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

[Anuba]

Funny, I remember people saying the same BS about a retina screened iPad.I honestly don't get people naysaying IMPROVEMENTS.

Asking the dinky iMac GPU to drive a 4K screen will not lead to anything resembling an "IMPROVEMENT". In order for it to manage the kind of silky smooth scrolling and transitions we expect, it would need dual high-end desktop grade GPUs from ATI. Yay, my iMac sounds like a vacuum cleaner but them fonts sure render purty!

Sure, I could choose to be like a toddler with ADHD going "I don't care if it's technically feasible or not, I WAAAAAAAAAAANT IT!!!!!!!! AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!" and sit in a corner and pout until the world caves in to my arbitrary demands, but should I ever become like that, please do the gene pool a favor and shoot me in the head. OK?

I agree with you that there's probably no benefit of going full 5120x2880 retina but there's no reason why they can't go 4K (3840x2160)

There's this reason called cost. The iMac is a consumer desktop, not a money-is-no-object product.
Retina 4" and 10" displays, sure. Retina 15"... hot damn, that's one expensive laptop, but... OK. Retina 27"?

Here's an article from June about ViewSonic's 31.5" 4K monitor:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/

ViewSonic reps say the VP3280, which will be marketed towards film studios, broadcasters, photographers and any other professionals in need of a compact 4K display, could ship by the end of the year, costing "about the price of a car."

Here's one from July:
http://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/monitors/harrison/4k-screens-are-1000-an-inch-but-not-for-long/

"4k screens are £1,000 an inch, but not for long"

The "not for long" bit doesn't translate to "in 3 months' time, 4K screens will be a cheap commodity".

 

[smulji]

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.

I agree with you that there's probably no benefit of going full 5120x2880 retina but there's no reason why they can't go 4K (3840x2160) or what has now been branded by the Consumer Electronics Association as Ultra High Definition.

As a side note, the CEA has branded 8K (7680x4320) as Ultra High Defintion as well.

 

[Umbongo]

Since July 2010 you have been able to put 32GB in an iMac.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac
This is not a formal endorsement, but I do buy from them and have had no issues with their RAM.
This makes me wonder if OWC will release 16GB sticks that will allow you to push the machines to 64GB.
They always seem to be one step ahead of Apple with how much ram you can put in the machines.

Nope. 16GB DIMMs are only available as Registered ECC and this is not supported by the chipsets Apple use in thr iMacs, Minis or their notebooks. There won't likely be 16GB unbuffered DDR3 as DDR4 is around the corner.

 

[scooterbaga]

I hope they solder the ram in. (Wild speculation on my part that's why they're offering the upgrade after all this time.) The move away from user upgradable builds and towards "disposable" builds is how they lose me as a customer.

 

[chilly willy]

Why do folks insist Retina on an iMac for same price as 2011 models is equivalent to Apple putting retina in iPad without changing price points? Do you really not see difference?

 

[sphoenix]

This is perfect timing, I was just looking for cheap refurbished Mac minis on eBay the past few days. Bring on the updated Macs!

 

[Tech198]

I didn't realise that the iMacs WOULD be having a Retina display....?

How can you have a "not a more-expensive Retina" when it didn't even have jt in the first place?

Plus, Apple wouldn't do Retina, as screen too large, many more pixels need to be shifted round..

Just look at the swiping between multiple desktops on the rMBP which can be a bit slow/jerky. And this is on a 15-inch, let alone on a 21 and 27-inch iMac.

 

[MattSepeta]

Retina??? No way.

GPU already barely cuts it with the current screen.

As a pro photographer, a retina iMac is the last thing I want. Aperture is GPU heavy, and I will be running a 2nd monitor. Retina would literally be wasting resources.

 

[doobybiggs]

Well at least with the same pricing point I do not see Apple forcing you into an SSD only for your first hard drive. With them keeping it the same, HDD's will still be the default, which is great for me! Now I hope I get some USB 3.0 and a nice 6 series GPU, not that low-end model either!

Pretty excited now for the release ... hopefully they dont let me down with long delays and faulty hardware problems.

 

[anthonyp01]

OMG, finally a new iMac.

I've been holding out and thought this day would never come!

 

[debbielynn]

Lurked for month, but have to ask...

Is Apple going to make a new thinner desk for my new thinner iMac? Is there not some point at which thin is thin enough? Do I really WANT an anorexic iMac? Won't that be a bad example to my teenaged daughter?

With all of those existential question out of the way, I just have to say, the current iMac is thin enough. I'm not trying to balance my desktop on the edge of a needle, I want it to just work. Worried about so much heat in such a thin place. Just sayin'...

Now, my new iMac please, sir?

 

[Rocketman]

Wouldn't it be cool if the Mini and iMac added Air style SSD slots?

 

[walkie]

I think Apple will offer retina's and non-retina's iMacs as they did with the MacBook.

 

[pondosinatra]

What do you think the odds are they'll run Snow Leopard???

----------

Is Apple going to make a new thinner desk for my new thinner iMac? Is there not some point at which thin is thin enough?...

Not to mention you're just asking for thermal issues.

 

[724699]

Releasing with a Retina screen is by no means a bad thing. However, at this point in time they should of course be offering the option to upgrade to a Retina screen for those who don't need/want one. However, it's still going to be a massive improvement even if people whine "nah, we don't need a retina iMac".

As far as the retina resolution crippling the GPU's. I doubt it, unless you're trying to run everything off an HD4000 which is doubtful. I would personally like to see the iMac designed with the same principles of a high-end laptop (graphics switching to save power and heat etc.), but with desktop-class CPU's and the highest-end nVidia mobile GPU (680m is it?). ATI, no thanks. Inferior products. Why do I doubt a Retina 27" display would cripple the GPU's? Simple... you've got enough horsepower to drive (3x) 2560x1440px 27" panels. With the vast majority using only single displays, and much more using dual-display than 3. You're OK with a dedicated GPU to drive these resolutions.

Also... another fact of the matter is you don't need to (and they won't) double the 2560x1440 resolution. It'll be within the "4k" resolution limits. The panel would increase DPI a noticeable amount by using a 3880x ....px panel for instance. Obviously not an exact resolution, but I'm almost certain it'll be 3,8xx something pixels wide.

What I would like to see at a minimum:
- optically bonded screen for the iMac.... and in turn their Thunderbolt displays. I like my Thunderbolt Display, but the noticeable gap between the panel and the cover glass definitely needs improving and is a large reason for the excess glare.
- newly improved cooling system, with better and quieter fans on load
- USB 3, and the higher end Ivy Bridge CPU's which when matched with good solid 1600Mhz DDR3 is a definite speed bump over the Sandy Bridge parts at the same speed, with 1333mhz memory. Also.... IVB will run cooler.

 

[TallManNY]

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.

Zero benefit isn't really what you mean. Technologically impossible at this stage is what you mean. Every screen should be retina for its size and normal viewing distance. And every screen from Apple (and eventually all manufacturers) will be retina, it is just a matter of time. That time just isn't now; not at the size of iMac screens. But the benefit to retina screens is a much nicer computing experience. You want this. I want this. Technology just dictates we can't have it for the price and form factor that we are willing to live with.

So we wait. But probably only two more years.

 

[Tech198]

Well, if Apple offered SSD's instead, they will just kill of most Apple users.

 

[SvK]

The curent MacMini server is just about as fast as a current quadcore MacPro ( crazy right?)

If the new MacMini server rivals the speed of the current 6-core MacPro, i'll ditch my 2010 quad core MacPro, and stick my 4 ssd's in a thunderbolt enclosure.

best,
SvK

 

[Ice Dragon]

Well, if Apple offered SSD's instead, they will just kill of most Apple users.

How? Just curious.

 

[boblmartens]

Bring on the new Mac minis!

I'm hoping for better graphics as well and then I'll drop some money on a new one. Next Tuesday cannot come fast enough.

 

[Tech198]

How? Just curious.

Most people would buy iMac's for storage, right?

I think the last thing people would want on a desktop is to connect an external hard drive as a requiment/or to their NAS storage device. for all their data. Particually, if they don't have one.

 

[element1108]

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

lol...out-donnnnned.

 

[rmwebs]

Most people would buy iMac's for storage, right?

I think the last thing people would want on a desktop is to connect an external hard drive as a requiment/or to their NAS storage device. for all their data. Particually, if they don't have one.

Most desktop users are moving to an SSD drive as the OS boot drive, and then using external drives for everything else. In most cases even USB3 drives will be perfectly fast enough, however there are a few thunderbolt drives around now.

Firewire drives would also be another option, and again - they are perfectly fine (speed wise) for apps, storage, etc.

 

[Jeffylew77]

Enough of this ram talk, tell me about the graphics cards!!!!

 

[mdelvecchio]

If it was so trivial, why did Apple include it previous generations? Also, if a design becomes so restrictive that there is no more room to add new things (i.e. there is still no GPS) then the design needs to be reconsidered. Ive himself even said that "form needs to always follow function". Not so sure at happened with this version of the iPod Touch.

so the lack of an ambient light sensor is your big proof of form not following function? really?

because i have a better counter argument that the device's form IS following function -- i want thin and light devices. devices i can barely tell are in my pocket. the thinner and lighter the better....ideal would be a translucent piece of plastic the thickness of a business card and made of unbreakable plasteel.

the primary properties of this device are thinness and weight, not light sensing ability. thus, making a portable device thin and light, at the expense of the ambient light sensor (only missing "feature") is a welcome sacrifice....and is form following function.