2012 iMac = Brilliant Design!

[fastlanephil]

I'm basically positive about the 2012 iMac. Lighter is good and thinner is also. I don't spend much time looking at the back of my 2011 27" iMac so the hump is a non-issue for me. I have never used the card slot on my iMac so that isn't an issue either. I've used the optical drive once so if I really needed one I'd just buy the USB external. It's not much more than an iLock USB dongle. Having the card slot in the back isn't any worse than having to stick a thumb drive back there but it's no big deal for me.

I'm sure they will be faster than the 2011 iMACS. New CPU and other goodies to speed things up. The new HD will also probably increase over-all speed. It sounds like the display will be extra nice on these.

I'll have to wait for testing and a few reviews finalize my opinion but I am pretty optimistic about it all.

I don't think it's with upgrading from a 2011 iMac for me especially with all my copy protected software that would need to be reauthorized.

I'm really interested in what Apple is going to offer to replace the Mac Pros next year. Those could make me upgrade if I can afford one.

 

[thekev]

Well you're a little off here; I'm looking at the iMac compared to what other vendors offer in comparison. The other vendors are the ones trying to 'mirror' the iMac, not vice-verse. I'm not even talking about non-AIO desktops, i.e. Mac Pro vs Others.
Apple hasn't made an update to the Mac Pro in years. I've browsed the forum and putting myself in their place I can't understand/accept the reason for this when there was a devoted user base.

The other vendors tend to make everything. It's not that they only offer all one form factors. They merely offered them to maintain market presence. In Apple's case, they maintain a fairly lean product distribution. Aside from the mac pro, this is what you have in terms of a desktop. It uses mostly mainstream desktop parts with a higher end mobile card in the top model. The mobile card is comparable in performance to sort of the lower range of desktop cards. There is some overlap, but the use of a card that is classified as a mobile card, even though some of them are quite hot, does make it somewhat expensive to build. I think the cards they're using are capable of up to OpenCL 1.1 once Apple supports that. It's also an exceptionally useful generation if you have any use for CUDA.

Just to mention the mac pro again, the trend has been one of weak updates coupled with price bumps. That combination is likely to have a subtle influence on purchasing habits.

The iMac Update is a valid and true one, but it's not inconceivable to have had a situation similar to Mac Pro. That's something to be thankful for. [That may seem weird, but that is the reality] Otherwise go for an alternative. Or simply be ungrateful and buy a new iMac anyway (to the Naysayers).

The imac appears to remain a successful product line, so I wouldn't expect them to totally ignore it as long as it continues to show growth. There may have been some truth to the rumors that they were having difficulty with the laminating process on the new display designs. As long as there is pent up demand for a new model, it's natural to expect them to make one. In the case of the mac pros, it's a somewhat complex issue. They probably do not have a full time mac pro team, especially given the inconsistent update pace from intel. Apple released westmere a bit late, but the mixed nehalem/westmere lineup was mirrored by other vendors. Sandy Bridge E already looked pretty far out. When it was shipping in volume was even later than that. Sandy Bridge E also shows the most impressive updates at the top end where core counts were bumped. Below the 6-8 core cpus, it's not that amazing of an update. It is something, but Apple hasn't appeared too focused on this market segment.

A number of the media artists such as photographers, graphic designers, illustrators, etc are likely to leverage down to the imac given that the software demands in these areas really haven't alligned well with increasing core counts or some of the hardware instruction updates granted by Sandy Bridge E. There's a much higher rate of diminishing returns in perceived performance in some of these areas when compared to the same thing a few years ago, even if you're dealing with larger comp files or 10k+ still renders. In a lot of areas, software is being built more to leverage OpenCL than multiple cpu cores.

Video editing especially composite heavy workflows is one of the few areas where requirements have really jumped up year over year. The one thing that can become an issue with some of these workflows would be thermal constraints. You can do quite a lot with lighter hardware. A lot of this stuff even works on a macbook pro if you turn off graphics switching (causes weird behavior at times). The thermal constraints are one of the most irritating aspects, and I wasn't necessarily happy to see that they may have crept into the desktop lineup in favor of improved aesthetics. I'm skeptical because Apple has chosen thinness over peak performance in the past. I'm not on the market for an imac at the moment, but my interest is mainly due to uncertainty regarding whether we'll have much in the way of OSX based alternatives in the near future.

 

[kennyap]

The other vendors tend to make everything. It's not that they only offer all one form factors. They merely offered them to maintain market presence. In Apple's case, they maintain a fairly lean product distribution. Aside from the mac pro, this is what you have in terms of a desktop. It uses mostly mainstream desktop parts with a higher end mobile card in the top model. The mobile card is comparable in performance to sort of the lower range of desktop cards. There is some overlap, but the use of a card that is classified as a mobile card, even though some of them are quite hot, does make it somewhat expensive to build. I think the cards they're using are capable of up to OpenCL 1.1 once Apple supports that. It's also an exceptionally useful generation if you have any use for CUDA.

Just to mention the mac pro again, the trend has been one of weak updates coupled with price bumps. That combination is likely to have a subtle influence on purchasing habits.




The imac appears to remain a successful product line, so I wouldn't expect them to totally ignore it as long as it continues to show growth. There may have been some truth to the rumors that they were having difficulty with the laminating process on the new display designs. As long as there is pent up demand for a new model, it's natural to expect them to make one. In the case of the mac pros, it's a somewhat complex issue. They probably do not have a full time mac pro team, especially given the inconsistent update pace from intel. Apple released westmere a bit late, but the mixed nehalem/westmere lineup was mirrored by other vendors. Sandy Bridge E already looked pretty far out. When it was shipping in volume was even later than that. Sandy Bridge E also shows the most impressive updates at the top end where core counts were bumped. Below the 6-8 core cpus, it's not that amazing of an update. It is something, but Apple hasn't appeared too focused on this market segment.

A number of the media artists such as photographers, graphic designers, illustrators, etc are likely to leverage down to the imac given that the software demands in these areas really haven't alligned well with increasing core counts or some of the hardware instruction updates granted by Sandy Bridge E. There's a much higher rate of diminishing returns in perceived performance in some of these areas when compared to the same thing a few years ago, even if you're dealing with larger comp files or 10k+ still renders. In a lot of areas, software is being built more to leverage OpenCL than multiple cpu cores.

Video editing especially composite heavy workflows is one of the few areas where requirements have really jumped up year over year. The one thing that can become an issue with some of these workflows would be thermal constraints. You can do quite a lot with lighter hardware. A lot of this stuff even works on a macbook pro if you turn off graphics switching (causes weird behavior at times). The thermal constraints are one of the most irritating aspects, and I wasn't necessarily happy to see that they may have crept into the desktop lineup in favor of improved aesthetics. I'm skeptical because Apple has chosen thinness over peak performance in the past. I'm not on the market for an imac at the moment, but my interest is mainly due to uncertainty regarding whether we'll have much in the way of OSX based alternatives in the near future.

Yes I knew most of what you wrote about, and I agree. RE: video editing: currently using FCPx, couldn't go with Premiere with my 6970M card. When I get a new iMac w/680MX I might just switch back over to Premiere which is what I'm more familiar with.

 

[thekev]

Yes I knew most of what you wrote about, and I agree. RE: video editing: currently using FCPx, couldn't go with Premiere with my 6970M card. When I get a new iMac w/680MX I might just switch back over to Premiere which is what I'm more familiar with.

It's nice that you now have a CUDA option for Premiere or After Effects. My concerns involved the scenario of if the imac eventually supplants the mac pro. It wouldn't be able to replace the functionality you can get from a 12 core model, yet if the mac pro continues without an update, the imac will have more and more leverage on the single package mac pros in terms of performance. I'm not sure if this is Apple's plan. It would basically cut off a portion of their users, but they could always determine that to be acceptable. I'm not talking about which is better here but how many mac pro users they could convince to buy the higher end of their imac line. I was concerned with limitations in terms of storage and thermal performance in case they go this route. I've encountered weird things before, like a drop in backlight uniformity at higher temperatures on one of their notebooks. Their prioritization is basically my concern as I think building a high quality machine should be their top priority.

 

[the8thark]

My impression is that a lot of the "whining" is from those interested in the 21.5. A Mac Mini is a viable alternative for those consumers.

Wrong.

Mac Mini (base model) + Apple Cinema Display = $599 + $999 = $1598
Base iMac 21.5" = $1299

See my point? Sure you can say buy a smaller cheaper screen. But why? The Apple screens is one of the major reasons why people buy iMacs. They are just so beautiful. And an iMac is the cheapest way to get an Apple display and a Mac.

 

[LouieSamman]

I was expecting a whole new look to the iMac and although it does look different on the sides it still has the same thick black borders that I hate.

I was hoping of a redesign that has less bezel.

But for thinness and lightness I think they accomplished that along with upping the specs so I'm still buying it.

 

[kblake]

Wrong.
See my point? Sure you can say buy a smaller cheaper screen. But why? The Apple screens is one of the major reasons why people buy iMacs. They are just so beautiful. And an iMac is the cheapest way to get an Apple display and a Mac.

Been a mac user only since March this year.. Have to say that the Mac screen still blows me away....
My PC is sitting in the iMac box behind my lounge and I don't think it will ever be coming out again

 

[VilleK]

Love the design, but...

Been reading these forums for a long time, but I've never posted. This has got to be the most comprehensive community around apple products. Thanks to everyone for that.
I love the new thin design, but i'm kinda concerned about being able to install an aftermarket ssd. The fusion drive sounds like the best alternative, but i'm sure apple is going to charge $200-300 for it. With that i'd rather throw an OCZ vertex 4 in there. With the thin design it's gotta be really cramped with the internals. What do you guys think? Do you think we'll be able to fit an ssd in the casing?

 

[ahbdesign]

Probably off topic, but I was just looking at the BTO options on the mac mini, and the fusion drive is for $300 (in Australia). I am aware that this has been covered already.

What's probably more interesting is that it delays the ship time to 7-10 business days. Could this be an indication of when the iMac will be ready to ship? (this means it would ship anytime between the 6th and 9th of Nov).

All the other BTO options delayed the ship times to 2-4 business days.

 

[Abazigal]

Quite possibly, but for many of us the 27" isn't a viable alternative and it isn't simply about price. I ordered the 27" when I first bought into the iMac and returned it a week later. The reason for me being it was simply to big. I found it gave me a headache, the text was too small and it didn't look right for it's situation. I find the 21.5" is just right but the new one is not good value.

Thankfully my current 2011 iMac will do me for some time to come so hopefully Apple may be offering something different and better by then.

You should have waited. It took me about 2 weeks for my eyes to get used to the display (experienced symptoms similar to yours) but after that, I was using it like any other display with no problems.

Of course, I have to zoom in to 200% on my documents (and my colleagues ask me why my default font size is so large), but it is a minor inconvenience at worst.

 

[G-Mo]

Been reading these forums for a long time, but I've never posted. This has got to be the most comprehensive community around apple products. Thanks to everyone for that.
I love the new thin design, but i'm kinda concerned about being able to install an aftermarket ssd. The fusion drive sounds like the best alternative, but i'm sure apple is going to charge $200-300 for it. With that i'd rather throw an OCZ vertex 4 in there. With the thin design it's gotta be really cramped with the internals. What do you guys think? Do you think we'll be able to fit an ssd in the casing?

I haven't seen the service manual yet, but for a number of reasons I'll say No.

Even if you could open the display, the SSD slot is proprietary for an Apple flash stick (like the MacBook Air and Retina), and, if they follow the lead of the last iMac version, they use a proprietary connector on the SATA3 HDD with a built in temp sensor controller.

 

[the8thark]

MBA ram is: DDR3L onboard memory
rMBP ram is: DDR3L onboard memory
iMac and MBP (not retina) ram is: DDR3 memory

This gets me thinking why is the 2012 21.5" iMac memory not user upgradable is it's not soldered onboard memory like the MBA and rMBP? The only thing I can think of, is the 21.5" memory is the same as the 27" just no place to put it to make it user accessible?

Maybe? Not sure. What do you all think?

 

[G-Mo]

I havent seen the service manual yet, so I can't say for certain... But the way it's worded in the technical specs makes it sound like the 21.5-inch is onboard like the Air and Retina.

 

[xgman]

Well, it just shows "hate" will infiltrate anywhere, and then it's hard to get rid of.

 

[Paulywauly]

Wrong.

Mac Mini (base model) + Apple Cinema Display = $599 + $999 = $1598
Base iMac 21.5" = $1299

See my point? Sure you can say buy a smaller cheaper screen. But why? The Apple screens is one of the major reasons why people buy iMacs. They are just so beautiful. And an iMac is the cheapest way to get an Apple display and a Mac.

When you put it like that, then yes, but......

Mac Mini (Base Model) - user accessible RAM so no worries about extortionate BTO upgrades (which are not factored into your prices) - the same hard drive as the new base model iMac with easier user upgradability but at half the cost.

Plus when the day comes that your Mini is replaced you still have the Apple Cinema Display to use again or sell, lowering the cost of ownership again.

Don't get me wrong the new iMac looks great & given a choice id order a 27" right now, but arguing the case that the new 21.5 inch iMac is better value is flawed. If you ever want to upgrade it you have to do it at point of purchase at a significant cost increase, if not and you stick with the stock RAM your computer will run like a hog after a couple of OS upgrades forcing you to upgrade Macs at a quicker rate, increasing the overall cost of Mac ownership over time. The lower RAM will also have a knock-on effect in regards to resell value.

 

[smoking monkey]

What baffles me with this threads and always have done is the complete lack of objectivity simply due to the Apple logo.

Why people say it's beautiful when in essence it's simply the same aesthetics as the one I own but now has a big fat arse is beyond me - as I said at the start, where is the objectivity?

Objectivity! Ha! hilarious! ... Hang on, your being serious. Sorry, I didn't realise you were the arbitrator of iMac design!

At 8 pounds lighter, 40 percent less volume, the thinness of the edges, the great internals of the 27, the new screen enclosure and the dumping of the superdrive (less moving parts and heat inside) make this a great design in my books. I don't have one yet (obviously!), but so far I'm impressed. That may all change after the reviews come in or I can actually get my hands on one before the next one is due out!

 

[kennyap]

Objectivity! Ha! hilarious! ... Hang on, your being serious. Sorry, I didn't realise you were the arbitrator of iMac design!

At 8 pounds lighter, 40 percent less volume, the thinness of the edges, the great internals of the 27, the new screen enclosure and the dumping of the superdrive (less moving parts and heat inside) make this a great design in my books. I don't have one yet (obviously!), but so far I'm impressed. That may all change after the reviews come in or I can actually get my hands on one before the next one is due out!

Yeah I'm onboard with your take on this. I'm sure there is always some downside one can point out when there is a major redesign/update to a product. I can see the negatives some people are focusing on, but come on... they certainly don't outweigh the positives here. Geez. I pass right over the negatives (can't do anything about anyway) and realize the nice improvements this update provides.

I'll digress from my earlier statement about the naysayers being 'idiots'. I'll just say it's pretty "Juvenile" to go on about the new iMacs the way some have been doing. It's a really nice update to the product, pure and simple.

 

[Lankyman]

Objectivity! Ha! hilarious! ... Hang on, your being serious. Sorry, I didn't realise you were the arbitrator of iMac design!

At 8 pounds lighter, 40 percent less volume, the thinness of the edges, the great internals of the 27, the new screen enclosure and the dumping of the superdrive (less moving parts and heat inside) make this a great design in my books. I don't have one yet (obviously!), but so far I'm impressed. That may all change after the reviews come in or I can actually get my hands on one before the next one is due out!

Explain your rationale' for why a lighter thinner Desktop matters? As said earlier but you cherry pick your responses large parts of the world still do not enjoy superfast BB so optical media is still very relevant to some of us e.g a HD download for me is a minimum 4 hrs without throttling. The face on visuals haven't changed from my model so why the OTT approval? Again why always quote the 27 incher as being the bees knees but fail to mention the now crippled 21.5 base model? You seem to be suffering from selective iBlindness.

 

[whitesand]

I can't believe all the negative nonces!

The design is fantastic. It has 40 percent less volume, 8 pounds lighter (both good for the environment), less moving parts and a brand new screen design that will make the screens look so much better. I think this is the best design we've ever seen on an iMac.

I agree....You can't deny that it's gorgeous with exceptional build quality...I don't think you'll get any argument regarding the look from the complainers....I think their issue is that the improved form came at the expense of functionality/flexibility....

Personally, I like it but I would have rather them to make it user accessable, at least for hard drive replacement at least.

 

[Paulywauly]

Again why always quote the 27 incher as being the bees knees but fail to mention the now crippled 21.5 base model? You seem to be suffering from selective iBlindness.

+1. Personally I like the look of the 27" but the 21.5" base model just isn't good value for money anymore. Unless you purchase pricey BTO RAM the lifespan of the machine is reduced. The hard drive is a step back on the one I had in my base model iMac from 3 YEARS AGO & can't be upgraded AT ALL. Even Apple won't do it as BTO despite being the same chassis as a more expensive version with better storage. Explain?

It's almost like Apple is trying to ward prosumers (who would care more about components/longevity and less about thinness) away from the the 21.5 & onto the 27 or MacBook Pro

 

[flopticalcube]

It's almost like Apple is trying to ward prosumers (who would care more about components/longevity and less about thinness) away from the the 21.5 & onto the 27 or MacBook Pro

There are really only 2 desktops left. The 27" iMac and the mini. I think a decent laptop and a separate display is now better value than the 21.5" iMac.

 

[mrcliffsr]

Good design?

I like it. But you are forced to by the top model. I just have one question. Is the screen position still not adjustable? Why not? With the chin, it makes the 27 inch too high.
The top of the screen is supposed to be at the same height as your eyes.

 

[Paulywauly]

There are really only 2 desktops left. The 27" iMac and the mini. I think a decent laptop and a separate display is now better value than the 21.5" iMac.

I couldn't agree more

 

[bobright]

I couldn't agree more

Laptop Macs are too overpriced though, especially if you already got a portable device in iPad and aren't in school or need it for work. I'll take tons of storage and a nice BIG screen over the puny ones on laptops and where I have to worry about charging it.

 

[Paulywauly]

Laptop Macs are too overpriced though, especially if you already got a portable device in iPad and aren't in school or need it for work. I'll take tons of storage and a nice BIG screen over the puny ones on laptops and where I have to worry about charging it.

Dude in terms of storage the base model iMac has the exact same drive as the base model Macbook Pro (which in the UK is 100 notes less)

You do have a good point on the screen though, but to look at it another way;if not concerned with portability and more about screen size you could have a base Mac Mini (Same spec as Macbook Pro) with a very good 23' IPS screen from Dell for £650. Thats nearly half the price of a base model iMac (£540 less) Even if you put third party RAM in there its still a lot less, and alot more upgradable in the future.