Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm not an expert of Fusion, but I strongly suspect you catalog was on the spinner even with 128 Gb SSD Fusion....

And if that's the case, it's even more of a moot point. The OS might run well on the SSD, but try to do anything with it, and you'll be leaning on that slow 5400 RPM drive.

To me, the fact we're talking about using oldschool HDDs on a $1000+ machine in 2015 is just ridiculous. The baseline standard should be a 128-256GB SSD, no ifs, ands, or buts.
 
I don't need to observe a Supernova to know it's bad news. ;)
But you probably don't know much about a supernova, and you are still lecturing people about it...


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.

And the hypothesis that 128 Gb on a 1 Tb Fusion drive was overkill didn't even pass through your mind, for sure...
How to blame Apple in this case ?
Still waiting to read a good review about real world impact of this reduction.


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.


Again, it's not so difficult to understand. They choose to use only iGPU on the iMac 21.5 so they need a new CPU because Iris Pro 6200 is the only GPU good enough to drive a 4K monitor.
And again, you are speaking about gaming gaming gaming .... This computer isn't good for gaming. Can you deal with it ?

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.
Again, did I write GAMING ? I wrote HEAVY TASKS, meaning video or photo editing.
You are literally obsessed about gaming.
iMacs aren't a gaming machine.



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.

Games again... Lol ...
Dude, if I take a look at Apple lineup I can say gaming is not their primary focus today, and I frankly don't remember when it was in the past.

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.
He made a good point.
You are still considering a fusion drive like an SSD. I'm not an expert about fusion drive principles, but from what I read it uses a more complicated logic than "filling the SSD and then swap to the HDD".
Again, I'm wondering if they decided 128 Gb was overkill for a fusion drive.

I simply dont understand why Apple dont make the Magic keyboard with num keys and backlight :(
Yes, the missing backlight is something I don't understand.
No reason to upgrade from my 1st gen Apple wireless keyboard....

And if that's the case, it's even more of a moot point. The OS might run well on the SSD, but try to do anything with it, and you'll be leaning on that slow 5400 RPM drive.

To me, the fact we're talking about using oldschool HDDs on a $1000+ machine in 2015 is just ridiculous. The baseline standard should be a 128-256GB SSD, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I agree.
I would put a 1 Tb Fusion on the baseline and SSD only on the others
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But you probably don't know much about a supernova, and you are still lecturing people about it...

I'd bet I know more about Supernovas than you know about computers based on this obvious waste of time discussion. All you do is retort every logical point made regardless of whether there's merit or not so that you don't have to admit the point was valid and justified in this thread. I or anyone else never asked you to agree with our opinions or complaints. There's simply no reason to defend Apple's every single decision in regards to the new iMac or their keyboard, mouse and trackpad. If you like it and it works for you, great. Why do you feel the need to attack the complaints of others that clearly have a valid point-of-view? This isn't a debate championship. Just leave it alone.

Again, it's not so difficult to understand. They choose to use only iGPU on the iMac 21.5 so they need a new CPU because Iris Pro 6200 is the only GPU good enough to drive a 4K monitor.

I'm having a hard time even reading that. There are plenty of discrete GPUs that can drive a 4K display other than a low powered Intel integrated GPU. I don't know what you mean it's the only one good enough to drive a 4K monitor.

And again, you are speaking about gaming gaming gaming .... This computer isn't good for gaming. Can you deal with it ?

My point has been that it comes with a terrible GPU and that it could have come with a great one. Your "reply" is that it's not good for gaming.... (face palm). OBVIOUSLY it's not good for gaming or I wouldn't be wanting to see a better GPU!!! Stating the obvious isn't an actual retort. It's just stating the obvious. You do realize the complaints in this thread are about things the new iMacs don't have, right? I mean it doesn't seem like it, but I suspect you simply lost track of the discussion in your monumental effort to put down everything I say at all costs rather than "lose face" or something.

IMO, the new iMac is :

1> Bad value
2> Worse than the previous model except for the display and CPU in every possible respect.

The new mouse:

1> Has it's recharge port on the bottom (bad bad spot) when it should be on the front so you can use it while plugged in

2> Causes carpal tunnel problems for many people due to its poor shape (why I use a Microsoft Intellimouse Optical 5-button

3> I don't need "wireless" when I'm sitting at a DESKTOP computer anyway!!! WTF does Apple give you a wireless keyboard and mouse for a desktop computer where you generally sit in front of the monitor which in this case is also the computer and thus you could easily plug it in and not worry about batteries or charging anything period!!! It's STUPID. A keyboard that is plugged in could easily be backlit as well without draining a battery!

The new keyboard:

1> Why on earth did they get rid of the numeric keypad on their keyboards and the nice spaced cursor keys, etc.? That makes sense on a notebook where space is an issue, but makes ZERO sense on a "desktop" where the convenience of such things should be paramount since space for a keyboard is generally not an issue on a desktop computer!

2> Why does the keyboard need to be wireless as above? And why does it cost so darn much just because it's wireless, especially considering the total lack of a numeric keypad or any other useful "extra" keys that you typically find/want on a desktop to make your life easier.

iMacs aren't a gaming machine.

Please point to the Mac that is a gaming machine, then. And if the Mac doesn't game, why are there games on the Apple App Store? (not just cheap puzzle games either; Borderlands 2 and Call of Duty Black Ops aren't light gaming)

Dude, if I take a look at Apple lineup I can say gaming is not their primary focus today, and I frankly don't remember when it was in the past.

And as I've pointed out again and again and again (you just ignore it), it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. Just offer a single model that has a really decent GPU in it and we're done! :)

The PROBLEM is Apple has ZERO models with anything beyond a mobile GPU save the Mac Pro and it's a "Pro GPU" not a consumer/gaming type GPU. This isn't asking much from Apple at all. They only need to put a chip in teh computer that someone else made for them! Wow! That's hard! It's so darn hard! Geeze, Apple did the "hard" part by making Metal for OS X. Now put it to good use by providing a GPU that can actually make good use of it!

You are still considering a fusion drive like an SSD. I'm not an expert about fusion drive principles, but from what I read it uses a more complicated logic than "filling the SSD and then swap to the HDD".
Again, I'm wondering if they decided 128 Gb was overkill for a fusion drive.

I'm wondering why you or anyone else would "wonder" except that unless you're purposely being obtuse to try and defend what is really an indefensible position. The new drives have less SSD for ONE reason and that is more PROFIT for Apple. They know the "average" Mac user will likely only notice ONE thing and that is BOOT TIMES. They lowered the price slightly and raised their profit take a lot. It's win-win for Apple and win-lose for the consumer.

Yes, the missing backlight is something I don't understand.

I understand it perfectly. It would lower the life of the keyboard battery and that was considered a bad idea since it's not considered necessary to have a backlit keyboard on a desktop. Of course, they could have provided button to just turn the light OFF to save on battery life or offered a WIRED model (or you could just leave the lightning cable plugged in on the keyboard) and it wouldn't be an issue, but that's not how they wanted it to be used for some reason despite the monitor (which is also the computer) sitting right in front of 99% of all iMac users 100% of the time (again, why wireless on an iMac by default?

The 1% that might WANT that feature could have bought a separate wireless keyboard or configured it at shopping checkout. The other 99% could have had their WIRED full size (with numeric keypad, etc.) backlit keyboard and saved probably well over $50 to boot on just the keyboard, let alone the mouse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demo Kit and d0nK
3> I don't need "wireless" when I'm sitting at a DESKTOP computer anyway!!! WTF does Apple give you a wireless keyboard and mouse for a desktop computer where you generally sit in front of the monitor which in this case is also the computer and thus you could easily plug it in and not worry about batteries or charging anything period!!! It's STUPID. A keyboard that is plugged in could easily be backlit as well without draining a battery!

It's not an absolute necessity, but you have to admit that it's really damn nice not having to deal with those extra wires.
 
It's not an absolute necessity, but you have to admit that it's really damn nice not having to deal with those extra wires.

I don't mind the option, but if I had to choose between this and having a full-sized keyboard with numeric keypad, etc. AND backlit lighting, I'd take the latter every time for a desktop. I'm using a well worn (letter labels are worn off 1/3 the keys now, but I don't look to type so it doesn't matter) black coated Logitech keyboard on my 2012 Mac Mini (well it didn't come with a keyboard so it was an easy choice). I LIKE having the extra windows and numeric keypad keys (OS X can use every one of them too). Likewise, I have a 5-button wired Microsoft Intellimouse Optical USB not just on this computer, but EVERY computer I own (save the Apple Hackintosh Netbook where I have another mouse I tried from Logitech). It's the best mouse I've ever used. I wore one out on the PPC Mac I had and bought another 3 just in case since that model isn't made anymore (some guy on eBay had a boat load of them and didn't appear to be having trouble selling them as a lot of people like that mouse the best, it seems). I never did like Apple Mice at ALL. I want 3-buttons up top with a traditional scroll-wheel. IT JUST WORKS. Apple was wrong about mice an they won't admit it. So now they push trackpads and trackpads mounted on mice. Ridiculous for a desktop, IMO. A mouse works better for everything but gestures (especially any games).
 
I don't mind the option, but if I had to choose between this and having a full-sized keyboard with numeric keypad, etc. AND backlit lighting, I'd take the latter every time for a desktop.

I wonder why Apple doesn't make a wireless keyboard with a numpad. Space isn't a consideration in this instance, since it's a desktop machine, and it's not one of those things someone can pop in and claim that "the average person doesn't care about", because one of the everyday consumer selling points of a Mac is being able to manage your finances through Numbers/Excel. It's another thing that should be standard.

Though I'm kind of ambivalent about backlit keyboards. They're nice for when you need to reach for one of those rarely hit keys in a dark room, but otherwise, I touch type like a mofo.
 
I'd bet I know more about Supernovas than you know about computers based on this obvious waste of time discussion. All you do is retort every logical point made regardless of whether there's merit or not so that you don't have to admit the point was valid and justified in this thread. I or anyone else never asked you to agree with our opinions or complaints. There's simply no reason to defend Apple's every single decision in regards to the new iMac or their keyboard, mouse and trackpad. If you like it and it works for you, great. Why do you feel the need to attack the complaints of others that clearly have a valid point-of-view? This isn't a debate championship. Just leave it alone.
Again, you just demonstrated you didn't read any of my posts.
I didnt defend Apple on a single thing here.
I said the iMac was pricey.
I said a 5400rpm spinner was a joke.
I said the lack of an option for a dGPU was wrong.
I said the new accessories were too costly compared to the old ones.
And I said I'm not going to buy an iMac because it doesn't work for me.

But, differently from serial complainers here, I didn't ramp up the hysteria on the forum.
And that don't cope with your attitude here.



I'm having a hard time even reading that. There are plenty of discrete GPUs that can drive a 4K display other than a low powered Intel integrated GPU. I don't know what you mean it's the only one good enough to drive a 4K monitor.

Apple decided to use only iGPU. Is that clear ? You can complain as long as you want, but they decided that.
So they had to use new CPU with Iris Pro 6200, because it is the only iGPU capable to drive a 4K display with reasonable performance.
Iris Pro 6200 is the only INTEGRATED GPU that can do it properly.



My point has been that it comes with a terrible GPU and that it could have come with a great one. Your "reply" is that it's not good for gaming.... (face palm). OBVIOUSLY it's not good for gaming or I wouldn't be wanting to see a better GPU!!! Stating the obvious isn't an actual retort. It's just stating the obvious. You do realize the complaints in this thread are about things the new iMacs don't have, right? I mean it doesn't seem like it, but I suspect you simply lost track of the discussion in your monumental effort to put down everything I say at all costs rather than "lose face" or something.
Actually I can say the same to you.
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 isn't a terrible GPU by any means. It is a good GPU, better than many discrete GPU in the notebook segment.
It just isn't good for gaming.
But it isn't a terrible GPU.

IMO, the new iMac is :

1> Bad value
2> Worse than the previous model except for the display and CPU in every possible respect.

CPU is better and the display is another world ...
You are saying is worse when every single review Ive seen showed a 15-20% increase in performance.

Bad value I agree.
I was expecting a lower price and a baseline with a 1 Tb fusion drive.

The new mouse:

1> Has it's recharge port on the bottom (bad bad spot) when it should be on the front so you can use it while plugged in

2> Causes carpal tunnel problems for many people due to its poor shape (why I use a Microsoft Intellimouse Optical 5-button

3> I don't need "wireless" when I'm sitting at a DESKTOP computer anyway!!! WTF does Apple give you a wireless keyboard and mouse for a desktop computer where you generally sit in front of the monitor which in this case is also the computer and thus you could easily plug it in and not worry about batteries or charging anything period!!! It's STUPID. A keyboard that is plugged in could easily be backlit as well without draining a battery!

the recharge port on the new mouse is a joke. How can an engineer think something so stupid is beyond my comprehension ....
I'm using the previous model since a while and I don't find it poorly shaped.
I surely like the mouse to be wireless.
And again you keep pontificating your "truth". I'm using wireless keyboards and mouse since ... I don't remember, maybe 2003 ....


The new keyboard:

1> Why on earth did they get rid of the numeric keypad on their keyboards and the nice spaced cursor keys, etc.? That makes sense on a notebook where space is an issue, but makes ZERO sense on a "desktop" where the convenience of such things should be paramount since space for a keyboard is generally not an issue on a desktop computer!

2> Why does the keyboard need to be wireless as above? And why does it cost so darn much just because it's wireless, especially considering the total lack of a numeric keypad or any other useful "extra" keys that you typically find/want on a desktop to make your life easier.

Agree on the full keyboard on an iMac.
See above about the wireless: I need it.



Please point to the Mac that is a gaming machine, then. And if the Mac doesn't game, why are there games on the Apple App Store? (not just cheap puzzle games either; Borderlands 2 and Call of Duty Black Ops aren't light gaming)

OMG did you really write that ? Do you think Apple PUT the games on the store ? Or maybe was the developers to sell games ?
Last time i checked , Apple didn't sell a single game.....


And as I've pointed out again and again and again (you just ignore it), it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. Just offer a single model that has a really decent GPU in it and we're done! :)

If Apple don't think gaming is important, they are not providing hardware for that.
It's their call....


The PROBLEM is Apple has ZERO models with anything beyond a mobile GPU save the Mac Pro and it's a "Pro GPU" not a consumer/gaming type GPU. This isn't asking much from Apple at all. They only need to put a chip in teh computer that someone else made for them! Wow! That's hard! It's so darn hard! Geeze, Apple did the "hard" part by making Metal for OS X. Now put it to good use by providing a GPU that can actually make good use of it!

Yes, Apple has zero models for gaming.
And NO you are being naive on purpose... To have decent gaming performance on a 4K native resolution display, you need a very powerful GPU, and it doesn't fit so well in a case like the iMac's. Gaming computers are using very powerful (and huge !) GPUs, and very powerful power unit.
The iMac don't.
And no, the Mac Pro IS NOT a gaming computer.



I'm wondering why you or anyone else would "wonder" except that unless you're purposely being obtuse to try and defend what is really an indefensible position. The new drives have less SSD for ONE reason and that is more PROFIT for Apple. They know the "average" Mac user will likely only notice ONE thing and that is BOOT TIMES. They lowered the price slightly and raised their profit take a lot. It's win-win for Apple and win-lose for the consumer.

you keep saying but you have ZERO FACTS to prove that.
I DONT KNOW what is the difference between 24 Gb and 128 Gb SSD in the fusion drive.
You seem to know even if you didnt try it...

But you seem to know everything here ....
 
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).

File swapping between SSD and HDD would happen in the background without your knowledge. Seagate has shown that you get faster boot times and file start up times with ONLY 8gb. Once your OS is loaded it doesn't even need to sit on the SSD portion anymore in theory. But it's amazing that you cry and moan about specs but have zero knowledge of Apple's code. So you think you're smarter than Apple's team of code writers? You don't think that the company that might be the best ever at marrying hardware with software (if Apple isn't the best at both building hardware and speedy software for that hardware, you tell me who is) could possibly have solved how to sufficiently swap data between an SSD partition and an HDD in a way where there is no slow down?

As for lifetime of the drive, whiners... you just need to read the first few pages of this thread to see examples.

Let's face it you don't know enough about this past "LOWER SPECS" to know whether or not 24gb of SSD on the Fusion Drive is too little or not. You only have assumptions and uneducated guesses.

I'm not saying there aren't instances where there isn't software that doesn't take up a ton of space and would slow down a 24gb Fusion drive. But in those cases you're probably running a pro level app and shouldn't be running your work off a Fusion drive to begin with.

A 24gb Fusion drive is probably more than enough for the average consumer who's heaviest app is iMovie or Photoshop. You're just arguing over specs like an Android user whining that the iPhone doesn't have 4gb of RAM now that it has 2gb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmward_nyc
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!!! :confused: :confused: :confused:

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.... :confused:

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.

I was responding to your initial thoughts. Steam is a fine system (I used it for my PC gaming) but its very limited for Mac. Most of the old titles would run superbly on any iMac.

What in god's name are you talking about? All your points come back to gaming, which the Mac is not good at, never was good at and never will be good at, as Apple plainly doesn't to do it.

None of my arguments were fan goy, it was stating the obvious. iPhones are the core business for Apple, like software is huge for Microsoft and phones are kinda important to Samsung.

Your lack of arguments (those that don't deteriorate into crying about gamin on a Mac) are quite tiresome.

I agree the iMac is expensive and could be better, but they are still a great computer.
 
It is true that iMacs or Macs were not designed with gaming in mind. I feel comfortable with saying that Apple has thought about photographers and videographers as to reference the Retina Display 5K, they emphasized how useful that'll be for photographers and how the video card, CPU and ram will be useful for those working with 4K videos as well and I think that's great. As a photographer, I would love to use a 5K screen to work with my photography. It is truly brilliant.

I do game as a side hobby, but I do not do hardcore gaming such as Black Ops or Battlefield 4 simply because I do not have a PC and I am well aware that a Mac simply does not have the power to fully run those games with good eye candy and that's alright. It's fine by me because for one, like I've stated before, I don't do hardcore gaming. I will say that the Macbook or iMac are perfect for people who would like to play Simcity 4 Deluxe or even Civilization V because the Mac CAN run those games beautifully even though it was not designed for them specifically but the power it has is enough to run those games for people who would like to play.

If one were to ask me, "should I buy a Mac for gaming?" I would tell them, "No, go buy a PC and you'll be happier; however, if you want a Mac for daily usage and light gaming such as Civilization V, the Sims or Real-Time Strategy games, the Mac will be enough for that, if you're looking for Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc then the Mac will disappoint you."

I do photography and I play some games on my MacBook Pro 15 Retina r370, and I am very happy that it can run old and RTS games. I believe Macs main purpose is productivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmward_nyc
I really hope that the new IMAC 27 with Retina will be apple to play Civilization V without a lot of fan noise. Only game I play.

The rest of the machine is great.

But I don't won't to hear the fan all the time. Did return a IMAC 27 with Retina (i7 Turboboost 4.4GHz, 16GB, 1TB Flash Storage, AMD Radeon R9 M295X 4GB GDDR5) because of that. So now I am waiting to hear the first reports. Have Apple solved the problems with fan noise with the new IMAC?

If so I will be the first in line to buy one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmward_nyc
Well that's pretty crap. Keyboard and mouse are no improvement at all, trackpad is the only thing worth upgrading.

As for the new retina 21.5" iMac. 5400RPM HDD?! Is that honestly a joke?


I agree with the 5400 RPM drive. These days??? Should have been a SSD and charged a hundred dollars more. But as far as the mouse 2 not being better??? Wrong! The battery "door" on the original Magic Mouse kept on slipping out on me. No more batteries and definitely no more door to snap back into place. I love it.
 
I agree with the 5400 RPM drive. These days??? Should have been a SSD and charged a hundred dollars more. But as far as the mouse 2 not being better??? Wrong! The battery "door" on the original Magic Mouse kept on slipping out on me. No more batteries and definitely no more door to snap back into place. I love it.

You must've had a broken clip on the door because mine has never fallen out.
 
I bought the new keyboard & trackpad. Overall the new trackpad is better than the old one in every conceivable way. I'm still not sure it's worth the money it costs but that's a moot point once you've already bought it.

The new keyboard takes a little bit of getting used to, especially as there is a lot less key travel compared to the old wireless keyboard, but I like it. It would have been nice to have a subtle backlit option, even if it did take a hit on the battery life.
 
And if that's the case, it's even more of a moot point. The OS might run well on the SSD, but try to do anything with it, and you'll be leaning on that slow 5400 RPM drive.

To me, the fact we're talking about using oldschool HDDs on a $1000+ machine in 2015 is just ridiculous. The baseline standard should be a 128-256GB SSD, no ifs, ands, or buts.

If Apple can throw a latest generation 256GB PCIe SSD as the base option in a 12" MacBook, there's no reason on the planet they they couldn't do it with the iMac.

What makes me laugh is that the cost of the 256GB SSD in the volume Apple purchase is probably cheaper than an old mechanical drive anyway. I understand that people should have the option of a Fusion Drive as it's affordable storage, but the base model really should be a 256GB SSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jb-net
Again, you just demonstrated you didn't read any of my posts.
I didnt defend Apple on a single thing here.
I said the iMac was pricey.
I said a 5400rpm spinner was a joke.
I said the lack of an option for a dGPU was wrong.
I said the new accessories were too costly compared to the old ones.
And I said I'm not going to buy an iMac because it doesn't work for me.

So you're just arguing then for what? The fun of it? If you agree, why are you replying with arguments for Apple when even Apple themselves aren't defending their actions of pure greed?

But, differently from serial complainers here, I didn't ramp up the hysteria on the forum.

You could have fooled me. Your reply in another thread to people accusing you of just whining about every little thing resulted in you stating you would give your opinion all you want, but your opinion seemed to be nothing but defending Apple on everything everyone else had an issue with.

Apple decided to use only iGPU. Is that clear ? You can complain as long as you want, but they decided that.

You're stating the obvious. It's why people are complaining. You claim you agree, but you keep defending Apple's decision. It makes no sense to defend them if you don't agree with them. We disagree and you call it hysteria. You disagree and you call it your opinion. :rolleyes:

So they had to use new CPU with Iris Pro 6200, because it is the only iGPU capable to drive a 4K display with reasonable performance.
Iris Pro 6200 is the only INTEGRATED GPU that can do it properly.

OK, then. That makes your statement random, at best. I don't recall discussing their choices of Intel integrated GPUs, but rather their decision to stop offering discrete GPUs with better performance on the 21.5" model. The thing about that model is that people don't choose their monitor size just on how big a monitor they can afford. For some, 27" is just too big at a given sitting distance. For others, they would rather put their money into a better GPU than a larger monitor. Apple offers these people nothing now. They USED TO offer them something, but no longer. Now you tell me why would anyone on here be upset about that? And why are they whiners or hysterical for voicing their opinion but it's just your opinion when you voice yours?

Actually I can say the same to you.
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 isn't a terrible GPU by any means. It is a good GPU, better than many discrete GPU in the notebook segment.
It just isn't good for gaming.

It's not terrible for gaming at lower resolutions. But Apple chose to go to 4K and 5K on all iMacs. For some, that means they'd like an appropriate GPU for the resolution. Personally, I think 4K is overkill for a 21.5" monitor and I would have preferred a lower native resolution. The problem with down-scaling is the text looks blurry and so it's not really an option to use lower resolutions except maybe for gaming but that will suffer in clarity as well.

I'm using a 22" monitor right now and it's only 1680x1050 16:10. I've got two 28" monitors (both 16:10 ratio and both greater than 1080p resolution) in this very room (5 monitors total). I use one for driving games on the PC and used to use the other for video editing (mostly transferring VHS and Hi8 and some hard to find Laserdisc to digital) on the Macbook Pro when it's docked here. I'm done video editing at the moment, so I could move that monitor over here no problem. But that would make gaming slower yet on this Mac Mini and I honestly find the screen size a bit large for day-to-day browsing and such. I like everything in my center field of view so I'm not craning my neck side-to-side all the time (why I mostly use my 2nd monitor to watch the news so I'm not staring at it for long periods of time turning my head).

I don't feel ANY need for 4K on this size a monitor. NONE. In fact, 1080p equivalent isn't even really necessary (I don't normally watch movies on it; I've got a 93" projector and a 48" TV in other rooms for that sort of thing). I've got another 22" monitor here as well to my right (the other monitor on the PC) except it's a 16:9 version as I could no longer find a 16:10 model when I bought this to replace a monitor that died) and I prefer the 16:10 ratio for browsing, etc. That monitor will do 1080p, but it's smaller vertically and wider horizontally. I think at that ratio, I'd rather have a 24" monitor, but 27/28" is pushing it for this sitting distance (OS X uses menu bars and the larger the monitor and resolution, the further away those bars get as you cram more windows into a display, etc. El Capitan probably should have had 4 "snap" windows for full-screen mode, really as it's kind of useless on larger monitors compared to just sizing your own windows).

CPU is better and the display is another world ...
You are saying is worse when every single review Ive seen showed a 15-20% increase in performance.

Just measuring some CPU or GPU test that doesn't look at the resolutions being driven and the hard drive performance, etc. doesn't tell the entire story. I'm pretty sure you know that, so I can only question your motives in bringing up some generic spec test that doesn't deal with the things people are complaining about in this thread. Again, what's your point in doing so? Are you trying to get me to change my mind? Are you trying to convince someone else I'm stupid or something? I'm really at a loss at this point. I think some people just want to argue to argue and yes I AM being stupid to keep playing this game.

OMG did you really write that ? Do you think Apple PUT the games on the store ? Or maybe was the developers to sell games ?
Last time i checked , Apple didn't sell a single game.....

LOL. I honestly don't know if you're trying to be obtuse again or not. You should know full well that Apple doesn't need to create a big GAMES logo on their store or create Metal for OS X to improve mostly gaming, etc. if they don't care one whit about gaming as you seem to claim. I think the truth is SOME people at Apple DO care (apparently on the OS programming side) but they are being overridden by decisions in the hardware side of things and these guys don't talk or get along as far as I can tell. Johnny Five is too busy asking people if they'd like to be a pepper too rather than asking anyone if they'd like to have a better GPU rather than a thinner one.

If Apple don't think gaming is important, they are not providing hardware for that.
It's their call....

Apple isn't a person, dude. It's a corporation. It's made up of a lot of people and at this point I don't think Tim Cook makes those type of decisions. He seems vastly more interested in stock buyback programs and where to place the next Apple store than hardware/software ones. He leaves that sort of thing to people like Johnny Five and Johnny...well he likes to make things look DIFFERENT so he can claim to be the new face of Apple. He makes changes for change sake rather than actual improvements. I think that should be obvious with Yosemite and iOS8. He couldn't let Scott Forestall's legacy survive, after all.

Yes, Apple has zero models for gaming.
And NO you are being naive on purpose... To have decent gaming performance on a 4K native resolution display, you need a very powerful GPU, and it doesn't fit so well in a case like the iMac's. Gaming computers are using very powerful (and huge !) GPUs, and very powerful power unit.

So design the case differently. Have a look at past iMac models. They could put the SSD drives and GPU in a base/stand at the bottom (wouldn't hurt a thing; it's just a plain boring flat metal-painted support there anyway) with its own fans, etc. and internal PCIe connection even). You could even have nice ports on the back of the stand part like real computers have. In essence, it would be a REAL DESKTOP then and yet still all-in-one and easy to change drives and even the GPU could be on a (OMG!) CARD that you could replace instead. Oh, but wait. That would mean your iMac wouldn't be out of date the very next 6 months! We can't have that. Hell no! Make it so you can't FIX or UPGRADE ANYTHING and sell those fat cats another computer next year!

And no, the Mac Pro IS NOT a gaming computer.

I'm glad you're here to tell me the obvious again and again. It could be one with a simple motherboard change to use regular i7 CPUs and a NVidia Maxwell GPU instead of those "Pro" cards and a regular PCI slot. How hard would that be to do? Not hard at all. Piece of cake, really. It could easily sell for around $2k. I best it would sell WELL too....very well indeed. The problem is that it would ALSO cannibalize Mac "PRO" sales because 95% of Mac Pro users don't actually need Xenon CPUs or those Pro graphics cards just to edit 1080p video or to run Logic Pro. And let's face it, that Mac Pro is PURE PROFIT MARGIN.

you keep saying but you have ZERO FACTS to prove that.
I DONT KNOW what is the difference between 24 Gb and 128 Gb SSD in the fusion drive.
You seem to know even if you didnt try it...

I'll tell you what since you don't believe the OBVIOUS. You buy me a new iMac and an old one and I guarantee I will personally test both drives in every possible manner I can think of to see how they compare. I will keep the sample models. Deal?

But you seem to know everything here ....

It does seem that way, doesn't it? :p

File swapping between SSD and HDD would happen in the background without your knowledge.

Eh? You just told me about it so NOW I would know dammit! :D

Seagate has shown that you get faster boot times and file start up times with ONLY 8gb.

Nobody said it wouldn't boot faster. In fact, I said the opposite. I said it would boot very well and then it would have far less impact than the 128GB model because it would have to swap out more often your most used programs and swapping takes time the first time it does it. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out the larger the SSD part, the less often it will have to use the 5400 RPM part and the faster overall it will run.

But no no no. Some of you want everyone to believe that you can take a lawn tractor that used to hold 2.5 gallons of gas while I have a reserve portable can with me I can drag along in holder on the back to refill the running tank when it runs out of gas that holds 20 gallons with an average large lawn job of 10 acres with some smaller lots of 1, 2 an 5 acres and the occasional 50 acre lot and then reduce that running tank to 0.25 gallons while keeping the 20 gallon reserve can the same and tell me that you won't lose any time mowing those 10 acres by having to stop more to refill the 0.25 gallon tank compared to the 2.5 gallon tank. When I point out that's absurd, that it's obvious you will have to stop more often to refill the smaller running tank from the larger can since the average size lawn being mowed here is too large to mow with only 1/4 gallons, I'm then told that I CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW THAT. I simply MUST do a double-blind scientific study and analysis and get it published in a peer review journal to PROVE that running a smaller active gas tank will result in running out of gas sooner than with a larger tank before having to refill it with a gas can. After all, since I'm carrying the reserve gas can with me, I might be able to to refill it while driving or something by standing on my head and pouring explosive gasoline near a hot engine while continuing to drive with my other hand or something equally ridiculous. o_O

Sorry, but if you use a smaller gas tank, you have to refill it more often. That's just how it is.

Once your OS is loaded it doesn't even need to sit on the SSD portion anymore in theory. But it's amazing that you cry and moan about specs but have zero knowledge of Apple's code. So you think you're smarter than Apple's team of code writers?

Do you even have a fracking clue how this system works? Honestly, read the above lawn tractor story again. It's a hard drive. It's not a new hacking algorithm to break passwords faster with a new technique.... :rolleyes:

You don't think that the company that might be the best ever at marrying hardware with software (if Apple isn't the best at both building hardware and speedy software for that hardware, you tell me who is) could possibly have solved how to sufficiently swap data between an SSD partition and an HDD in a way where there is no slow down?

You're now into the land of engines that run on water and carburetors that get 300mpg. Dude, the 5400 RPM drive runs at 80-90MB/sec! It can't go any faster under any conditions! The SSD runs probably at 200-300MB/sec. I don't care what "code" you use, you CANNOT swap files back and forth to the 5400 RPM drive any faster than 80-90MB/sec! If your programs used to buffer 128GB worth of your most used stuff, you would get more times in average use where the SSD handles the data than having to swap out data with the slow 5400 RPM drive than on a system where you cut the SSD down to less than 1/5th that size to only 24GB. Now it will depend on what you do. If you only use calculator all day long for the rest of your life, then you're right. You probably won't notice ANY difference! But if you run any Applications what-so-ever, it's going to run slower! If you don't run just a couple of applications over and over (say you only ever check your email and run Firefox), you might not notice much difference. If, however, you run a wider variety of programs, you are DEFINITELY going to notice the new system is SLOWER. It's UNAVOIDABLE. It's 1/5 the size of the old SSD! The 5400 RPM drive is slow as hell! It's having to stop the tractor 5x as often to refill it with gas if you're using more than just a few programs all the time.

Worst of all, this is NOT rocket science and I should NOT have to defend such a fracking BASIC concept that an 4th grader could easily understand in science class demonstrated with a couple different size glasses of water!

Let's face it you don't know enough about this past "LOWER SPECS" to know whether or not 24gb of SSD on the Fusion Drive is too little or not. You only have assumptions and uneducated guesses.

No, guy. I'm VERY well educated. I've got multiple degrees in electronic engineering to be precise. What I'm reading in this thread is what is "uneducated" comments. They are SO uneducated that I weep for the future and that is no small thing.

I'm not saying there aren't instances where there isn't software that doesn't take up a ton of space and would slow down a 24gb Fusion drive. But in those cases you're probably running a pro level app and shouldn't be running your work off a Fusion drive to begin with.

It has NOTHING to do with whether an application is "Pro" or not. It has to do with the size of the overall files you use most often. Small programs like calculator are easily buffered if you use it a lot. Larger programs like a web browser take up more space. Games take up massive amounts of space, for example (A couple of games could easily use up that entire SSD all by themselves these days. Swap to Microsoft Office and you're off-loading the games and putting on the Office. Go back and you're off-loading the Office and re-loading the games. How are you going to get a benefit there? You're really not if you switch back and forth or reboot the computer or do whatever else that isn't just that one large app. The 128GB drive, OTOH, could buffer a LOT of Apps. It would buffer MOST Apps. It would leave things like large movies and sound files on the slow drive as they don't need to be buffered or loaded quickly. The old Fusion drive would easily be fast with MOST things. The new one? Not so much. But then maybe Apple thinks of the average iMac user as just using Safari and Mail and some Twitter stuff and not much else. Maybe they're right too....

None of my arguments were fan goy, it was stating the obvious. iPhones are the core business for Apple, like software is huge for Microsoft and phones are kinda important to Samsung.

Your lack of arguments (those that don't deteriorate into crying about gamin on a Mac) are quite tiresome.

I agree the iMac is expensive and could be better, but they are still a great computer.

What is tiresome to me is having to explain BASIC things like the above to people. Gaming is just an obvious use of a GPU. Other people will do other things with it. Until Metal, the Mission Control animation wasn't even smooth on some of these Retina Macs. Asking for a better GPU benefits more than just casual gamers. But in 2015 with a Mac App store and lots of games available from Apple's own App Store and Steam and companies like Aspyr porting AAA titles and Apple themselves making Metal for improved gaming performance, why is it wrong to ask for a better GPU *OPTION* in 2015? It's not like it would be difficult for Apple to put a Maxwell Nvidia chip in an updated Mac Mini instead of Intel integrated. Apple actually bragged having a discrete GPU in the very first Mac Mini and has used them in some models since then. It's not hard to make a small computer case slightly larger to accomodate a fan and a real GPU. PCs have sold such computers for years. Valve is selling a Steam machine that is like 1/4 the size of an XBox one with more power. Certainly, the richest tech company in the world could throw some of us a bone so we don't have to keep buying ANOTHER COMPUTER to game. I can boot into Windows, but I can't make the stock GPU any better.

It amazes me that people like you don't get that or don't think it's a valid point-of-view. If I wanted to run Windows, I'd run Windows. I have preferred OS X. What I'm talking about is not different than Linux users asking for native gaming so they can ditch Windows once and for all, except they can easily get the hardware they want without playing "hacker" to make a Hackintosh.

Some of us would simply like to see MORE from Apple than just the same tired Email and Browsing hardware. Apple used to cater to PRO markets. Where is the Pro hardware now? Where is the pro software now? They've been steadily destroying those markets for years. They already killed their XServe project and yet oddly now they tout they are working with IBM to provide Enterprise machines. Well gee, do you want to do Enterprise or not? It's hard to tell with Apple. They send mixed signals ALL THE TIME. They do something that makes you think they're all in one minute and then abandon it the next. It's getting old.

And given how much money Apple has, it's ABSURD too. There's simply NO VALID REASON that Apple could not do these things and it would cost them next to nothing to do so at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbrand493
I don't know what the hell Apple is thinking with the iMac when their laptops are pretty darn good.

The only people I can see buying iMacs are... What.. Estate Agents? School-run mums? Execs who don't think they need laptops? Who is their demographic? Who is buying these?

Me. The one who's happily using MBA for years but never takes it outdoor. Now I can have a desktop with state-of-the-art screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmward_nyc
And if that's the case, it's even more of a moot point. The OS might run well on the SSD, but try to do anything with it, and you'll be leaning on that slow 5400 RPM drive.

To me, the fact we're talking about using oldschool HDDs on a $1000+ machine in 2015 is just ridiculous. The baseline standard should be a 128-256GB SSD, no ifs, ands, or buts.

I agree with you. Unfortunately all vendors still offer desktop machines that start with 5,400rpm HDD.
 
Wow, just wow. Total rubbish re: sub-standard resolutions. Aside from the Xbox 1, the PS4 plays it all in 1080p usually at 60fps.

This is false. Plenty of PS4 games run under 1080p, and most run under 60fps. Just some off the top of my head are Destiny (solid locked 30 fps), Killzone (30fps, with 60fps but sub 1080p in multiplayer), The Witcher (sub 30 fps), Mad Max (framerate drops into the 20's), the absolutely stunning looking 1st party title "The Order" (1920 x 800, 30 fps), and the cross platform Assassin's Creed: Unity (900p and usually under 30fps with drops into the teens in heavy crowds).

Games like Wolfenstein: TNO dynamically adjust/lower their horizontal resolution to maintain 60fps under load, even on PS4.

So no, the PS4 isn't "all in 1080p usually at 60fps".
 
Last edited:
So you're just arguing then for what? The fun of it? If you agree, why are you replying with arguments for Apple when even Apple themselves aren't defending their actions of pure greed?



You could have fooled me. Your reply in another thread to people accusing you of just whining about every little thing resulted in you stating you would give your opinion all you want, but your opinion seemed to be nothing but defending Apple on everything everyone else had an issue with.



You're stating the obvious. It's why people are complaining. You claim you agree, but you keep defending Apple's decision. It makes no sense to defend them if you don't agree with them. We disagree and you call it hysteria. You disagree and you call it your opinion. :rolleyes:



OK, then. That makes your statement random, at best. I don't recall discussing their choices of Intel integrated GPUs, but rather their decision to stop offering discrete GPUs with better performance on the 21.5" model. The thing about that model is that people don't choose their monitor size just on how big a monitor they can afford. For some, 27" is just too big at a given sitting distance. For others, they would rather put their money into a better GPU than a larger monitor. Apple offers these people nothing now. They USED TO offer them something, but no longer. Now you tell me why would anyone on here be upset about that? And why are they whiners or hysterical for voicing their opinion but it's just your opinion when you voice yours?



It's not terrible for gaming at lower resolutions. But Apple chose to go to 4K and 5K on all iMacs. For some, that means they'd like an appropriate GPU for the resolution. Personally, I think 4K is overkill for a 21.5" monitor and I would have preferred a lower native resolution. The problem with down-scaling is the text looks blurry and so it's not really an option to use lower resolutions except maybe for gaming but that will suffer in clarity as well.

I'm using a 22" monitor right now and it's only 1680x1050 16:10. I've got two 28" monitors (both 16:10 ratio and both greater than 1080p resolution) in this very room (5 monitors total). I use one for driving games on the PC and used to use the other for video editing (mostly transferring VHS and Hi8 and some hard to find Laserdisc to digital) on the Macbook Pro when it's docked here. I'm done video editing at the moment, so I could move that monitor over here no problem. But that would make gaming slower yet on this Mac Mini and I honestly find the screen size a bit large for day-to-day browsing and such. I like everything in my center field of view so I'm not craning my neck side-to-side all the time (why I mostly use my 2nd monitor to watch the news so I'm not staring at it for long periods of time turning my head).

I don't feel ANY need for 4K on this size a monitor. NONE. In fact, 1080p equivalent isn't even really necessary (I don't normally watch movies on it; I've got a 93" projector and a 48" TV in other rooms for that sort of thing). I've got another 22" monitor here as well to my right (the other monitor on the PC) except it's a 16:9 version as I could no longer find a 16:10 model when I bought this to replace a monitor that died) and I prefer the 16:10 ratio for browsing, etc. That monitor will do 1080p, but it's smaller vertically and wider horizontally. I think at that ratio, I'd rather have a 24" monitor, but 27/28" is pushing it for this sitting distance (OS X uses menu bars and the larger the monitor and resolution, the further away those bars get as you cram more windows into a display, etc. El Capitan probably should have had 4 "snap" windows for full-screen mode, really as it's kind of useless on larger monitors compared to just sizing your own windows).



Just measuring some CPU or GPU test that doesn't look at the resolutions being driven and the hard drive performance, etc. doesn't tell the entire story. I'm pretty sure you know that, so I can only question your motives in bringing up some generic spec test that doesn't deal with the things people are complaining about in this thread. Again, what's your point in doing so? Are you trying to get me to change my mind? Are you trying to convince someone else I'm stupid or something? I'm really at a loss at this point. I think some people just want to argue to argue and yes I AM being stupid to keep playing this game.



LOL. I honestly don't know if you're trying to be obtuse again or not. You should know full well that Apple doesn't need to create a big GAMES logo on their store or create Metal for OS X to improve mostly gaming, etc. if they don't care one whit about gaming as you seem to claim. I think the truth is SOME people at Apple DO care (apparently on the OS programming side) but they are being overridden by decisions in the hardware side of things and these guys don't talk or get along as far as I can tell. Johnny Five is too busy asking people if they'd like to be a pepper too rather than asking anyone if they'd like to have a better GPU rather than a thinner one.



Apple isn't a person, dude. It's a corporation. It's made up of a lot of people and at this point I don't think Tim Cook makes those type of decisions. He seems vastly more interested in stock buyback programs and where to place the next Apple store than hardware/software ones. He leaves that sort of thing to people like Johnny Five and Johnny...well he likes to make things look DIFFERENT so he can claim to be the new face of Apple. He makes changes for change sake rather than actual improvements. I think that should be obvious with Yosemite and iOS8. He couldn't let Scott Forestall's legacy survive, after all.



So design the case differently. Have a look at past iMac models. They could put the SSD drives and GPU in a base/stand at the bottom (wouldn't hurt a thing; it's just a plain boring flat metal-painted support there anyway) with its own fans, etc. and internal PCIe connection even). You could even have nice ports on the back of the stand part like real computers have. In essence, it would be a REAL DESKTOP then and yet still all-in-one and easy to change drives and even the GPU could be on a (OMG!) CARD that you could replace instead. Oh, but wait. That would mean your iMac wouldn't be out of date the very next 6 months! We can't have that. Hell no! Make it so you can't FIX or UPGRADE ANYTHING and sell those fat cats another computer next year!



I'm glad you're here to tell me the obvious again and again. It could be one with a simple motherboard change to use regular i7 CPUs and a NVidia Maxwell GPU instead of those "Pro" cards and a regular PCI slot. How hard would that be to do? Not hard at all. Piece of cake, really. It could easily sell for around $2k. I best it would sell WELL too....very well indeed. The problem is that it would ALSO cannibalize Mac "PRO" sales because 95% of Mac Pro users don't actually need Xenon CPUs or those Pro graphics cards just to edit 1080p video or to run Logic Pro. And let's face it, that Mac Pro is PURE PROFIT MARGIN.



I'll tell you what since you don't believe the OBVIOUS. You buy me a new iMac and an old one and I guarantee I will personally test both drives in every possible manner I can think of to see how they compare. I will keep the sample models. Deal?



It does seem that way, doesn't it? :p



Eh? You just told me about it so NOW I would know dammit! :D



Nobody said it wouldn't boot faster. In fact, I said the opposite. I said it would boot very well and then it would have far less impact than the 128GB model because it would have to swap out more often your most used programs and swapping takes time the first time it does it. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out the larger the SSD part, the less often it will have to use the 5400 RPM part and the faster overall it will run.

But no no no. Some of you want everyone to believe that you can take a lawn tractor that used to hold 2.5 gallons of gas while I have a reserve portable can with me I can drag along in holder on the back to refill the running tank when it runs out of gas that holds 20 gallons with an average large lawn job of 10 acres with some smaller lots of 1, 2 an 5 acres and the occasional 50 acre lot and then reduce that running tank to 0.25 gallons while keeping the 20 gallon reserve can the same and tell me that you won't lose any time mowing those 10 acres by having to stop more to refill the 0.25 gallon tank compared to the 2.5 gallon tank. When I point out that's absurd, that it's obvious you will have to stop more often to refill the smaller running tank from the larger can since the average size lawn being mowed here is too large to mow with only 1/4 gallons, I'm then told that I CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW THAT. I simply MUST do a double-blind scientific study and analysis and get it published in a peer review journal to PROVE that running a smaller active gas tank will result in running out of gas sooner than with a larger tank before having to refill it with a gas can. After all, since I'm carrying the reserve gas can with me, I might be able to to refill it while driving or something by standing on my head and pouring explosive gasoline near a hot engine while continuing to drive with my other hand or something equally ridiculous. o_O

Sorry, but if you use a smaller gas tank, you have to refill it more often. That's just how it is.



Do you even have a fracking clue how this system works? Honestly, read the above lawn tractor story again. It's a hard drive. It's not a new hacking algorithm to break passwords faster with a new technique.... :rolleyes:



You're now into the land of engines that run on water and carburetors that get 300mpg. Dude, the 5400 RPM drive runs at 80-90MB/sec! It can't go any faster under any conditions! The SSD runs probably at 200-300MB/sec. I don't care what "code" you use, you CANNOT swap files back and forth to the 5400 RPM drive any faster than 80-90MB/sec! If your programs used to buffer 128GB worth of your most used stuff, you would get more times in average use where the SSD handles the data than having to swap out data with the slow 5400 RPM drive than on a system where you cut the SSD down to less than 1/5th that size to only 24GB. Now it will depend on what you do. If you only use calculator all day long for the rest of your life, then you're right. You probably won't notice ANY difference! But if you run any Applications what-so-ever, it's going to run slower! If you don't run just a couple of applications over and over (say you only ever check your email and run Firefox), you might not notice much difference. If, however, you run a wider variety of programs, you are DEFINITELY going to notice the new system is SLOWER. It's UNAVOIDABLE. It's 1/5 the size of the old SSD! The 5400 RPM drive is slow as hell! It's having to stop the tractor 5x as often to refill it with gas if you're using more than just a few programs all the time.

Worst of all, this is NOT rocket science and I should NOT have to defend such a fracking BASIC concept that an 4th grader could easily understand in science class demonstrated with a couple different size glasses of water!



No, guy. I'm VERY well educated. I've got multiple degrees in electronic engineering to be precise. What I'm reading in this thread is what is "uneducated" comments. They are SO uneducated that I weep for the future and that is no small thing.



It has NOTHING to do with whether an application is "Pro" or not. It has to do with the size of the overall files you use most often. Small programs like calculator are easily buffered if you use it a lot. Larger programs like a web browser take up more space. Games take up massive amounts of space, for example (A couple of games could easily use up that entire SSD all by themselves these days. Swap to Microsoft Office and you're off-loading the games and putting on the Office. Go back and you're off-loading the Office and re-loading the games. How are you going to get a benefit there? You're really not if you switch back and forth or reboot the computer or do whatever else that isn't just that one large app. The 128GB drive, OTOH, could buffer a LOT of Apps. It would buffer MOST Apps. It would leave things like large movies and sound files on the slow drive as they don't need to be buffered or loaded quickly. The old Fusion drive would easily be fast with MOST things. The new one? Not so much. But then maybe Apple thinks of the average iMac user as just using Safari and Mail and some Twitter stuff and not much else. Maybe they're right too....



What is tiresome to me is having to explain BASIC things like the above to people. Gaming is just an obvious use of a GPU. Other people will do other things with it. Until Metal, the Mission Control animation wasn't even smooth on some of these Retina Macs. Asking for a better GPU benefits more than just casual gamers. But in 2015 with a Mac App store and lots of games available from Apple's own App Store and Steam and companies like Aspyr porting AAA titles and Apple themselves making Metal for improved gaming performance, why is it wrong to ask for a better GPU *OPTION* in 2015? It's not like it would be difficult for Apple to put a Maxwell Nvidia chip in an updated Mac Mini instead of Intel integrated. Apple actually bragged having a discrete GPU in the very first Mac Mini and has used them in some models since then. It's not hard to make a small computer case slightly larger to accomodate a fan and a real GPU. PCs have sold such computers for years. Valve is selling a Steam machine that is like 1/4 the size of an XBox one with more power. Certainly, the richest tech company in the world could throw some of us a bone so we don't have to keep buying ANOTHER COMPUTER to game. I can boot into Windows, but I can't make the stock GPU any better.

It amazes me that people like you don't get that or don't think it's a valid point-of-view. If I wanted to run Windows, I'd run Windows. I have preferred OS X. What I'm talking about is not different than Linux users asking for native gaming so they can ditch Windows once and for all, except they can easily get the hardware they want without playing "hacker" to make a Hackintosh.

Some of us would simply like to see MORE from Apple than just the same tired Email and Browsing hardware. Apple used to cater to PRO markets. Where is the Pro hardware now? Where is the pro software now? They've been steadily destroying those markets for years. They already killed their XServe project and yet oddly now they tout they are working with IBM to provide Enterprise machines. Well gee, do you want to do Enterprise or not? It's hard to tell with Apple. They send mixed signals ALL THE TIME. They do something that makes you think they're all in one minute and then abandon it the next. It's getting old.

And given how much money Apple has, it's ABSURD too. There's simply NO VALID REASON that Apple could not do these things and it would cost them next to nothing to do so at that.

Did you just compare a computer and storage formats to a tractor and gasoline?

OK I'm out... conversation is too stupid to continue. :rolleyes:
 
I wonder why Apple doesn't make a wireless keyboard with a numpad. Space isn't a consideration in this instance, since it's a desktop machine, and it's not one of those things someone can pop in and claim that "the average person doesn't care about", because one of the everyday consumer selling points of a Mac is being able to manage your finances through Numbers/Excel. It's another thing that should be standard.

Though I'm kind of ambivalent about backlit keyboards. They're nice for when you need to reach for one of those rarely hit keys in a dark room, but otherwise, I touch type like a mofo.
My guess is that Apple wants you to use the keyboard side-by-side with the trackpad, like some sort of extended keyboard which has been chopped into 2.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.