Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2015 iMac Reviews: 'Best All-in-One' Desktop, But Lacks USB-C and Fusion Drive Isn't Standard

I prefer the 21" -- have an older one + 21" monitor. But why are they so much more compared to the 27" lineup? Smaller screen, Intel graphics and no graphics upgrade option, no user access to RAM slot. 5400rpm drives! And of course, never the latest of other tech. I miss the days of the low end $2300 MacPro. The 21" iMac is not just overpriced, it's an outright rip off. Heck and Apple use to let you have a Magic Track Pad in exchange for the mouse at no extra charge.

Now I gotta go figure out if I want to get ripped off or not...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tuxon86 and Benjamin Frost
I am going to guess that with Skylake not offering Iris Pro GPU then stuck with Broadwell chips for the 21 so that have more GPU grunt from the 4K screen.

As the 27's use discrete GPU then not a problem. Would have been nice to see USB-C and TB3 arrive on them with the Skylake Processors however that would cause discrepancy as the Broadwell Chipsets wouldn't support that so would have a difference there.

I suspect that USB-C/TB3 won't be arriving till the Mac Pro gets updated so can launch on the "Flagship Mac" and then trickle down.

Personally waiting on a Quad Mini with USB-C/TB3 to replace my 2009.
 
I'm dismayed that 8GB is still the standard RAM. And 32GB for £480? Good Lord.

Still only 3TB storage? If only Moore's Law applied to storage, we would be on to 1,000TB or more by now.

Why charge £44 extra if you want a trackpad instead of a mouse? It used to be one of the other. Most will go with the mouse, I think, because of this.

It's a shame the Magic Keyboard (childish name) is so stunted with its lack of a numeric keypad or Home/End/Page Up/Page Down keys. At least, Apple still offer a proper keyboard at no extra charge.

I'm disappointed that there is no larger size than 27"; I would like to have seen 34" offered. It's sad that 24" isn't offered, either. It's clear that many prefer that to both 21" and 27" as the best size. I still enjoy using my 24" iMac from 2008.

On the bright side, prices have come down across the board.

My verdict: these iMac updates are iterative, but not ground-shaking. The small Retina screen is welcome. Apple's advertising is getting more infantile by the day: 'Now available in colossal and ginormous.' Oh please, grow up, Apple. And since when was 21" colossal?

I hope that, next year, we may see some more significant updates to the iMac line, such as significantly bigger sizes, a new design with little or no bezel, and something amazing that I haven't thought off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityM, kiensoy, McGiord and 1 other person
Doctor Q said:
Source: Apple's MacBook Design page

If it's that wonderful, Apple, why aren't you using it on your iMacs?
Click to expand...

?

Because the iMac doesn't need to charge, has it's own video ports, and has USB ports that are just as fast.

vampyr said:
So so SOOOO want to buy a new iMac to replace my aging 2008 24" iMac. But I'm going to try to hold off for just 1 more year and wait for the latest intel chipset to show up on the new iMacs.
At $2999 for a 4.0Ghz and 16GB and 4GB video card, I feel like I am still spending WAY TOO MUCH for a computer that is pushing 2 years old in technology.
Click to expand...
It has skylake now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
darcyf said:
Macs with an SSD under the hood are night and day from Macs saddled with a spinning drive only.
Click to expand...
My maxed-out iMac is from 2011. In 2013 I put a 256gb SSD as well as a 3tb drive and here in 2015 it still boots up in 10-15 seconds, still doesn't feel slow.

Every modern computer needs at least a 16gb SSD as standard, just for the OS!
 
ipodlover77 said:
Pretty disappointed as well to see apple reduce the size from 128 to 24. What are the repercussions in this case? 24gb should still be enough for the often used programs to be cached right?
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on whether they still reserve 4Gb for incoming data. I'm a fan of the fusion drive, but 24Gb doesn't sound like much of a cache to me.
 
Painful indeed.
I run my mac on a 256ssd in a usb3.0 holder. (cost was below 100 usd) I have that system backed up on my 5400 rpm hard drive.
I just installed a new printer on my system, and it took seconds and all is good. Then I rebooted to my hard drive to keep it up to date. (I make my living with this computer - so the hard drive and a Macbook Air w/ 500gb ssd are my backup systems in the event of failure.)
Anyway, when I booted to the hard drive to install and test the printer it toooook fooorrreever to boot up and set up the printer - and talk abut spinning colorful wheels?? they were popping up at every command !
Apple should charge a few dollars more because the difference between the ssd and the hd is just unreal and Apple is known for quality and ease of use and all kinds of wonderful things, not a sluggish hard drive to make people think the command is not being executed.
I don't think I could run the system on the hd without having a nervous breakdown. That maybe a bit of a stretch, but really, really slow. For what Apple is charging... what the hell are they doing even stocking 5400 rpm drives? Did't they do away with the cd rom? Hard drives should have been ditched right along with them. /rant
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McGiord
keysofanxiety said:
(never thought I'd fall into the 'Steve wouldn't have done this' trap)
Click to expand...
lol, it's the first time I've ever thought that while reading an article here and I felt a bit disgusted in myself even thinking it. They really seem to be lower specs each iteration. For a while they were making product that made it hard to justify building a hackintosh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fanta88, Takuro and keysofanxiety
garylapointe said:
How do they not put a USB-C port on this?

(I'm not a fan yet, but if they're going to start using them, it seems like there should be at least one port on each of the other machines).

Gary
Click to expand...

And historically apple have always been quick (sometimes too quick) to add new ports. Id have been less surprised if the new iMacs only had usb c ports. To not include any is really strange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garylapointe
Kissaragi said:
And historically apple have always been quick (sometimes too quick) to add new ports. Id have been less surprised if the new iMacs only had usb c ports. To not include any is really strange.
Click to expand...

Except USB2 . . . stuck with USB 1.1 for a long time, insisting that FireWire was the way to go.
 
Most annoying woman in the review I came across... ever... the hype of apple products is wearing off due to the force hype created by the "specially selected community of overjoyed journalists"... nice iMac nonetheless - going for the top spec :D
 
Look Apple, I love your products, I have spent more money on your products and have invested more in your ecosystem than I have in any other, but enough screwing your loyal customers. First, the lane excuse for a computer known as the MacBook that costs as much as the Pro but has 1/10 the power and only one port, then the 16 GB 6s that can record 4K video, and finally the 24 GB SSD in the new iMacs.

What a slap in the face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skinned66, Benjamin Frost, Cole Slaw and 2 others
USB-C? Yawn.

I have a 27" with a Fusion Drive. Much more important. As with most Apple products the base configuration is simply not going to deliver what you need. Always add 10-15% more of the listed price to get near the config you'll actually need.
 
keysofanxiety said:
"Apple did change how the Fusion Drive works in 2015. To allow for a lower-cost Fusion Drive option, Apple paired a 1TB hard drive with a 24GB SSD. In the past, the 1TB Fusion Drive matched a 1TB standard hard drive with a 128GB SSD. Now, if you want the 128GB SSD, you'll need to have a 2TB or 3TB Fusion Drive offering. "

And there's me telling myself I wouldn't get riled up. What an absolute crock of ****, it's an utter joke that a company worth this much and who claim to be about user experience/specs dick their consumers so hard.

It's reminiscent of RIM, they're just taking advantage of their users who are already in the ecosystem. If they made pricing decisions/spec limitations that the user suffers for back in 2000, you'd be sure as hell that Apple wouldn't be where they are today.

It's getting beyond stupid now. **** off Tim Cook, bring back some passion to the products, screw the monsterous profits, and make every Apple product available as nice as it could be for that price point. You know, so people are comforted in the fact that any Apple product they buy is well thought out and not crippled with planned obsolecence. How it used to be, how it should be, and how you claim Apple is. Get your heads out of your asses.

(never thought I'd fall into the 'Steve wouldn't have done this' trap)
Click to expand...

+1. If this is the new Apple under Cook - I'm looking elsewhere for my computing platforms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
About what I figured from today's Apple. Looking at the new Mac Mini, these iMacs, the new Macbook, and the trashbin Mac Pro, and it is pretty obvious what the trends are with the Mac. Glad I jumped off this train two years ago.

People don't like to hear this, but they are turning back into the 1990s Apple, just with a lot more capital at their disposal. Looking at diversifying into Cars, Watches, an ever growing lineup of device variants (Macbook, Pro, Air. Mac Pro. iMac. iPad Mini, Air, Pro. iPhone, iPhone+, iPod), more stagnating services (iCloud, iWork, Apple Music, iTunes, etc.). Two separate OS's (OS X and iOS). Most revenue only comes from one device family (iPhone), which should be worrying. This is the same story that Blackberry found itself in. If a disruptive technology surpasses the phone, Apple will be in the same boat.

There's a lot to manage with this growing portfolio of stuff, especially when Apple tends to be a very centralized company with "rockstars" (Sir Jony Ive) having their input into everything, and then people like Phil Schiller who continues to play the role of Apple's "Steve Ballmer" quite well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: midwich
Sadly, the 21" is no longer a viable option. The 5400rpm drive is a non-starter. The upgrade to the fusion used to make sense, but with 24 GB of flash, even that's almost worthless. So I'd be looking at a $200 upgrade for a 256 ssd. Add $200 for a RAM upgrade to 16 gb because although 8 is fine today, I'd want this to last 4+ years without feeling slow. So now we're at $1900. And for that, I'm still saddled with integrated graphics driving a 4K display.

And the 27" has always just been too big for my tastes. So I guess I'm staying with my laptop, despite waiting 2 years for this update. Very very poor showing by Apple today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skinned66, Benjamin Frost and Digitalman 2015
I'm confused why people are whinging why the components in the lower model are out of date, yet they don't think having a 21.5" screen is?

If you want the best components, buy the model with the up to date screen size!
 
Also surprised on the lack of usb-c. Thought this would be the new thing apple pushed since it showed up on MacBooks but that's been the only place I've seen it so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back