Opinion on iMac Huff Post review.

[Lankyman]

If a drive fails in the new iMac you do exactly what you did in the previous generation except instead of magnets, there's foam tape. The tape slices with any plastic cutting tool with ease. No need for heat guns or any of that nonsense.

The internal layout is actually easier to work on than the old one too.

You then buy a whitebox drive from newegg for $80 and a roll of 3M VHB for a few bucks, install the drive and have it up and running the same day!

Other than the tape, the design and serviceability of the iMac hasn't changed - if anything it has become easier to service the HD since there is no more custom firmware on the drive that affects the fan sensors.

So yours has gone back together without any issues then?

----------

Originally Posted by Isengardtom

She has a point that the 5400 rpm and the non upgradable ram are disadvantages but she forgets to mention that the 27inch doesn't have those restrictions. The lack of an optical drive is not that big of an issue for me

I can say I'm very happy with mine. The fusion drive works great. everything is really fast. I just played some starcraft 2 and the computer stays nice and cool unlike my 2009 24inch which got hot with games

It's a great machine.

For you're average user 27" isn't really a sensible size, leastways not for room sizes in many UK homes.

[bernuli]

Originally Posted by joe-h2o

If a drive fails in the new iMac you do exactly what you did in the previous generation except instead of magnets, there's foam tape. The tape slices with any plastic cutting tool with ease. No need for heat guns or any of that nonsense.

Looks like I agree with you about the interior layout. But getting that screen on and off, and having it match up like it did when new will definitely take some practice. And if you don't get the correct tape there is a chance the iMac will end up thicker after the screen is back on. Oh NO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN2HFvUfl2g


B

[Ddyracer]

Originally Posted by turtlez

Wow lol.

We were not expecting a retina display because we knew the current best in the world GPU couldn't power that size screen.

We do have a primary SSD option.

We have the one of the best GPUs on the market.

I don't think that is nothing. This article is clearly biased and against Apple. Just another ruthless Apple hating sheep.

Yup, kinda pointed that out in my post. I ignore such people.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by Fatboy71

The thing with streaming, well in this country at least (UK). There are areas of the country that have either no broadband connection or a broadband connection so slow that streaming video is a no no as it buffers over and over again and makes watching a video un-watchable. Until speeds improve in these areas, these people will want to have a DVD.

There are people who for whatever reason prefer to buy/have a physical disk for their films/movies, that is there choice

DVD and streaming are not the only possibilities. There's downloads as well.

[iSayuSay]

Originally Posted by joe-h2o

Just curious, but what makes the current iMac "an iPad on a stick" but not the previous generation? The only primary difference between them is the removal of the ODD, and perhaps the switch to built in GPU over the MXM daughterboard layout of the old model.

The rest of the components are direct upgrades of what the iMac has always had.

Yep. You answered it yourself. The new iMac is turning itself closer to become SoC product just like an iPad (on a stick).

GPU being built in into the motherboard instead using MXM port. Maybe next gen will do the same to the CPU.
Non accesible RAM on 21" (I'm not gonna be surprised if the next gen will do the same to the 27")

Yep 2012 iMac is more iPad-like than any previous gen iMacs.

[thejadedmonkey]

Originally Posted by joe-h2o

Just curious, but what makes the current iMac "an iPad on a stick" but not the previous generation? The only primary difference between them is the removal of the ODD, and perhaps the switch to built in GPU over the MXM daughterboard layout of the old model.

The rest of the components are direct upgrades of what the iMac has always had.

3 years ago you could upgrade the hard drive, ram, and probably the video card. Some of the really old ones you could even upgrade the CPU on. The newest one is basically a self-contained SoC. In that sense, it is like an iPad, a SoC.

Originally Posted by sergiobaschi

She obviously hasn't used the computer, but writes a review based upon the tech specs. I thought highly of Huff, but now...

If UX is the primary metric, a 2010 iMac would suffice for most people. If speed is your thing, the new iMac isn't it either. It comes with a slow HDD, non-upgradable RAM, really it's a poor excuse for a $1200 computer.

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

If UX is the primary metric, a 2010 iMac would suffice for most people. If speed is your thing, the new iMac isn't it either. It comes with a slow HDD, non-upgradable RAM, really it's a poor excuse for a $1200 computer.

I didn't realise SSD was considered slow already.

Lets get things straight here.

The current iMac outperforms the latest Mac Pro. The current iMac has SSD(aka fast if you didn't know this) with the added benefit of the storage options from a HDD. It doesn't matter if it is 5400 or 7200 because the SSD powers all your most accessed files. You won't notice much of a speed difference if two SSDs were fused together (virtually). Face another fact.. The new design runs cold and quiet compared to the 2010 design. Face another fact, the screen quality is unmatched by any screen under $2000. Face another one bro, it is the best AOI in terms of looks and performance on the market and always has been.

Max out the RAM and you won't have any issues. Guess what?
People go to upgrade their GPU on a pc. cool now they need a new motherboard to support that card. Ok now that new motherboard requires newer RAM. Ok cool ram is cheap why not. Now you realise you need more storage space.. ok new hard drive. Oh wait did you just rebuild an entire computer just because you wanted to upgrade the GPU? May as well have just bought a whole new system right? Even if your motherboard did support the newer GPU you wanted. The new one would set you back $600-$700. Anyone who buys the card for this is usually sponsored or mega rich. Sensible people would wait for it to come way down in price and by that time you would be needing to upgrade your other components anyway. This 2012 iMac will last me 5-6 years then I will buy a whole new system. The only loss is the screen but that is the trade off for an AIO which I find thoroughly helpful on a practical standpoint as well as aesthetics. Now the only reason I can see to get all annoyed about this if you are into having 600FPS in your latest first person shooter so you can game all hours of the day with a coke by your side and brag about how strong of commando you would be in real life because you get top of the killboard all the time in your karkand strike.

Some people like to invest in a long time solution, not just a 2 month gaming cycle. Stop viewing the computing world so narrowly.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by DelMac

Unfortunately I can't say I disagree with any part of this new iMac review article. What do you guys think?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/calla-...b_2426152.html

Poorly written article, but nevertheless, she's completely right.

Originally Posted by oldgeezer

It's an unsubstantial review. Yes, the 21" has a 5400 RPM drive but she says nothing about the 27"s 7200 RPM drive. She claims to speak for all of us about the lack of an optical drive, but there are many of us who use it so seldom it's not missed at all. For many of us design is an issue. My iMac sits prominently in my house and I appreciate the incredibly good looking package. Finally, she represents the new design as being totally unserviceable and yet if you read the blog about tearing down the new iMac you'll see comments that this machine is easier to work on than past generations. Yes, Apple holds the screen on with tape instead of magnets. But in order to achieve the screen lamination that cuts down much of the glare they had to. Magnets couldn't take the weight.

I certainly don't think this review is any more than a gloss over by someone who hasn't really done their homework.

You lost me at "For many of us design is an issue. My iMac sits prominently in my house and I appreciate the incredibly good looking package."

I'm paying at least $2000 for this computer, I'm not paying for it to look great, I'm paying for it to RUN great. If I had all the money in the world, fine, maybe I'd consider a the winner of "prettiest desktop" award as a secondary computer, but I want the money I throw into a computer (be it a PC or a Mac) get me proportional performance, not "sleek", "thin", or other such superficial terms. The fact that I can't upgrade or replace a failing hard drive anywhere near as easily on an iMac as I can a non-retina unibody MacBook Pro is downright criminal.

Originally Posted by skinny*k

I think that the first paragraph says it all: "This article was originally published on Nemoscope, a blog about technology from a teen's perspective."

Myself, I don't usually seek or consider a teen's perspective when making buying decisions—no offense intended; I look for experience and other qualifications.

Teen's perspective or not, she's completely right, even if she only seems to be talking about the 21.5" model.

Originally Posted by Ddyracer

Kinda feels like she's hating for popularity. I mean come on, desktop stuck in a laptop body?

Little too similar to "The iMac is just a glorified laptop".

She's completely right, though. Popularity or not, the only part on the new 21.5" iMac that isn't a laptop component is the CPU. Everything else, chipset, RAM, hard drive, GPU, all the very same stuff you find in the 15" MacBook Pros today (both retina and non-retina).

Originally Posted by Lankyman

I think it's what many of us have been saying right from the start - form over function. Apple has ruined the 21.5" version of the iMac. Viewed from the front (which is the view most of us have when using the iMac) it is identical to my mid 2011 model and I know which of the two I am pleased I own. I appreciate you are trying to put a brave face on it and justify your purchase but IMO the new iMac is a pile of pants.

Heh...a pile of pants. Might have to start using that in daily vernacular.

Originally Posted by Binarymix

"rounds per minute"

I stopped reading there.

Right, because "revolutions" actually implies straight line movements that aren't circular or revolutionary. As though "rounds", while not the correct word, isn't a completely viable verbal replacement.

Poor writing or not, she's completely right.

Originally Posted by torana355

I do agree with some points and i felt the same way until i actually started using my 27" iMac. After actually using it im very impressed and my previous fears of the smaller chassis causing heating issues have faded away. As for the optical drive, sure it would be convenient to still have it built in but for the amount of times i use it an external is fine. Also my 27" has a 7200rpm drive, actually it has one of the fastest platter drives on the market!!

Even still, the 27" iMac has way too many desktop components in a now-thinner chassis. Hard drive, CPU, chipset, all of thse things being the same that go in a desktop makes it so this thing is still hotter than that space allows. Add the MXM video card and it's only that much more problematic. While the neutered the 21.5" iMac for removing these things, they finally made it reliable. I worry that this isn't the case on the 27" model at all.

Originally Posted by turtlez

Wow lol.

We were not expecting a retina display because we knew the current best in the world GPU couldn't power that size screen.

We do have a primary SSD option.

We have the one of the best GPUs on the market.

I don't think that is nothing. This article is clearly biased and against Apple. Just another ruthless Apple hating sheep.

GPUs were not why we don't have retina iMacs. GPUs are plenty powerful today to support such panels. We don't have such iMacs because such panels haven't been invented yet. Also, while it is typically their nature to do this, they'd really be stupid to not stagger out this transition to retina displays as much as possible given how slow developers have been to update software for the two retina machines that ARE on the market.

Originally Posted by turtlez

if you look at her other posts you can see she is extremely anti apple. She uses windows and ubuntu and mocks Apple every article she writes. I think Apple shot her dog.

I'm very pro-Apple, and I agree with everything she said. Nice try.

[lYou know the iMac is outperforming the most recent Mac Pros right? lol[/QUOTE]

Not the 6-12-core machines. Look it up on Geekbench.

Originally Posted by Hexley

You bothered reading her other posts? I see this in two lights. A) She has no money thus whines about iMacs for not having everything or B) she is trying to get more hits for her blog.

Yet, everything she says is right. It is poorly written, and she may be completely anti-Apple, but that doesn't make her any less correct.

Originally Posted by Hexley

Having the display integrated into the system doesn't add anything, said people back in 1998. All-in-ones still aren't the norm with people opting for a separate LCD and ATX case.

I don't currently see all-in-ones all over the place. I don't currently see them in businesses and I don't currently see them in every home. Your point?

Originally Posted by Hexley

Do most people open up the ATX to drop in memory, storage or daughter cards? Probably not.

::facepalm:: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT TO THE ATX FORM FACTOR!!! And yes, I crack open my case to add all of those as I see fit; that's why I opted for a PC tower to handle my gaming rather than another iMac.

Originally Posted by turtlez

I am glad to see it go for two reasons. One I don't use it anymore

I don't use my gigabit ethernet port all the time, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. What ridiculous logic.

Originally Posted by turtlez

and two, it is good to push toward non moving part computer. Less risk for damage.

What are you even talking about?! There's no risk for damage to any other part. Optical drives don't just explode in people's computers causing damage to other components. That's not how they work (or don't work, for that matter)!

Originally Posted by turtlez

One other reason I might add is it will push the tech industry to go to a more digital distribution. I mean we are there already with things like steam and pretty much all movies and music are available digitally. Just some old codgers are still bashing the idea of moving forward and ruin it a bit. Apple pushed to get rid of floppy and that lead to only good things. I only have one dvd which I would actively use for my current day to day (5 days a week) activities and that was copied to my hard drive about 4 years ago. lol

Right because downloading and installing an 11GB game is FASTER than simply popping in the DVD-ROM and installing it the "old codger" way. Because downloading a standard definition iTunes file yields me with something that looks better than a DVD would've. Seriously, are you for real?

Originally Posted by turtlez

long shot here but the new iMac design runs very cool and with no added fan noise. Perhaps making it fat somehow would affect the temperature for the worse.

I'm sorry, do you even know how a computer works?

Originally Posted by turtlez

If I had to guess, heat rises yah? On the old iMac you had much more surface area on the top plane where all the heat condensed to. On this new design with the curved back you get more heat distribution to the whole back plane of the computer therefore dispensing heat a lot faster. Just my thought anyway. I always always told not to whine about something until I have used it and seen for myself. After all Apple have some of the best engineers on the planet, I trust them to get it right and it looks like they have.

Your statement in bold is very wise. Your statement in italics is not.

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

3 years ago you could upgrade the hard drive, ram, and probably the video card. Some of the really old ones you could even upgrade the CPU on. The newest one is basically a self-contained SoC. In that sense, it is like an iPad, a SoC.

3 years ago, you could only upgrade the RAM. You'd have to crack the machine open to do any other upgrade, and really, even then you were limited due to the firmware limiting what kind of hard drive and video card you could pop in there. On the 21.5" iMac, you can still upgrade the RAM, it just requires removing the logic board. Otherwise, it's the logic board of a MacBook Pro but with a socketed CPU.

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

If UX is the primary metric, a 2010 iMac would suffice for most people. If speed is your thing, the new iMac isn't it either. It comes with a slow HDD, non-upgradable RAM, really it's a poor excuse for a $1200 computer.

True facts.

[burnitup]

Originally Posted by turtlez

long shot here but the new iMac design runs very cool and with no added fan noise.

I was wondering about the temperature thing too. So it's cooler eh? That is a major feat right there and maybe the thermal design is a lot more robust without the ODD in there too.

I'm getting ready to buy a high end 27" and get 3rd party RAM. Just waiting to hear whether reliability issues are prevalent or not. So far, I'm not hearing a lot of complaints about reliability or lemons.

[turtlez]

@above

fair enough you have your point of views too. You cannot deny the results of temperature and audible noise though. People have done 5 hour renders in After Effects using all the cores to 100% and they claim that the back only got mildly warm compared to their previous generation iMacs which you could burn your hand on with the same task. One person played L4D for 6 hours straight on the new iMac and claimed that the GPU only got to 70 celsius. About the risk of damage. Ever hear of someone dropping a hard drive and losing data? There is moving parts in an optical drive too. My PS1 was dropped by a friend when he was setting it up at his place and the optical reader had to be repaired because it was damaged (moving part). I am not saying it would explode, you have to use your head a bit more. Imagine the day you could transport a computer without having to worry about any kind of bumps in the road or turbulence in the sky.

Last thing I am gonna say to you is this. The article was written by an anti Apple teenager who got 90% of her facts incorrect and 90% of people who already replied on this forum as well as official sources will agree with me on this. If you don't like the iMac, DON'T BUY IT and stop trying to convince everyone in the world that it is not worthy of its price tag. Obviously you are in the minority because these things are selling like hot cakes. Good luck with your gaming.

----------

Originally Posted by burnitup

I was wondering about the temperature thing too. So it's cooler eh? That is a major feat right there and maybe the thermal design is a lot more robust without the ODD in there too.

I'm getting ready to buy a high end 27" and get 3rd party RAM. Just waiting to hear whether reliability issues are prevalent or not. So far, I'm not hearing a lot of complaints about reliability or lemons.

I was in the same boat as you. There is a few threads in the iMac forum about temperature. All of them that I've seen (probably 10-15) have said that it runs very cool and quiet with GPU and CPU intensive tasks. My guess is that on the previous iMacs you had a larger surface area on the top plane (where the heat will naturally go). On the new iMac it is slanted to a 5mm edge so the heat cannot congregate up the top and is forced to spread out more along a very large back surface. If my theory is correct that would mean the surface area of the top of the previous generation iMac (that thin rectangle) vs the top half of the back plane in the new iMac for heat dispersion. It sounds logical to me.

[iSayuSay]

Originally Posted by turtlez

I didn't realise SSD was considered slow already.

TL;DR

Which iMac can actually outperform a quad MacPro, really? Any of 2012 iMac?

I think thejadedmonkey was talking about $1200 iMac. And for $1200 you don't get much. Instead it comes with 1TB 5400rpm HDD for whatever reason. While including a 120GB SSD as standard only cost what in 2013? Yep .. no more than $80.

By any means a 120GB blade SSD should be included in all new iMac, BTO or not. Make 240GB SSD as upgrade or whatever.

But of course you can flush $4000 and get highest end iMac including any of the upgrades you want. Except it's not the relevant topic here

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

I think he was talking about $1200 iMac. And for $1200 you don't get much. Instead it comes with 1TB 5400rpm HDD for whatever reason. While including a 120GB SSD as standard only cost what in 2013? Yep $80.

By any means a 120GB blade should be standard for all new iMac, BTO or not.

But of course you can flush $4000 and get whatever iMac and any of the upgrades you want. Only it's not the topic here

well $2800 for max out with 32GB of 3rd party. A bit off with your estimating there.

Sure you can buy the 120GB SSD for $80. As all Apple price bashers say though bla bla bla $500 equal value (huge exaggeration by the way). They forget that they have to spend the time building their own computer. Sure that doesn't take too long but paying a novice to build one for you is a lot cheaper than paying a professional to build one for you even if you get the same result. Also consider the years worth of designing they put into it vs the 2 day mock up of a 3rd party case or home made bomb, whichever term you prefer. The AIO is not an easy design task I am sure especially when they have the reputation to hold as being the best AIO on the market. Then there is brand. I am sure you could get a pair of shoes for half the price of Nikes if you bought each individual component of that shoe from nike, adidas, puma etc and assembled it yourself. You also get OS X for free with it vs Windows $140 price tag. Then there is resale value but I won't go into that. You can see how all this starts to stack up against the stereotypical behaviour of the Apple hater sheep yeah?

[iSayuSay]

Originally Posted by turtlez

well $2800 for max out with 32GB of 3rd party. A bit off with your estimating there.

Sure you can buy the 120GB SSD for $80. As all Apple price bashers say though bla bla bla $500 equal value (huge exaggeration by the way). They forget that they have to spend the time building their own computer. Sure that doesn't take too long but paying a novice to build one for you is a lot cheaper than paying a professional to build one for you even if you get the same result. Also consider the years worth of designing they put into it vs the 2 day mock up of a 3rd party case or home made bomb, whichever term you prefer. The AIO is not an easy design task I am sure especially when they have the reputation to hold as being the best AIO on the market. Then there is brand. I am sure you could get a pair of shoes for half the price of Nikes if you bought each individual component of that shoe from nike, adidas, puma etc and assembled it yourself. You also get OS X for free with it vs Windows $140 price tag. Then there is resale value but I won't go into that. You can see how all this starts to stack up against the stereotypical behaviour of the Apple hater sheep yeah?

Well you forget to add $1300 for 768GB pure SSD upgrade (Again, does it really cost that much?). It's maxxed out, remember? So it really is closer to $4000, including the DIY 32GB RAM package.

Problem about buying most of iMac upgrades. People don't pay for the price difference, instead they pay mostly the same or more than the full price of upgraded components.

Why? Because an iMac costs $1999 does not include a 1TB HDD so I have to pay extra $250 for 1TB Fusion Drive upgrade? While it supposed to only add a 120GB SSD blade to the existing 1TB HDD?
How much does it really cost to insert an extra SSD into an EXISTING slot on the production line.

[AndiS.]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Poorly written article, but nevertheless, she's completely right.



You lost me at "For many of us design is an issue. My iMac sits prominently in my house and I appreciate the incredibly good looking package."

I'm paying at least $2000 for this computer, I'm not paying for it to look great, I'm paying for it to RUN great. If I had all the money in the world, fine, maybe I'd consider a the winner of "prettiest desktop" award as a secondary computer, but I want the money I throw into a computer (be it a PC or a Mac) get me proportional performance, not "sleek", "thin", or other such superficial terms. The fact that I can't upgrade or replace a failing hard drive anywhere near as easily on an iMac as I can a non-retina unibody MacBook Pro is downright criminal.



Teen's perspective or not, she's completely right, even if she only seems to be talking about the 21.5" model.



She's completely right, though. Popularity or not, the only part on the new 21.5" iMac that isn't a laptop component is the CPU. Everything else, chipset, RAM, hard drive, GPU, all the very same stuff you find in the 15" MacBook Pros today (both retina and non-retina).



Heh...a pile of pants. Might have to start using that in daily vernacular.



Right, because "revolutions" actually implies straight line movements that aren't circular or revolutionary. As though "rounds", while not the correct word, isn't a completely viable verbal replacement.

Poor writing or not, she's completely right.



Even still, the 27" iMac has way too many desktop components in a now-thinner chassis. Hard drive, CPU, chipset, all of thse things being the same that go in a desktop makes it so this thing is still hotter than that space allows. Add the MXM video card and it's only that much more problematic. While the neutered the 21.5" iMac for removing these things, they finally made it reliable. I worry that this isn't the case on the 27" model at all.



GPUs were not why we don't have retina iMacs. GPUs are plenty powerful today to support such panels. We don't have such iMacs because such panels haven't been invented yet. Also, while it is typically their nature to do this, they'd really be stupid to not stagger out this transition to retina displays as much as possible given how slow developers have been to update software for the two retina machines that ARE on the market.



I'm very pro-Apple, and I agree with everything she said. Nice try.

[lYou know the iMac is outperforming the most recent Mac Pros right? lol

Not the 6-12-core machines. Look it up on Geekbench.



Yet, everything she says is right. It is poorly written, and she may be completely anti-Apple, but that doesn't make her any less correct.



I don't currently see all-in-ones all over the place. I don't currently see them in businesses and I don't currently see them in every home. Your point?



::facepalm:: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT TO THE ATX FORM FACTOR!!! And yes, I crack open my case to add all of those as I see fit; that's why I opted for a PC tower to handle my gaming rather than another iMac.



I don't use my gigabit ethernet port all the time, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. What ridiculous logic.



What are you even talking about?! There's no risk for damage to any other part. Optical drives don't just explode in people's computers causing damage to other components. That's not how they work (or don't work, for that matter)!



Right because downloading and installing an 11GB game is FASTER than simply popping in the DVD-ROM and installing it the "old codger" way. Because downloading a standard definition iTunes file yields me with something that looks better than a DVD would've. Seriously, are you for real?



I'm sorry, do you even know how a computer works?



Your statement in bold is very wise. Your statement in italics is not.



3 years ago, you could only upgrade the RAM. You'd have to crack the machine open to do any other upgrade, and really, even then you were limited due to the firmware limiting what kind of hard drive and video card you could pop in there. On the 21.5" iMac, you can still upgrade the RAM, it just requires removing the logic board. Otherwise, it's the logic board of a MacBook Pro but with a socketed CPU.




True facts.[/QUOTE]

How is she factually right? She claims that there aren't better GPUs, talks about the loss of customizability that wasn't really there before and talks about 5,400 HDs without enlightening her readers about all the options available. Sacrificing performance for design would've been horrible, but it seems that despite the new design the device now runs cooler and offers more performance. Her article leaves out all the positives of the iMac and just bashes the design, which retired the ODD.

Fact is, the new iMac offers speed improvements over the previous generations, without a changed price point, and aside from this blog being written based on a spec sheet, her claims are partially incorrect and misleading.

[Hexley]

The teen has successfully trolled us into giving her more clicks.

[smoking monkey]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

If speed is your thing, the new iMac isn't it either. It comes with a slow HDD, non-upgradable RAM, really it's a poor excuse for a $1200 computer.

Simply mistruths.

The ram IS upgradable. You just can't do it yourself on the 21 and on the 27 it's easier than ever.


The HDD is in fact a 5400 ONLY on the 21. Plus you can upgrade it to a FD and it will be very fast.

The imac is not just the base 21 inch model. It seems you have a problem with value for money aspect of the in store 21 base model. I hear you, buddy, but what did you expect? This is Apple. They charge a premium for everything. Like it or loathe it, that's their business practice because they have a unique product line.

[joe-h2o]

Originally Posted by thejadedmonkey

3 years ago you could upgrade the hard drive, ram, and probably the video card. Some of the really old ones you could even upgrade the CPU on. The newest one is basically a self-contained SoC. In that sense, it is like an iPad, a SoC.



If UX is the primary metric, a 2010 iMac would suffice for most people. If speed is your thing, the new iMac isn't it either. It comes with a slow HDD, non-upgradable RAM, really it's a poor excuse for a $1200 computer.

Err, you can still upgrade the hard drive, RAM and CPU in the 2012 ones. The only thing you can't separately upgrade now is the GPU, but given how seriously niche that was in the old ones (you needed a very specific MXM board with a Mac firmware which really limited you to boards salvaged from other iMacs), that really hasn't changed much in the overall scheme.

Within 24 hours of the first 2012 iMacs being delivered, people *on this very forum* upgraded the RAM, CPU and hard drive in both the 21" and 27" iMacs.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information that these things are suddenly not upgradable in the new machines because apparently VHB tape is some sort of exotic dark matter that is impenetrable to all known tools.

[bernuli]

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

High end 27" iMac with i7 and GTX680MX upgrades crush a quad MacPro in EVERY way possible. Even high end 2011 iMac started doing so. Unless you can prove otherwise?

Uh huh I don't like iMac being iPad on a stick either. But get your fact straight too.

Define every way possible. If you could let me in on some of your facts, that would be great. ; )


B

[JayJayAbels]

An absurd review for so many reasons. Many of which have already been broached with previous comments.

[iSayuSay]

Originally Posted by bernuli

Define every way possible. If you could let me in on some of your facts, that would be great. ; )


B

Price .. $2500 on a quad MP with no display included vs. $2400 on a fully loaded iMac (with i7 and 680MX) all with 27" display. Oh yes, by default MP gets you 6GB of RAM, while iMac gives you 8GB (forget about ECC yada yada RAM)

Performance .. i7 3770 on iMac is just better at anything than Westmere Xeon do. GPU is no contest. Radeon 5770 or even 5870 option is ancient, plain and simple.

Thunderbolt .. yep MacPro is the ONLY Mac without Thunderbolt support in 2012, and 2013. Oh yes, no onboard USB 3.0 too .. just .. wow

The one and only thing a MP shine is upgradeability. Even then we can only officially upgrade storage and RAM. Not so much tinkering on GPU and CPU side due to firmware limitation.

Don't get me wrong, I love MPs for what they are if only Apple upgrade them properly back in WWDC 2012. The last upgrade officially put nails on the coffin.

But I didn't get your argument earlier. What does a weight do with performance? Being heavier = faster and better? Well then by that logic a Caterpillar bulldozer is 20 times faster than Aston Martin

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by turtlez

@above

fair enough you have your point of views too. You cannot deny the results of temperature and audible noise though. People have done 5 hour renders in After Effects using all the cores to 100% and they claim that the back only got mildly warm compared to their previous generation iMacs which you could burn your hand on with the same task. One person played L4D for 6 hours straight on the new iMac and claimed that the GPU only got to 70 celsius.

The temperature in the 21.5" iMac is improved because they switched to using laptop components! That's all there is to it! Laptop components aren't as hot and don't require as much power as desktop components do. It's as simple as that. No :: magic here, folks!

Originally Posted by turtlez

About the risk of damage. Ever hear of someone dropping a hard drive and losing data? There is moving parts in an optical drive too.

Thanks, I know how a computer works.

Originally Posted by turtlez

My PS1 was dropped by a friend when he was setting it up at his place and the optical reader had to be repaired because it was damaged (moving part). I am not saying it would explode, you have to use your head a bit more. Imagine the day you could transport a computer without having to worry about any kind of bumps in the road or turbulence in the sky.

It's a freakin' desktop! Who's going to be using their optical drive on their iMac while said iMac is moving? Also, if you drop your iMac, moving parts or not, you will cause damage that renders the damage you're talking about moot anyway.

Originally Posted by turtlez

Last thing I am gonna say to you is this. The article was written by an anti Apple teenager who got 90% of her facts incorrect and 90% of people who already replied on this forum as well as official sources will agree with me on this. If you don't like the iMac, DON'T BUY IT and stop trying to convince everyone in the world that it is not worthy of its price tag. Obviously you are in the minority because these things are selling like hot cakes. Good luck with your gaming.

Wow...so much ignorance and blind zealotry there, I don't even know where to start with you. I'm pretty pro-Apple. I didn't just drop the money I did on the MacBook Pro in my signature because I'm anti-Apple. That said, I'm not blindly pro-Apple like you clearly are. I recognize that not all of their products are perfect, which is why I own the ones that I do and not the ones that I don't. I was once an iMac owner. I walked down that path and found that it didn't take me as far as it should've given the money I poured into it. The trend there hasn't gotten better over time either. Also, hotcakes? At least hotcakes are in stock and are not unavailable at literally every Apple retailer for miles. And no, they're not unavailable because they're a hot sell; they're unavailable because they were premature in releasing it.

Originally Posted by turtlez

I was in the same boat as you. There is a few threads in the iMac forum about temperature. All of them that I've seen (probably 10-15) have said that it runs very cool and quiet with GPU and CPU intensive tasks. My guess is that on the previous iMacs you had a larger surface area on the top plane (where the heat will naturally go). On the new iMac it is slanted to a 5mm edge so the heat cannot congregate up the top and is forced to spread out more along a very large back surface. If my theory is correct that would mean the surface area of the top of the previous generation iMac (that thin rectangle) vs the top half of the back plane in the new iMac for heat dispersion. It sounds logical to me.

Learn how a computer works, then you'll see why heat dissipation is better in these new models. Coming up with obviously uninformed guesses having to do with how they redesigned the airflow in that machine will do you nothing.

Originally Posted by AndiS.

How is she factually right? She claims that there aren't better GPUs, talks about the loss of customizability that wasn't really there before

Regarding the base model 21.5" iMac, customizability AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE is better now that the Fusion drive is an option on the lower-end model. Otherwise, you're right in that there hasn't been a decrease there. Again, it's a poorly written article and I'm not disputing that. As for GPUs, while they are improved from yesteryear's iMacs (and really given the time between releases, you'd hope), they are using lower-tier parts than they were using before; last time they used MXM boards which, tend to yield more power than contemporary chipsets that are integrated onto the logic board like the GeForce GT 650M and 640M are. As for aftermarket RAM customizability, that is absolutely lost in this current generation, no question.

Originally Posted by AndiS.

and talks about 5,400 HDs without enlightening her readers about all the options available.

She is clearly talking solely about the 21.5" iMac, and not the 27" iMac. Given that fact, she's representing the only two storage options that computer has.

Originally Posted by AndiS.

Sacrificing performance for design would've been horrible, but it seems that despite the new design the device now runs cooler and offers more performance. Her article leaves out all the positives of the iMac and just bashes the design, which retired the ODD.

If the machine were made thicker, it could be made with faster components. You cannot refute this. Using 'S' processors designed for lower power instances and using even MXM graphics boards doesn't make the machine as powerful as it could be if it used non-S Core i5 and i7s and...dare I say it...a full sized video card. Yes, performance is improved from last year's model, but that doesn't mean that the form factor is inherently limiting what the machine could have in terms of power.

Originally Posted by AndiS.

Fact is, the new iMac offers speed improvements over the previous generations, without a changed price point, and aside from this blog being written based on a spec sheet, her claims are partially incorrect and misleading.

No, she just omits facts about the 27" iMac. Given how elusive it still is, I don't think that's entirely unfair. Though again, it's a poorly written article; I never ever meant to assert otherwise.

[bernuli]

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

Price .. $2500 on a quad MP with no display included vs. $2400 on a fully loaded iMac (with i7 and 680MX) all with 27" display. Oh yes, by default MP gets you 6GB of RAM, while iMac gives you 8GB (forget about ECC yada yada RAM)

Yes, I know the iMac is less expensive, it is after all a disposable computer. You don't have to add RAM. But if you do, the more you add, the more important it is that it remains error free.

I would never buy a shiny monitor.

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

Performance .. i7 3770 on iMac is just better at anything than Westmere Xeon do. GPU is no contest. Radeon 5770 or even 5870 option is ancient, plain and simple.:

Ummm, I put in a request for facts. "is just better" is less colorful that your previous "will crush" statement...wait was that you that said that? Anyway, I do love that "blows the doors off of" expression. So if you want to slide that in next I might believe your belief.

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

Thunderbolt .. yep MacPro is the ONLY Mac without Thunderbolt support in 2012, and 2013. Oh yes, no onboard USB 3.0 too .. just .. wow

I'll want Thunderbolt just as soon as there are some devices that support it...that I actually need for a desktop. USB3 I will never want. You shouldn't either, as you may end up I/O *AND* CPU bound.

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

But I didn't get your argument earlier. What does a weight do with performance? Being heavier = faster and better? Well then by that logic a Caterpillar bulldozer is 20 times faster than Aston Martin

20 times faster! Man I love statistics! : )


B

[iSayuSay]

Originally Posted by bernuli

Yes, I know the iMac is less expensive, it is after all a disposable computer. You don't have to add RAM. But if you do, the more you add, the more important it is that it remains error free.

I would never buy a shiny monitor.




Ummm, I put in a request for facts. "is just better" is less colorful that your previous "will crush" statement...wait was that you that said that? Anyway, I do love that "blows the doors off of" expression. So if you want to slide that in next I might believe your belief.




I'll want Thunderbolt just as soon as there are some devices that support it...that I actually need for a desktop. USB3 I will never want. You shouldn't either, as you may end up I/O *AND* CPU bound.




20 times faster! Man I love statistics! : )


B

So you were saying:

• 27" display not included with MacPro after I paid a frickin $2500? Uhm, you don't need shiny display, so I shouldn't need it either.
• No Thunderbolt nor USB 3 on MacPro? Well device availability is scarce, your MacPro doesn't have it so the whole universe shouldn't bother with those features.

Why does it seems to me unless YOU own it, then it's useless?

Oh and talking about statistics:

Intel Core i7 3770 on BTO 2012 iMac vs. Xeon W3565 on quad MacPro?

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?....20GHz&id=1270

GTX 680MX iMac vs. Radeon 5770 / 5870 on MacPro?

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yep .. the new iMac blows, or should I repeat again .. crush .. an outdated MacPro, spec wise. And for so called professional workstation worth $2500, I would expect more. Otherwise my logic would go with that disposable computer you were talking about, just because it's actually easier and cheaper to maintain both in short and long run. You know .. dispose and buy a new one

Thunderbolt is mostly owned by IT professionals or someone with budget anyway. It's the market for supposedly MacPro demographic. Ironically it still doesn't have those .. Months or years after toys like MBA have it.

And talking about weight, my Pentium II box was way heavier and bigger than my iPad. Doesn't mean it run better and faster though.

Yep I love statistic too, so maybe it's your turn to crunch the numbers and prove me otherwise?

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by iSayuSay

Well you forget to add $1300 for 768GB pure SSD upgrade (Again, does it really cost that much?). It's maxxed out, remember? So it really is closer to $4000, including the DIY 32GB RAM package.

Problem about buying most of iMac upgrades. People don't pay for the price difference, instead they pay mostly the same or more than the full price of upgraded components.

Why? Because an iMac costs $1999 does not include a 1TB HDD so I have to pay extra $250 for 1TB Fusion Drive upgrade? While it supposed to only add a 120GB SSD blade to the existing 1TB HDD?
How much does it really cost to insert an extra SSD into an EXISTING slot on the production line.

you forgot to list your PC and how much you spent on it

[torana355]

Originally Posted by joe-h2o

I'm not sure where you're getting your information that these things are suddenly not upgradable in the new machines because apparently VHB tape is some sort of exotic dark matter that is impenetrable to all known tools.

That made me laugh, its funny how people think because there are no screws that the new iMac is impossible to open. It's not rocket science to break the seal on some VHB tape.

----------

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

The temperature in the 21.5" iMac is improved because they switched to using laptop components! That's all there is to it! Laptop components aren't as hot and don't require as much power as desktop components do. It's as simple as that. No :: magic here, folks!



Thanks, I know how a computer works.



It's a freakin' desktop! Who's going to be using their optical drive on their iMac while said iMac is moving? Also, if you drop your iMac, moving parts or not, you will cause damage that renders the damage you're talking about moot anyway.



Wow...so much ignorance and blind zealotry there, I don't even know where to start with you. I'm pretty pro-Apple. I didn't just drop the money I did on the MacBook Pro in my signature because I'm anti-Apple. That said, I'm not blindly pro-Apple like you clearly are. I recognize that not all of their products are perfect, which is why I own the ones that I do and not the ones that I don't. I was once an iMac owner. I walked down that path and found that it didn't take me as far as it should've given the money I poured into it. The trend there hasn't gotten better over time either. Also, hotcakes? At least hotcakes are in stock and are not unavailable at literally every Apple retailer for miles. And no, they're not unavailable because they're a hot sell; they're unavailable because they were premature in releasing it.



Learn how a computer works, then you'll see why heat dissipation is better in these new models. Coming up with obviously uninformed guesses having to do with how they redesigned the airflow in that machine will do you nothing.



Regarding the base model 21.5" iMac, customizability AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE is better now that the Fusion drive is an option on the lower-end model. Otherwise, you're right in that there hasn't been a decrease there. Again, it's a poorly written article and I'm not disputing that. As for GPUs, while they are improved from yesteryear's iMacs (and really given the time between releases, you'd hope), they are using lower-tier parts than they were using before; last time they used MXM boards which, tend to yield more power than contemporary chipsets that are integrated onto the logic board like the GeForce GT 650M and 640M are. As for aftermarket RAM customizability, that is absolutely lost in this current generation, no question.



She is clearly talking solely about the 21.5" iMac, and not the 27" iMac. Given that fact, she's representing the only two storage options that computer has.



If the machine were made thicker, it could be made with faster components. You cannot refute this. Using 'S' processors designed for lower power instances and using even MXM graphics boards doesn't make the machine as powerful as it could be if it used non-S Core i5 and i7s and...dare I say it...a full sized video card. Yes, performance is improved from last year's model, but that doesn't mean that the form factor is inherently limiting what the machine could have in terms of power.



No, she just omits facts about the 27" iMac. Given how elusive it still is, I don't think that's entirely unfair. Though again, it's a poorly written article; I never ever meant to assert otherwise.

I cant be bothered to break all your responses down but you have NO idea what you are talking about...Just wow.

----------

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Even still, the 27" iMac has way too many desktop components in a now-thinner chassis. Hard drive, CPU, chipset, all of thse things being the same that go in a desktop makes it so this thing is still hotter than that space allows. Add the MXM video card and it's only that much more problematic. While the neutered the 21.5" iMac for removing these things, they finally made it reliable. I worry that this isn't the case on the 27" model at all.



.

Actually use a new 27" iMac then you can comment on how reliable it is and how hot it does or does not run. FYI, the new 27" iMac runs MUCH cooler then the last gen models, i know as i actually own one.