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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
21.5" iMac Has No User-Upgradable RAM; 27" Has Four Accessible RAM Slots
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
----------
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!
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm doing music with huge sample libraries and I have 40 and use all of it.
For a desktop? Hell yes. Function over form, please.
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 postAnd 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
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.
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 ..
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 ? )
----------
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
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.
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.
Why Thin?
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.
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.