You're kidding yourself if you think schools and libraries are shelling out $1500 for 4k Retina iMac kiosk and lab machines. Those machines are sub-$1000 and are justifiably crippled. Joe Consumer ought to be able to pick up a daily driver for $1500, and at that price, the inclusion of any spinning drive is ridiculous.
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.
2015 iMac Reviews: 'Best All-in-One' Desktop, But Lacks USB-C and Fusion Drive Isn't Standard
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're kidding yourself if you think schools and libraries are shelling out $1500 for 4k Retina iMac kiosk and lab machines. Those machines are sub-$1000 and are justifiably crippled. Joe Consumer ought to be able to pick up a daily driver for $1500, and at that price, the inclusion of any spinning drive is ridiculous.
It's all good and well discarding the low-end as a no-brainer to buy, but the low-end has been made available by Apple and is the one of the Macs you will find at physical stores.
5400 rpm HDD is not a logical start. The majority of iMac-buyers who are non-techies don't like to stumble across HDD spinning speed mumbo-jumbo.
You buy an iMac, it's not cheap, and you expect it to be a fast machine.
A 5400 rpm HDD wil give you headaches. After about a month of intense use you will find the amount of lag due to using this ancient storage will eliminate the fun of using OS X on a new Mac. Boot time will be looooong, login time will force you into thinking you have a defect, etc.
Only tech-savvy users and salesmen will urge the potential customer to spend more money to get the Fusion, or, even better, the SSD.
I just can't image that this "up-selling technique" will help Apple in the long run. Too many buyers will regret their brand new iMac thanks to that irritating slow storage.
Better would be to let the Fusion drive be the default. Then, if someone foolishly would like to save money on storage, make a HDD the BTO.
5400 rpm HDD is not a logical start. The majority of iMac-buyers who are non-techies don't like to stumble across HDD spinning speed mumbo-jumbo.
You buy an iMac, it's not cheap, and you expect it to be a fast machine.
A 5400 rpm HDD wil give you headaches. After about a month of intense use you will find the amount of lag due to using this ancient storage will eliminate the fun of using OS X on a new Mac. Boot time will be looooong, login time will force you into thinking you have a defect, etc.
Only tech-savvy users and salesmen will urge the potential customer to spend more money to get the Fusion, or, even better, the SSD.
I just can't image that this "up-selling technique" will help Apple in the long run. Too many buyers will regret their brand new iMac thanks to that irritating slow storage.
Better would be to let the Fusion drive be the default. Then, if someone foolishly would like to save money on storage, make a HDD the BTO.
The devil is in the details as the saying goes and I have to say in the long run this will frustrate consumers. I mean why set them up to be frustrated.
I said this among friends right around when the Fusion Drive was introduced, why not just put that memory built onto every logic board? This could also facilitate storage for recovery. Turn it into a big release that says, "Fusion Drive: now in every Mac".
Wow, this is a total pass for me. I have 2014 retina 5K and the only reason for me to upgrade would have been thunderbolt 3 and USB-C. I guess this means I can save my money and wait for the next release.
Apple's being too cheap to spend the money on retooling and redesigning the back of the iMac for TB3 and USB-C. I wonder if the the PCIe SSD is even 4x PCIe 3.0 lanes instead of 2xPCIe 2.0.
Apple's being too cheap to spend the money on retooling and redesigning the back of the iMac for TB3 and USB-C. I wonder if the the PCIe SSD is even 4x PCIe 3.0 lanes instead of 2xPCIe 2.0.
Oh but that's simple, you just order an SSD online and replace it yourself easi--
sorry.
It's called future proofing. Besides, I don't think anyone is calling for a USB-C only iMac. I think the inclusion of at least one USB-C port is a reasonable expectation.
Agreed Apple has been on the forefront of technology in these cases, just look at the USB-C on the rMB. Why not include it in the iMac?
I remember when the original Bondi Blue iMac was introduced, it did not have a floppy drive and used USB for its ports instead of the propriety ones. Why back away away from this philosophy now?
I love how Apple posted a new product page showcasing how they have taken the iMac ahead technologically since 1998, citing improvements in CPU, RAM, and storage. Guess what hasn't changed? We still have USB A ports and rotating magnetic disks in the line up. Any company can compare a current computer to one that's nearly 20 years old and cite massive improvements. Ironically, Apple is actually lagging very far behind the rest of the market, performance wise, for the current price point of the machines. The only thing that vindicates this to some extent are the retina displays.
I know everybody is bellyaching about this exact same thing, over and over again, but come on. Here's to hoping that in 2016 the iMac gets a redesign and has at least USB-C. It's overdue for one.
I know everybody is bellyaching about this exact same thing, over and over again, but come on. Here's to hoping that in 2016 the iMac gets a redesign and has at least USB-C. It's overdue for one.
I think Apple has made the analysis that the cost of sourcing the 5400rpm drives is still less than the upsell of having a certain percentage of their customers plonking $800 more to get the drive they want in the first place.
It would be funny if they posted a page about how they have taken the iMac ahead in the last five years.
All of this huff and puff about the 5400rpm drive... where's the proof that it's a poor performer? If that proof comes to light, then I will side with the complaints, but until then it's just unfounded. Hey, 7200rpm would be great, as would 10,000rpm, but at the end of the day, we don't know that Apple's new 5400rpm drives are a bottleneck yet. They may have come up with some ingenious way of reducing or eliminating the bottleneck that the competition can't match.
This is purely psychological at this point. Let the testing begin...
Maybe Apple found that 5400rpm drives are more reliable, which is a GOOD thing for end users. Who knows?!?
This is purely psychological at this point. Let the testing begin...
Maybe Apple found that 5400rpm drives are more reliable, which is a GOOD thing for end users. Who knows?!?
Well, if you read the specs, you know what you are getting. Yes they are expensive. I have one and think the iMac is great in almost all respects. Now what about where you have to pull the machine out and turn it around to use the USB or headphone jacks. Who thought that was a good idea?
I am still clinging onto my 2010 version which has an optical drive...sure I don't use it very often but when I need it I am glad its there, especially since my macbook air can use it through the network. This just gives me one more reason to stick with my 2010. I was already considering tearing it apart to add an SSD this just gives me another reason to do that
It is not a misprint. I thought it might be, but I checked Apple's website and the 24GB SSD is correct.
It is sad, but true.
"I haven’t had a chance to test how long the batteries last, but Apple reports all three can go for about month on a single charge, and the mouse can give you a nine-hour day’s worth of pointing and clicking with a two-minute charge."
Seems short. In August 2014, I bought a Dell desktop to replace my 2008 iMac. The Dell came with a Logitech Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and after using them at least eight hours a day, five days a week, they're still using the original batteries. Or am I misunderstanding what the reviewer is discussing?
Seems short. In August 2014, I bought a Dell desktop to replace my 2008 iMac. The Dell came with a Logitech Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and after using them at least eight hours a day, five days a week, they're still using the original batteries. Or am I misunderstanding what the reviewer is discussing?
I've never really thought the 'redesign' we saw last year was that innovative, to be honest. And those 1" black borders have got to go, they really do. I don't think any manufacturer is doing bezels that wide anymore. It's not artistic, it's just ugly. Not to mention that to the human eye, a black border actually ruins perceived black depth and contrast. Apple likes to tout their gorgeous screens, but then ruins it by having that awful black border.
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. They are talking about one single charge of the batteries. Not the ability to hold a charge.
I have used Macs since the 90s, and especially since OS X, I have advocated for Apple products to friends, family and co-workers.
It seems like in the last couple of years, my enthusiasm for Apple products have decreased a lot.
Things like the slow HDD, 24GB SSD fusion, and many other crappy things Apple has been doing lately has been making it hard to continue to recommend Apple over other brands like I have in the past.
I use Macs/Apple products today, and I will tomorrow, but a few years from now, I am not sure.
It seems like in the last couple of years, my enthusiasm for Apple products have decreased a lot.
Things like the slow HDD, 24GB SSD fusion, and many other crappy things Apple has been doing lately has been making it hard to continue to recommend Apple over other brands like I have in the past.
I use Macs/Apple products today, and I will tomorrow, but a few years from now, I am not sure.
It's all about the Ad, "STARTS AT JUST..." Same with the 16gig iPhone. Purely to make the numbers look low for marketing reasons.
If you had ever experienced the preformance of an ssd, you would not have written this post. I have an external ssd running my Mac Mini. I also have the hard drive set up as a back up in the event the ssd goes out. The difference in speed in all factors, from booting to opening programs, is just mind boggling. The proof is in the pudding. Just use one.