New iMac and Mac Mini Models to Retain Current Pricing, Add 8 GB RAM Module Options

[george-brooks]

"Actually, no. Tim Cook said that Apple would have "something great for our Pro users later in 2013.""

You're 100% correct. Too many people automatically assume it'll be a new Mac Pro. If you check out the link below, Sharp has shown a 31.5" 4K display. Just to speculate maybe Apple will release an iMac Pro with this 4K display and have that as their answer for the pro market. Who knows.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1428193/4k-i-have-seen-the-light/60

I sure hope not!

 

[fertilized-egg]

Again if this is basically just an internal Ivy Bridge update then why couldn't it have happened back in June?

The rumor has been that the low yield from the new lamination process used for displays is delaying iMac. Also it does sound like the design will see some slight changes.

 

[faroZ06]

Whatever, there's no point of buying an iMac or Mac mini with extra RAM unless you don't know how to install RAM. The instructions make it pretty easy.

 

[loybond]

I think our friend seems to equate adding RAM with replacing a HDD in an iMac. I also think he doesn't know that it does not void the warranty, and is meant to be user-serviceable.

I also think he should stick to, say, an iPad for "work."

Are you actually serious? Or are you just pulling our chain? You can't possibly be serious? It's a tiny little trap door. You don't even have to open the machine up. It takes all of two minutes or less! It's about as easy as changing the battery in your TV remote control. But if you are serious... well... I know don't what to say. But it is a huge waste of money. Apple charges insane amounts for RAM. BTO RAM upgrades really only make sense for non-user-serviceable products (with soldered on RAM) like the Air.

 

[USB123]

I will be upgrading from my current dinosaur Dell OptiPlex computer early next year (hopefully) to a Mac (or Macbook) of some sort. Would there be any point to re-introduce the optical drive to the Mac Mini? Even for watching DVD's? I know that Apple have an optional external optical drive but it would be nice to have an integrated one. Newbie here, BTW!

 

[Lancer]

The rumor has been that the low yield from the new lamination process used for displays is delaying iMac. Also it does sound like the design will see some slight changes.

Yes and maybe a matte screen option, or at least less gloss.

For me the choice of Mini or iMac might come down to the LCD and price.

Whatever, there's no point of buying an iMac or Mac mini with extra RAM unless you don't know how to install RAM. The instructions make it pretty easy.

I agree but I'm hoping the iMac has at least 8Gb, I'll add 8Gb more later and looking at the 1600 MBP prices should only cost about $90 here in AU.

 

[satchmo]

Yes and maybe a matte screen option, or at least less gloss.

+1

Glossy screens are so 2009!

 

[dylin]

if they don't release a retina mac mini then I will wait.

literally lol'd

 

[Marlor]

if they don't release a retina mac mini then I will wait.

Forgive this guy.

He's turned the scaling settings right up on his Retina Macbook Pro, and he thinks that is a normal-sized font.

 

[JoeSixPack]

I can assure you, it's much worse lugging a Power PC Mac Pro to a crowded mall/even more crowded apple store during Christmas shopping season.

That's bad, but there is worse. The original 13" color monitor circa 1990 (not the lightweight 12" that came out with the LC) up 10 flights of stairs in a college dorm because the elevators were busy. Yes, 44 lbs for a 13" monitor.

http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/classic_monitors/specs/applecolor_highres_rgb.html

 

[Pigumon]

Why? Whats the point?

Seriously other than 'it looks cool' there's very little in the way of real-world use for "Retina" (aka resolution doubling) on desktop PC's.

It creates a bigger demand on the GPU, makes 'non-retina' graphics look pixelated (and that includes 99% of website images), etc.

Whilst it would be 'nice' its by far the most unneeded item on a desktop computer.

Funny, I remember people saying the same BS about a retina screened iPad.

you shouldnt have to explain **** to your wife. its 2012 not 1950

Um you got it backwards, you didn't have to explain anything to a 1950's wife, now in 2012 men are little slaves.

Unless you're an owl, do you really need retina in an iMac?

I mean, I'm sitting 2 feet from my 13" MacBook Air right now and really can't discern any pixelation. I can't imagine that there is any real practical advantage to having a screen of that size with that high of a resolution, other than it being a Pis*ing competition.

For me the biggest advantage is on tiny screens that you have to have fairly close to you anyway, like an iPhone or an iPad...

You have bad eyes. Also, how do you type with the keyboard two feet away from you??

What is God's creation would you ever do with a 27" retina display? The monitor is viewed well beyond arms length, so the current display is already near retina quality considering the viewing distance.

I have a feeling that the only people who are asking for "Retina" displays on the iMac are people that know nothing about how a computer actually works. A "Retina" display on the new iMacs would not even be usable considering the weak GPU's they put in those computers. Asking for Retina displays on the iMac is right up there in stupidity as asking for touchscreens. *facepalm*

It's not that I can't tell the difference, it's just that from a practical standpoint it doesn't make a ton of sense. Trust me, I can tell the difference between retina and non-retina on an iphone screen on a iPad screen and on the Macbook pro screen. It just gets less and less noticeable as you get larger and hold it further away.

What you're saying is not exactly comparative. I said on a 13" macbook air with a ppi of 128. The display you describe is only ~75 ppi so we're talking a marked difference. Even a minor bump in specs on your monitor would be noticeable.

There is a point of diminishing returns on screens that are so large. Eventually you're just wasting pixels except for the keenest of eyes.

The point is to not see pixels anymore.

And you're wrong, the LARGER the screen gets, the MORE noticeable to pixels become. Further away, yes, less noticeable.

I don't understand why people put their screens so far away from them. Arms length?? That's deeper than the desk I'm sitting at right now!


I honestly don't get people naysaying IMPROVEMENTS.

I have a gray G4 tower, it's a bit slow but at least it not a silly retina display, wanna buy it from me? Only $999!!

 

[Tealover]

Why? Whats the point?

Seriously other than 'it looks cool' there's very little in the way of real-world use for "Retina" (aka resolution doubling) on desktop PC's.

It creates a bigger demand on the GPU, makes 'non-retina' graphics look pixelated (and that includes 99% of website images), etc.

Whilst it would be 'nice' its by far the most unneeded item on a desktop computer.

Photographers would like it

 

[12dylan34]

You're 100% correct. Too many people automatically assume it'll be a new Mac Pro. If you check out the link below, Sharp has shown a 31.5" 4K display. Just to speculate maybe Apple will release an iMac Pro with this 4K display and have that as their answer for the pro market. Who knows.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1428193/4k-i-have-seen-the-light/60

Retina displays aren't useful features for pros. It's a purely consumer feature. I don't see myself producing better work because I have a higher pixel density display. If anything, it causes headaches working with graphics on a screen that's not 1:1 onscreen pixels to pixels in the graphic. Pros need performance and not this kind of gimmicky "iMac Pro" stuff with an attached display.

The only professional thing I see retina displays being useful for is medical imaging, where things can be missed because the screen isn't detailed enough to show it.

Photographers don't want their machine bogged down with extraneous pixels either. Besides, I don't think Photoshop has even been updated for retina yet.

----------

I can't actually believe that there are people out there who thought the iMac would come with a retina display, so had put "a little extra aside" to afford the uplift. A 27" retina iMac wouldn't come in at under $15k.

Not sure about the price, but yeah, no way it'll have a retina display. I'm very thankful for that. The people saying "no retina no deal" will be waiting a very long time.

 

[Nightarchaon]

Incorrect. The mid-2011 takes up to four 8GB sticks, for a max of 32GB. The limitation is dictated by the chipset used, nothing else -- it supports 32GB, and I can confirm it by having 32GB* in my mid-2011.


* I do database development, and tend to spin up VMs that require a huge memory footprint for testing.

ooo nice, time to source 4x8gb sticks for my iMac, i too have many VMs and that would help so MUCH...

 

[cosmos]

Damn! or good! one of the two.

I just ordered a mini and it's still sitting in an unopened box. I ordered it online from the Canadian Education store. I ordered it online to get the i7 upgrade, which I don't think was available in store.

Does anyone know how easy it is to return and buy the new one? Any chance that it can be returned directly to the store?

My timing could have been better.

A quick search gives the following:

http://store.apple.com/ca/browse/open/salespolicies

You have 14 days to return it.

 

[nexusrule]

No Retina iMac = no buy.

There are no gpu that could fit an iMac and run 4k resolution, let alone a retina display resolution.

 

[Mr Rogers]

I'd say at most we might see some minor updates but it all depends if the retina iMac is part of the main line or a new model, aka the MBP.

Again if this is basically just an internal Ivy Bridge update then why couldn't it have happened back in June?

That's a bit of a understatement - "Should have happened in June".

You are absolutely correct, judging by the limited detail we have, the October 2012 revision of the iMac will be a slight upgraded design and upgraded internal components, i.e., Ivy Bridge processors - first available in April/May 2012, or six months ago, upgraded GPU's - hopefully top-end mobile AMD's, again available in June this year, USB3 and enhanced RAM/SSD options - nothing ground breaking whatsoever - indeed, the 2011 iMac still on sale today is already showing its age - although, Ivy Bridge processors only offer a 8-15% improvement in speed over Sandy Bridge in real life situations - hence biggest changes possible should have been GPU, USB3 and maybe move to top end wireless specs to future proof the machine a little - not being a great fan of SSD, I'd have preferred an actual hybrid solution in a 2.5in form factor as offered by Seagate.

Anyway, I'll only be looking at low end 21.5in iMac on this revision and will migrate to Haswell on my iMac 27in and Mac Mini when its launched eventually by Apple - hopefully June 2013 if Apple uses the road map it used with the updated October 2009 model, revised to i3/i5/i7 in mid-2010.

In a nutshell, Apple have lost US$2,500 sale from me this year - why invest in Ivy Bridge when Haswell is around the corner - my iMac BTO i7 27in is more than enough for now - although better GPU would be welcome as would USB3.

 

[nexusrule]

I have a gray G4 tower, it's a bit slow but at least it not a silly retina display, wanna buy it from me? Only $999!!

The real point is there are no gpu on the market that can run a retina iMac. There are bulky desktop card that can run 4k resolution that would need the imac to become at least 3x time thicker (not counting the space needed for an adequate thermal system). Another thing that would go at least 3x is the price. Don't know you but iMac 21'' retina 15m thick per 6.000$ seems idiotic to me. Reality always beats expectations, so for now you can stop dreaming.

 

[Mr Rogers]

people asking for a slimmer iMac.... you guys do realize it's a DESKTOP,



if you want something so thin then you could fit it in your bag they have something for that, it's called a laptop


I'm convinced people crying for a thinner desktop are like this guy

Image

Completely concur with you - the guy is a fool, should have purchased a end of line 17 Macbook Pro - although the AppleCare cost is prohibitive to say the least - and that applies for all Apple's laptops which in my opinion should all come with a minimum 2 year guarantee and option to extend to three years.

 

[Fishticks]

They should remove access to Google maps and even Google. They are so evil. That could be the major upgrade.

----------

+1

Glossy screens are so 2009!

Yes ! The hell with glossy screens !!!

 

[ixozet]

I hope for SSD Caching (+ HDD) + glossy screen

 

[Anuba]

They should remove access to Google maps and even Google. They are so evil. That could be the major upgrade.

Right on! Death to the evil empires Google and Microsoft! Root for Apple, the poor wittle underdog!

Wait... this just in, Apple is officially bigger than both of them combined.

Hmm. Absorbing... absorbing... done.
Repressing... repressing... repressing... repressing... damn, didn't take.

OK, how do I deal with this? Of course! "Apple, the gentle giant".

Wait... this just in, Apple sues owner of African grey parrot that can imitate the Macintosh startup sound.

Hmm... absorbing... absorbing...
Ahh, screw it. Death to the evil empires Google and Microsoft! All hail Apple the underdog!

 

[Macneck]

Again if this is basically just an internal Ivy Bridge update then why couldn't it have happened back in June?

That's exactly what I was thinking to myself. So long just to upgrade the machine to it's 2012 equivalent is not a new machine, just an upgrade. Or better, an update. Good news for 2011 iMac owners.

Let's see what shows up in the end... and when!

 

[Lancer]

In a nutshell, Apple have lost US$2,500 sale from me this year - why invest in Ivy Bridge when Haswell is around the corner - my iMac BTO i7 27in is more than enough for now - although better GPU would be welcome as would USB3.

I understand your sentiment but if you keep waiting for the next model you'll never get the current one.

I'm looking at spending about the same money but really need to replace this G5 which has served me well.

Let's see what shows up in the end... and when!

ITA, no point 'crying' over an update we have very little reliable info on until next week.

 

[rmwebs]

Funny, I remember people saying the same BS about a retina screened iPad.

As someone who owns the iPad 3, I STILL say that.

Sure, its nice, but it's really more of a feature you can get away with on a tablet or phone as you need a lot more control of how close you are to the display. Some people will use their iPad and be less than a foot away from the screen.

It's a completely different situation with a desktop computer tho, and in more ways than one.

For instance, performance is going to be a big part of it. You double the resolution, you double the graphics power needed. Given that the iMac line's graphics options are very limited, it would mean worse graphic performance, and you'd really struggle to get high-graphics intensive applications (i.e any modern game) working at a retina-capable resolution on an iMac.

Sorry, but as far as I can see, there are pretty much zero benefits to having retina on a desktop computer, other than "photographers may like it" and "it looks nice". Maybe when Apple sort out the GPU lineup they will be able to get it on there without taking a massive performance hit, but even then, that extra power could be put to much better use.