but they won't have fun with that crap. neither with a 5400rpm hard drive, nor with a "SSHD", that's not a "real" fusion drive as it was meant to be ... kind of sad, if you ask me.
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
I think with a lot of businesses, their budget can't afford the more expensive Apple products in large quantities. Its more if "Its good enough" specs for its business clients. Say for a hotel that offers its customers computers for internet access for checking email, Facebook, printing documents, whatever. While still offering good build quality and excellent support at a better price.
You don't need anything that fast or speedy for things like that.
I got your point, but I always thought that the Apple brand, specifically the "Mac" brand stands for solid performance and awesome user experience. With those models, well, it's maybe "average" ... but alright.
Well, your still getting an awesome user experience. They are simply expanding their target audience to include schools, hotels, hospitals ect.
Is my 2009 MacBook Pro somehow going to go any slower since we have updated 2015 MacBook Pro's? Is it going to be less useful in the same situations I normally use it in 2015? Not so. Most users don't look at specs on a sheet, they only notice if its slow or laggy in tasks it is designed for in every day use.
That makes since sadlyBecause nobody makes a 2.5" drive larger than 2TBwhich begs the question "Why does Apple not use 3.5" drives in the 21.5"? Answer = Thinner
Lot of that market will be self-impressed just owning a Mac I think and most aren't power users enough to even recognize the difference
+1 - this is a big part of the market I think they are shooting for recently
also don't think most of these people are rebooting their computer very often which is the most significant difference between platter and ssd. once booted most used apps (60% safari, 30% mail, 10% something else) will be cached anyways.
Last edited by a moderator:
I will give you the point on the GPU. That is something that should be available in 21 inch version if someone wants to pay for it. But the rest not so much.
Because once they price the Macs out against a PC the price difference isn't that much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skylake, dGPU, and I'll bet the same panel as the iMac for about the same money. It's six of one half dozen of the other I'd imagine lease prices are pretty much identical for business.
Shocking: In the purchase process…
Choose Storage
Click: How much storage is right for you?
will show:
The 1TB Fusion Drive pairs a 1TB hard drive with 24GB of fast flash
!!!!!!?????
— enough to store important OS X files and applications to ensure fast startup, near instant wake from sleep and quick application launching, with room left over for your most frequently used files and apps. The 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives pair a larger hard drive with 128GB of fast flash storage, providing even more space for your most frequently used files. For the best performance, iMac systems with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB or larger Fusion Drive or all flash storage.
Choose Storage
Click: How much storage is right for you?
will show:
The 1TB Fusion Drive pairs a 1TB hard drive with 24GB of fast flash
!!!!!!?????
— enough to store important OS X files and applications to ensure fast startup, near instant wake from sleep and quick application launching, with room left over for your most frequently used files and apps. The 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives pair a larger hard drive with 128GB of fast flash storage, providing even more space for your most frequently used files. For the best performance, iMac systems with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB or larger Fusion Drive or all flash storage.
It isn't quite the same panel, though it might just as good. It is 24" panel with the same pixels as the iMac's 21". So the iMac is sharper. But many consumers might like the 24" size better. I've no idea about the qualitative difference between them. The main point is that this doesn't actually beat the iMac in price. So it doesn't seem like Apple is gouging its consumers at a $1,499 price even if you should pay something like $1,699 as there are upgrades you basically have to do.
I don't think Apple's price is high either but what I can't figure out is if the 21.5 size will come in 4K. It seems like everyone buys panels from the same few OEMs so it's seem like the 21.5 should be 4k as well as the 24.
Tim Coke has transformed to Gordon Gecko. Greed is the company's business model. Maybe is spending too much time in dark rooms troubling your sight of what you're selling.
I think it's clear that Cook et al know the game's up and are just squeezing margins to pay for their RSU's before cashing out. Steve's gone and so has the edge.
I've got a 2007 iMac on my desk on its last legs and requiring an upgrade but the current range is a monstrosity. 27 inches? No thanks, I painted my wall a nice colour and want to see some of it.
You know, lots of comments above are bang on the money. Apple was at the forefront of change and pushing the boundaries with their desktops, often with much chagrin; it always panned out for the best though.
I think the other thing that is now really beginning to grate is the obsession with perceived thinness. You know, there was ingenuity in iMacs that could be upgraded. It was subtle enough to satisfy those who wanted to tinker or keep their machine running nicely but not so obvious that less-techy users felt compelled to exploit the capability. Concealed RAM doors etc was so clever. Pasting everything together with glue and solder is just not what veterans expect from Apple.
Perhaps it's time for a new company to come to the fore and provide the tools we need?
Hi all,
Please bare with me. I have a question hoping to be answered.
Yesterday, when I visited my local Apple Store, I ran a side by side comparison test with two iMacs. The one on the left was the high end stock iMac 27" 5K with 2TB Fusion drive 8GB RAM and a dedicated graphics card. The one on the right was a stock 21.5" 4K iMac with a 5400 RPM HD, 8GB RAM and the integrated Intel Iris Pro 6200 card. When I launched a demo iMovie project shot with an iPhone 6s in 4K video, I noticed that there was noticeable jitter in between frames on the 21.5 more than the 27. I did this test multiple times even with different demo content and noticed a similar pattern. Now, I really need to upgrade the existing setup I have but have no desire to get the 27". My goal is to completely max out all the specs on the 21.5 4K iMac (Intel i7, 16GB RAM, 512 SSD) which would also provide me with upgraded PCIe based flash, where all my files would be saved to. Hypothetically, if I do this would it then mitigate the jitter between frames while going through my iMovie projects shot on my 6s? If so, can you explain why? My thought is that since my files can be read at a blazing speed, then it should provide a much more fluid experience compared to the 5400-RPM drive used to demo this content to me in the store. Also, I don't believe that the 27" 5K iMac Fusion drive delivers the same PCIe flash performance as the 256 or 512 all flash configuration. Thanks!
Please bare with me. I have a question hoping to be answered.
Yesterday, when I visited my local Apple Store, I ran a side by side comparison test with two iMacs. The one on the left was the high end stock iMac 27" 5K with 2TB Fusion drive 8GB RAM and a dedicated graphics card. The one on the right was a stock 21.5" 4K iMac with a 5400 RPM HD, 8GB RAM and the integrated Intel Iris Pro 6200 card. When I launched a demo iMovie project shot with an iPhone 6s in 4K video, I noticed that there was noticeable jitter in between frames on the 21.5 more than the 27. I did this test multiple times even with different demo content and noticed a similar pattern. Now, I really need to upgrade the existing setup I have but have no desire to get the 27". My goal is to completely max out all the specs on the 21.5 4K iMac (Intel i7, 16GB RAM, 512 SSD) which would also provide me with upgraded PCIe based flash, where all my files would be saved to. Hypothetically, if I do this would it then mitigate the jitter between frames while going through my iMovie projects shot on my 6s? If so, can you explain why? My thought is that since my files can be read at a blazing speed, then it should provide a much more fluid experience compared to the 5400-RPM drive used to demo this content to me in the store. Also, I don't believe that the 27" 5K iMac Fusion drive delivers the same PCIe flash performance as the 256 or 512 all flash configuration. Thanks!
USB-C is a type of connection that provides both power and display throughput.
Both of these features are not required for desktop computers...
So no folks... iMac is the last place where I would expect USB-C connections.
Both of these features are not required for desktop computers...
So no folks... iMac is the last place where I would expect USB-C connections.
That 5400 HDD will result in people upgrading earlier. Wish OS X did not run so slowly on mechanical drives....
I suspect the issue was the HDD , though as you playing with 4K video can the iris pro 6200 handle it? I know the dedicated video card would handle that much better.
I'd almost suggest the 27 for the dedicated graphics. And do your research about the 6200 running at 4K.
Also by the time you max out the 21.5 , the 27 is better value and a better machine .
+1. Wow. Excellent post. Summed up much more poetically than I ever have what I find distressing about Apple these days.