Memory in New $1099 iMac is Soldered and Not Upgradable

[numlock]

the only reasons adding RAM to a machine in recent years has had any meaningful impact on its lifespan are

A - manufacturers have historically been ludicrously optimistic (and downright miserable) in their base RAM configs, leaving plenty of scope for users to add more of the stuff and get a significant performance gain in return.

B processor and graphics cards have gained so much headroom over the requirements of the base OS and basic apps, that they (thankfully) no longer needed a simultaneous corresponding upgrade too.

Instead you could just rip out the stingy 512MB or 1GB the manufacs had saddled it with and stick a much more useful 2 or 4GB that they should have shipped it with in its place. Instant upgrade.


Ten/fifteen years ago the old favourites were you could never too fast a processor, too big a graphics card or too much RAM, and considering what we had back then, even for folks doing basic tasks it was generally true.

But for folks doing general day to day task on a computer these days (as opposed to video editing, high end gaming, music etc) two out of those three are no longer significant issues.

And with 8GB installed on base models, then 'you can never have enough RAM' may no longer be an issue too.

Or to put it another way, when folks sitting with 8GB RAM need to reach for 16GB in order to extend the useable lifespan of their 2014 bought machine, its not going to be down to the requirements of their 2017's base OS and applications updates.

Its going to be down to a shift in the sort of uses they're putting the machine to. Uses that are going to need a whole lot more than just additional RAM shoved into the system to get any significant improvement in what it can do.

apple themselves has doubled the base ram in imacs every 2 years and why should that trend change?

there will be plenty of life in this machine and its parts when the ram is at its limits

but this kind of limitation, as much as i hate it, is fine in $500 machine or less but this machine isnt cheap. it isnt low end in price

 

[dumastudetto]

How about giving consumer a choice? Those who don't want to upgrade can leave it, but its not unheard of to want a $1100 desktop to be upgraded with more memory a year or two from now.

How is that being green, Apple? Enjoy your tiny market share in PCs

Apple:
Tiny market share? No.
Small? Yes.
Growing versus the competition? Yes,
Most profitable? By far.

So I think Apple would be more than happy with the performance of their Mac line of products.

Whereas those who haven't already bailed on the PC business probably will do soon. Sony has quit on its PC business, HP has already seriously considered it, Dell isn't close to a booming business anymore, and you have to wonder how much longer other players will bother with it.

 

[Tiger8]

Apple:
Tiny market share? No.
Small? Yes.
Growing versus the competition? Yes,
Most profitable? By far.

So I think Apple would be more than happy with the performance of their Mac line of products.

Whereas those who haven't already bailed on the PC business probably will do soon. Sony has quit on its PC business, HP has already seriously considered it, Dell isn't close to a booming business anymore, and you have to wonder how much longer other players will bother with it.

I'm sure they're happy with it, but deep inside they wish they can grow it.

There are equally important for retail:
- Volume: How big is the overall market
- Market Share: What's my slice
- Revenue: How much money I'm making

Hitting all 3 is the holly grail, hitting 2 makes you okay, hitting 1 means let's exit the market.

 

[Cubytus]

You guys enjoy your 17" MacBook Pro with Optical drive. Oh wait, poor sales so Apple killed that one years ago.

What about the $3K+ price tag? I'm sure sales have been poor due to this sole fact. Let's introduce a $2.5K- 17" with an optical drive, just to see if sales are so poor as they claim.

but you make a good point. apple dosent give a ****. to remove the optical drive (especially in desktops) when not everyone has access to broadband is a good example of that

…And considering that thinness or weight isn't a significant concern on desktop computer! Having to buy yet another peripheral that will take desk space, yet another cable to tangle, etc.

As they removed the VGA adapter long ago in laptop boxes, while it's still valuable and even necessary when making presentations. Projectors don't always have DVI, let alone HDMI.

A - manufacturers have historically been ludicrously optimistic (and downright miserable) in their base RAM configs, leaving plenty of scope for users to add more of the stuff and get a significant performance gain in return.

! And don't forget minuscule drive sizes / performance.

Ten/fifteen years ago the old favourites were you could never too fast a processor, too big a graphics card or too much RAM, and considering what we had back then, even for folks doing basic tasks it was generally true.

And it still holds true for pre-Mavericks Mac OS. You can never have too much RAM. I out-used the 8GB stock RAM in mine long ago, thanks to the well-known memory leaks of Safari and most browsers.

Mavericks changed the paradigm somewhat by introducing "RAM compression"

Or to put it another way, when folks sitting with 8GB RAM need to reach for 16GB in order to extend the useable lifespan of their 2014 bought machine, its not going to be down to the requirements of their 2017's base OS and applications updates.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. For the past 15 years at least, applications and OSes have steadily required more and more RAM and disk space, without the corresponding increase in performance one would have thought they'd get, for essentially the same functionality. This is called "bloatware".

The base specs are good for at least 5-6 years which is more or less the life of an iMac.

I don't know how you can confidently assume that 8GB RAM will be enough in 2019 or 2020.

 

[Kryckter]

I don't know how you can confidently assume that 8GB RAM will be enough in 2019 or 2020.

But who expects an entry level computer to be computing well in 6 years? I remember seeing an article that said the average computer was replaced every 4 years

 

[Nunt]

But who expects an entry level computer to be computing well in 6 years? I remember seeing an article that said the average computer was replaced every 4 years

Well, entry level computer... It may be the cheapest iMac but its above $1000 price tag doesn't make it an entry level.

My problem with the iMac, and not just the new one, isn't the non-upgradable ram. It's the non-replaceble HDD. As a standard you get the 500GB spinning drive. That's a relic from a previous age and Apple really shouldn't be locking in the light users with such a drive. The standard should be a smallish SSD drive. An SSD drive is going to be the hardware that will make the biggest change in performance and even the very light computer users will experience a major speed impact.

Sure you can upgrade the disk when you order a higher one. But thats just a sleazy apple tactic. They design their hardware in such a way that you can only have an SSD when you buy it at their inflated prices.

If you want to buy the 256gb SSD instead of the 500GB hdd you have to pay $250 extra and you loose the HDD which is costs also about $50. So you pay a total of $300 for a 256gb SSD, while at the same time you can find a decent SSD of the same size for $110-$130.

So the choice consumers have is: buy crappy outdated hardware or buy apple's triple priced SSD.

 

[Steve121178]

I don't know how you can confidently assume that 8GB RAM will be enough in 2019 or 2020.

I can't see how firing up a webpage in 6 years time will consume 8GB's of RAM.

Yes, you might not be able to run the very latest OS in 6 years time but it's not like your computer is going to be obsolete. And at $1099 then in 6 years your iMac investment would have ended up costing you $183 per year which is peanuts.

This thread is full of nonsense.

 

[Cubytus]

My problem with the iMac, and not just the new one, isn't the non-upgradable ram. It's the non-replaceble HDD. As a standard you get the 500GB spinning drive. That's a relic from a previous age and Apple really shouldn't be locking in the light users with such a drive. The standard should be a smallish SSD drive. An SSD drive is going to be the hardware that will make the biggest change in performance and even the very light computer users will experience a major speed impact.

On the other hand having a small SSD means crippling the machine with insufficient storage, or at the very least require that an external HDD be bought along with the machine, merely to store large media files. I thought Apple developed the Fusion drive. There's enough room in a normal iMac to fit two disks, SSD and spinning.

I can't see how firing up a webpage in 6 years time will consume 8GB's of RAM.

Yes, you might not be able to run the very latest OS in 6 years time but it's not like your computer is going to be obsolete. And at $1099 then in 6 years your iMac investment would have ended up costing you $183 per year which is peanuts.

This thread is full of nonsense.

The obsolescence isn't just a matter of hardware specs. It's all about the applications requirements. If a given application, for performance reasons or security ones, requires a more recent OS that can't fit on a given hardware, then hardware is indirectly responsible for functionality. If the hardware was truly independent from the software, then I would be able to run Firefox on my Toshiba Portégé 7020CT, a 366MHz Pentium II, just much slower than on modern machines.

Just one webpage probably wouldn't overload the machine. However, webpages have been steadily increasing in weight, and who opens just one window at a time anyway?

 

[ctrlshft]

As the cheapo-option for iMacs, this is a pretty meh situation.

 

[toke lahti]

Thunderbolt isn't fast enough. DDR3 1600Mhz has a peak transfer rate of 12800MB/s while thunderbolt is only 1250 MB/s.

Sooo...., TB1 is only 10 times too slow, TB2 is just 5x too slow and TB3 is only 2.5x too slow. In 2017 TB4 is fast enough, so just drop in a new add-on card, oh wait...?

1-2GB is more than enough for iMacs, which are only used for web surfing and office apps.

Think for a moment if this "cheapo" imac had ram door and slots, just like my father's 20" from 2007. I've upgraded its ram only once, but changed hdd twice.
With ram door corporations / public sector could buy 2GB versions for $899 or 4GB versions for $999. Now they have to buy 8GB version, since they can't be sure if they need it. Apple wins by selling more ram than customers need. Clever!

I don't understand why this new iMac is an issue. if you don't like buy a different model.

And next year we have rMBP flagship with soldered ram and we have this same conversation. Oh, well... it already have!
Then next year we have flagship imac with soldered ram and again we have this same conversation.
Unless customers get smart and start to ask something, not just accepting what's given. (Remember that 1984 commercial, funny how the situation has turned upside down...)

 

[johnnnw]

Absolutely hate this is happening so much now. Terrible practice.

 

[aarond12]

Unless customers get smart and start to ask something, not just accepting what's given. (Remember that 1984 commercial, funny how the situation has turned upside down...)

Apple is the new Big Brother? Hmmm... I'm not buying it.

 

[Nunt]

On the other hand having a small SSD means crippling the machine with insufficient storage, or at the very least require that an external HDD be bought along with the machine, merely to store large media files. I thought Apple developed the Fusion drive. There's enough room in a normal iMac to fit two disks, SSD and spinning.

I don't think a smallish 256GB SSD which is very affordable (about $100) would really be crippling insufficient storage. That's enough room to store all your apps and run them lightning fast and you will still have room left for plenty of media content. Remember we are talking about the lower-end market here. Sure those consumers might put some photos, movies, and music on the SSD, but the SSD should still have room enough to fit it all on. And if you don't, you can easily buy a usb flash drive or an external HDD.

 

[madeirabhoy]

Well, entry level computer... It may be the cheapest iMac but its above $1000 price tag doesn't make it an entry level.

My problem with the iMac, and not just the new one, isn't the non-upgradable ram. It's the non-replaceble HDD. As a standard you get the 500GB spinning drive. That's a relic from a previous age and Apple really shouldn't be locking in the light users with such a drive. The standard should be a smallish SSD drive. An SSD drive is going to be the hardware that will make the biggest change in performance and even the very light computer users will experience a major speed impact.

Sure you can upgrade the disk when you order a higher one. But thats just a sleazy apple tactic. They design their hardware in such a way that you can only have an SSD when you buy it at their inflated prices.

If you want to buy the 256gb SSD instead of the 500GB hdd you have to pay $250 extra and you loose the HDD which is costs also about $50. So you pay a total of $300 for a 256gb SSD, while at the same time you can find a decent SSD of the same size for $110-$130.

So the choice consumers have is: buy crappy outdated hardware or buy apple's triple priced SSD.

for a mac, it is entry level, and its market arent likely even to read macrumors never mind need more memory.

given theres not a huge huge jump in price to the next model, anyone who has any worries about ram would also worry about processor speed and hard drive space and hard drive space, and would be paying the extra for the next model up, or a mac mini plus a cheap screen.


these imacs will sell a small but decent niche to:

schools
people who want a pretty computer for reading emails and browsing
hotels who want pretty computers

none of those are going to be upgrading the memory in the lifetime of the computer.


in euros, in portugal, its €1129, the 2,7ghz is €1349.

 

[Cubytus]

I don't think a smallish 256GB SSD which is very affordable (about $100) would really be crippling insufficient storage. That's enough room to store all your apps and run them lightning fast and you will still have room left for plenty of media content. Remember we are talking about the lower-end market here. Sure those consumers might put some photos, movies, and music on the SSD, but the SSD should still have room enough to fit it all on. And if you don't, you can easily buy a usb flash drive or an external HDD.

Sure 256GB is enough for all apps, the OS and some documents / content, but surely not media files.

I assumed the lower-end market favored size over speed, and 7200rpms spinning drives are sufficiently affordable now there's no reason to stay at 5400rpms. You can even install hybrid drives theres. They have reasonably good performance and sizes are not crippling.

I got a base install, small music collection and just necessary docs weighing 220Gio. The Downloads folder isn't included.

 

[LordVic]

All the reviews i've read so far on this new iMac pretty muhc say the same thing

50% less performance for 18% less price.

and aside from the typical Apple praise for ease of use, design, look and feel.

everyone is saying this is not a good value for your money.

 

[26139]

Yep!

Who gives a ****? The people buying the low end Mac are not going to take it apart any upgrade it anyway.

The base specs are good for at least 5-6 years which is more or less the life of an iMac.

This is meant for people that are buying 50 machines at once or just need something super basic.

Totally agree with you.