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

Apple Announces Lighter, Thinner iMac Models with Fusion Drive

go mini

The new mini looks like a good alternative.

Quad core 2.6 i7, 8 GB RAM and the Fusion drive comes in at $1249.00 Less than base iMac. No really thin display? I can deal.
 
It looks the same as previous model but thinner. I was hoping for a redesigned chinless imac with desktop gpu. Sigh.......





































































I'm still going to buy it... lol :p
 
I want to echo the comments of others on this - why does it need to be thin?

My 2011 iMac sits on my desk in front of me. I can't even see how thick it is. I have never moved it so its weight hasn't been an issue either.

Apple have jumped the shark.
 
I prefer that the cache is handled independently and transparently by the drive, and not the OS.

But there are no hybrids with so much flash, or 3.5".
 
Last edited:
Can they get any smaller?

Already having problems with my last year's iMac, I think the smaller they get, the more issues they have. Come on.:(
 
I've been quite negative about the releases from Apple since iPhone 4S...

But today I have a happy face again.

LOVE the new iMac and iPad mini (except the missing dvd drives - thats not good for me, cos I burn cd's for the car - but problem solved with the ipad mini ;-) )

And a little hate to - but not from me, but from my bank account :-D

The iPad mini will be soooo lovely in my car, just above the radio as the entertainment center :-D


FINALLY IM BACK SMILING AT APPLE. But still keeping my Galaxy Note 2
(have 2 give a little hate. not that the apple turns red on me :-D )
 
iChrist said:
Yes, you are funny man.

In current, screen is held by screws, glass is held by magnets.

I doubt in the new imac that the magnets can hold the screen and the glass. If it opened the whole computer would be f'd.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You're the one who seems to think the new iMacs can't be opened at all. (And have no evidence beyond your own assumption that that's the case.)
 
Macclone said:
So you have to buy instead of steal?
Click to expand...

at what point am I stealing? I'm getting digital copies off of the manufacturer's discs, i'm importing music from cd's (contact :apple: they need to remove this feature from itunes if this is illegal), and I'm taking movies that I physically own and have purchased and am making digital copies of the content which I own.

the last one is in a legal grey area at worst, I for one view it as fair use to make a copy of my own property for personal use. I don't share any of this content with others.

might want to check you're facts before accusing someone of stealing... but I guess it's easier to score points in your argument
 
cube said:
I prefer that the cache is handled independently and transparently by the drive, and not the OS.

But there are no hybrids with so much flash.
Click to expand...

The drive doesn't know as much about the files as the OS does, therefor the OS can make more informed decisions where to put the files.
 
Sue De Nimes said:
I want to echo the comments of others on this - why does it need to be thin?

My 2011 iMac sits on my desk in front of me. I can't even see how thick it is. I have never moved it so its weight hasn't been an issue either.

Apple have jumped the shark.
Click to expand...

Because Apple is not a crappy, cram-all-you-can, furnace-GPU PC maker; they are driven by design, and the iMac is by far the best desktop experience one can have...if you want a full "pro" tower, wait for the new MP/headless xMac next year.
 
Grey Smudge Issue Solved?

How convenient that they've now suddenly sealed the display and shielded it from the hot hardware. The lack of shielding was the problem with the 2009-2011 iMacs displays. All the yellow screens and grey smudges were caused by the display being right next to the hot hardware.

Apple didn't want to admit there was a hardware design problem, because then they'd have to do a recall. So I'm hoping 2009-2011 iMac owners will be able to exchange their iMacs for these re-designed ones.

https://discussions.apple.com/message/20115855?ac_cid=tw123456#20115855

http://www.change.org/petitions/apple-recall-the-2009-2011-imacs
 
subsonix said:
The drive doesn't know as much about the files as the OS does, therefor the OS can make more informed decisions where to put the files.
Click to expand...

The drive can just look at the sectors which are most used. You don't need to cache whole files.
 
Sue De Nimes said:
I want to echo the comments of others on this - why does it need to be thin?

My 2011 iMac sits on my desk in front of me. I can't even see how thick it is. I have never moved it so its weight hasn't been an issue either.

Apple have jumped the shark.
Click to expand...

"Thin is in" need I say more?
 
cube said:
The drive can just look at the sectors which are most used. You don't need to cache whole files.
Click to expand...

Except, the filesystem may use different sectors for the same file over time, a caching policy can look at usage patterns of raw data. The OS can extend it beyond a simple cache based on what type of file it is, it's historical use etc.
 
Tymmz said:
the statements about why desktops don't need to be thin and what not is complete nonsense.

have you ever wondered why FLATscreen TVs are the only available options these days.

have people stopped using common sense on these forums.
Click to expand...

the iMac was already thin, but there's a point where you sacrifice usability for design. you see this all the time in LED televisions, the thinnest sets are edge lit by the LED's and you get odd screen uniformity and lighting issues from doing it in this fashion. the question is do you notice it or is going another 2-5mm thinner than full array led displays worth it. for some yes for others no.

it's all relative, I think what myself and others have said is that we feel this design choice on an already relatively thin machine does have some drawbacks. how much it affects you is up to you just as with the tv argument.

at the end of the day there isn't a one size fits all in all-in-one computing even though we sometimes pretend there is or can be
 
Well...

...I'm a bit gutted TBH:( I thought that there would be a lot more features than what seems to be a spec upgrade, considering that this new model has been on the cards for a while. As has been said, it doesn't need to be lighter, and as for no optical drive, well, thats a bit pants really. I was at least expecting a retina display with perhaps a few more screen variants to add to the family.

Think I might just get the current model instead...

...very disappointing:(
 
Where are the iMacs from yesterday ??

So, I saw new iMacs (sweet) and thought, hmmmm, this might be a good time to check the Apple store for the current (okay - yesterday's) i7 iMac

Where did they all go ???
 
subsonix said:
Except, the filesystem may use different sectors for the same file over time, a caching policy can look at usage patterns of raw data. The OS can extend it beyond a simple cache based on what type of file it is, it's historical use etc.
Click to expand...

I don't care, I see it as more robust if the drive does the caching.
 
Dagless said:
My old iMac, the last gen now, runs a 2560x1440 display at 27".
The new one does too.
The new one has a weaker GPU.

Shouldn't they be getting more powerful, not less?
Click to expand...

According to this website:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...vidia-gt-640m-2gb-vs-amd-radeon-hd-6770m.html

NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M (Bottom on the range for the new iMacs)
vs
AMD Radeon HD 6770M (My 2011 top of the like 21.5" iMac)

Posts in that link say the 640M is 10%-20% better and uses less power to run. So where/how/why do you say that the 2011 iMac GPUs are better? I'd really like to know your reasoning behind this. So I and we all know the real facts.
 
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