Not stuff I'd have use for right now, but hey why not: motion sensors, curved screens, split screens, wireless display, SLI/CF graphics, etc.
I'm sure many of these things don't appeal to everybody or even to Apple, but they're out there.
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.
Is this product stuck in a rut?
- Thread starter Lankyman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not stuff I'd have use for right now, but hey why not: motion sensors, curved screens, split screens, wireless display, SLI/CF graphics, etc.
I'm sure many of these things don't appeal to everybody or even to Apple, but they're out there.
+2
And I don't see how they can improve or change dramatically the form factor of the iMac... It is now perfectly integrated behind the screen, I don't see what they can improve... Thinner? Curvated? Touch screen? No thanks!
Maybe it will be little aesthetics improvements, but I don't see a revolution coming in the design of the iMac...
I have chosen to forego the hybrid drive to avoid noise, heat, eliminate more moving parts, and reduce noise. However, I am also a power user that requires a lot of space, so I also use a large RAID 5 array (via Thunderbolt 2) for storage. The RAID is far enough away from my desk that the sounds from it is no issue.
A Fusion Drive is an excellent choice for someone who wants 80% of the associated speed increase that come with an SSD, but they don't want to deal with external storage.
Since you already have a NAS and your bulk storage needs are met (or at least expandable), you're a perfect candidate for a SSD. Yes, the 512 GB and 1 TB options are still expensive enough to be considered a premium purchase, but by the time you upgrade in a couple of years, those prices will be 1/3rd of what they are now.
Bryan
We can only hope. However, as you know Apple have a poor record with pricing on such items. Apple still charge silly money for memory never mind SSD.
True. At least we can still easily replace the RAM on our own with third-party RAM. However, not so much with the SSDs.
Bryan
I have the exact same iMac (mid-2011), and I agree with much of what the OP has said.
First of all, lets not compare apples and oranges. The 2011 base model should be compared to today's base models, not special i7 CTO-configurations - of course those will be quicker. Please remember, there were i7 configs and higher-capacity VRAM GPUs, even SSDs available in 2011 as well IIRC. The comparison doesn't serve a purpose here, in my opinion.
Comparing the base MBP of 2011 to the MBPs of today, the MacBook Pro has seen significant upgrades. The entire line now consists of Retina-screens and SSDs as standard. The MBP has received a new case, reduced bezels, et c.
Since 2011, when our iMacs were released, the iMac has become thinner, but only at the expense of the SuperDrive (which I actually use from time to time). Making the rMBP thinner made sense, the iMac - not so much. Other than that, it's only the incremental upgrades which have happened across all product lines, PC or Mac. It has received a bit faster Wi-Fi and approx. 20-25% higher performing processors. I think these are very modest improvements after 4 years. HOWEVER, the 21.5" iMac thinner design did not only come at the expense of the SuperDrive, but also reverting back to a 5400rpm 2.5" HDD, compared to the 7200rpm 3.5" HDD of the 2011. That will actually have much more of an effect in day to day use, compared to the processor change. That in a negative way. Oh and the 2011 DOES have an IPS panel, just like the models after it.
First of all, SSD should be standard in the iMac, just as it is in all other computers Apple offer, even if only available as a no-cost option for 256GB.
Secondly, the iMac needs a new design in my opinion. It has now looked the same since 2009, that's nearly 6 years. Making it thinner does not count as a new design.
You all seem very limited in terms of what Apple COULD do to the iMac, as if the iMac has now reached its limit. Here are only a few ideas, although maybe not to everyones liking:
* Improved ALL-IN-ONE functionality. Bring back Front Row, at least to the 27" model. Add a display input, allowing people to finally connect Playstations, Xbox et c.
* New design. (Remember the revolution from iMac G3 > iMac G4 > iMac G5? Those happened in 4-5 year periods)
* Backlit keyboards included w/ new iMacs
* Et.c.
I think there's lots that could be done to the iMac if one would only think outside the box. I think its evident that Apple is not selling as many desktops as they used to, and thus have chose to spend their R&D elsewhere, i.e iPhones, iPads and laptops. I can't help but thinking that now is an ungrateful time to buy an iMac. It's a great computer still, but add the SSD/Fusion Drive and you're looking at a lot of money.
Oh, and yes - the Retina iMac is the answer to many of the problems above, but it's even more expensive, way too expensive for someone not utilizing a 5K screen. Moreover, the computer is still a first gen product and I for one am not willing to deal with the UI lag and heat issues.
That said, I'm a bit interested in upgrading to the 27" model and I'm considering my options.
Either, just picking up a mid-2011 27" model and upgrading it with an SSD. It would make a faster computer in day-to-day use than the base 2013-model without SSD. I'd also get to keep the SuperDrive. These 2011 models can also be had very cheap, so that's a plus for me as a student.
However, I've also seen several deals for the 27" late 2013 base model, so while the above still holds, I could see myself getting the 2013 if the price was right, and if I'm able to install an SSD into it.
We'll see I guess.
First of all, lets not compare apples and oranges. The 2011 base model should be compared to today's base models, not special i7 CTO-configurations - of course those will be quicker. Please remember, there were i7 configs and higher-capacity VRAM GPUs, even SSDs available in 2011 as well IIRC. The comparison doesn't serve a purpose here, in my opinion.
Comparing the base MBP of 2011 to the MBPs of today, the MacBook Pro has seen significant upgrades. The entire line now consists of Retina-screens and SSDs as standard. The MBP has received a new case, reduced bezels, et c.
Since 2011, when our iMacs were released, the iMac has become thinner, but only at the expense of the SuperDrive (which I actually use from time to time). Making the rMBP thinner made sense, the iMac - not so much. Other than that, it's only the incremental upgrades which have happened across all product lines, PC or Mac. It has received a bit faster Wi-Fi and approx. 20-25% higher performing processors. I think these are very modest improvements after 4 years. HOWEVER, the 21.5" iMac thinner design did not only come at the expense of the SuperDrive, but also reverting back to a 5400rpm 2.5" HDD, compared to the 7200rpm 3.5" HDD of the 2011. That will actually have much more of an effect in day to day use, compared to the processor change. That in a negative way. Oh and the 2011 DOES have an IPS panel, just like the models after it.
First of all, SSD should be standard in the iMac, just as it is in all other computers Apple offer, even if only available as a no-cost option for 256GB.
Secondly, the iMac needs a new design in my opinion. It has now looked the same since 2009, that's nearly 6 years. Making it thinner does not count as a new design.
You all seem very limited in terms of what Apple COULD do to the iMac, as if the iMac has now reached its limit. Here are only a few ideas, although maybe not to everyones liking:
* Improved ALL-IN-ONE functionality. Bring back Front Row, at least to the 27" model. Add a display input, allowing people to finally connect Playstations, Xbox et c.
* New design. (Remember the revolution from iMac G3 > iMac G4 > iMac G5? Those happened in 4-5 year periods)
* Backlit keyboards included w/ new iMacs
* Et.c.
I think there's lots that could be done to the iMac if one would only think outside the box. I think its evident that Apple is not selling as many desktops as they used to, and thus have chose to spend their R&D elsewhere, i.e iPhones, iPads and laptops. I can't help but thinking that now is an ungrateful time to buy an iMac. It's a great computer still, but add the SSD/Fusion Drive and you're looking at a lot of money.
Oh, and yes - the Retina iMac is the answer to many of the problems above, but it's even more expensive, way too expensive for someone not utilizing a 5K screen. Moreover, the computer is still a first gen product and I for one am not willing to deal with the UI lag and heat issues.
That said, I'm a bit interested in upgrading to the 27" model and I'm considering my options.
Either, just picking up a mid-2011 27" model and upgrading it with an SSD. It would make a faster computer in day-to-day use than the base 2013-model without SSD. I'd also get to keep the SuperDrive. These 2011 models can also be had very cheap, so that's a plus for me as a student.
However, I've also seen several deals for the 27" late 2013 base model, so while the above still holds, I could see myself getting the 2013 if the price was right, and if I'm able to install an SSD into it.
We'll see I guess.
I appreciate your opinions and well thought out post, but I would like to comment on these two things.
Apple is selling more Macs then it ever has and they are outpacing PC sales growth (percentage-wise), so I respectfully disagree with your comment that Apple is not selling as many desktops as they used to.
Don't get too fixated on problems that you read in internet forums where they are almost always blown out of proportion. (It's just the nature of how internet forums work.) There are countless 5K iMac users (such as myself) that are extremely pleased with their machines. In my opinion, it's a great product that is worthy of every dollar I spent.
As for cost, I completely agree with you. If you don't want a 5K display, then yes, you should not spend that kind of money on one and stay with the lower resolution screen as long as you can.
Cheers,
Bryan
Exactly!
When I replace my 27" iMac in 3-4 years I expect the new 27" iMac that replaces it to be roughly the same. Maybe thinner, less bezels or whatever minor change Apple comes up with. Very similar to how the new 21" models are thinner then your 21".
If I want change then I won't buy the same thing again (kind of goes without saying).
If Apple made a computer that was drastically different then the current iMac it will no longer be called the iMac and they would name it something else.
I guess our logic is lost on each other. All I'm saying is if you are buying the same thing only newer don't expect a lot of change.
This applies to cars like you mentioned earlier. Why would anyone want a specific model to drastically change? Aside from killing resale it doesn't make sense. If you want a specific model of car to look completely different then you actually want a different model of car.
All good reasons to wait a couple years and then replace. SSD and RAM will be (should be) cheaper then. We're sort of in a limbo right now as the cost that Apple charges for a 512 GB SSD is prohibitive in my book. Anything smaller, or a spinning disk are out of the question.
RAM, to me, has gotten beyond that as 8 GB is enough for me and I don't think $200 extra should be a deal breaker if you really need it. I'm not calling it a good deal, but at $500 the upgrade to a 512 GB SSD has a much bigger impact on the final cost.
This kind of cost comparison means a lot more when you try and add the SSD to a Mac Mini and the price goes from $500 up to $1300 as you can't add the that large of an SSD to the base model.
Since you said your old Mac isn't "as nimble as she once was", you obviously noticed that. If you want a vastly faster iMac, you can get one because technology has progressed a lot. In fact you can get an iMac that's faster than a quad-core Mac Pro.
If instead you're looking for superficial styling changes (like "racing stripes"), Apple doesn't do that. E.g, the 2014 MacBook Air looks just like the one from 2008.
So your first step is decide what you want -- are your priorities a faster iMac with more capability, more storage, faster disk, better I/O expansion, vastly better GPU -- one far more "nimble" and pleasurable to use? If so you can get one. OTOH if your priorities are to get something that looks different for the sake of frivolous, cosmetic change, you can probably find a decal kit with racing stripes or lightning bolts for your present iMac.
I actually can't if looking at like for like not a different model or BTO. On the Mac side the old gal still performs really well and so it should with 20 gigs of RAM. What has been annoying me is the slow down when using Parallels with my W8.1 VM.
This worked admirably with SL, Lion, Mountain Lion Mavericks but not with Yosemite despite giving it 6 gigs of RAM. Average boot times to a full working VM is around 3mins 42 seconds.
Parallels reckon they have fixed the issues which only plagued the mid-2011 models (Apple driver issue) but I'm not convinced.
If I could get to the bottom of this issue I would certainly keep my present model as I think it's a better all rounder than the newer like for like model e.g. faster HDD superdrive etc.
Retina displays will eventually filter down to all iMac models, just like has been happening on MacBooks. Apple started the push to higher resolution screens on both mobile and desktop, with other manufacturers scrambling to catch up. Apple have been the first to introduce 5K displays. Why would you consider that being stuck in a rut?
In one breath you consider the move to thinner MacBooks with reduced bezels as 'significant upgrades', but bemoan them on the iMac. So which is it? You also complain about computer technology not moving fast enough in four years but wish they had CD drives, this reminds me of the people that still complain about not having a floppy disk drive. Apple was the first major manufacturer to dump optical drives so if this is not pushing forward I don't know what is. On this last point you're in the minority, very few people still miss a CD drive because all software is now set up for digital delivery. Why should my iMac be hobbled with the extra expense, heat, increased failure rate and thickness of a DVD drive because you want ancient tech? I think it's much more reasonable to kick optical drives to the kerb and if you want one you can buy an external.
With regards to Wi-Fi, CPUs etc, Apple aren't in control of that so no point blaming them. 7200rpm to 5400rpm HDD, I understand your point but a compromise had to be made.
Does any major manufacturer offer SSD across their whole product line? 256GB is pretty pokey for a desktop, a better alternative is to offer a larger base drive with the option to upgrade to larger and faster models leaving the choice in the hands of the buyer. Oh wait, that's what Apple does.
And that's definitely an opinion, which you acknowledge. In my opinion the iMac is a classic of industrial design and there is no point changing for the sake of it, many famous designs don't change much if at all over decades.
Front Row was a nice piece of software but you have to let it go, it's last release was over five years ago. Apple have moved in a different direction with the Apple TV, once again you're the one not moving on.
Connecting a console to a iMac is only something a small minority of people will be interested in. Most people who own an iMac will own a television to hook it up to, this is what they were designed for. This is no great loss.
Not all models you mention were universally loved for their design, which runs into my point above about change for the sake of it.
Backlights will cause increased battery drain on wireless desktop keyboards, and it has to be asked whether a backlight is that important on a desktop.
You have no idea how many desktops Apple sell and neither do I because they don't break down laptop and desktop sales. But I can tell you their combined sales have increased immensely over the last ten years so you are likely to be wrong.
None of the ideas you have are thinking outside the box, in fact they are terribly pedestrian.
----------
Then buy a PC.
Comparing base 2011 iMac vs base 2014 iMac ("like for like") makes no sense. This has nothing to do with what is available in the iMac product line or the presence/absence of innovation.
E.g, the base 2014 iMac has only a 1.4Ghz dual-core i5, and no discrete graphics.
By contrast your base 2011 iMac has a discrete GPU and a faster CPU. By that reasoning things have gone backward -- iMacs are getting slower and slower.
This shows how assessing the state of innovation by a base vs base comparison is meaningless -- it is distorted by how far down the product line goes, which is a marketing decision, not a technical one.
You can get a much faster iMac if you want it, and can probably configure one to boot in 15 sec vs 3 min 42 seconds. You asked would a customer notice a difference. I think most would. Fortunately technology has progressed.
I am not trying to pick a fight but this thread has become one of those: I can't afford the latest technology so I am going bash Apple (iMac). I am also going to complain about Apple not being innovative while whining about Apple not including technologies that are no longer viable.
Time to dump this thread into the bin that gathers debris about DVDs, 17" MBPs, etc.
- David
Time to dump this thread into the bin that gathers debris about DVDs, 17" MBPs, etc.
- David
I have commented about displays before. You are talking to someone raised on 425 lines monochrome TV.
TBH my present IPS screen is all the screen I'm every likely to need.Again it depends on your situation. You may well have access to Superfast fibre BB. However, that is not the case in many parts of the UK. I will be lucky to see 20mbps BB where I live in my lifetime never mind Superfast fibre BB. Surely a product should take it's customers needs into account?
Why? We already had 7200 drives, why go backwards?
To sum up then what you are really hinting at is the iMac has reached it's evolutionary end, it cannot be improved beyond a few minor speed bumps and so that is it, same design until the end of time or end of the Desktop. Your rather glib response to get a PC tends to confirm this view does it not?
First, if you're in the minority, too bad. It's not cost-effective for a company to cater to a small subset of customers (i.e. those without high-speed internet). Most places already have high-speed fibre, and if you happen to be the minority that doesn't, that's too bad.
Second, they went from 7200 to 5400 because the iMac got thinner. You can't fit a desktop 3.5" HDD there.
No No No - I'm talking about the base iMac, the replacement model for my mid-2011 iMac not the 'iMac Air'. You also miss the point I was making. Yes I could add lots of whistles and bells or get the more expensive models but then it wouldn't be a like for like replacement.
My whole argument is that in four years the like for like replacement has hardly moved on. Please stop comparing Apples with Pears.
Four years? You mean two years five months, since the current model came out back in October 2013. To see what progress four years can bring you'll have to wait for the retina model like I suggested earlier in this thread
you should spend the money on a new hard drive for your current iMac, get an SSD and do a ram upgrade and it will be just like buying a newer faster machine for way less.
Four years? You mean two years five months, since the current model came out back in October 2013. To see what progress four years can bring you'll have to wait for the retina model like I suggested earlier in this thread
No I mean four years! My iMac is for years old hence I was looking at a like for like model replacement. Look at my previous post regarding Retina. If the iMac doesn't receive a comprehensive re-design then likely as not I will go back to a Mini or something similar and use my 24" TN monitor.
That should tell you how much emphasis I place on 'retina'.
----------
20 gig of RAM and you mention an upgrade
I also use NAS for storage. I'm looking for innovation not go faster stripes.I think you just want to see something new, like maybe an iMac without "chin" (the aluminium stripe) at the bottom to call it a new one because you see something different and not the same as all the years.
Yes no one can tell if you have a beefy BTO imac/macbook or from which year it is or the lowest end model but who cares. Only if you have to justify it to yourself or to anyone that it is something new just because it looks different.
Clearly you dont care about internals because all your office work can be done on an older one. Guess what, a 2010 would do it too.
Even though you dont care about internals an SSD would "feel" like an new iMac but it doesnt look like it. If you where in the Apple store testing an newer iMac, the chance it was a 21 iMac >with< SSD is slim. Because I havent ever seen the specced up Models with SSD and everything standing there. Because of that you didnt experience any difference in using it because it has the same harddrive.
What would you do when you have an mini + monitor? Change the monitor to a different model 2 years later because the monitor design looks different its innovation? The mini didnt change much the last years either.
Yes no one can tell if you have a beefy BTO imac/macbook or from which year it is or the lowest end model but who cares. Only if you have to justify it to yourself or to anyone that it is something new just because it looks different.
Clearly you dont care about internals because all your office work can be done on an older one. Guess what, a 2010 would do it too.
Even though you dont care about internals an SSD would "feel" like an new iMac but it doesnt look like it. If you where in the Apple store testing an newer iMac, the chance it was a 21 iMac >with< SSD is slim. Because I havent ever seen the specced up Models with SSD and everything standing there. Because of that you didnt experience any difference in using it because it has the same harddrive.
What would you do when you have an mini + monitor? Change the monitor to a different model 2 years later because the monitor design looks different its innovation? The mini didnt change much the last years either.