Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm absolutely not complaining but I also thought we'd see more i7 models available. I thought you'd see a base i7 at the 21 inch line and then lower number i7's through the 27inch, but that was just wishful thinking.

After seeing the new specs though I am honestly surprised to be considering the 21inch model. I sold my old 27inch i7 when I moved from Singapore to Thailand as moving it would be too difficult. I'm in a small, hip well-designed loft kind of space now and with the 21 inch performing so well on the tests I'm actually thinking strongly about the BTO 21 inch. If they offered a video card upgrade it'd be a no-brainer.

Also I'm very glad to see the trackpad option as I HATE all versions of Apple Mouses. They can design some cool stuff, but until the get close to the Logitech MX1100 or better in their mouse it'll always be sitting in the box. I'm thinking I can use the pad in my dj'ing :D

Paul
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Still disappointed but only because my local ape store still hasn't recieved the new iMacs!
 
Awesome refresh, purely for the 6970m inclusion, 2nd fastest single mobile card after the 485m

About the only highlight for me. I have the 09 i5 4850m system and the last update was a total waste of time. This one actually looks good with the 6970 2g setup.

Still I will wait on barefeats.com to run some comparisons
 
I'm late to the party on this thread but to throw my $.02 into the discussion.

I'd say I'm not dissappointed. Apple did as I was expecting, switching over to the sandy bridge platform which offers a very nice speed bump.

I was not expecting a new case design, SSD, or any other technology change. Overall its a great update that will keep the iMacs relevant
 
I'm late to the party on this thread but to throw my $.02 into the discussion.

I'd say I'm not dissappointed. Apple did as I was expecting, switching over to the sandy bridge platform which offers a very nice speed bump.

I was not expecting a new case design, SSD, or any other technology change. Overall its a great update that will keep the iMacs relevant

This. What were people expecting? BTO CPU's are as fast as you'd want, you can get up to 16GB of RAM, you've got the second fastest mobile graphics card available and to top it all of you've got the ability to have both SSD and HDD together! Don't even get me started on the screen! Why anybody would expect anything more is beyond me. This machine has the highest specs most people would need for years!
 
This. What were people expecting? BTO CPU's are as fast as you'd want, you can get up to 16GB of RAM, you've got the second fastest mobile graphics card available and to top it all of you've got the ability to have both SSD and HDD together! Don't even get me started on the screen! Why anybody would expect anything more is beyond me. This machine has the highest specs most people would need for years!

8GB RAM 2TB HD, is that too much to ask for. Both can be had for less than 160 bucks. Rationality clearly isn't your strong suit.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

You cant make everyone happy.

I'm happy with the new iMac, but I know there's more that Apple could have put in.

For example:
SATA 6Gbps ports
Easier upgradeability
USB 3.0
More USB ports
FireWire 1600, or another 800 port
Blu-Ray
Etc...

In the end, I'm quite sure people will be happy with their new iMacs. I know I will be.
 
true

I'm a little disappointed.

I was waiting for this refresh to possibly buy my first iMac. I have a PC with a quad core i7 860, 8GB RAM, 1TB video RAM, 2TB drive, and a 24" monitor that I just bought before the holidays for about $1200 (from Dell). Now, in order to get a Mac that is equivalent, I have to spent almost twice as much ($2399), and I still don't think the iMac will be as powerful because of the mobile processor issue. I do get Thunderbolt (which I can't use yet) and a beautiful screen, but other than that - the iMac seems like a giant ripoff.

And, I can't even walk into an Apple store to be ripped off, I have to order online and wait for the privilege.

I bought a27 i3 four weeks ago for $1699 to replace a Windows Machine, Its not so great but will just use it for the internet, Looking to buy what I needed in the first place a new Windows machine. Even the new imacs are no where near the power of a PC and I am not spending any more money with Apple. Was a mistake for that much money. Monster PC for $1100. Its Paid for so we will just put off in the rear office for internet only.
 
I bought a27 i3 four weeks ago for $1699 to replace a Windows Machine, Its not so great but will just use it for the internet, Looking to buy what I needed in the first place a new Windows machine. Even the new imacs are no where near the power of a PC and I am not spending any more money with Apple. Was a mistake for that much money. Monster PC for $1100. Its Paid for so we will just put off in the rear office for internet only.

I'm a little disappointed.

I was waiting for this refresh to possibly buy my first iMac. I have a PC with a quad core i7 860, 8GB RAM, 1TB video RAM, 2TB drive, and a 24" monitor that I just bought before the holidays for about $1200 (from Dell). Now, in order to get a Mac that is equivalent, I have to spent almost twice as much ($2399), and I still don't think the iMac will be as powerful because of the mobile processor issue. I do get Thunderbolt (which I can't use yet) and a beautiful screen, but other than that - the iMac seems like a giant ripoff.

And, I can't even walk into an Apple store to be ripped off, I have to order online and wait for the privilege.
Have you checked how much 27" IPS 2560x1440 displays cost? No, you obviously have not.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

You cant make everyone happy.

I'm happy with the new iMac, but I know there's more that Apple could have put in.

For example:
SATA 6Gbps ports
Easier upgradeability
USB 3.0
More USB ports
FireWire 1600, or another 800 port
Blu-Ray
Etc...

In the end, I'm quite sure people will be happy with their new iMacs. I know I will be.

SATA III ports are there.
FW have been sub-ceded by TB. FW 1600 is vapourware.
TB adapters should take care of USB 3
 
I am disappointed. I wanted a 7950m, I thought apple was ahead of the curve.
 
Have you checked how much 27" IPS 2560x1440 displays cost? No, you obviously have not.

Oh come on... Monitor might be expensive, but it's not decisive for many, including me. I would be happy to settle with better performance and worse monitor. Also seems to be a lot of people reporting monitor problems in the past years (not sure how it is with the 2011 refresh)

Now I am not blaming or defending anyone here, I am just saying that apple is charging for the brand at least 200 bucks on each model. The statement is based on calculation I did using local prices for both PC and MAC, by compiling identical PC with same/similar HW iMac have (including monitors & input devices), and it turned out that for the money you invest in whatever iMac model you can get an equivalent PC of the next higher iMac model.

That said, the difference is not huge (for some, for some 200 bucks might be a lot of money), but it brings a question, why Apple did not made us happier with at least standard i7, or standard 2TB storage, or standard 8GB RAM, or Standard on board 64GB SSD, BluRay or similar.

Again counter arguments can be used about the setup:

- all-in-one, design, quiet performance, reliability, OSX...
VS
- cables, lot of mess, driver installations, Windows etc...

Apple definitely wins this one, so its up to everyone to decide what he/she wants. I know I want OSX and I want quite + design so Mac is my choice, but performance wise I think for the same money Windows PC can outrun Macs.
 
Of course I'm disappointed!

I sold my 2006 Mac Pro with my two 24" Dell monitors on Friday, and I still have possibly 5 more weeks to wait for my BTO iMac :( :( :(

Other than that, not much else to be disappointed with.
 
The previous generation 27" was able to be used as an external monitor... no mention of it on this revision, I'll be disappointed if it no longer has that feature :/

No 16GB option for 21.5" upgrade = disappointment.

+1

I was searching high and low for that too.

That would be a deal breaker for me - I use iMac and MBA and like to be able to use the external monitor function. Without that I will probably get 27 inch monitor instead and macbook pro plus macbook air for travelling.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20060517-263.html

Looks like that's a dead end unless you get an Apple laptop with Thunderbolt or some third party comes up with a HDMI to Thunderbolt solution.

I'm sure Apple will say it's the price of progress but it's a disappointment.

Cheers,
 
Oh come on... Monitor might be expensive, but it's not decisive for many, including me. I would be happy to settle with better performance and worse monitor. Also seems to be a lot of people reporting monitor problems in the past years (not sure how it is with the 2011 refresh)
The size of the monitor is necessary though. That's why you don't see any 21.5" (or similar) all-in-one with both a blazingly powerful processor and graphics card. And, for it to not melt under heavy load it'd need to have the fans blaring.
Now I am not blaming or defending anyone here, I am just saying that apple is charging for the brand at least 200 bucks on each model. The statement is based on calculation I did using local prices for both PC and MAC, by compiling identical PC with same/similar HW iMac have (including monitors & input devices), and it turned out that for the money you invest in whatever iMac model you can get an equivalent PC of the next higher iMac model.

That said, the difference is not huge (for some, for some 200 bucks might be a lot of money), but it brings a question, why Apple did not made us happier with at least standard i7, or standard 2TB storage, or standard 8GB RAM, or Standard on board 64GB SSD, BluRay or similar.

Again counter arguments can be used about the setup:

- all-in-one, design, quiet performance, reliability, OSX...
VS
- cables, lot of mess, driver installations, Windows etc...

Apple definitely wins this one, so its up to everyone to decide what he/she wants. I know I want OSX and I want quite + design so Mac is my choice, but performance wise I think for the same money Windows PC can outrun Macs.
I also spec'd up an equivalent PC (vs $1999 base model) and found it came to $1815. But, paying $185 extra for an all-in-one with an aluminum case and edge-to-edge glass, isn't unreasonable. Not to mention with blazingly fast specs.
 
It's pretty much exactly what I was expecting and hoping for. Except I only expected one Thunderbolt on the 27". And the extra speed on wifi was a surprise. The Z68 is still a bit of a mystery, but maybe I'll get another good surprise there.

So this iMac configured to the max fills the bill for me, providing as much future-proofing as I could reasonably expect.

I look like this - :D
 
Nice speed bump. Would have liked to see some consumer friendly perks such as an HDMI port(without using an adaptor) Also a smaller SSD available, perhaps a 128gb or 64 gb when using the HDD with an SSD.

Oh well,
 
Just called the store and they won't have them in until this afternoon. So apparently a lot of stores are in that situation. And they can't do any custom set ups (what ever that entails.)

I am most disappointed that it is only 16 gb max ram. But excited to replace my mac mini.

Disappointed with 16GB of ram? Really? If you really need that much Ram then jump up to a Mac Pro!!!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.