I don't approve it ? That's not what I said.
I said iMacs ARE NOT gaming machines. It's not my idea. It's the way Apple designed them. And the 21.5" is ABSOLUTELY NOT a gaming machine, for the lack of a dGPU.
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 Launches New 4K & 5K iMacs, Magic Keyboard, Magic Mouse 2 and Magic Trackpad 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I said iMacs ARE NOT gaming machines. It's not my idea. It's the way Apple designed them. And the 21.5" is ABSOLUTELY NOT a gaming machine, for the lack of a dGPU.
Yeah but what's the freaking point of a Hackintosh then? Just to run a computer that unites the disadvantages of both platforms in one device? If I'm building a computer from parts, I'll damn well won't put up with any of the limitations of running OS X.
It's true that components that work best with OSX are limited, but there is still a ton of flexibility compared to what Apple forces you to swallow, which is almost abusive, and so doing hackintosh is very liberating. But it's still a lot of work and would only be advisable for those that like building custom PCs/tinkering.
Just to give you an example, you could build an i7 4.0ghz (4790k) ($300), 16gb ram ($80), 1TB SSD ($350), and very decent discrete GPU($100-200), plus motherboard, psu, case, the total should be around $1000. Then later on you can just swap components and keep it 'updated'.
Last edited:
Total rubbish my arse. You obviously have no knowledge at all about the XBox One and the problems it has maintaining 1080p frame rates.
Oh...except for the Xbox One.... Can I roll my eyes some more??? In other words, your "rubbish" comment is way off base and my point stands. I honestly think people just want to argue just to argue because these arguments are TERRIBLE.
A lot of people have >1080p monitors (including Macs now) and things look best at native resolutions on a monitors, not scaled ones. Besides, 4K is the future, particularly for computers where the full resolution is instant and obvious at those viewing distances. But you can't get 4K on a console any time soon (as in like 5+ years), but you CAN game 4K today on a computer and ALL the new iMacs are 4K or 5K so one would expect if they are going to game in native resolutions, they would want to do so at 4K or 5K. A lot of Macs have monitors that aren't 4K but are still greater than 1080p. Again, you want to game at the native resolution. But that point is lost on people like you because your answer to everything is "get a console because Macs CAN'T game" and they "CAN'T" game because they are total crap for graphical hardware. That is Apple's fault. "No it's not. Apple is made to cost a fortune and perform like garbage so there!" Well, there you go. POINT. SCORE. YOU LOSE.
More lame excuses. Really, just stop. Stop now. Have you looked at Steam? There are plenty of games. Apple doesn't see a market? Why did they bother with Metal? Apple needs to get their eggs in a row. Their inconsistency lately in every aspect of the Mac is more of a problem rather than a lack of market. Linux has less gamers than the Mac and the head of Valve sees plenty of potential for gaming on Linux in the future. Why should one company (Microsoft) be allowed to have a monopoly on PC gaming? Competition is good for everyone.
What I don't and cannot understand is why people like you make EXCUSES for Apple all day long to try and justify their lack of effort to release decent hardware and drivers. It doesn't just affect gaming, after all. Anything that uses any amount of graphics these days is directly affected by poor GPUs and poor drivers. Until Metal came out, many Retina Macs couldn't even show the Mission Control animation smoothly for god's sake! But that's OK!!! screams the fan boys! They're making money so it's all good!!!
What more expensive options? Did you miss the part where I said there is not a SINGLE Mac out there with a really good GPU? If you mean go buy a Windows machine, I think you missed the point about wanting one computer rather than three desk fulls that I currently have. And a Hacintosh isn't more expensive. I can easily build one and I will probably have to build one. My point is that I shouldn't have to build one. Apple doesn't want them out there (or they wouldn't have sued those that tried to sell them) but they also don't want to build powerful Macs anymore. They want to build PRETTY Macs that can't get out from under their own cooling fans.
What in god's name are you talking about????? Just because? Just because what?!!?!? You've got 3+ threads of disappointment in the new iMacs for being greedy, under-powered pieces of crap on here and your response is that a BETTER machine would sit around collecting dust... (face palm the size of New York City). That says it all about you and people like you, really. Utterly living in another universe....
And we're back to the fan-boy standard fare "argument" that Apple makes money so EVERYTHING Apple does is awesome! It's getting tiresome...really...really...tiresome.
Just because Ford's Mustang sells really well, that doesn't mean they should put out a total garbage defective Focus model because they make enough money from the Mustang to make a profit even so.
Logic: 1 + 1 <> 4.
And now let's deal with the other one....
The new fusion drives are a mere shadow of the former ones going from 128GB of SSD to only 24GB. Exactly what kind of performance do you expect to get out of that Fusion drive on a daily basis? The 128GB versions had enough space to at least speed up the most used Apps. The 24GB one has barely enough space to load the OS and email quickly. In other words, Apple not only chinced out on the drives in general, but lowered the quality of the existing Fusion drives to a whole new low. Who ever heard of offering a newer computer that performs WORSE than the previous one in a given area? When does a car company release a car with the same overall specs but worse fuel economy so they can pocket a few more dollars for the lack of a $200 part? This would be laughable if it were a car company doing something along those lines (or a disaster like Volkswagen), but when Apple does it, it's all "Ooooh! Look at the shiny new iMac! It's worse than the last three models, but Ooooh! It's shiny!"
I honestly don't know why people are even trying to defend Apple's decisions here. They should be universally condemned so their next model corrects the problem. Tell them it's OK and they will keep screwing you over.
And I would have preferred a base model with the option for a discrete GPU. At least you can still get an SSD if you're willing to pay Apple through the nose for it. You have no option for a discrete GPU any longer that you did have in the last iMac. It's the new car with worse gas mileage all over again.
I care about the OS, but even a car needs a good engine to make it move.
So I should continue to buy a separate Windows machine because the richest tech company in the world can't be bothered to OFFER a Mac with a good GPU in it? I'm not asking Apple to make OS X the best gaming system in the world. But they don't have to keep shooting it in the foot either. Most Mac users boot into Windows on their Mac to game, but at least that means they can still just have ONE COMPUTER on their desk instead of trying to shoe-horn a 2nd one on there. In other words, booting into Windows won't do you much good if your GPU sucks so bad that even Windows can't make it game.
Yeah, yeah, go buy a POS Xbox instead even though consoles are a different experience from PC gaming....gotcha.
No, but I saw an oversized XBox One on a 1080p TV struggling. That tells me the new XBox isn't really ready for 1080p gaming, let alone 4K gaming. You do know you can get 4K gaming on a PC right now rather than 5+ years from now, right? You do also know that you can buy a 50" 4K TV right now and connect that PC to it rather than 5 years from now, right? You do also know that Apple is now selling only 4K and 5K iMacs that until El Capitan introduced Metal couldn't even animate their Mission Control animation smoothly, right? It's not just games that these GPUs affect, after all.
It just seems to me that if you're going to build an awesome looking super shiny semi-truck (and I think we can call a "desktop" a SEMI-truck seeing that Steve Jobs called desktops "trucks") with all kinds of gadgets in it, you shouldn't then stick a 4-cylinder engine in it and expect people to not notice it has trouble moving....
The buggiest games are at the beginning, not the end. And thus I was speaking about the quality of games for a given system, not the QUANTITY. But then you knew that, already. The BEST games for the N64 came out towards the end (e.g. Conkers Bad Fur Day was by far the most technically amazing, well made and entertaining game ever made for that console. Zelda's Ocarina of Time didn't come out on Day 1 either. Crap like Shadows of the Old Republic came out and cost $80+ and disappointed other than the snow speeder level).
Again, what's your point? My point has been that Apple should put better GPUs in their 5K desktops so they aren't a laughable joke and YOUR point is that a Playstation 4 rocks your world. I think we are on two different planets here. I want a computer that can do everything and you want me to play Super Smash Brothers on a Wii or something.
One would think with Metal that they had gaming in mind. Apple seems to not talk to each other one division from another, though. But then maybe the entire point of Metal was to get rid of that clunky Mission Control animation to hide the fact the GPU sucks even for the basic GUI. GPUs are used for more than just gaming, you know. But gaming makes it obvious and I do love a good game of Borderlands 2 and I have a PS3 controller here already and it's just not the same as a keyboard and mouse....
I think I know a POS computer when I see one better than them or the iMacs wouldn't have made it out the door. I think everyone else on here but the fanboys see it too as I see a LOT of complaints about the new iMac models and not just from people who wish they could game on one.
That's helpful. Thanks. Any more apologies you'd like to make for Apple as their spokesperson and apologist?
And I don't care if Apple made a huge honking tower. Actually, I loved my PowerMac and it was very pretty, thank you very much and a great example of what a tower can be. In fact, the Mac Pro tower would make an excellent case for a gaming Mac. Stick ONE good (or even a SLI type setup) GPU in that thing and a regular CPU and you'd have an awesome Mac that could do literally everything for around $2K. That's still $800 more than a PC would cost, so there's your cost premium. All it would take is a slightly different motherboard. What's the hold up? It would sell 10x more than the current model and you wouldn't even need a Mini any longer.
Even so, I know what the new Steam machines look like (1/5 the size of an XBox One and 10x more capable for gaming than a Mac Mini and the most expensive one is around $750). It runs Linux, BTW. That system has far less games than even the Mac and yet Valve/Alienware (despite not having 1/100 the money of Apple) managed to put out a gaming Linux machine even though there is no market for Linux gaming either. Go figure.
No, I'm bashing Apple because they suck lately. You're defending them because you at least appear to be a fanatic type that defends everything Apple does no matter what.
You're telling me what, now? Things I don't already know!??!?? Why do you think I made these points in the first place (face palm).
Why don't I tell you to deal with the fact that Mac users expect more from Apple these days rather than getting LESS as these new offerings are shoving in their faces? This isn't just about the piss poor GPU. It's about reducing the 128GB SSD to 24GB on the fusion drives. It's about soldering in the ram on purpose to try and up-sell the 27" model when some people prefer the 21.5" monitor size, etc. Ah, but they should just DEAL WITH IT, right?
The new fusion drives are a mere shadow of the former ones going from 128GB of SSD to only 24GB. Exactly what kind of performance do you expect to get out of that Fusion drive on a daily basis? The 128GB versions had enough space to at least speed up the most used Apps. The 24GB one has barely enough space to load the OS and email quickly. In other words, Apple not only chinced out on the drives in general, but lowered the quality of the existing Fusion drives to a whole new low. Who ever heard of offering a newer computer that performs WORSE than the previous one in a given area? When does a car company release a car with the same overall specs but worse fuel economy so they can pocket a few more dollars for the lack of a $200 part? This would be laughable if it were a car company doing something along those lines (or a disaster like Volkswagen), but when Apple does it, it's all "Ooooh! Look at the shiny new iMac! It's worse than the last three models, but Ooooh! It's shiny!"
I honestly don't know why people are even trying to defend Apple's decisions here. They should be universally condemned so their next model corrects the problem. Tell them it's OK and they will keep screwing you over.
And I would have preferred a base model with the option for a discrete GPU. At least you can still get an SSD if you're willing to pay Apple through the nose for it. You have no option for a discrete GPU any longer that you did have in the last iMac. It's the new car with worse gas mileage all over again.
I care about the OS, but even a car needs a good engine to make it move.
So I should continue to buy a separate Windows machine because the richest tech company in the world can't be bothered to OFFER a Mac with a good GPU in it? I'm not asking Apple to make OS X the best gaming system in the world. But they don't have to keep shooting it in the foot either. Most Mac users boot into Windows on their Mac to game, but at least that means they can still just have ONE COMPUTER on their desk instead of trying to shoe-horn a 2nd one on there. In other words, booting into Windows won't do you much good if your GPU sucks so bad that even Windows can't make it game.
Yeah, yeah, go buy a POS Xbox instead even though consoles are a different experience from PC gaming....gotcha.
No, but I saw an oversized XBox One on a 1080p TV struggling. That tells me the new XBox isn't really ready for 1080p gaming, let alone 4K gaming. You do know you can get 4K gaming on a PC right now rather than 5+ years from now, right? You do also know that you can buy a 50" 4K TV right now and connect that PC to it rather than 5 years from now, right? You do also know that Apple is now selling only 4K and 5K iMacs that until El Capitan introduced Metal couldn't even animate their Mission Control animation smoothly, right? It's not just games that these GPUs affect, after all.
It just seems to me that if you're going to build an awesome looking super shiny semi-truck (and I think we can call a "desktop" a SEMI-truck seeing that Steve Jobs called desktops "trucks") with all kinds of gadgets in it, you shouldn't then stick a 4-cylinder engine in it and expect people to not notice it has trouble moving....
The buggiest games are at the beginning, not the end. And thus I was speaking about the quality of games for a given system, not the QUANTITY. But then you knew that, already. The BEST games for the N64 came out towards the end (e.g. Conkers Bad Fur Day was by far the most technically amazing, well made and entertaining game ever made for that console. Zelda's Ocarina of Time didn't come out on Day 1 either. Crap like Shadows of the Old Republic came out and cost $80+ and disappointed other than the snow speeder level).
Again, what's your point? My point has been that Apple should put better GPUs in their 5K desktops so they aren't a laughable joke and YOUR point is that a Playstation 4 rocks your world. I think we are on two different planets here. I want a computer that can do everything and you want me to play Super Smash Brothers on a Wii or something.
One would think with Metal that they had gaming in mind. Apple seems to not talk to each other one division from another, though. But then maybe the entire point of Metal was to get rid of that clunky Mission Control animation to hide the fact the GPU sucks even for the basic GUI. GPUs are used for more than just gaming, you know. But gaming makes it obvious and I do love a good game of Borderlands 2 and I have a PS3 controller here already and it's just not the same as a keyboard and mouse....
I think I know a POS computer when I see one better than them or the iMacs wouldn't have made it out the door. I think everyone else on here but the fanboys see it too as I see a LOT of complaints about the new iMac models and not just from people who wish they could game on one.
That's helpful. Thanks. Any more apologies you'd like to make for Apple as their spokesperson and apologist?
And I don't care if Apple made a huge honking tower. Actually, I loved my PowerMac and it was very pretty, thank you very much and a great example of what a tower can be. In fact, the Mac Pro tower would make an excellent case for a gaming Mac. Stick ONE good (or even a SLI type setup) GPU in that thing and a regular CPU and you'd have an awesome Mac that could do literally everything for around $2K. That's still $800 more than a PC would cost, so there's your cost premium. All it would take is a slightly different motherboard. What's the hold up? It would sell 10x more than the current model and you wouldn't even need a Mini any longer.
Even so, I know what the new Steam machines look like (1/5 the size of an XBox One and 10x more capable for gaming than a Mac Mini and the most expensive one is around $750). It runs Linux, BTW. That system has far less games than even the Mac and yet Valve/Alienware (despite not having 1/100 the money of Apple) managed to put out a gaming Linux machine even though there is no market for Linux gaming either. Go figure.
No, I'm bashing Apple because they suck lately. You're defending them because you at least appear to be a fanatic type that defends everything Apple does no matter what.
You're telling me what, now? Things I don't already know!??!?? Why do you think I made these points in the first place (face palm).
Why don't I tell you to deal with the fact that Mac users expect more from Apple these days rather than getting LESS as these new offerings are shoving in their faces? This isn't just about the piss poor GPU. It's about reducing the 128GB SSD to 24GB on the fusion drives. It's about soldering in the ram on purpose to try and up-sell the 27" model when some people prefer the 21.5" monitor size, etc. Ah, but they should just DEAL WITH IT, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple keeps its prices constant.
This is is from early October.
and here's today's selection:
In early october, you could pay $2000 for a imac with a hard drive, or you could get a all around faster imac with a fusion drive for $300 more. In late October, you could pay $2000 for imac with a cut down fusion drive, or you could get an all around faster imac with a fusion dive with the full 128 GB flash for $300 more.
Nothing has changed. It's kind of sad that you pay the same price for an incrementally upgraded mac (with a objectively superior screen), but buyers are in the same position as before.
I'm tempted to say that the r9 m390 is probably going to turn to be pretty much exactly like the r9 m290--cut down from an r9 m290x. The r9 m395 is a modest upgrade to the r9 m290x. Decently fast, but not the gaming card.
This is is from early October.
and here's today's selection:
In early october, you could pay $2000 for a imac with a hard drive, or you could get a all around faster imac with a fusion drive for $300 more. In late October, you could pay $2000 for imac with a cut down fusion drive, or you could get an all around faster imac with a fusion dive with the full 128 GB flash for $300 more.
Nothing has changed. It's kind of sad that you pay the same price for an incrementally upgraded mac (with a objectively superior screen), but buyers are in the same position as before.
I'm tempted to say that the r9 m390 is probably going to turn to be pretty much exactly like the r9 m290--cut down from an r9 m290x. The r9 m395 is a modest upgrade to the r9 m290x. Decently fast, but not the gaming card.
Last edited:
But like I've said many times, I use my current 21.5 inch iMac for gaming and it works just fine. I know it's not going to be an amazing machine for playing games at the highest setting, but for casual games it works fine. But now Apple has taken a step backwards with the removal of dedicated graphics, so it probably wouldn't run so well. That is why Apple no longer has a viable option for me. That is why I'm complaining.
The new fusion drives are a mere shadow of the former ones going from 128GB of SSD to only 24GB. Exactly what kind of performance do you expect to get out of that Fusion drive on a daily basis? The 128GB versions had enough space to at least speed up the most used Apps. The 24GB one has barely enough space to load the OS and email quickly. In other words, Apple not only chinced out on the drives in general, but lowered the quality of the existing Fusion drives to a whole new low. Who ever heard of offering a newer computer that performs WORSE than the previous one in a given area? When does a car company release a car with the same overall specs but worse fuel economy so they can pocket a few more dollars for the lack of a $200 part? This would be laughable if it were a car company doing something along those lines (or a disaster like Volkswagen), but when Apple does it, it's all "Ooooh! Look at the shiny new iMac! It's worse than the last three models, but Ooooh! It's shiny!"
Did you actually try the new Fusion Drive or as usual you just spit judgements accordingly to your agenda ?
I've yet to see a review describing the new Fusion Drive as worse than the previous in real life.
Awaiting to see one....
Is it so difficult to understand ? Im not defending Apple. Im not going to buy an iMac. Im not supporting their choices here.
Im just saying it is ridiculous the hysteria people like you are raising on this forum....
Ok, so I might get one, you don't.
Need a dGPU for gaming? no iMac is a gaming machine.
Need a dGPU for heavy tasks ? get a 27" iMac 5K.
It's not complicated.
yes you have to, because Apple choose to not offer a dGPU on the 21.5" iMac.
Never saw an Xbox One struggling at 1080P.... nor a Playstation 4.
I actually played 1080P games on the previous Xbox 360....
Never spoke about a Wii ...
Despite of your age, games seem to be the most important thing here. It's fine.
Well, iMacs aren't gaming machine. Especially now with such an high resolution display.
Deal with it.
I still think Apple knows better than you what would sell for them ...
PCs like you just described are in the market at a lower prices, and the PC market is collapsing nonetheless.
We would see its commercial success, if any ....
The market said something different ....
Yes, they should deal with it and not buy the iMac.Why don't I tell you to deal with the fact that Mac users expect more from Apple these days rather than getting LESS as these new offerings are shoving in their faces? This isn't just about the piss poor GPU. It's about reducing the 128GB SSD to 24GB on the fusion drives. It's about soldering in the ram on purpose to try and up-sell the 27" model when some people prefer the 21.5" monitor size, etc. Ah, but they should just DEAL WITH IT, right?
If your complains are truly shared by customers, Apple have to react.
Otherwise, you are just flooding the forum with long posts ....
Last edited by a moderator:
I think someone should tell Apple to immediately remove games from App Store. That big GAMES button? Get rid of it, Apple. Strategy Games? Gorgeous Games? Hidden Object Games? Sci-Fi Games? What is this crap? iMacs aren't for gaming. Go home App Store, you're drunk*.
* unless of course those games are only for Mac Pros, in which case Apple just needs to plop a big banner NOT FOR IMACS on top and everything will be fine.
Most of those games don't need a dedicated GPU and run well on the dedicated GPU of any iMac.
You don't need to have a review to know it's worse. The whole point of an SSD is the speed advantages it offers over a standard magnetic drive. It loads the OS faster, launches applications quicker, all that good stuff. If the Fusion Drive doesn't have enough room on it for anything except the OS before it starts defaulting to the 1TB backend, then the whole point of it is mooted.
There are simply no user advantages for Apple going from 128GB SSDs to 24GB SSDs on their Fusion Drives.
Since Fusion Drive works on files level, and not applications level, I still wait to see first reviews about it before judge.
It surely is worse, but how much ? I'm not a great fan of Fusion Drive (I would install a 256 Gb SSD and relay on an external TB HDD for data), but I think it's a better solution than a 5400 or even a 7200RPM spinner alone.
In my opinion, but I know if I don't add "Apple sucks" it will be discharged, Apple should have used a 1 Tb Fusion Drive as the base model, adding $50 to the price.
Yeah, but it's still a half step solution. Considering the time, and the cost of even an entry level iMac, they should be including SATA based 128GB M.2 SSDs in there as the baseline default for the 21" models. At least as cheap as the magnetic drives, but still LOADS faster.
And now let's deal with the other one....
The new fusion drives are a mere shadow of the former ones going from 128GB of SSD to only 24GB. Exactly what kind of performance do you expect to get out of that Fusion drive on a daily basis? The 128GB versions had enough space to at least speed up the most used Apps. The 24GB one has barely enough space to load the OS and email quickly. In other words, Apple not only chinced out on the drives in general, but lowered the quality of the existing Fusion drives to a whole new low. Who ever heard of offering a newer computer that performs WORSE than the previous one in a given area? When does a car company release a car with the same overall specs but worse fuel economy so they can pocket a few more dollars for the lack of a $200 part? This would be laughable if it were a car company doing something along those lines (or a disaster like Volkswagen), but when Apple does it, it's all "Ooooh! Look at the shiny new iMac! It's worse than the last three models, but Ooooh! It's shiny!"
Because people only know how to determine things via specs and not real life usage... IE the whole Samsung/TSMC fiasco. Nobody seems to remember that the Seagate Hybrid drive still only has 8gb of Flash on it and all boot times are faster.
And now let's deal with the other one....
The new fusion drives are a mere shadow of the former ones going from 128GB of SSD to only 24GB. Exactly what kind of performance do you expect to get out of that Fusion drive on a daily basis? The 128GB versions had enough space to at least speed up the most used Apps. The 24GB one has barely enough space to load the OS and email quickly. In other words, Apple not only chinced out on the drives in general, but lowered the quality of the existing Fusion drives to a whole new low. Who ever heard of offering a newer computer that performs WORSE than the previous one in a given area? When does a car company release a car with the same overall specs but worse fuel economy so they can pocket a few more dollars for the lack of a $200 part? This would be laughable if it were a car company doing something along those lines (or a disaster like Volkswagen), but when Apple does it, it's all "Ooooh! Look at the shiny new iMac! It's worse than the last three models, but Ooooh! It's shiny!"
I honestly don't know why people are even trying to defend Apple's decisions here. They should be universally condemned so their next model corrects the problem. Tell them it's OK and they will keep screwing you over.
And I would have preferred a base model with the option for a discrete GPU. At least you can still get an SSD if you're willing to pay Apple through the nose for it. You have no option for a discrete GPU any longer that you did have in the last iMac. It's the new car with worse gas mileage all over again.
I care about the OS, but even a car needs a good engine to make it move.
So I should continue to buy a separate Windows machine because the richest tech company in the world can't be bothered to OFFER a Mac with a good GPU in it? I'm not asking Apple to make OS X the best gaming system in the world. But they don't have to keep shooting it in the foot either. Most Mac users boot into Windows on their Mac to game, but at least that means they can still just have ONE COMPUTER on their desk instead of trying to shoe-horn a 2nd one on there. In other words, booting into Windows won't do you much good if your GPU sucks so bad that even Windows can't make it game.
Yeah, yeah, go buy a POS Xbox instead even though consoles are a different experience from PC gaming....gotcha.
And people are stealing money from banks with guns. Does that mean we should stop selling guns? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't want to open a can of worms.
No, but I saw an oversized XBox One on a 1080p TV struggling. That tells me the new XBox isn't really ready for 1080p gaming, let alone 4K gaming. You do know you can get 4K gaming on a PC right now rather than 5+ years from now, right? You do also know that you can buy a 50" 4K TV right now and connect that PC to it rather than 5 years from now, right? You do also know that Apple is now selling only 4K and 5K iMacs that until El Capitan introduced Metal couldn't even animate their Mission Control animation smoothly, right? It's not just games that these GPUs affect, after all.
It just seems to me that if you're going to build an awesome looking super shiny semi-truck (and I think we can call a "desktop" a SEMI-truck seeing that Steve Jobs called desktops "trucks") with all kinds of gadgets in it, you shouldn't then stick a 4-cylinder engine in it and expect people to not notice it has trouble moving....
The buggiest games are at the beginning, not the end. And thus I was speaking about the quality of games for a given system, not the QUANTITY. But then you knew that, already. The BEST games for the N64 came out towards the end (e.g. Conkers Bad Fur Day was by far the most technically amazing, well made and entertaining game ever made for that console. Zelda's Ocarina of Time didn't come out on Day 1 either. Crap like Shadows of the Old Republic came out and cost $80+ and disappointed other than the snow speeder level).
Again, what's your point? My point has been that Apple should put better GPUs in their 5K desktops so they aren't a laughable joke and YOUR point is that a Playstation 4 rocks your world. I think we are on two different planets here. I want a computer that can do everything and you want me to play Super Smash Brothers on a Wii or something.
One would think with Metal that they had gaming in mind. Apple seems to not talk to each other one division from another, though. But then maybe the entire point of Metal was to get rid of that clunky Mission Control animation to hide the fact the GPU sucks even for the basic GUI. GPUs are used for more than just gaming, you know. But gaming makes it obvious and I do love a good game of Borderlands 2 and I have a PS3 controller here already and it's just not the same as a keyboard and mouse....
I think I know a POS computer when I see one better than them or the iMacs wouldn't have made it out the door. I think everyone else on here but the fanboys see it too as I see a LOT of complaints about the new iMac models and not just from people who wish they could game on one.
That's helpful. Thanks. Any more apologies you'd like to make for Apple as their spokesperson and apologist?
And I don't care if Apple made a huge honking tower. Actually, I loved my PowerMac and it was very pretty, thank you very much and a great example of what a tower can be. In fact, the Mac Pro tower would make an excellent case for a gaming Mac. Stick ONE good (or even a SLI type setup) GPU in that thing and a regular CPU and you'd have an awesome Mac that could do literally everything for around $2K. That's still $800 more than a PC would cost, so there's your cost premium. All it would take is a slightly different motherboard. What's the hold up? It would sell 10x more than the current model and you wouldn't even need a Mini any longer.
Even so, I know what the new Steam machines look like (1/5 the size of an XBox One and 10x more capable for gaming than a Mac Mini and the most expensive one is around $750). It runs Linux, BTW. That system has far less games than even the Mac and yet Valve/Alienware (despite not having 1/100 the money of Apple) managed to put out a gaming Linux machine even though there is no market for Linux gaming either. Go figure.
No, I'm bashing Apple because they suck lately. You're defending them because you at least appear to be a fanatic type that defends everything Apple does no matter what.
You're telling me what, now? Things I don't already know!??!?? Why do you think I made these points in the first place (face palm).
Why don't I tell you to deal with the fact that Mac users expect more from Apple these days rather than getting LESS as these new offerings are shoving in their faces? This isn't just about the piss poor GPU. It's about reducing the 128GB SSD to 24GB on the fusion drives. It's about soldering in the ram on purpose to try and up-sell the 27" model when some people prefer the 21.5" monitor size, etc. Ah, but they should just DEAL WITH IT, right?
A logical person would be able to think of the possibility that Apple might have hired people smarter than the average consumer to write code in the OS that handles the controller of the Fusion drive that would allow logical swapping of files between the SSD portion and the HDD...
BUT here marches in the "oh Imma smurt guy" saying that the constant read/writes will wear out the SSD faster... but not knowing that even on the 128gb Fusion drive there will be just as many read/write swaps... nobody ever said that ONLY the OS and installed programs sit on the SSD portion of the drive and your files (music, movies, docs) sit ONLY on the HDD... they're constantly swapping back and forth... your lesser used files sit on the HDD and your more frequent ones move onto the SSD. If one week you use Photoshop less it will get moved over to the HDD and Final Cut or what ever you're using more that week gets moved over.
But ignoring ALL of that... have any of us on here ever used an SSD or Hybrid drive with so many read/writes to the point where the SSD failed? They give an estimated number for a lifespan and we all go postal that "ZOMG!!! THEY WILL FAIL! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!" over something that I doubt anyone even KNOWS another a person in real life that has had this SSD fail happen to under normal real world usage.
But let's cry and complain everyone... that seems to be what we are all good at.
Last edited by a moderator:
What specific improvements do you need on the keyboard and mouse? How much of a negative impact does the 5400 RPM HDD have on your overall productivity?
The mouse is identical to the first version except with an inbuilt battery.
Improvements they could have made:
- Allow charging and use at the same time.
- USB-C
- Different sensor so it works on glass.
- Force Touch
- Different colours
- Backlit surface.
Keyboard:
- backlit keys
- Numpad
- USB-C
- Replace eject button with power button.
- Butterfly mechanism
- Different colours
- Better battery
Trackpad:
- USB-C
- Different colours
- Backlit surface
- Better battery
- Ability to use it as a draw pad with stylus.
Also the ability to use all of them with iPads/iPad pro.
That's just off the top of my head.
As for 5400RPM drives, they are the slowest piles of s$&t you can ever find. 7200RPM drives are almost twice as fast and they're not exactly rapid. For the price of all the iMacs, a 7200RPM for the cheapest base iMac 21.5" should be standard and all the rest of the 21.5" should have fusion. And all the 27" should have fusion as standard (not the trash with 24GB SSD, the 128GB SSD version), and the top spec should have 512GB flash as standard. Apple aren't even attempting to be in line with normal PC desktop prices.
You use glass as mousepad?
I really don't get why the mouse doesn't have Touch ID, that was the one thing I was waiting for. I am not switching my Sculpt for any other keyboard and I do not use a trackpad, so I sorta don't mind them not having Touch ID, but I still think it's a bit bizarre they haven't even tried.
I don't need to observe a Supernova to know it's bad news.
That's funny, I've seen the lower size mentioned as a detriment in many reviews. Ah, but you want some kind of XBench proof or something whereas I know reducing 128GB of SSD to a mere 24GB of SSD in 2015 is heading in the wrong direction regardless and that 1TB or 2TB 5x00 RPM drives haven't gotten any faster in the past two years.
I didn't realize posting something negative about an Apple product on a Mac forum was tantamount to "hysteria", but I can see how that would seem that way in the mind of the fanatics on here. After all, my posts are simply responding to the ridiculous replies I've been getting. Yes, I could just stop posting instead (it does seem like the smarter thing to do as it's clearly a waste of time trying to talk common sense to people that live and react purely on emotions), but the sheer absurdity of the "defense" arguments is just mind boggling. I mean what's so hard about agreeing that reducing the 128GB drives to 24GB drives is a profit-based move by Apple and does NOT somehow benefit the consumer or that putting slow rotational drives by default in a 4K or 5K iMac in general in 2015 seems to be counter-intuitive to constantly upgrading the CPUs to the latest and best models. We don't need better CPUs in 2015. Office doesn't run miles better with a Broadwell over Haswell or even Ivy Bridge.
For example, my 2012 Mini Quad-i7 Ivy Bridge is plenty fast in the CPU department for my apps and games in 2015, but the Intel 4000HD GPU is getting VERY long in the tooth). I can at least relatively easily upgrade my RAID 0 setup to SSD drives, though. The newer 2014 units make that MUCH more difficult I cannot do anything about the GPU, however. I might have even been OK with an Intel Iris Pro GPU in a new Mini given my modest gaming needs at the moment (if it's fast enough to play Dragon Age Inquisition at medium settings at 1680x1050 it'll due for now), but purposely not allowing the quad-core and i7 CPUs in the new Mac Minis mean it's WORSE than my 2012 for speed. So while CPUs aren't everything, I don't fancy going backwards either.
That's fine except the iMac 5K isn't a gaming machine either. It might be fine for 1080p stuff for the most part, but monitors have this habit of looking bad in any mode but their "native" one. You'd be better off with a 1080p iMac with that kind of GPU for things like gaming for it to look its best.
Games are the one problem Macs still have. I don't complain about other software because everything else I need runs OK. Games are limited and if I'm going to get a newer computer, I want a better GPU.
Boot times are one thing. Actually using the computer is quite another. With Intel's new nand killer, boot times may be a thing of the past anyway. Non-volatile solid state storage means you never have to turn the computer off (of course with Windows you will need to do it often anyway, although Apple requires reboots more often than I'd like these days. A UNIX-based OS shouldn't need to reboot EVER save putting in new hardware).
A smart person would KNOW that "Swapping files" with a slow hard drive takes time....quite a lot of it. That's why it's called a "slow rotational drive" by most people that have SSDs. A Hybrid drive gets you a fast boot time. If it's large enough on the SSD side, it might make your most used Apps run faster too. If the SSD drive is too small, it will have to load or swap off the slow drive more often and that means slow drive speeds.
I don't recall ANYONE saying a single word about "wearing out" a drive faster. I must have missed that. I do remember saying and seeing others say that having a smaller SSD drive will mean longer load times than having a larger SSD as part of a "Fusion" drive.
Again, you're making a retort to an argument no one ever made that I noticed (i.e. lifetime of the drive).
Last edited by a moderator:
Glass topped desk, would be nice to bin the mouse mat!
TouchID was never going to be on the mouse/keyboard/trackpad because of:
1) the extra space required on the circuit board for the TouchID chip.
2) The entire mouse top/trackpad would have to be a fingerprint scanner PLUS support multitouch gestures. That's like making the iPhone's screen TouchID.
3) The security issue. Unless you store the fingerprint data in the actual mouse itself (requiring memory, more circuit board required), you have to send it to the computer wirelessly and I don't fancy sending my biometric identity unsecured through the air. I can change a password, I can't change my fingerprint.
Dude, 7200rpm drives are not almost twice as fast as 5200rpm ones. No need to be dramatic, just don't buy it if you don't like it. Judging from the list of features you like to see, PCs are better fit for your need where all kinds of random options are available.
Perhaps, but given the older Fusion drives use 128GB flash storage and now its a tiny fraction (24GB), its pretty obvious that much more files will have to sit on the slow 5400 rpm drive. That is the old Fusion drive would hold more user files on the flash drive. The new Flash drive will possibly only be holding system related files and little else. My Lightroom catalog for instance will be running on the hard drive and thus slowing down my performance.
5400RPM you'd be lucky to hit 70MB/s read.
7200RPM you can easily hit 150MB/s read.
As for my "list of features", most of those were natural progressions and what people wanted to see most (backlit keyboard with Numpad, force touch mouse, space grey option etc).
That was my guessing...Because people only know how to determine things via specs and not real life usage... IE the whole Samsung/TSMC fiasco. Nobody seems to remember that the Seagate Hybrid drive still only has 8gb of Flash on it and all boot times are faster.
A logical person would be able to think of the possibility that Apple might have hired people smarter than the average consumer to write code in the OS that handles the controller of the Fusion drive that would allow logical swapping of files between the SSD portion and the HDD...
BUT here marches in the "oh Imma smurt guy" saying that the constant read/writes will wear out the SSD faster... but not knowing that even on the 128gb Fusion drive there will be just as many read/write swaps... nobody ever said that ONLY the OS and installed programs sit on the SSD portion of the drive and your files (music, movies, docs) sit ONLY on the HDD... they're constantly swapping back and forth... your lesser used files sit on the HDD and your more frequent ones move onto the SSD. If one week you use Photoshop less it will get moved over to the HDD and Final Cut or what ever you're using more that week gets moved over.
But ignoring ALL of that... have any of us on here ever used an SSD or Hybrid drive with so many read/writes to the point where the SSD failed? They give an estimated number for a lifespan and we all go postal that "ZOMG!!! THEY WILL FAIL! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!" over something that I doubt anyone even KNOWS another a person in real life that has had this SSD fail happen to under normal real world usage.
But let's cry and complain everyone... that seems to be what we are all good at.
In the rush to blame Apple nobody considered the possibility that 128 Gb was just overkill.
I don't know for sure, but I would consider this
I'm not an expert of Fusion, but I strongly suspect you catalog was on the spinner even with 128 Gb SSD Fusion....
Last edited by a moderator: