out a census form, they usually have more CPU options than Apple has CPU/RAM/storage options combined. Apple has been like that since Steve returned in '97 and threw out most of the model range. This should be the least news worthy newsflash ever. When the original iPhone was released, some friends of mine say "Nah, too big, I'll wait until they expand the model range with stuff like an iPhone 'nano'!" to which my response was "good luck with that". 5 years later, the range of 'choice' on the iPhone front amounts to 1) black 2) white 3) old.

darster
Oct 27, 2012, 07:38 AM
Thanks Apple. You just made my life easier. Looks like I will just keep my mid 2011 iMac running for another 5 years, retire, and never have to buy a desktop computer from you or anyone else ever again.

caioferrari
Oct 27, 2012, 08:01 AM
IMHO is impossible to agree with Apple. Since ever, iMac accept upgrades for RAM or HD and it has no impact for design or price. It's not aways easy to buy an iMac with a RAM upgrade, sometimes you just buy what the store has in stock and some people wants to have the right to upgrade things.

Apple is moving to fast through the direction to unify all the lines. The same lack of possibilities to upgrades that you find in iPad, iPhone and iPod is coming on the computers.

I really don't agree with that. Since the iMac is too expensive, and de 27" is even more, i'm probably going to buy another computer when my Core2Duo iMac starts to run out of juice.

radiohed
Oct 27, 2012, 08:42 AM
It's a shame they don't offer any SSD or Fusion Drive option for the base 21". That will mean that the cheapest config with the fusion drive will be at least $1750.

DakotaGuy
Oct 27, 2012, 09:34 AM
It's a shame they don't offer any SSD or Fusion Drive option for the base 21". That will mean that the cheapest config with the fusion drive will be at least $1750.

Considering they slowed down the HDD in the new base iMac I wouldn't be surprised if the last generation is actually faster.

Anuba
Oct 27, 2012, 10:20 AM
IMHO is impossible to agree with Apple. Since ever, iMac accept upgrades for RAM or HD and it has no impact for design or price. It's not aways easy to buy an iMac with a RAM upgrade, sometimes you just buy what the store has in stock and some people wants to have the right to upgrade things.

Apple is moving to fast through the direction to unify all the lines. The same lack of possibilities to upgrades that you find in iPad, iPhone and iPod is coming on the computers.
It's really simple.

If Apple sees a lot of complaints combined with a dip in sales, they will reconsider. They brought back Firewire on MBP 13" after an avalanche of complaints, and upgrading RAM on Mac Mini is arguably easier than on any other computer on the market -- you just turn the bottom lid and open it like a big jar, without any tools, pop in some RAM and you're done. The previous model was Fort Knox.

If on the other hand the new iMac is a big hit and the complaints are no worse than normal, then the evolution of iMacs will continue along its current trajectory.

flatfoot
Oct 27, 2012, 12:15 PM
Has anyone found out if the new iMacs use 3.5" or 2.5" hard drives?

I keep thinking they might have switched to 2.5" drives to make them thinner...

2.5" in the 21.5" model, 3.5" in the 27" model. You can tell by the specs they give (1TB vs. 3 TB, 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm).

Pianoblack3
Oct 27, 2012, 01:22 PM
I'm glad to hear that the 27 inch model is upgradable the second I saw the new design I was thinking... "Oh crap... no upgradable ram?"

I'm still on last years 27 inch though and I'm poor now, so I shall be sticking with my Fat 27inch iMac.

I wonder if they'll upgrade the Thunderbolt monitor to look this sexy...

When they upgrade the Mac Pro next year, it'll be the second thing they do. Imagine it being as thin as this iMac, but actually thin… and not ugly as from the back :P

MrXiro
Oct 27, 2012, 01:26 PM
When they upgrade the Mac Pro next year, it'll be the second thing they do. Imagine it being as thin as this iMac, but actually thin… and not ugly as from the back :P

It's like Kim Kardashian, Looks thin and sexy from the front and then suddenly BAM! Big Ol' Booty!

But hopefully iMac isn't Vapid like her.

nexusrule
Oct 28, 2012, 03:38 AM
Of course, Apple's "ExpressCache" it's not as innovative as they say. Actually it's pretty outdated. I would hope this approach in the new MBPro retina.

Check your facts. Apple solution doesn't even involve caching, it's different. Regardin innovativity, they expressly stated in the keynote how this solution comes from (business grade array storage) so i think you speak a lots with the brain turned off.

nexusrule
Oct 28, 2012, 03:58 AM
IMHO is impossible to agree with Apple. Since ever, iMac accept upgrades for RAM or HD and it has no impact for design or price

Actually iMac never accepted HD upgrades and only some generation had user replaceable ram, this is one that doesn't.

nexusrule
Oct 28, 2012, 04:11 AM
It's really simple.

If Apple sees a lot of complaints combined with a dip in sales, they will reconsider.

I don't think these iMac will receive critics it's not by a really small minority. I think Apple's pricing and choices make sense. They said in the past they consider the 22'' a consumer machine and the 27'' a prosumer computer. 8GB of ram and a 5400rpm drive in an all-in-one consumer machine are not so fool (I design websites in Photoshop and virtualize Windows for browser testing with 8GB on my macbook pro).

If you need 16GB of ram (and the possibilty to expand to 32) you are better with 27'', in fact if you add 16GB and a Fusion Drive to the 22 it's 100$ less than a 27'' with fusion drive and replaceable ram (i figured the prices looking at the mac mini upgrade prices, they have always been identical).

gnasher729
Oct 28, 2012, 12:08 PM
All I want to do it upgrade my 5 year old iMac with the cheap 21.5" model. But since I need it to edit HD video, I can't use the 5400RPM HD unless I buy a $400 TB external, which is about the same price as buying the 27" faster model, which I both dont want a screen that large or spend that much money. Bad spot. Spend too much money on an iMac or build a Hackentosh? Urgh.

The new iMacs have four USB 3.0 ports. They keep up with any spinning drive, with any SSD drive (and if you complain about $400 then obviously you are not going to use SSD), and with any RAID drive with spinning disks.

krravi
Oct 29, 2012, 02:55 PM
Optical media is now obsolete, just like when Apple killed the floppy drive for the same reason. It is time to let go of old legacy technology and embrace new technology.
As Phil Schiller stated during the keynote, the external optical drive is for "those living in the past".
----------



Sure. Welcome to the future where we avoid 1080P content and are happy with sub standard 720P or nothing. The future were we actually embrace our past.

----------

This new iMac I believe is Jony Ivey gone wild. From what we have read so far, I don't think anyone can really say NO to Jony as per Steve's biography. So Jony did the design and asked the hardware guys to fit their stuff in there. And this is the best the hardware guys can do. (A guess of course which seems very probable)

Need someone with common sense than design sense to balance the equation.

Who will that be at Apple?

kingtj
Oct 29, 2012, 09:38 PM
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.

Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.

I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.

I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??


Sure. Welcome to the future where we avoid 1080P content and are happy with sub standard 720P or nothing. The future were we actually embrace our past.

----------

This new iMac I believe is Jony Ivey gone wild. From what we have read so far, I don't think anyone can really say NO to Jony as per Steve's biography. So Jony did the design and asked the hardware guys to fit their stuff in there. And this is the best the hardware guys can do. (A guess of course which seems very probable)

Need someone with common sense than design sense to balance the equation.

Who will that be at Apple?

krravi
Oct 29, 2012, 09:44 PM
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.

Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.

I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.

I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??

I have never watched a movie using Linux, but I agree that the RCAA can be a pain.

But if people have to pay royalties to use software then why is it wrong for entertainment?

afd
Oct 30, 2012, 07:00 AM
[QUOTE=daniel335e;16120870]Optical media is now obsolete, just like when Apple killed the floppy drive for the same reason. It is time to let go of old legacy technology and embrace new technology. [COLOR="#808080"]

----------
It might be obsolete, but I still have friends and family that stiill want CDs and DVDs, I still buy DVDs that I rip to watch on Apple TV or iPad and CDs still sound better than iTunes purposes. I would guess that the majority of iMac users still use their optical drives, it's still useful technology.

JoeG4
Oct 30, 2012, 10:05 AM
I still think the big fat problem is that so far, it appears there's no way to remove the hard drive. That's a problem if the hard drive dies later on, because your only option will be an external. I guess with thunderbolt it'll be hard to tell the difference, but the idea still sucks!

FlatlinerG
Oct 30, 2012, 10:12 AM
With 8GB of RAM standard, even on the low end model, is this really an issue? The iMac is an all-in-one, designed for plug and play. Not designed to be an upgradable power house for gaming and the like. 8GB of RAM is waaaay more than the vast majority will ever use. And for those that want more, know they'll need it before they buy it and can upgrade then. Sure it's pricier to upgrade through Apple, but it isn't news that Apple stuff is pricey.

chaosbunny
Oct 30, 2012, 10:36 AM
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.

Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.

I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.

I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??

Sure, but downloads with DRM are even worse.

Can I resell a movie bought from iTunes? Can a friend borrow it from me? Can I give it to someone as a present? As far as I know I can't even play it on more than 5 machines.

The way it is done digital downloads take even more rights away from the consumer.

Can you use Linux to watch a movie bought on iTunes?

pkm2003
Oct 30, 2012, 10:48 AM
I'll keep my 2011 21.5" iMac thanks. I get a 7200 RPM drive and can upgrade the RAM myself up to 32GB. I don't care if my computer is thin, I care if it's functional. Apple is going too far with their drive for thinness.

Got to agree with you. I'm going to install an SSD in my 2011 iMac - I need the added performance for my work. If I cannot upgrade an iMac and Apple's not interested in updating the Mac Pro line then what message is this sending out to loyal customers like me.

Seriously, is Apple trying to force me away from their ecosystem?

Razeus
Oct 30, 2012, 04:04 PM
I was going to buy, but with the 21.5 model coming with a 5400 rpm drive, it's a no sale. Even with Fusion Drive, it's still a 5400 rpm drive. There are 7200 rpm drives available Apple. I'd rather you just made it a 128GB SSD and let it be. I'll be sticking with my iMac mid 2010 for the foreseeable future. Hopefully they change their tune in 2013. 27" is way too big and certainly too expensive for my needs. If this continues in 2013, I'll move to Windows 8, along with the rest of my devices. If this is how they want to play it, then let's play the game.

burnout8488
Oct 30, 2012, 04:49 PM
I was going to buy, but with the 21.5 model coming with a 5400 rpm drive, it's a no sale. Even with Fusion Drive, it's still a 5400 rpm drive. There are 7200 rpm drives available Apple. I'd rather you just made it a 128GB SSD and let it be. I'll be sticking with my iMac mid 2010 for the foreseeable future. Hopefully they change their tune in 2013. 27" is way too big and certainly too expensive for my needs. If this continues in 2013, I'll move to Windows 8, along with the rest of my devices. If this is how they want to play it, then let's play the game.

Try the system out in person before you assume how fast it will run based on specifications only.

The fusion drive will make the platter speed of the HDD pretty much irrelevant for the programs you use most often.

superman23
Oct 30, 2012, 04:50 PM
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.

Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.

I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.

I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??

let me know when iTunes is doing 50GB downloads and how long those take, and what your ISP has to say about it.

thelead
Oct 30, 2012, 05:57 PM
It doesn't seem like many are happy with the new iMac... makes you wonder what the hell they where thinking during R&D.

gnasher729
Oct 31, 2012, 08:13 AM
It doesn't seem like many are happy with the new iMac... makes you wonder what the hell they where thinking during R&D.

People who are happy with it don't post here. And for most people, it looks fine, and it works fine.

steve119
Nov 1, 2012, 07:20 PM
2nd November and still no solid release dates :(

tardypooper
Nov 3, 2012, 06:11 AM
Does anyone think the 21.5" models can allow DIY SSD upgrades? I feel like buying one without the Fusion Drive and just throwing in a 256GB SSD.

ctdonath
Nov 3, 2012, 11:28 PM
Sure. Welcome to the future where we avoid 1080P content and are happy with sub standard 720P or nothing.

If that 1080 content is based on the original Japanese analog HDTV format, then heck yeah I'd be happy with sticking with an :apple:TV 2.

While optical storage has its benefits, it's being abandoned despite those benefits. People are willing to put up with some practical regression in favor for other benefits.

I had an amusing discussion with coworkers recently about music formats. The youngest group member (a recent PhD grad) said little but had a bemused/flabbergasted look, in the end admitting to having not purchased any audio/video content on physical media for the last 10 years.
Optical media is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet.

henryonapple
Nov 3, 2012, 11:45 PM
Does anyone think the 21.5" models can allow DIY SSD upgrades? I feel like buying one without the Fusion Drive and just throwing in a 256GB SSD.

isn't something different about the glass and LCD screen this time around? i remember them saying that there is no gap or something of that nature, so i would think that the process is more difficult than previous generations to upgrade the hard drive

krravi
Nov 3, 2012, 11:57 PM
If that 1080 content is based on the original Japanese analog HDTV format, then heck yeah I'd be happy with sticking with an :apple:TV 2.

While optical storage has its benefits, it's being abandoned despite those benefits. People are willing to put up with some practical regression in favor for other benefits.

I had an amusing discussion with coworkers recently about music formats. The youngest group member (a recent PhD grad) said little but had a bemused/flabbergasted look, in the end admitting to having not purchased any audio/video content on physical media for the last 10 years.
Optical media is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet.

Media is not dead. Its going to take a form that none of the online content providers are ready and the infrastructure to deliver them doesn't exist.

4k Movies are on the horizon...

Try watching this in your beloved Mac..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd09US5LNaE&feature=channel&list=UL

Choose the format as "original" the one *above* 1080P. Were you able to watch it uninterrupted?

Congrats on your internet connection and you are probably the top 5% of people with that sort of connection.

NHK Japan is already broadcasting 8k video. Will take two decades for us to catch on, but still.

Content is going to get larger and larger, resolutions will double or triple and Apple TV will be the lone soldier trumpeting its iTunes store and crappy videos.

Have fun watching pixelated video on a very beautiful machine.

tardypooper
Nov 4, 2012, 04:35 AM
isn't something different about the glass and LCD screen this time around? i remember them saying that there is no gap or something of that nature, so i would think that the process is more difficult than previous generations to upgrade the hard drive

Well I wouldn't have high expectations on what it may turn out to be, honestly the things that are holding me back about this new line of iMacs are it's customisability.

However I was pretty relieved about it when a guy over at another discussion thread did clear up some doubts for me regarding the Fusion Drive. Apparently it's a software thing that can be undone for people who prefer to have the SSD drive and HDD placed on 2 separate volumes to manage (which I personally prefer)

Link here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=16222075#post16222075)

toke lahti
Nov 4, 2012, 04:58 PM
Then those people can upgrade the RAM to 16GB in the store. Case closed
This is of course what Apple wants. People need to buy RAM from Apple with much higher price than elsewhere and maybe they don't even need it.
Nobody knows how much 10.9, 10.10 or 10.11 (new OS every year means that within 3 years of appleCare your computer need to handle 3 generations of OS's) and new apps need.
Apple wins, customer loses, case closed.
I think Apple has the technological equivalent of a body perception disorder. I can understand a thinner iPad and iPhone (to a point) since you are holding them in your hand. But, a thinner desktop makes no sense.

And while I think getting rid of the optical drive is great for laptops (I almost never use discs on my laptop), but I use my optical drive quite often on my iMac, sometimes sharing with my MBA when I do need it. Seems unnecessary to take it off the iMac just to make it thin.
The only Apple's product that I'd like to weight less is full size ipad. That's the only device that should be as easy to hold on a hand as traditional book. When I carry my mbp in a backpack, it doesn't matter if it weights a pound less or more. Surprisingly my desk can also support a desktop computer of any weight without a sweat.

I also want dvd drive in my laptop as much as floppy drive. I have external bd-burner sized about a double cd jewel case.

But it seems pretty ironic to me that just few years ago Apple advertised iMac as "clutter free all-in-one" and compared it some Dell desktop with lots of cables. Now macs are becoming clutterfull none-in-ones, when you need external hdd's, maybe also external ssd, external odd and for the icing on the cake; external gpu!
The fusion drive will make the platter speed of the HDD pretty much irrelevant for the programs you use most often.
Still the speed isn't irrelevant when you are handling data that is not "used most often". They are also overcharging the SSD price; $250 for 128GB!? And if you don't pay this, you'll have slower computer than older iMacs, which they of course don't sell anymore. Nice extortion, once again!
Actually iMac never accepted HD upgrades and only some generation had user replaceable ram, this is one that doesn't.
I've up/downgraded my father's imac's hdd several times (first bigger to store more tv programs, then smaller when big hdd went to NAS). Apple designed it really awkward to do, but if new imac's design follows new mbp's it might be practically impossible now.
This might also be the reason of new design after all. HP showed how all-in-one workstations should be done(Z1); everything is modular and easily changed and still fits your desktop. Apple lost this game, so they had to invent something new: lets make it thin, even if nobody benefits from it, but it looks nice! Talk about form over function...
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.

Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.

I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.
Digital downloads are much more worse milking than optical disks.
And why optical disk needs to go away? It's shiny and glances as hell, so Apple should really love it!
It's also very ecological when you don't need heat your basement with massive disk array to watch one movie and it's also the most cost effective; pressing a 50GB disk cost less than a buck. It's also easier to use than any Apple's product. Maybe because of these bd is the king of industry globally in all statistics.

All the signs show that Apple is perfecting their campaign to artificially shorten their products' lifespan. Every little physical break-up that used to mean easy repair now means throw away the whole thing:
You have faulty RAM and didn't get / out of appleCare? Go buy a new mac!
Didn't get Fusion Drive and now the mac is slow? Go buy a new mac!
Want to have bigger internal storage or the original broke? Go buy a new mac!

Suddenly it seems very logical why Apple hates so much headless expandable computer that would have reasonable horsepower and price.

It's also much more profitable to assembly desktops from laptop components, when 80% of your computer sales comes from laptops. Especially when computers are only 15% of your overall business...

spyguy10709
Nov 4, 2012, 05:20 PM
Media is not dead. Its going to take a form that none of the online content providers are ready and the infrastructure to deliver them doesn't exist.

4k Movies are on the horizon...

Try watching this in your beloved Mac..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd09US5LNaE&feature=channel&list=UL

Choose the format as "original" the one *above* 1080P. Were you able to watch it uninterrupted?

Congrats on your internet connection and you are probably the top 5% of people with that sort of connection.

NHK Japan is already broadcasting 8k video. Will take two decades for us to catch on, but still.

Content is going to get larger and larger, resolutions will double or triple and Apple TV will be the lone soldier trumpeting its iTunes store and crappy videos.

Have fun watching pixelated video on a very beautiful machine.

4K movies ARE on the NEAR horizon, just as how DVD movies were on the near horizon for most in the late 90s. No one was asking for DVD quality on all of our content - the "internet pipes" if you will, of the DVD pressers and blank discs - were extremely expensive - just like a fast internet connection is today (Well, fast enough for SHD video that is)

On that 5K video, If the content was on a better host, sure I would (Youtube only lets down 1Mbit/Sec max). Most of New York City would, in fact, where the average residential connection is over 30MBit/sec. Living in NYC suburbs, I have FiOS and my internet is 75Mbit/sec - it's wickedly fast. For people in the right situations - HD streaming is the present. For most people, it's in the near future, as ISP speeds increase and price decreases.

True, NHK Japan is broadcasting 8K video (4K 3D that is). Just like they did 1080i in 1983...

If you think Apple TV, along with broadband, isn't going to get faster and better in the next few years, you're nuts. There were HD-Tapes made at one point (1983!!), but they died out because tapes sucked. There are HD and SHD discs- but those will die out, because they too will eventually suck in comparison to better formats (which is currently Solid state and online. Guess which is more convenient - not to mention cheaper)

All I'm trying to say is - TIME MARCHES ON. And the proof-of-concept tech won't work for everyone, but the underlying concept will.

burnout8488
Nov 4, 2012, 05:25 PM
But it seems pretty ironic to me that just few years ago Apple advertised iMac as "clutter free all-in-one" and compared it some Dell desktop with lots of cables. Now macs are becoming clutterfull none-in-ones, when you need external hdd's, maybe also external ssd, external odd and for the icing on the cake; external gpu!

I don't need an external HD, SSD, ODD, or GPU. I am the target market for the iMac. There are many of me out there. There are less of you out there that *need* those things. Period! Apple isn't stupid.

By reading your post and signature, it seems like you shouldn't even be using an Apple product. If anything, buy a Mac Pro and be happy with its expandability. An all-in-one CERTAINLY does not fit your needs, so why continue to complain about it?

spyguy10709
Nov 4, 2012, 05:33 PM
This is of course what Apple wants. People need to buy RAM from Apple with much higher price than elsewhere and maybe they don't even need it.
Nobody knows how much 10.9, 10.10 or 10.11 (new OS every year means that within 3 years of appleCare your computer need to handle 3 generations of OS's) and new apps need.
Apple wins, customer loses, case closed.

The only Apple's product that I'd like to weight less is full size ipad. That's the only device that should be as easy to hold on a hand as traditional book. When I carry my mbp in a backpack, it doesn't matter if it weights a pound less or more. Surprisingly my desk can also support a desktop computer of any weight without a sweat.

I also want dvd drive in my laptop as much as floppy drive. I have external bd-burner sized about a double cd jewel case.

But it seems pretty ironic to me that just few years ago Apple advertised iMac as "clutter free all-in-one" and compared it some Dell desktop with lots of cables. Now macs are becoming clutterfull none-in-ones, when you need external hdd's, maybe also external ssd, external odd and for the icing on the cake; external gpu!

Still the speed isn't irrelevant when you are handling data that is not "used most often". They are also overcharging the SSD price; $250 for 128GB!? And if you don't pay this, you'll have slower computer than older iMacs, which they of course don't sell anymore. Nice extortion, once again!

I've up/downgraded my father's imac's hdd several times (first bigger to store more tv programs, then smaller when big hdd went to NAS). Apple designed it really awkward to do, but if new imac's design follows new mbp's it might be practically impossible now.
This might also be the reason of new design after all. HP showed how all-in-one workstations should be done(Z1); everything is modular and easily changed and still fits your desktop. Apple lost this game, so they had to invent something new: lets make it thin, even if nobody benefits from it, but it looks nice! Talk about form over function...

Digital downloads are much more worse milking than optical disks.
And why optical disk needs to go away? It's shiny and glances as hell, so Apple should really love it!
It's also very ecological when you don't need heat your basement with massive disk array to watch one movie and it's also the most cost effective; pressing a 50GB disk cost less than a buck. It's also easier to use than any Apple's product. Maybe because of these bd is the king of industry globally in all statistics.

All the signs show that Apple is perfecting their campaign to artificially shorten their products' lifespan. Every little physical break-up that used to mean easy repair now means throw away the whole thing:
You have faulty RAM and didn't get / out of appleCare? Go buy a new mac!
Didn't get Fusion Drive and now the mac is slow? Go buy a new mac!
Want to have bigger internal storage or the original broke? Go buy a new mac!

Suddenly it seems very logical why Apple hates so much headless expandable computer that would have reasonable horsepower and price.

It's also much more profitable to assembly desktops from laptop components, when 80% of your computer sales comes from laptops. Especially when computers are only 15% of your overall business...

You so don't get it. You're still thinking like someone in 2002. You make the comparison to the 1999 iMac, which in it's time was a "None in one" as you put it. People didn't want USB ports in 1999, they wanted their FLOPPY DRIVE. Just like you want your Optical Disc drive. It was SLOWER than the easily upgradeable PMG3 AIO - look it up. It was prettier, and smaller, yes - but it outsold it nearly 100 to 1. It changed computer history - the way we think of our computers. I agree that Apple charges too much for SSDs and RAM - but hey, they're a company, dude. (And PS - it's not slower than last gen - the 5400RPM disc is 2 platters, so it's actually just about if not FASTER than the old 4 platter drives...)

And ODD are ecological?? WTF are you spewing dude? To make a disc, you need extremely thin metal and plastic, as well as casing for the disc, paper for all the crap inside the casing, and then you need to SHIP it to the store, and most likely SHIP it again to wherever you're located.

I agree that Apple computers' upgradability sucks - but after the recent return to the closed-box they're slowly getting better actually. Just some backstory - the original Mac, and Powerbook's RAM and HDD weren't upgradable AT ALL. But as time allowed for it, and ram slots (powerbook) got smaller, they added them. I'm convinced that Apple is just waiting for smaller RAM, and then they'll put the slots back.

If pure upgradeability is more important than functionality (laptops) or design (desktops) maybe the Mac isn't for you..

krravi
Nov 4, 2012, 05:36 PM
4K movies ARE on the NEAR horizon, just as how DVD movies were on the near horizon for most in the late 90s. No one was asking for DVD quality on all of our content - the "internet pipes" if you will, of the DVD pressers and blank discs - were extremely expensive - just like a fast internet connection is today (Well, fast enough for SHD video that is)

On that 5K video, If the content was on a better host, sure I would (Youtube only lets down 1Mbit/Sec max). Most of New York City would, in fact, where the average residential connection is over 30MBit/sec. Living in NYC suburbs, I have FiOS and my internet is 75Mbit/sec - it's wickedly fast. For people in the right situations - HD streaming is the present. For most people, it's in the near future, as ISP speeds increase and price decreases.

True, NHK Japan is broadcasting 8K video (4K 3D that is). Just like they did 1080i in 1983...

If you think Apple TV, along with broadband, isn't going to get faster and better in the next few years, you're nuts. There were HD-Tapes made at one point (1983!!), but they died out because tapes sucked. There are HD and SHD discs- but those will die out, because they too will eventually suck in comparison to better formats (which is currently Solid state and online. Guess which is more convenient - not to mention cheaper)

All I'm trying to say is - TIME MARCHES ON. And the proof-of-concept tech won't work for everyone, but the underlying concept will.

NHK Japan is not broadcasting 4k in 3D. Its broadcasting true 8k.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/8k-ultra-high-def-tv-365291

You seriously think the broadband across the globe will increase rapidly without having to pay an arm and leg for the service? Will every household be able to afford that service so the content providers can rely on it as a distribution medium?

Apple still doesn't offer its own software for download through iTunes. Because its huge. Example - Logic Studio.

We can all hope but there is no way online fibers are going to be effective at streaming the content of tomorrow.

spyguy10709
Nov 4, 2012, 05:44 PM
NHK Japan is not broadcasting 4k in 3D. Its broadcasting true 8k.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/8k-ultra-high-def-tv-365291

You seriously think the broadband across the globe will increase rapidly without having to pay an arm and leg for the service? Will every household be able to afford that service so the content providers can rely on it as a distribution medium?

Apple still doesn't offer its own software for download through iTunes. Because its huge. Example - Logic Studio.

We can all hope but there is no way online fibers are going to be effective at streaming the content of tomorrow.

mmm actually they do. I can download all components of LS from the App Store.

They're not broadcasting that yet, it's still in development. They are streaming 8K pixel images, however, in 4K3D
And yes, yes I do. In 2006 I was paying I believe 60 dollars per month for a 6Mbit stream. Now, 5 or 6 years later, I'm paying 60 dollars per month for a 75Mbit stream. So yes, yes I do.

The online fibers of TODAY won't be able to for most people. But the online fibers of tomorrow will be able to without a doubt.

obsoletepower
Nov 4, 2012, 06:53 PM
A lot of people (in fact most of them on this thread) are disappointed with the lack of upgrade options for the 21.5" models and yes, I'm one of them. I purchased the mid-2011 iMac 21.5" (the higher end model of the two) yesterday complete with applecare, knowing the new one is coming this month because I wanted to see how it fits my workflow for mobile development. I am still on the fence about whether I should stick to this one or upgrade to the refreshed model when it comes out. I know this may sound old-fashioned but I do use the optical drive for photography (my hobby) to burn discs and hand them out / for backup etc.

Although the form-factor of the new one is elegant and downright beautiful, it is not a huge concern for me as the iMac sits in my office at home and weight / sleekness is not a benefit for me. Plus, the current model is in itself quite beautiful. Before the iMac I had purchased the refreshed Core i7 Mac mini which has a 5,400 RPM HDD and I can honestly say that I have much better responsiveness from the 7,200 RPM HDD in the iMac. Since the HDD is not user-upgradable, this is a pretty big negative for me. For those that are trying to downplay the speed differences, trust me, there is a very discernible difference between the two.

As I said, I am on the fence about this.

kingtj
Nov 4, 2012, 07:10 PM
Where do I begin here?

Ok, first ... there's not much "ecologically friendly" about optical discs. I've never seen a box of DVD or CD media that claimed they were made from recycled discs! The fact is, they get tossed in the trash ALL the time and the plastic discs with metallic layers sandwiched inside don't really biodegrade well. The "massive disk array" you refer to seems over the top, too. I currently have all my digital media stored on an HP Microserver NAS. It's a little, power efficient server that's about as tall as the old Apple G4 Cube computer, and a little longer and wider. You can put up to 4 SATA drives in hot-swap trays in the front of it (using the "Green" drives if you like for ever lower power consumption), and it's extremely quiet and efficient. I have 8TB of storage in mine right now, and that's MORE than enough for everything I'd want to keep in a personal media collection.

As for Apple purposely trying to obsolete things before their time? That's a valid but debatable viewpoint. I can't prove they're not, obviously, but it's just as tough to prove that's their objective. People screamed and moaned when Jobs declared the 3.5" floppy disk "dead" too and removed it from all the Macs when every PC was still using one. But hey, history proved he made the right decision there.

I think I've said before on here that I'm not necessarily a fan of all these new machines you can't user-service.... but again, it depends on a few things. I recently took an out of warranty Macbook Pro 13" in for a screen repair at a local Apple store and found out the entire top clamshell lid would be swapped with a new one, at a total cost of around $280. To me, that's really not so bad - considering it was turned around in 24 hours' time. You sure can't buy a NEW one for $280. You can't buy ANY new Mac or even iPad for that price. So saying, "Oh, it broke.... Now you have to buy a new one." is again, over the top and unrealistic.

If they keep the cost of repairs relatively reasonable/fair, then it's not such a big deal that you can't just open one up yourself to try to repair it. Most customers have no willingness or skill to do such things in the first place (even if our readership here is more techie than that).



Digital downloads are much more worse milking than optical disks.
And why optical disk needs to go away? It's shiny and glances as hell, so Apple should really love it!
It's also very ecological when you don't need heat your basement with massive disk array to watch one movie and it's also the most cost effective; pressing a 50GB disk cost less than a buck. It's also easier to use than any Apple's product. Maybe because of these bd is the king of industry globally in all statistics.

All the signs show that Apple is perfecting their campaign to artificially shorten their products' lifespan. Every little physical break-up that used to mean easy repair now means throw away the whole thing:
You have faulty RAM and didn't get / out of appleCare? Go buy a new mac!
Didn't get Fusion Drive and now the mac is slow? Go buy a new mac!
Want to have bigger internal storage or the original broke? Go buy a new mac!

Suddenly it seems very logical why Apple hates so much headless expandable computer that would have reasonable horsepower and price.

It's also much more profitable to assembly desktops from laptop components, when 80% of your computer sales comes from laptops. Especially when computers are only 15% of your overall business...

nuckinfutz
Nov 4, 2012, 09:48 PM
You can play "what ifs" with everything.

Fact is with 64-bit computing the ability to address 16 GB of RAM is significant. Even if future versions of OS X require more memory the speed hit isn't that significant if you upgrade your storage subsystem to SSD type speeds.

Apple doesn't clutter your life...YOU do. They didn't force you to dangle a bunch of drives off your computer. There's a reason why companies have storage arrays.

toke lahti
Nov 6, 2012, 06:02 PM
You so don't get it. You're still thinking like someone in 2002. You make the comparison to the 1999 iMac, which in it's time was a "None in one" as you put it. People didn't want USB ports in 1999, they wanted their FLOPPY DRIVE. Just like you want your Optical Disc drive. It was SLOWER than the easily upgradeable PMG3 AIO - look it up. It was prettier, and smaller, yes - but it outsold it nearly 100 to 1. It changed computer history - the way we think of our computers. I agree that Apple charges too much for SSDs and RAM - but hey, they're a company, dude. (And PS - it's not slower than last gen - the 5400RPM disc is 2 platters, so it's actually just about if not FASTER than the old 4 platter drives...)
Apple didn't change anything in the industry with original iMac. It had so tiny fraction of industry. Only few last years Apple has had so big piece of the pie that it really matters. Anyway Apple was last to adopt hdmi, so what did that revolutionaize? Would macs be now better without it?
And PPS. Desktops with 3.5" 7200 RPM are much faster than 2.5" 5400 RPM. No matter how many platters there are.
And ODD are ecological?? WTF are you spewing dude? To make a disc, you need extremely thin metal and plastic, as well as casing for the disc, paper for all the crap inside the casing, and then you need to SHIP it to the store, and most likely SHIP it again to wherever you're located.
More than half of computer's carbon footprint comes from manufacturing and NAS use more energy for streaming one movie from it than pressing an optical disc of the same movie. You could press 1000 optical discs with computer's carbon footprint. And by making computer non-expandable and non-repairable Apple has made mac's carbon footprint many times bigger.
If pure upgradeability is more important than functionality (laptops) or design (desktops) maybe the Mac isn't for you..
I know that I'm trapped because I like OsX. Maybe it is finally time for me to build hackintosh. I just don't like the idea of some update breaking up the whole system. And for years, I've enjoyed more using the computer, than building them. I also don't have enough time to tinkering and OsX's support (drivers) for hardware is really flaky for me. I hope there will be more TB acceptance in the industry and so on... Everything would be so much easier if Apple licensed OsX to other manufacturers.

I'm a hopeless dreamer, but knowing about technology and understanding what Apple could do with they power in the industry just makes me sad.
I think it's great that Apple tries to simplify using computers to those who benefit from it, but at the same time they could give more options to advanced users. But Apple isn't Apple Computer anymore and they like more making money than as great computers as possible.

When about 3% of their revenue comes from desktops and probably a lot less of their profits, desktop computers are any longer only a PR thing for Apple. And that's at least what new iMac really looks like; form so much over the function, that they might be at the end of the road for that.

After HP's Z1 I just can't not to think what iMac could be. They could build different versions: none-in-one (no expandability or repairability like new iMac), all-in-one (like previous iMacs + some more) and choose-what-in-one. The last one would be totally modular where user could add bricks behind the screen (maybe through miniPCI?) which could be GPU, HDD, SDD, ODD, RAM slots, more ports and whatnot!
You want sleek? Well, add nothing to default built.
Want blu-ray? Just clip it in!
Want 3.5" hdd? Just clip it in!
Want 4G modem that works outside US? Just clip it in!
Want second (or descreet) GPU with 2 hdmi's and sdi (all both in and out)? Just clip it in!
Want 10G ethernet + SAS + fw800 + 2 TB more? Just clip it in!
Want dvb-s2/t2/c2 tuner with CA-slot? Just clip it in!

Who needs unibody desktop? Watch your computer from behind a lot? Drop it a lot from the desk?

toke lahti
Nov 6, 2012, 06:21 PM
If anything, buy a Mac Pro and be happy with its expandability.
I'd guess nobody, that doesn't have too much money or need MP now for make a living, would be happy to buy present model. Price is too high and tach badly outdated. No good price-power ratio GPU, no usb3, no TB, no bd.
And new model promised "late next year".

Now if there would be decently priced xMac with one desktop cpu (like i7), less than 2 year old powerful gpu, 3 pci slots and 3 internal desktop size storage slots, which one could be optionally odd, that would be the ultimate overall headless desktop for almost everybody and right between mini and MP.
But seems to be that will never come from Apple, just don't know why they hate this kind of configuration so much? Was G4 powermac so bad choice for Apple to make?
Apple doesn't clutter your life...YOU do. They didn't force you to dangle a bunch of drives off your computer.
They take all features out of all-in-one, say that is clutter free and you are forced to have clutter your desk with external boxes and cables for every feature you need. What's the point making the clutter free none-in-one anyway? For those who use it as decoration?

Yebubbleman
Nov 7, 2012, 04:28 AM
Yes. Firstly, a back cover that you could take off would take up more space than a non-removable one, due to the fact that there has to be latches protruding into the phone that hold it on. Secondly, under the back cover and under the removable battery there would need to be another layer of plastic or metal so that the logic board is not exposed when you flip the back cover off. Thirdly, the removable back cover that would be needed to have a removable battery would diminish the build quality of the phone. It would no longer be unibody, so it would be more flimsy and creaky in hand - Whatsmore, if you remove and replace the back cover on a phone enough times the little plastic latches that hold it in wear out, so the cover literally falls off at the drop of a hat. Losing your phone's back cover is not fun.

There are several smartphones that prove just about all of this wrong by being more durable than the iPhone 4, 4S, and 5 and having longer battery life while still being comparably thin. A phone's battery goes through way more of a regular workout than the battery of any laptop, any iPod, and any iPad or other tablet. Most tend to go bad, hence "spare batteries" and "extended batteries" things that cell phone and non-iPhone smartphone users have long-since benefited from. The iPhone's battery may be amazing, but no phone's battery is THAT amazing. Also the solution to not wearing out the mechanisms on your phone's back cover is to not obsessively play with it.

It's a shame they don't offer any SSD or Fusion Drive option for the base 21". That will mean that the cheapest config with the fusion drive will be at least $1750.

The base 21.5" has always been the runt of the iMac line. Never ever was worth buying, in my opinion.

It's really simple.

If Apple sees a lot of complaints combined with a dip in sales, they will reconsider. They brought back Firewire on MBP 13" after an avalanche of complaints, and upgrading RAM on Mac Mini is arguably easier than on any other computer on the market -- you just turn the bottom lid and open it like a big jar, without any tools, pop in some RAM and you're done. The previous model was Fort Knox.

If on the other hand the new iMac is a big hit and the complaints are no worse than normal, then the evolution of iMacs will continue along its current trajectory.

How is a machine that isn't even in the wild or available for pre-order a "hit"?

It's like Kim Kardashian, Looks thin and sexy from the front and then suddenly BAM! Big Ol' Booty!

But hopefully iMac isn't Vapid like her.

If these new iMacs are anything like their 2005-2011 predecessors, then much like Kim Kardashian, it's not only vapid, but it's also crazy. Having seen the iMacs naked, I can attest that, probably like Kardashian (I wouldn't know for sure) you want to say away.

Sure. Welcome to the future where we avoid 1080P content and are happy with sub standard 720P or nothing. The future were we actually embrace our past.

----------

This new iMac I believe is Jony Ivey gone wild. From what we have read so far, I don't think anyone can really say NO to Jony as per Steve's biography. So Jony did the design and asked the hardware guys to fit their stuff in there. And this is the best the hardware guys can do. (A guess of course which seems very probable)

Need someone with common sense than design sense to balance the equation.

Who will that be at Apple?

To be fair, the iMac has ALWAYS been about form over function. This is nothing new, it's just a continuation of the trend that has been on-going since day one of iMac.

For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.

Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.

I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.

I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??

I would agree if (a) Internet were faster and (b) hard drive space were more plentiful. As it stands neither of these are true, so my shelf of Blu-Rays and DVDs is still more economical on my computer's resources than the supposed future of video distribution.

With 8GB of RAM standard, even on the low end model, is this really an issue? The iMac is an all-in-one, designed for plug and play. Not designed to be an upgradable power house for gaming and the like. 8GB of RAM is waaaay more than the vast majority will ever use. And for those that want more, know they'll need it before they buy it and can upgrade then. Sure it's pricier to upgrade through Apple, but it isn't news that Apple stuff is pricey.

8GB of RAM is great for today. Certainly more than enough. But for those that intend to keep the machine until it becomes too expensive to be worth repairing, 8GB won't be sufficient forever. And given that this isn't a user-accessible upgrade, it is prudent to take care of that when the computer is purchased and not afterwards.

I was going to buy, but with the 21.5 model coming with a 5400 rpm drive, it's a no sale. Even with Fusion Drive, it's still a 5400 rpm drive. There are 7200 rpm drives available Apple. I'd rather you just made it a 128GB SSD and let it be. I'll be sticking with my iMac mid 2010 for the foreseeable future. Hopefully they change their tune in 2013. 27" is way too big and certainly too expensive for my needs. If this continues in 2013, I'll move to Windows 8, along with the rest of my devices. If this is how they want to play it, then let's play the game.

A Fusion Drive, even with a 5400RPM 2.5" Hard drive as the hard drive component, is still faster than a lone 7200RPM hard drive. Jus' sayin'. Also, Apple's not telling you that you can't have an SSD, it's telling you that if you want a hard drive, you're limited to that capacity and RPM speeds. Would you have preferred them offering you a 21.5" iMac with a 7200RPM 2.5" 750GB drive instead?

Does anyone think the 21.5" models can allow DIY SSD upgrades? I feel like buying one without the Fusion Drive and just throwing in a 256GB SSD.

Nope. It'll likely be just as annoying to perform any DIY upgrades as it was on the older models

You can play "what ifs" with everything.

Fact is with 64-bit computing the ability to address 16 GB of RAM is significant. Even if future versions of OS X require more memory the speed hit isn't that significant if you upgrade your storage subsystem to SSD type speeds.

Apple doesn't clutter your life...YOU do. They didn't force you to dangle a bunch of drives off your computer. There's a reason why companies have storage arrays.

I'm sorry, but the luxury of an internal optical drive or a second hard drive is a common one among desktops. Telling me that it's needless clutter and that it should be removed from my computer to save space is stupid when all that is preserved is the aesthetic beauty of the machine, which is worthless when compared to the functionality lost in the process.

Apple didn't change anything in the industry with original iMac. It had so tiny fraction of industry. Only few last years Apple has had so big piece of the pie that it really matters. Anyway Apple was last to adopt hdmi, so what did that revolutionaize? Would macs be now better without it?
And PPS. Desktops with 3.5" 7200 RPM are much faster than 2.5" 5400 RPM. No matter how many platters there are.

More than half of computer's carbon footprint comes from manufacturing and NAS use more energy for streaming one movie from it than pressing an optical disc of the same movie. You could press 1000 optical discs with computer's carbon footprint. And by making computer non-expandable and non-repairable Apple has made mac's carbon footprint many times bigger.

I know that I'm trapped because I like OsX. Maybe it is finally time for me to build hackintosh. I just don't like the idea of some update breaking up the whole system. And for years, I've enjoyed more using the computer, than building them. I also don't have enough time to tinkering and OsX's support (drivers) for hardware is really flaky for me. I hope there will be more TB acceptance in the industry and so on... Everything would be so much easier if Apple licensed OsX to other manufacturers.

I'm a hopeless dreamer, but knowing about technology and understanding what Apple could do with they power in the industry just makes me sad.
I think it's great that Apple tries to simplify using computers to those who benefit from it, but at the same time they could give more options to advanced users. But Apple isn't Apple Computer anymore and they like more making money than as great computers as possible.

When about 3% of their revenue comes from desktops and probably a lot less of their profits, desktop computers are any longer only a PR thing for Apple. And that's at least what new iMac really looks like; form so much over the function, that they might be at the end of the road for that.

After HP's Z1 I just can't not to think what iMac could be. They could build different versions: none-in-one (no expandability or repairability like new iMac), all-in-one (like previous iMacs + some more) and choose-what-in-one. The last one would be totally modular where user could add bricks behind the screen (maybe through miniPCI?) which could be GPU, HDD, SDD, ODD, RAM slots, more ports and whatnot!
You want sleek? Well, add nothing to default built.
Want blu-ray? Just clip it in!
Want 3.5" hdd? Just clip it in!
Want 4G modem that works outside US? Just clip it in!
Want second (or descreet) GPU with 2 hdmi's and sdi (all both in and out)? Just clip it in!
Want 10G ethernet + SAS + fw800 + 2 TB more? Just clip it in!
Want dvb-s2/t2/c2 tuner with CA-slot? Just clip it in!

Who needs unibody desktop? Watch your computer from behind a lot? Drop it a lot from the desk?

Hackintoshes are rad. Personally, I am of the opinion that the non-retina Unibody MacBook Pro is the only truly practical Mac that Apple makes. After that presumably gets the axe next year in favor of the retina design taking over, I suppose it'll either be time to compromise and accept the retina design or Hackintoshing OR it'll be time to leave the platform altogether, which I don't want to do given all that I've invested in it over the last decade.

hamkor04
Nov 9, 2012, 05:53 PM
The 21.5 model seems to have been made considerably worse in many ways.

At least the 27 inch hasn't been ruined to the same extent it seems.

***** also HDD is 5400, what the ***********k this is total rip off, why they coudn;t put 7200 hdd so if you get base imac 21 2012, you pretty screwed up.

AppleMacFinder
Nov 10, 2012, 03:19 PM
Desktop computer that has no upgradable RAM? That is a joke, and a cruel one :(

Ice Dragon
Nov 10, 2012, 03:34 PM
I am obviously against the iMac not having user replaceable RAM though how is the 640M and 650M respectively for running the latest games? Certainly they are fine for running the display.

objc
Nov 27, 2012, 02:41 PM
who the hell needs 16 GB of ram. Jesus christ. Unless you are running video software, my 2 year old i7 with 8 GB ram can handle just about everything I throw at it.

----------



"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

aylk
Nov 28, 2012, 03:41 PM
RAM slots on the iMac? Is this what Tim Cook meant when he said he had something great in store for Mac Pro users?

No.

nicmart
Nov 29, 2012, 01:01 PM
I guess I'm one of the 17. Only 16 more to go...

I had 16G of RAM from Crucial waiting for my iMac the day I bought it. The 27" is too big for my desk and the extra RAM helps when testing VMs. No reason to pay Apple's insane prices for memory.

It's a semantic quibble, I know, but I would characterize Apple's RAM prices as "rapacious" rather than "insane." Opinions vary.

nicmart
Nov 29, 2012, 01:20 PM
Apple's decision to prevent user upgrade of RAM on the 21.5-inch iMacs is form over function with a vengeance. I've cancelled my preorder of the faster 21.5 at B&H.

This will clobber schools, whose students often use Macs for photo and video editing, but cannot afford 27-inch Macs.