ok lets count up the additions. the imac does have a 1tb hdd standard, but what person who is going to get the entry level imac needs a 1tb hdd. However the speed difference of the 7200rpm harddrive is noticeable. Also when you look at the cost ratio 4 more gbs of ram costs apple 10 dollars, in bulk proably 5. so dont say its grat deal considering they bumped upthe price and took out the dvd drive
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.
Did anyone think that the pervious iMac was too fat?
- Thread starter rossip
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
U can upgrade the ram on three of the models. And I think this new screen is going to be something really special. All the reviewers so far are saying that it looks amazing compared to the last model.
It is overpriced, but I think they've done an excellent job in updating the imac. It wasn't just a little spec bump. They've really pushed it apart from adding retina.
New screen enclosure, fusion drive. new design.
I think they've done a great job. I can't believe people are so unhappy.
It is overpriced, but I think they've done an excellent job in updating the imac. It wasn't just a little spec bump. They've really pushed it apart from adding retina.
New screen enclosure, fusion drive. new design.
I think they've done a great job. I can't believe people are so unhappy.
You mean the reviewers who want Apple to showcase their site again on the next Apple event?!?
Yes screen will be slightly better as its pushed forward due to less glass. It's still the same as 2011 model just manufactured differently.
I wouldn't be sure of that here. It's important to consider the target market for the imac going forward. We all know the popularity of the mobile devices, including notebooks. I've mentioned this before, but in terms of users with extremely generic computing requirements, the favoritism towards notebooks is likely to be even more skewed than the overall breakdown. If you look apartments or houses owned by 20s up to maybe early 30s people today, you'll find fewer people have a truly dedicated space for their computers.
Are you just having a bad day (edit: no sarcasm implied)? The condescending tone here is really weird. Ram is one of those things that people are used to upgrading. It has always been simple, so it's normal to expect a backlash. In many cases ram capacity has been outpacing application hunger (I like picturing applications as zombies, as I really am that nerdy).
This is a ridiculous thing to point out. A number of years ago Macs came with megabytes of memory. 8GB is extremely cheap right now in current memory types. It's cheaper to install 8GB today than it was to install 4 when these machines were bumped to 4. You should just see this as a normal update that should not really affect pricing. The one major counter point would be if fewer people would pay extra for a 16GB upgrade, although it benefits Apple in that they can kick out a larger number of identical machines as opposed to a complex configuration matrix.
What? Like you can upgrade 6970M 1GB to 2GB for extra $100 in 2011? Yeah right .. at least it's still the same GPU, same clock, same chip, only half the RAM, barely noticeable unless you do a lot of CPGPU computing. So, the standard $2000 iMac in 2011 was decent.
With 2012 iMac, you're getting less for more money. $2000 today gets you half baked iMac, no fusion drive, no 680MX, not even a cheap 128GB SSD as standard. You want 680MX? Pay more!
I bet it'd be more than $100 upgrade from 675MX to 680MX.
Didn't realize you'd seen the screen!?!
And yes, there's always a certain amount of suspicion over first day reviews of products, but it is what it is. I'm just saying that's what loads of the first looks have been saying. Don't shoot me for it!
What do you think the target iMac market is going forward? I really don't see very much for the low end machine.
It's a bit more distributed than is sometimes suggested, as growth in computing requirements is all over the place at the moment. I'm not sure how I see the imac at the moment. The biggest advantage it retains is a larger display. Apple seems to be going the route of making every device thermally constrained in favor of aesthetics. I don't think performance limitations are worthwhile in the effort to shave a few millimeters. It's really more of a novelty than anything here as they're forcing the change while limiting other aspects rather than waiting for technology to make such a thing feasible without compromise.
All in ones should be able to leverage some amount of professional use. They won't replace mac pro - like machines, yet in many circumstances they could be feasible for buyers who were looking at entry level workstations. Given that the facebook and email crowd is more likely to go for a macbook air, a machine like the imac really needs the widest possible audience to keep up to pace with the rest of their line as much as possible. Right now I think they're just further killing their differentiation. If the display is really good, that might attract buyers. I haven't seen it. The talk about radiometric factory calibration is just marketing kool-aid. They just described a part in the process used in any display of reasonable quality. It's just something to placate people who don't understand technology, as it's such a small detail of the entire process, and you still don't know how they measure them. Prior generations sometimes had casts in a portion of the display. If they're just measuring the center, something like this will not be caught. Some of these things are more or less noticeable after the display warms up. It's less significant with LED, but it is still there. Apple gets into these weird modes of tunnel vision at times, but it remains to be seen whether people will buy these things anyway.
Last edited: