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.
21.5" iMac Has No User-Upgradable RAM; 27" Has Four Accessible RAM Slots
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IMHO is impossible to agree with Apple. Since ever, iMac accept upgrades for RAM or HD and it has no impact for design or price. It's not aways easy to buy an iMac with a RAM upgrade, sometimes you just buy what the store has in stock and some people wants to have the right to upgrade things.
Apple is moving to fast through the direction to unify all the lines. The same lack of possibilities to upgrades that you find in iPad, iPhone and iPod is coming on the computers.
I really don't agree with that. Since the iMac is too expensive, and de 27" is even more, i'm probably going to buy another computer when my Core2Duo iMac starts to run out of juice.
Apple is moving to fast through the direction to unify all the lines. The same lack of possibilities to upgrades that you find in iPad, iPhone and iPod is coming on the computers.
I really don't agree with that. Since the iMac is too expensive, and de 27" is even more, i'm probably going to buy another computer when my Core2Duo iMac starts to run out of juice.
It's a shame they don't offer any SSD or Fusion Drive option for the base 21". That will mean that the cheapest config with the fusion drive will be at least $1750.
Considering they slowed down the HDD in the new base iMac I wouldn't be surprised if the last generation is actually faster.
It's really simple.
If Apple sees a lot of complaints combined with a dip in sales, they will reconsider. They brought back Firewire on MBP 13" after an avalanche of complaints, and upgrading RAM on Mac Mini is arguably easier than on any other computer on the market -- you just turn the bottom lid and open it like a big jar, without any tools, pop in some RAM and you're done. The previous model was Fort Knox.
If on the other hand the new iMac is a big hit and the complaints are no worse than normal, then the evolution of iMacs will continue along its current trajectory.
2.5" in the 21.5" model, 3.5" in the 27" model. You can tell by the specs they give (1TB vs. 3 TB, 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm).
When they upgrade the Mac Pro next year, it'll be the second thing they do. Imagine it being as thin as this iMac, but actually thin and not ugly as from the back
When they upgrade the Mac Pro next year, it'll be the second thing they do. Imagine it being as thin as this iMac, but actually thin and not ugly as from the back
It's like Kim Kardashian, Looks thin and sexy from the front and then suddenly BAM! Big Ol' Booty!
But hopefully iMac isn't Vapid like her.
Check your facts. Apple solution doesn't even involve caching, it's different. Regardin innovativity, they expressly stated in the keynote how this solution comes from (business grade array storage) so i think you speak a lots with the brain turned off.
Actually iMac never accepted HD upgrades and only some generation had user replaceable ram, this is one that doesn't.
I don't think these iMac will receive critics it's not by a really small minority. I think Apple's pricing and choices make sense. They said in the past they consider the 22'' a consumer machine and the 27'' a prosumer computer. 8GB of ram and a 5400rpm drive in an all-in-one consumer machine are not so fool (I design websites in Photoshop and virtualize Windows for browser testing with 8GB on my macbook pro).
If you need 16GB of ram (and the possibilty to expand to 32) you are better with 27'', in fact if you add 16GB and a Fusion Drive to the 22 it's 100$ less than a 27'' with fusion drive and replaceable ram (i figured the prices looking at the mac mini upgrade prices, they have always been identical).
The new iMacs have four USB 3.0 ports. They keep up with any spinning drive, with any SSD drive (and if you complain about $400 then obviously you are not going to use SSD), and with any RAID drive with spinning disks.
Sure. Welcome to the future where we avoid 1080P content and are happy with sub standard 720P or nothing. The future were we actually embrace our past.
----------
This new iMac I believe is Jony Ivey gone wild. From what we have read so far, I don't think anyone can really say NO to Jony as per Steve's biography. So Jony did the design and asked the hardware guys to fit their stuff in there. And this is the best the hardware guys can do. (A guess of course which seems very probable)
Need someone with common sense than design sense to balance the equation.
Who will that be at Apple?
Nah.... I don't agree here ....
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.
Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.
I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.
I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??
For one thing, there IS already the possibility of doing 1080p video content with mechanisms other than reading it from optical discs.
Blu-Ray, like standard DVD movies that came before them, inherently suck because they're encrypted with keys the movie industry demands royalties be paid on by everyone building hardware or software to play them back. There are plenty of ways to encode a movie digitally. The industry just arbitrarily picked a format and locked it down so they could milk extra profits from it for as long as people kept using it.
I know most consumers don't care, as long as they can stick the disc in a drive and watch the movie. But Apple is really right, IMO. The format needs to go away, and digital distribution is probably the one viable thing right now that will push it towards obsolescence.
I mean ... consider the fact that NOBODY running a free, open-source operating system can legally watch a DVD movie using it, simply because the decoders out there all illegally decrypt the content (refused to pay the licensing fee on code they give away absolutely free in the first place!). You're literally breaking federal law every time you use Linux to watch a DVD movie you bought at the store! How stupid is that??
I have never watched a movie using Linux, but I agree that the RCAA can be a pain.
But if people have to pay royalties to use software then why is it wrong for entertainment?
I still think the big fat problem is that so far, it appears there's no way to remove the hard drive. That's a problem if the hard drive dies later on, because your only option will be an external. I guess with thunderbolt it'll be hard to tell the difference, but the idea still sucks!
With 8GB of RAM standard, even on the low end model, is this really an issue? The iMac is an all-in-one, designed for plug and play. Not designed to be an upgradable power house for gaming and the like. 8GB of RAM is waaaay more than the vast majority will ever use. And for those that want more, know they'll need it before they buy it and can upgrade then. Sure it's pricier to upgrade through Apple, but it isn't news that Apple stuff is pricey.
Sure, but downloads with DRM are even worse.
Can I resell a movie bought from iTunes? Can a friend borrow it from me? Can I give it to someone as a present? As far as I know I can't even play it on more than 5 machines.
The way it is done digital downloads take even more rights away from the consumer.
Can you use Linux to watch a movie bought on iTunes?
Got to agree with you. I'm going to install an SSD in my 2011 iMac - I need the added performance for my work. If I cannot upgrade an iMac and Apple's not interested in updating the Mac Pro line then what message is this sending out to loyal customers like me.
Seriously, is Apple trying to force me away from their ecosystem?
I was going to buy, but with the 21.5 model coming with a 5400 rpm drive, it's a no sale. Even with Fusion Drive, it's still a 5400 rpm drive. There are 7200 rpm drives available Apple. I'd rather you just made it a 128GB SSD and let it be. I'll be sticking with my iMac mid 2010 for the foreseeable future. Hopefully they change their tune in 2013. 27" is way too big and certainly too expensive for my needs. If this continues in 2013, I'll move to Windows 8, along with the rest of my devices. If this is how they want to play it, then let's play the game.
Try the system out in person before you assume how fast it will run based on specifications only.
The fusion drive will make the platter speed of the HDD pretty much irrelevant for the programs you use most often.
let me know when iTunes is doing 50GB downloads and how long those take, and what your ISP has to say about it.
People who are happy with it don't post here. And for most people, it looks fine, and it works fine.