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
If by "like for like" you mean the same money you spent (which you previously said), that might be a 2014 2.7Ghz iMac with 1TB Fusion Drive. From a CPU standpoint that is about 23% faster, disk would be vastly faster, GPU maybe 30-40% faster (Iris Pro 5200 vs 6750M).
You mentioned £1,200 GPB -- today that would buy the above system, esp. including inflation adjustment.
Now -- IF by "like for like" you are artificially gaming the comparison so the new iMac actually costs less than the old one (in constant dollars), then that's not a fair comparison. In that case you would have knowingly rigged the comparison to produce untruthful results.
Sorry I really don't mean to be. It just appears your basis for drawing that conclusion is built on faulty and inconsistent reasoning.
E.g, you said the "like for like" comparison doesn't indicate a significantly better 21.5" iMac in 2014 than in 2011. Yet you turn around and say if they redesigned it to look totally different you'd be interested. Yet -- just redesigning it would NOT change whatsoever the internal engineering factors that produce the current performance and price/performance. It would look different but perform and cost similarly.
If Apple (or any other company) could just redesign a product and produce a computer which has higher performance or is cheaper to manufacture while using the same available component technology, they would do so.
I will look at the iFixit tear down for my model.
I have always been concerned about (a) causing damage to the outer cover and screen and (b) getting dust or finger marks on the inside. Installing the drive itself causes me no worries.
I have always been concerned about (a) causing damage to the outer cover and screen and (b) getting dust or finger marks on the inside. Installing the drive itself causes me no worries.
Has anyone any experience of OptiBay? This uses a caddy for the SSD making the task much easier. You still have to remove the screen but you then remove the superdrive and install the OptiBay caddy instead. Your Mac then sees the SSD caddy as just another high speed storage device.
You even get a caddy for the removed superdrive so you can still use it.
You even get a caddy for the removed superdrive so you can still use it.
Did you notice that the RAM in the 21'' iMac is not easily upgradable anymore and limited to 16 GB...
I don't agree with many things the OP is saying here, but I think he is right when he says that for someone who owns a 2011 21'' iMac with 24 GB of RAM, the current 21'' doesn't have much to offer. I also think that all Macs should come with at least a Fusion drive as default.
If we compare the situation with that of the MBP line in 2012/2013, it is very clear that the non-retina models are being phased out. Looking for innovation in a model line that is being phased out is hopeless of course.
Overall however I strongly disagree about the status of the iMac line. Eventually there will be a 4k 21'' iMac with standard fusion drive and whatever new features 2015 may bring. This will set the standard for modern all in one PCs.
OP, imagine if the people who grew up with 60 lines TVs had said that 425 lines monochrome are everything they are ever going to need, and development had stopped there... or if people had listened to Bill Gates and his 640 kb RAM statement... You can not dismiss all technological progress just because you can not appreciate it. And maybe sometimes new technology has to be made available in more expensive models first, simply because nothing is for free in life...
I don't agree with many things the OP is saying here, but I think he is right when he says that for someone who owns a 2011 21'' iMac with 24 GB of RAM, the current 21'' doesn't have much to offer. I also think that all Macs should come with at least a Fusion drive as default.
If we compare the situation with that of the MBP line in 2012/2013, it is very clear that the non-retina models are being phased out. Looking for innovation in a model line that is being phased out is hopeless of course.
Overall however I strongly disagree about the status of the iMac line. Eventually there will be a 4k 21'' iMac with standard fusion drive and whatever new features 2015 may bring. This will set the standard for modern all in one PCs.
OP, imagine if the people who grew up with 60 lines TVs had said that 425 lines monochrome are everything they are ever going to need, and development had stopped there... or if people had listened to Bill Gates and his 640 kb RAM statement... You can not dismiss all technological progress just because you can not appreciate it. And maybe sometimes new technology has to be made available in more expensive models first, simply because nothing is for free in life...
Steve, you bring up a few good points and I somewhat agree with you. However, you chose to cut away the few points of my post where I actually discuss some of the issues you bring up. If you're going to start a debate, at least use a holistic approach. Moreover, let's try to keep this discussion a bit more civilized and mature. People have differing opinions, you may not agree but you should at least respect that. No need to come off as arrogant to other posters or me.
I won't be taking the time to write another response, or enter into a debate - my time is simply way too precious. I will however, adress the few points you brought up above. You can choose to respond, or not, doesn't matter.
First of all, as I said - the Retina iMac is the solution to many of the aforementioned issues. I think it's a great piece of technology and it's right on so many levels. However, as of right now it's not a mature product just quite yet. We all know it. Also, I never used the term "Stuck in a rut" - you're confusing me with the OP. I can't wait to see the Retina-screens filter down through the iMac-line and becoming the new standard. However, we're still a few years away. Also, I wish we would have seen a new design from the ground up with the new Retina iMac.
Sure, the iMac is a great design. That does not mean it can't be improved upon. Time moves on. What you're basically saying above is that the iPhone 4 from 2011 was the most perfectly designed phone, and to some extent a "design icon", therefore we should all be using 3.5" phones with huge bezels in 2015 as well.
Sure, the iMac design is an icon - and it is close to being perfect. However, neither you or I have the creative minds, nor close to endless resources that Apple entails. The current design has been with us since 2009. Imagine what Apple could do if they just put in the effort? Think of the new Mac Pro for example (I know, it serves a different purpose and a different market). "Can't innovate anymore, my ass". Well, let's give the iMac some love as well.
Yes, I consider 25 % less weight, reduced bezels and thinner designs to be a significant improvement for a laptop! I love my rMBP and think it's the best laptop out there. Sure it was worth sacrificing the optical drive! I'm coming from a MBA so I haven't had a laptop w/ optical drive since 2011. But it's a notebook, something you carry around all day! Moreover, for me - the upgrade was a huge step forward, and never a "compromise". Rest assure, I agree with you, it's a dated type of technology. You do bring up a few great points about failure rates, heat, noise et c in the iMac as well. I wouldn't need it in an iMac, and had it been the only sacrifice I would gladly have accepted it for a new design. However, going from 3.5" 7200rpm discs to 5.4" 5200rpm - THAT was more of my problem. I don't think it was a compromise which should have been made. And since the compromise was made, I think Apple should have been very quick to correct it by making fusion drive standard as soon as economically feasible.
Even if I today purchase a new €1700 27" iMac, I'm still stuck with a spinning drive, in 2015.. The Fusion Drive SHOULD be standard by now, and the 256GB SHOULD be a no-cost option, at least in the 27". Apple realizes this, and that's why they've done this with the Retina iMac - however I think this should be the case for all iMacs. Oh, and I'm not spoilt by other brands - frankly I do not care what other desktop computers have or do not have SSD. I care about what's available from Apple. I know that if I buy a 13" rMBP for $1200, I get 256GB of SSD storage as standard. My theory is, Apple's sells a boatload of MBPs, so they may be able to accept lower margins on those laptops, while they certainly do not sell as many desktops (I don't need data to prove this, do I?)
Front Row was a great addition to an "All-in-one" computer. The same would apply to a display input. Have you heard of the product Kanex XD? It was an adapter which made it possible to use target display mode for all HDMI-devices on pre 2011 iMacs. It was a huge success for Kanex, considering the price and limited availability. I see the question of using the iMac for PS4/Xboxes being raised frequently in the forums. I could see many people using the function.
I know many people who use their 27" iMac as a bedroom TV as well, since lets face it - it may be difficult to fit both a 27" iMac and a 40-50" TV in ones bedroom. Sure, I have a TV in the living room - does that mean I always want to watch TV/play games in the living room? - No. If/when the iMac can finally display video input, I may get rid of my TV entirely.
Yup, good point about battery life on backlight keyboards. However, consider the amazing battery life of iPads (especially iPad 3) and imagine the additional space available in a keyboard. If a keyboard would utilize a large built in battery, I think a charge would hold long enough considering all it would have to do is provide some backlight. It could even feature wireless charging. Let's imagine if the keyboard was charged by placing it on the iMacs aluminum foot.
I think there's lots that Apple could do to a new iMac.
I've been with Apple since 2004. Back then, new models were a bit more revolutionary than they are today. I think I've come to expect more of Apple than some of the newer guys on here. However, technology has progressed a lot and I think it's evident that we have to get used to longer life-cycles.
That said, I'm sure Apple has plenty of cards up their sleeves for the coming few years. First up, the new MBA and Apple Watch. We'll see what else the future may bring...
I have spent most of last night exploring SSD options and having done so I'm not sure given the age of my iMac and what it cost new this is a desirable cost option.
1. Do I want to replace the entire HDD with an SSD. A 1TB Evo 850 plus and kit does not come cheap.
2. Do I want to go the route of HDD/SSD combo? Again not cheap though cheaper than a complete replacement. However, not sure I want to manually manage where files are placed.
3. Genuine Apple Fusion Drive. Whilst possibly a more elegant solution for file management i.e. automatic, the replacement is not cheap and the SSD storage is pitiful.
Should I really be spending upwards of 50% of what the iMac cost new on a four year old computer? Personally, whilst I would undoubtedly enjoy carrying out the upgrade I don't think it makes economic sense.
I think the whole SSD/HDD situation is still evolving and Apple need to come up with some better cost effective storage solutions.
In the interim I'm wondering if I would be better off simply using my Windows Laptop for any of my Windows work (it is after all part of my NAS network) and remove Parallels from the iMac.
That would leave about two thirds of the 500 gig HDD free with 20 gigs of RAM. Hopefully, by the time I need to change the iMac Apple will have better options.
1. Do I want to replace the entire HDD with an SSD. A 1TB Evo 850 plus and kit does not come cheap.
2. Do I want to go the route of HDD/SSD combo? Again not cheap though cheaper than a complete replacement. However, not sure I want to manually manage where files are placed.
3. Genuine Apple Fusion Drive. Whilst possibly a more elegant solution for file management i.e. automatic, the replacement is not cheap and the SSD storage is pitiful.
Should I really be spending upwards of 50% of what the iMac cost new on a four year old computer? Personally, whilst I would undoubtedly enjoy carrying out the upgrade I don't think it makes economic sense.
I think the whole SSD/HDD situation is still evolving and Apple need to come up with some better cost effective storage solutions.
In the interim I'm wondering if I would be better off simply using my Windows Laptop for any of my Windows work (it is after all part of my NAS network) and remove Parallels from the iMac.
That would leave about two thirds of the 500 gig HDD free with 20 gigs of RAM. Hopefully, by the time I need to change the iMac Apple will have better options.
Those are good points. What about this: your 2011 21.5" iMac has only USB 2.0 so unfortunately your only high speed expansion option is Thunderbolt. You could get a Seagate Thunderbolt adapter for about $139, and a 250GB Samsung SSD for about $120, so for a total of about $260 have a 256GB external SSD:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-I...id=1424358588&sr=1-1&keywords=samsung+evo+ssd
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0549R9NBGTB6AM61Z0PP
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The SSD doesn't need to stay in it when you sell it or dispose of it you can always remove it a carry it forward to the next computer.
Yes you could, however, we would likely as not be talking a few years. If you look at the advancements in SSD technology in just the last few years, the work involved in installation, the temptation to leave it in would be huge.
Apart from the Parallels VM this iMac flies through office tasks and browsing which is its main function. If I just stick to OS X and use the Windows Laptop in place of the VM then I can see no reason for doing anything until machine swap out time.
This iMac has done a lot of work over the last four years so I can't see the logic in doing anything at this point in time.
The point I make is without Parallels it runs like a Swiss watch so it would be an unnessary upgrade.
I recommended many pages ago that you revert back to your previous setup but it was lost. If I were Lankyman I'd not get a new computer nor a new SSD I'd just go back to when it worked correctly.
You did and I forgot you had suggested it, apologies. I have now done exactly that, I have saved two clones of my VM on different external drives and put the one on the iMac in the Trash.
I will monitor how it runs now, my suspicion is it will fly again.
Given I have my Windows 8.1 Laptop with files on the NAS I shouldn't really need the VM anyway.
That just leaves me to work out why Safari with iOS on my iPad and Macrumours website keeps throwing up 'A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded' error message.
I have removed the .pvm file (Parallels) cleaned up the disk and rebooted. The difference is quite noticable especially noise levels. All the previous platter noise has abated and the dock icons now bounce once and the app is open.
Amazing really how getting rid of that one file has transformed the machine, though it was a 100gig file.
For what I use this machine for it is now heaps fast enough - 20gigs of RAM without Parallels certainly makes a difference.
Amazing really how getting rid of that one file has transformed the machine, though it was a 100gig file.
For what I use this machine for it is now heaps fast enough - 20gigs of RAM without Parallels certainly makes a difference.
I have removed the .pvm file (Parallels) cleaned up the disk and rebooted. The difference is quite noticable especially noise levels. All the previous platter noise has abated and the dock icons now bounce once and the app is open.
Amazing really how getting rid of that one file has transformed the machine, though it was a 100gig file.
For what I use this machine for it is now heaps fast enough - 20gigs of RAM without Parallels certainly makes a difference.
Now, with a SSD in your machine, I claim that you could have this level of performance while still running Parallels.
OSs read and write stuff to temp files quite frequently. When you run two OSs at the same time, different sectors of the storage device have to be accessed very often. With a spinning HDD, this means the arm has to move around constantly, and since this is a mechanical process, it severely limits access times. SSDs not only improve absolute transfer rates, but they tremendously speed up random disc access. That is the reason why it is so useful to have the OS (and other frequently accessed files) on SSD storage.
Unfortunately it is a PITA to change the internal storage in an iMac...
I wouldn't argue with what you say. However, as said before, since I have put my Synology NAS on the network and have a Windows 8.1 Laptop there is no real need or imperative to run Parallels on my iMac.
I accept without doubt that it's much nicer doing work on the Mac, whether that be Windows or OS X than a Laptop (whichever brand that may be). However, for the amount of time I spend on Windows it isn't really an issue. I do have a 24" monitor I could hook up to the Laptop, I just need to re-arrange my office.
I would still like to see some new designs coming through for the iMac and in particular I really think Apple should reconsider making the iMac more user friendly when it comes to the consumer carrying out their own upgrades.
Failing that they should look again at their BTO storage and memory options, especially pricing.
I'm not an Apple analyst, but I seriously doubt they're going in that direction! When I see the new MacPro and the parts on other computers that are soldered (RAM and SSD now...)...
I could see them shrink the Bezel. My all time favourite design is still the G4.
Now regarding the upgradability: We can always wish and hope. But if you spend just one minute thinking about the direction the industry is taking, you should realise that in the future we will very likely have even fewer options for upgrading the machine ourselves. Prices for upgrades will remain high because they offer great margins...
I think both you and Alesc are correct in your analysis. I could better understand if this was what one might refer to as a 'cheap consumable'
However, given the cost design and engineering it is far from that. People are always going to want to do their own mods and I find this sort of behaviour by companies quite galling. I do include all companies in this not just Apple.
Last edited:
The problem is that the people who want to mod their systems are a very vocal minority.
And being in the minority means that you'll have to suck it up and accept what companies do, for they won't listen to the minority. This is business at work.
The majority just wants to use their systems right out of the box and not think about upgrading any of the parts inside. If they want to upgrade, they'll just buy a new computer outright.
If you study Apple history, this has long been an intentional, philosophical and technical posture.
In 1984 this was heatedly debated among the original Mac design team. Jobs felt a closed design was more reliable, and high speed I/O ports would handle needed expansion. For better or worse that was his view and even today Apple follows that to varying degrees.
Yes on a smart phone or laptop you can put screws and access hatches to allow end user upgrades of batteries, memory, disk, etc. However each of those have costs -- reliability, water intrusion, inability to vett 3rd party products, etc. For devices where every fraction of a mm and every gram counts, providing external access adds manufacturing complexity and constrains internal design.
This tradeoff has been well known in engineering for over 50 years. During the Apollo moon program, engineers hotly debated whether the spacecraft electronics should be serviceable by the astronauts. They ultimately decided providing the access panels, connectors, slots, racks, etc. would degrade reliability and constrain internal design, so they just wired everything in place and covered key components with sealing compound.
I agree Apple is stuck in a rut, just not the one the OP mentioned. I dislike the constant push for closed, thin computing devices than cannot be upgraded. So far I'm stuck in 2011 just to keep a Mac around for work. I've moved much of my compute to Windows based systems to have upgradable solutions.
I had hoped the transition from the Jobs Era would have brought some loosening of this closed architecture but it has not done so for the computer line (I'm a fan of the larger iPhones so I guess there is hope).
I'll keep waiting for now.
Cheers,
I had hoped the transition from the Jobs Era would have brought some loosening of this closed architecture but it has not done so for the computer line (I'm a fan of the larger iPhones so I guess there is hope).
I'll keep waiting for now.
Cheers,
Actually, I think that those looking fondly back to their '11 Macs and bulky, configurable machines of the past are the ones in a rut. I find it fascinating that so many on macrumors appluade Apple for being innovative and then whine and diss every innovative product that Apple introduces. What does your idea of the future look like? Small, lighter, and more mobile devices to do the work that our bulky, configurable machines of the past used to do is what I see.
Last edited: