iMac. Why?

[Rizzm]

I've always had the same quiet opinion about the iMac line in general, and I'm finally deciding to share them with you all!

This is Apple's middle-tier desktop. The biggest turn off for me are the mobile graphics. "Mobility" is right in the name of the cards; what a slap in the face. I've never gotten the all in one design either. The traditional box and monitor is clearly more popular. Sure, there's a market for this, but it, and always has, made so much more sense to get a new box when it's time to replace the computer. Then connect it to your existing monitor.

My personal opinion is that the entire iMac line should be killed off. Enlarge the case of the Mac Mini, give it real desktop power, and let it replace the iMac line. Keeping the tower and monitor idea, Apple should have a consumer/prosumer tower and a professional workstation. It's not like the case even has to be that big, just large enough for essential DESKTOP hardware. Full size graphics card, quad core processors at least, and easily accessible hard drive and RAM.

If Apple wants to rapidly take Windows customer base, then this is the best approach to do it. People have an idea what a computer should be, and so when they look into what the Mac world has to offer, they shouldn't be pulled in by the traditional format of the Mac Pro setup, and be scared off by the price tag. If they're not scared off immediately, then they look into the iMac and Mac Mini. The Mac Mini is no desktop. Why is Apple so concerned with making that thing microscopic? It's a desktop, not a mobile phone. And then there's the iMac. More respectable desktop specs, but Apple retards its capabilities by attaching a monitor to it. The problem with this is people like thin monitors because they go on your desk. Then Apple forces themselves to pack mediocre parts into a case that is designed to be thin, when it should be tucked under the desk.

Just my thoughts.

 

[iSayuSay]

We all want the mythical xMac, you know .. headless iMac .. dumbed down MacPro on a more reasonable price point.

At least I don't want to pay $2500 for quadcore machine like base Macpro today.
But Apple just don't interested in desktop anymore. Not as much as .. say 5 - 10 years ago.

Since iOS emerging, Macbook is the only shining Macintosh computer out there. The rest is just .. well .. minions

 

[Rizzm]

We all want the mythical xMac, you know .. headless iMac .. dumbed down MacPro on a more reasonable price point.

At least I don't want to pay $2500 for quadcore machine like base Macpro today.
But Apple just don't interested in desktop anymore. Not as much as .. say 5 - 10 years ago.

Since iOS emerging, Macbook is the only shining Macintosh computer out there. The rest is just .. well .. minions

So this is a common suggestion to Apple?

Sorry, but I don't frequent the iMac rumors/section like I said.

 

[aristobrat]

So this is a common suggestion to Apple?

Sorry, but I don't frequent the iMac rumors/section like I said.

I don't know if people are suggesting it to Apple, but they've been regularly complaining about it on MacRumors for almost a decade now!

 

[Rizzm]

I don't know if people are suggesting it to Apple, but they've been regularly complaining about it on MacRumors for almost a decade now!

Then I guess I'm expecting more flames than I should be.

 

[aristobrat]

Then I guess I'm expecting more flames than I should be.

Your spin to kill off the iMac is somewhat unique, most folks propose leaving it + creating the new, more powerful xMac line.

 

[Rizzm]

Your spin to kill off the iMac is somewhat unique, most folks propose leaving it + creating the new, more powerful xMac line.

Perhaps. I guess the "iMac" name is a part of Apple culture.

 

[forty2j]

The biggest turn off for me are the mobile graphics. "Mobility" is right in the name of the cards; what a slap in the face.

This has historically been an issue. However, it seems that the top 2012 m-cards are at least competitive with desktop performance. You're out of luck if you want to SLI two GTX 680's.. but nobody does that except to say that they can anyway.

Personally I enjoy the All-in-one form factor, for its simplicity and elegance sitting on my desk. The lack of user-upgradable components is not an issue for me, as my patience for opening computers passed quite a long time ago.

 

[aPple nErd]

My personal opinion is that the entire iMac line should be killed off.

you sir are not thinking that this is apples best selling desktop, and if they kill it off, i would become a loyal samsung and hp customer...

 

[paulrbeers]

This is Apple's middle-tier desktop. The biggest turn off for me are the mobile graphics. "Mobility" is right in the name of the cards; what a slap in the face. I've never gotten the all in one design either. The traditional box and monitor is clearly more popular. Sure, there's a market for this, but it, and always has, made so much more sense to get a new box when it's time to replace the computer. Then connect it to your existing monitor.

What you are missing, is that the "average Joe" is coming to an iMac from some crappy Windows box that has nothing but integrated graphics. Mobility Graphics is a huge step up from that.

You are also missing that the 27" iMacs can work as an external monitor so when they are no longer "useful", you can buy another iMac and now run dual monitors.

In my case though, I have left the iMac realm. For the most part Mini's do everything I need in a compact form. I don't game, and most of my major number crunching and video encoding is done on a headless Windows Box stuffed away in my basement that I VNC to from my Mini's.

 

[IPlayFair]

@Rizzn

If the Imac is so awful, why are all the major PC makers copying it? Your premise is off.

 

[Sam Spade]

The all-in-one is an extremely popular form factor. Many people are more than willing to sacrifice some performance for the simplicity and clutter-free desktop that a machine like the iMac affords.

 

[Rizzm]

you sir are not thinking that this is apples best selling desktop, and if they kill it off, i would become a loyal samsung and hp customer...

Of course it's their best selling desktop. It's not like there's another desktop option from Apple in the same price range.

If the Imac is so awful, why are all the major PC makers copying it? Your premise is off.

This doesn't mean that it's selling better than their tower computers.

 

[garybUK]

I thought Apple did do a headless iMac... a.la Mac Mini ?? isn't it the same internals as a iMac? Mobile CPU / Graphics etc?

 

[oronll]

Not everyone wants to game on their computers. at least not that type of gaming. the Imac is a perfect situation for most people besides the insane price tag.

 

[forty2j]

I thought Apple did do a headless iMac... a.la Mac Mini ?? isn't it the same internals as a iMac? Mobile CPU / Graphics etc?

iMac has a desktop CPU and mobile GPU. Mini has mobile CPU and GPU.

Some people would appreciate the option of a headless Mac with desktop CPU and GPU.

 

[MonkeySee....]

I've always had the same quiet opinion about the iMac line in general, and I'm finally deciding to share them with you all!

This is Apple's middle-tier desktop. The biggest turn off for me are the mobile graphics. "Mobility" is right in the name of the cards; what a slap in the face. I've never gotten the all in one design either. The traditional box and monitor is clearly more popular. Sure, there's a market for this, but it, and always has, made so much more sense to get a new box when it's time to replace the computer. Then connect it to your existing monitor.

My personal opinion is that the entire iMac line should be killed off. Enlarge the case of the Mac Mini, give it real desktop power, and let it replace the iMac line. Keeping the tower and monitor idea, Apple should have a consumer/prosumer tower and a professional workstation. It's not like the case even has to be that big, just large enough for essential DESKTOP hardware. Full size graphics card, quad core processors at least, and easily accessible hard drive and RAM.

If Apple wants to rapidly take Windows customer base, then this is the best approach to do it. People have an idea what a computer should be, and so when they look into what the Mac world has to offer, they shouldn't be pulled in by the traditional format of the Mac Pro setup, and be scared off by the price tag. If they're not scared off immediately, then they look into the iMac and Mac Mini. The Mac Mini is no desktop. Why is Apple so concerned with making that thing microscopic? It's a desktop, not a mobile phone. And then there's the iMac. More respectable desktop specs, but Apple retards its capabilities by attaching a monitor to it. The problem with this is people like thin monitors because they go on your desk. Then Apple forces themselves to pack mediocre parts into a case that is designed to be thin, when it should be tucked under the desk.

Just my thoughts.

No no no no no.

I've had windows boxes and i'm sick of them. I'm minimalist and have a good appreciation for design and the current iMac line up is beautiful.

You don't appreciate it because you don't have one.

Please find me a desktop computer that looks better than the iMac??

 

[maflynn]

My personal opinion is that the entire iMac line should be killed off. Enlarge the case of the Mac Mini, give it real desktop power

That seems to fly in the face of how successful iMacs are. People prefer the the all in one design and most consumers are content with the GPU as it is. Only a small segment of gamers or professionals clamor for something better. Apple tends to cater to the majority not the minority now a days. why klll off a successful and popular computer line because some users want something more powerful.

If Apple wants to rapidly take Windows customer base, then this is the best approach to do it.

Apple has never stated that they want to rapidly take windows customer base, in fact their past behavior is such that they prefer growth pattern currently. They realize they cannot compete and over the windows marketshare but they can make some really great machines running a great OS that is popular to the consumer.

One size does not fit all, and the iMac is not a great fit for some folks, the issue is apple does not have a headless machine that fits. Various users have been clamoring for such a machine for years but nothing has come of it - my take is apple is happy with how their business is going and they're a lot smarter and running apple then I am.

 

[Binarymix]

The iMac isn't a gaming machine, it's a consumer machine. Therefore, who gives a flying **** about it's graphics card? It more than enough for 99% of tasks.

Professionals who need a lot of power buy Mac Pros.


It's really that simple.


Plus the iMac is simplicity, and beauty at it's best.

 

[forty2j]

The iMac isn't a gaming machine, it's a consumer machine.

As a consumer and a gamer, I don't see the difference.

Consumers game. Businesses don't. (At least, not officially.)

 

[noisycats]

I've always had the same quiet opinion about the iMac line in general, and I'm finally deciding to share them with you all!

This is Apple's middle-tier desktop. The biggest turn off for me are the mobile graphics. "Mobility" is right in the name of the cards; what a slap in the face. I've never gotten the all in one design either. The traditional box and monitor is clearly more popular. Sure, there's a market for this, but it, and always has, made so much more sense to get a new box when it's time to replace the computer. Then connect it to your existing monitor.

My personal opinion is that the entire iMac line should be killed off. Enlarge the case of the Mac Mini, give it real desktop power, and let it replace the iMac line. Keeping the tower and monitor idea, Apple should have a consumer/prosumer tower and a professional workstation. It's not like the case even has to be that big, just large enough for essential DESKTOP hardware. Full size graphics card, quad core processors at least, and easily accessible hard drive and RAM.

If Apple wants to rapidly take Windows customer base, then this is the best approach to do it. People have an idea what a computer should be, and so when they look into what the Mac world has to offer, they shouldn't be pulled in by the traditional format of the Mac Pro setup, and be scared off by the price tag. If they're not scared off immediately, then they look into the iMac and Mac Mini. The Mac Mini is no desktop. Why is Apple so concerned with making that thing microscopic? It's a desktop, not a mobile phone. And then there's the iMac. More respectable desktop specs, but Apple retards its capabilities by attaching a monitor to it. The problem with this is people like thin monitors because they go on your desk. Then Apple forces themselves to pack mediocre parts into a case that is designed to be thin, when it should be tucked under the desk.

Just my thoughts.

Interesting perspective, but you just dont get it. And I'm not saying you should. Different strokes.

I love an all-in-one. I don't need more than mobility graphics. I would hate another box under my desk. I like "upgrading" everything with a single purchase every two-three years. I hate excess cords. Hell, I hate cords period! I like being able to "move" my computer (yes, happens more often to me than you would think) in under a minute.

And, unfortanely for you, the market agrees. Sorry.

 

[maflynn]

As a consumer and a gamer, I don't see the difference.

Most people I know who buy computers to it for facebook, internet, emails and some writing. Sure light gaming is thrown in the mix but generally speaking the average consumer is not looking to play Diablo III.

The iMac fits the needs of most consumers looking for a computer and why spend a lot of money on an in between machine that will only cannibalize sales from their iMac and Mac pro line. That is an xMac machine will not grow the marketshare much, i.e., gamers are going to buy (or build) dedicated rigs

 

[Binarymix]

As a consumer and a gamer, I don't see the difference.

Consumers game. Businesses don't. (At least, not officially.)

Well macs in general have never been about hardcore gaming. Casual games like cut the rope, solitaire, and flight control, maybe. But not counterstrike, or the like.

If you really want to game, and still use OS X, you buy a mac pro, and install windows. Or build a hackintosh.

 

[forty2j]

If you really want to game, and still use OS X, you buy a mac pro, and install windows.

I don't think Xeon chips or desktop GPUs from 2010 are the answer.

Also, the main thing I do like about gaming on the iMac is the beautiful screen.. which is of course sold separately for the Mac Pro but doesn't do anything to lower the price.

Or build a hackintosh.

Bleck.


But for the most part, the 2011's and certainly the 2012's can game just fine. My 2007 with ATI HD 2600 did OK in WoW for a while, but suffers in Diablo 3 and Civ V and is unplayable in StarCraft 2.

 

[Pariah]

I can certainly see your point in some people wanting a tower-type computer but for me part of the appeal with apple is that they don't do things the same as everyone else. My view is the iMac is incomparable for looks to any other computer - and design matters to some.

While we're thinking about it why do we 'retard' The capabilities of a laptop with a built-in screen? I could carry around separate screen and Base unit then when I'm going somewhere I know they have a screen I wouldn't need to take mine! When it's time to upgrade I just swap my laptop base unit it just 'connects to my existing monitor'. I'm kidding of course

I see the appeal of an apple desktop that's more powerful than the mini, but that doesn't mean kill off the iMac!

Just because the rest of the market is flooded with ugly lumps of plastic keeping keeping peoples feet warm doesn't mean all desktops should be like that!