And why does the lowest entry iMacs needs a more powerful M processor? My M1 Mac mini has replaced my 2019 i9 iMac for video production and graphical production. If it competes with the i9, it is seriously overpowered for someone just using Facebook on their iMac.
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.
Apple Announces Redesigned iMac With M1 Chip and Seven Color Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why does the Pro Display XDR look so good and the new iMacs look so bad?
Why does the iPad Pro have more storage and GPU cores standard than the iMac?
Why do the iPad Pro, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, and iMac all use the same processor?
Why, Apple? Why?
Why does the iPad Pro have more storage and GPU cores standard than the iMac?
Why do the iPad Pro, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, and iMac all use the same processor?
Why, Apple? Why?
Power bricks?
No thanks, only cheapo displays have external power bricks.
External Power bricks almost always are a source of electrical interference they buzz like crazy and are heard through speakers. The wire to the brick is always hard wired, too short and makes difficult to position the brick, often always too short to place on floor and too ugly on desk...
Solution is internal power with 3m power cable, because I agree Apple’s wires are always too short.
Nope, these monitors were $600-700. Unless that is "cheap" to you and you are referring to $2,000+ monitors. And like I said, the iMac cord prior was always too short to reach my power strip and UPS.
Agreed. It just takes away a bit of character I think. And breaks it up a bit. I’m curious as to the reason why they made that decision though.
And although it might have been good if the bezel matched the chin, I’m assuming it was maybe difficult to colour match exactly due to the materials being different?
But still think black seems like a better choice just because then it’s all black when switched off.
RAM is inside the M1 SOC. There is no possibility of upgrading it. CPU, GPU, RAM are all together. As for the storage, Apple has custom controllers for encryption and performance. Chances are it is not compatible with third party SSDs.
This should have been called the iMac Air. Did anyone notice how there were no pro Applications shown in the presentation video or the website? Pages, Safari, Zoom, and GarageBand are not demanding. Where is the Adobe Suite? Final Cut? I don't like this overly friendly and accessible approach. Even the design is dumbed down. Something about it just does not sit right with me.
My mom, who this is geared towards, does not need and actually HATES 27" monitors. Honestly, I hope this won't be too large for her.
An iPhone chip that competes with my $4,500 2019 i9 iMac and why I replaced it. Why do people think the M1 sucks so bad? Have you seen reviews? Have you seen benchmarks? Have you heard from people that use it? It is a massive powerhouse. In fact, it is SERIOUSLY overpowered on these devices.
Just my opinion: There will not be an Apple Silicon iMac 27".
But there will be a new Apple Silicon iMac Pro. Once released, the all-new iMac 24" will then just be named iMac.
The iMac 21.5" has always been a family-targeted computer. 21.5" or 24" is more than enough for that use case.
Professionals who use an iMac (creators, developers, scientists, etc.) would always prefer a 27" computer (or bigger).
What makes sense to me:
Following this logic, I also expect that the next full redesign of the MacBook Air will be simply named MacBook. The "Air" mnemonic is no longer useful. Hence iMac/iMac Pro and MacBook/MacBook Pro and that's it.
But there will be a new Apple Silicon iMac Pro. Once released, the all-new iMac 24" will then just be named iMac.
The iMac 21.5" has always been a family-targeted computer. 21.5" or 24" is more than enough for that use case.
Professionals who use an iMac (creators, developers, scientists, etc.) would always prefer a 27" computer (or bigger).
What makes sense to me:
- iMac (announced today)
24", family-oriented (hence the cheerful colours), M1 chip, few ports, no crazy specs, basically a Mac mini with a built-in screen - iMac Pro
27"-32", pro-oriented (hence space gray and/or entirely black colours), next-gen M chip, all ports and CFexpress card reader, vertically adjustable and better screen (mini-LED already ?), goodies (Face ID? Charging mat built-in the foot stand?), will replace both the now-discontinued iMac Pro and current 27" iMac
Following this logic, I also expect that the next full redesign of the MacBook Air will be simply named MacBook. The "Air" mnemonic is no longer useful. Hence iMac/iMac Pro and MacBook/MacBook Pro and that's it.
Does ‘Low end or entry level’ satisfy your interpretation better? Look at any LG, Samsung etc, ie Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese brands, the entry level usually always have external power, the mid and higher end almost always have Internal power. When it comes to Euro/US brands like Phillips or Dell, practically all their models are internal power.
I bought a Phillips 32” 4K monitor a few weeks ago, $550 AUD with internal power, all similar monitors in same price range from LG, Samsung etc were external power, hence I consider those LG, Acer, ASUS, MSI etc cheapo brands...
WWDC is likely for the announcement. Got to give devs time to make use out of the extra cores.
Display, PSU etc should be repairable. They should have made a variant of the the M1 which was upgradable.
Storage should also be upgradable/repairable but the bloody T2 chip has put an end to that.
Regardless of how much space games take up, they still offer faster and larger hard drives than a Mac currently. They cost £450 total and Apple is charging £200 for a 1TB drive alone. 100GB games are rare. the majority sit between 20-40GB.
Good for you 256GB is enough, I'm using 600GB here what's your point? 1TB would cover the majority of users and Apple knows it. Thats why they never include it and leave it as an upgrade to milk more money.
My point was they chose to leave the chin in place in order to make it thinner as opposed to making it thicker using the XDR display design.
Using the XDR design would have also corrected the problem areas of the old design e.g. height adjusting, no chin and thinner bezels on the screen.
Regardless of how much space games take up? That is the ENTIRE point. You build a gaming system, used to play and install video games, which are getting to be on average 80-100GB EACH. Yes you will need more space. That is the entire point. PS5 and Xbox CANNOT have 256 GB because you would only be able to install two games - especially towards the end of the product life. Maybe only one game at that point. So the video game size is dependent on the amount of storage provided by the consoles. Computers do not need as much storage as game consoles do.
I have hundreds of games and only a handful reach 80-100GB. Majority sit 20-40GB
What about people who game on the Mac? Shadow of the Tomb Raider is 40GB thats nearly 1/5th of the 256GB hard drive used up. Minus 15-20GB for Mac OS system, minus another 20-30GB for Apps. 3-4 more games and that hard drive is done.
Not everyone on the planet plays games on their computers. I DO NOT play games on my work laptop. So its fine being at 256GB. I DO have a dedicated Windows gaming PC with 8 TB of SSD storage for my games.
Introducing a game-changing FREE-TO-PLAY experience - Call of Duty®: Warzone
Warzone is a 83-101GB download for new, free-to-play users.
Cyberpunk is around 100GB too.
GTA 5 is 80GB on my PC. Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal are around 70+GB. Games are increasing in size, not decreasing.
Did you notice how much time they spent on the fact that you can run iOS apps and on Continuity? Running iOS apps was already around on other M1 devices, and Continuity was already around even on Intel. Seems a little odd that they put so much emphasis on old features.
Not everyone on the planet plays games on their computers. I DO NOT play games on my work laptop. So its fine being at 256GB. I DO have a dedicated Windows gaming PC with 8 TB of SSD storage for my games.
Introducing a game-changing FREE-TO-PLAY experience - Call of Duty®: Warzone
blog.activision.com
Warzone is a 83-101GB download for new, free-to-play users
Don't know why you're including a link for MW, I did not state games cannot reach over 100GB. Halo, Gears etc all have high storage demands. But they are a rarity.
Well good for you having a separate gaming machine. But the average user wouldn't do that. They will just game on the computer they have and if thats a Mac with 256GB then thats not enough.
1TB should be the standard. Also if they are going to charge extra it should be £100 tops as thats what 1TB SSD drives generally retail for, not £200.