The main point is that the OWC RAM costs more than say Crucial/Kingston RAM for a reason, and if you have good technical knowledge it isn't hard to figure out if RAM will be compatible with your Mac (as a general rule if it works in most similar x86 PCs it will work with similar Macs too).Did you just say something in a foriegn tongue? Would you please say all that again so we can understand it CLEARLY? Thanks![]()
The main point is that the OWC RAM costs more than say Crucial/Kingston RAM for a reason, and if you have good technical knowledge it isn't hard to figure out if RAM will be compatible with your Mac (as a general rule if it works in most similar x86 PCs it will work with similar Macs too).
Did you just say something in a foriegn tongue? Would you please say all that again so we can understand it CLEARLY? Thanks![]()
I remember when I had a 64GB HDD in my Mac when I was a young lad!!
I didn't know previous gen iMac had a hard limit of 32GB of Ram ... guess you do learn something every day.
64GB RAM is useless to most people. If you needed that much RAM I don't think you'd even be using a Mac for whatever it is you're doing.
Of course, it's an option so now people with more money than sense will buy it. I have 16GB in my PC and even that's a bit overkill for gaming. Most people don't need any more than 8GB these days.
I honestly think Apple should put in a proper SSD and better GPU instead of all this RAM.
Have you used a nMacPro? Stability is bafflingly awful on both 10.10 and 10.11. I had hoped that El Capitan would fix the random-complete-system-hangs (complete with repeating, stuttering audio), but no such luck. Apple used to make a decent desktop OS: 10.6 was a thing of beauty. 10.7 stunk on ice, 10.8 showed some improvement but it's been downhill since then. Win10 on a Dell Precision Workstation has proven to not only be far more stable than the aptly-nicknamed "trash can" Mac Pro, but it also destroys it performance-wise as well.Microsoft has pulled ahead of Apple in many areas and stability and lack of malware is about all that's left.
... depending on the development of disposable income over that period of time.The original iMac was $1200 US and that was 17 years ago. Adjusted for inflation it would be $1,754.47. So this isn't a bad deal.
Higher capacity SSD's usually are faster as well (often due to more available chips that can be addressed in parallel and/or better controllers). And if they wouldn't, Apple could still take care of this by e.g. force-bundling higher-capacity SSD's with bigger CPU's (official explanation: more PCIe lanes required for more speed or something like that). The very minimum would be to make Fusion drive standard and e.g. offer higher SSD capacities within Fusion in higher tiers.It's a money making scheme. If Apple stick in a SSD, no one would really need to upgrade it except for higher capacity. Otherwise, it's just as fast, whether it's a 128GB SSD or a 1TB SSD. The "upgrade so it goes faster." reason is eliminated.
It's a money making scheme. If Apple stick in a SSD, no one would really need to upgrade it except for higher capacity. Otherwise, it's just as fast, whether it's a 128GB SSD or a 1TB SSD. The "upgrade so it goes faster." reason is eliminated.
They stick in a crappy 5400RPM HD in so it forces the casual users to have a reason to pay a higher price, otherwise, most casual users won't have a need to fill all that space anyway. If they do, the first thing that comes to mind is an external drive for storage.
But I agree with you. It's 2015, the iPhone is still 16GB and the iMac still has a 5400RPM HD. That's Apple. Base on the last several iPhone releases, by 2020, the iPhone will still start at 16GB, and some Macs will still use spinning hard drives.
This is a sign that has reached it's peak or plateau. Once it has matured its technology, it just drags it out. Milking the cow for as long a they can. It's not completely Apple's fault, they're just using other companies technology. They can't dictate when and how fast Intel should make and release their hardware, or how much storage each SSD chips need to have.
Oh that's phenomenal! Love it!Queen - "Bohemian Rhapsody" "... Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening MEEE"![]()
Have you used a nMacPro? Stability is bafflingly awful on both 10.10 and 10.11. I had hoped that El Capitan would fix the random-complete-system-hangs (complete with repeating, stuttering audio), but no such luck. Apple used to make a decent desktop OS: 10.6 was a thing of beauty. 10.7 stunk on ice, 10.8 showed some improvement but it's been downhill since then. Win10 on a Dell Precision Workstation has proven to not only be far more stable than the aptly-nicknamed "trash can" Mac Pro, but it also destroys it performance-wise as well.
And yes, I've taken the Mac "Pro" into both an Apple Store and a local independent reseller. Both times it was returned with a clean bill of health. I've clean-reinstalled five or six times now. It's just plain junk.
Have you used a nMacPro? Stability is bafflingly awful on both 10.10 and 10.11. I had hoped that El Capitan would fix the random-complete-system-hangs (complete with repeating, stuttering audio), but no such luck. Apple used to make a decent desktop OS: 10.6 was a thing of beauty. 10.7 stunk on ice, 10.8 showed some improvement but it's been downhill since then. Win10 on a Dell Precision Workstation has proven to not only be far more stable than the aptly-nicknamed "trash can" Mac Pro, but it also destroys it performance-wise as well.
And yes, I've taken the Mac "Pro" into both an Apple Store and a local independent reseller. Both times it was returned with a clean bill of health. I've clean-reinstalled five or six times now. It's just plain junk.
Your post made me think of TV tech. Few years ago ... Idk maybe 6 +/- LCD was the rage and then LED came out and at the same time there was a small OLED on display at Best Buy in the Magnolia section. Instantly you could how the jump from LCD to OLED could be made but the industry was smart. They charged a premium for LED and gradually over a few years phased TV's from LCD to LED and still haven't milked the cash cow of OLED yet.
And in between all this I read several articles taunting the tech beyond that and how it could be readily available yet it's not out or yet to be released because of profit margins and bottom lines.
I've only tried TB variant, could not say much about USB3. Main advantage of SSD is low latency which is still there for external SSD, so I think in most cases performance of intSSD/extHDD will be similar to intHDD/extSSD unless you really need throughput of NVMe SSD - but in that case it will be better not to use Fusion drive at all.I've heard of people using those. I would be curious to see if there are any reliability concerns of using that over USB3 or if it would be better to use a Thunderbolt enclosure. Also it would be interesting to see speed differences between internal SSD/external HDD combo and internal HDD/external SSD combo.
It's a money making scheme. If Apple stick in a SSD, no one would really need to upgrade it except for higher capacity. Otherwise, it's just as fast, whether it's a 128GB SSD or a 1TB SSD. The "upgrade so it goes faster." reason is eliminated.
They stick in a crappy 5400RPM HD in so it forces the casual users to have a reason to pay a higher price, otherwise, most casual users won't have a need to fill all that space anyway. If they do, the first thing that comes to mind is an external drive for storage.
But I agree with you. It's 2015, the iPhone is still 16GB and the iMac still has a 5400RPM HD. That's Apple. Base on the last several iPhone releases, by 2020, the iPhone will still start at 16GB, and some Macs will still use spinning hard drives.
This is a sign that has reached it's peak or plateau. Once it has matured its technology, it just drags it out. Milking the cow for as long a they can. It's not completely Apple's fault, they're just using other companies technology. They can't dictate when and how fast Intel should make and release their hardware, or how much storage each SSD chips need to have.
Annnndddd there goes the last reason to buy a nMacpro...
The iMac isn't a server though. It's not used in the same way or intended for the same audience. There are so many ways they're totally different beasts. I don't see many iMac users having a lot of need for 64GB of RAM. If you have a real need for it, the architecture of the Mac Pro will be far better suited.
I remember spending $500 to bump my Quadra 700's RAM from 4mb to 20mb. I think the hd was 160mb? http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_700.html
Apple's line of newly updated 5K Retina 27-inch iMacs with Skylake will support up to 64GB of RAM, an upgrade from the previous-generation 27-inch Retina iMacs that would only support a maximum of 32GB of RAM. According to OWC, The current 27-inch Retina iMac includes four memory slots that support up to 16GB of memory per slot for a total of 64GB.
Build-to-order options for the 27-inch Retina iMacs only allow it to be purchased from Apple with a maximum of 32GB RAM, but OWC will offer 16GB modules in 48GB and 64GB configurations for the new iMac. OWC plans to start selling its new 48 and 64GB kits tomorrow, and pricing is as follows:
- Single 16GB module - $329.99
- 32GB Kit using 16GB x 2 Modules - $599.00
- 48GB Kit with 16GB x 2 + 8GB x 2 - $729.00
- 64GB Kit with 16GB x 4 - $1195.00
The new 27-inch iMacs were announced this morning and are available from Apple retail stores and Apple's online store. Pricing for the machines starts at $1,799 for a 3.2GHz quad-core processor, 8GB RAM, 1TB hard drive, and an AMD Radeon R9 M380 graphics card.
Update: OWC has torn down the new 21.5-inch 4K Retina iMac and has learned that the memory is soldered in, which means it can't be upgraded. Customers purchasing a 21.5-inch Retina iMac should get the maximum amount of memory they can afford at the time of purchase as there will be no third-party upgrade options. The maximum amount of RAM for the 21.5-inch iMac models is 16GB.
Article Link: New 27-Inch iMac Supports Up to 64GB of RAM, OWC Offering Upgrade Kits
And rotating an image in Photoshop still meant a coffee break.Yup, $600 to get my Centris 650 from 8mb to 24mb ;-)
The good ole days ;-)
I remember when the school bought two 386 PCs with 60MB HDD when I was a kid. You can buy six new 27" iMacs with the same price now.
Yup, $600 to get my Centris 650 from 8mb to 24mb ;-)
The good ole days ;-)
And rotating an image in Photoshop still meant a coffee break.![]()
And rotating an image in Photoshop still meant a coffee break.![]()
Not exactly. The display is the excuse Apple is using for getting rid of powerful mid-range options. Why dropping all discrete GPU options from the 4K iMac? Why offering low-end GPUs in the 5K iMac? Why the trend in avoiding user-serviceable memory and drive bays? Answer: Because you get the awesome awesomeness of an incredible display which is the only part of the computer that will matter from now on.You forget how much it would cost to add a comparable 5K display to the Mac Pro. The display is what makes the 5K iMac a good deal over the Mac Pro.
No it doesn't, 2014 uses 1600mhz, 2015 1866 (or 1867mhz as Apple is labelling it)2014 5k uses same ram, as 2015 5k model aside from max capacity.