...how has the new super thin ipod touch sacrificed function? it has an even better screen and gear than before. only thing i can think of is the lack of an ambient light sensor, which is pretty trivial.
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.
New iMac and Mac Mini Models to Retain Current Pricing, Add 8 GB RAM Module Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...how has the new super thin ipod touch sacrificed function? it has an even better screen and gear than before. only thing i can think of is the lack of an ambient light sensor, which is pretty trivial.
My math is based on the officially released formula that Apple has publicly stated as how they define Retina.
Said website is not using that math but something they dredged up on their own. So no, they didn't do a 'fine job'.
Thinner iMac will jettison the Optical Disc Drive, plus laminated screen, plus edges will be thinner but back will still be thicker in center for CPU, Fan, etc...?
My guess:
1. thinner (or somewhat changed form factor)
2. that does not mean you can not fit 4 ram-slots? my guess they keep four ram slots (32 gb-possibility)
3. no 3.5 disk anymore. only 2.5 and SSD. they will probably tell us to use thunderbolt for storage.
4. obviously updated cpu. i doubt they will use anything else than desktop cpu.
5. they will continue using mobile gpu - even though we hard-core users moan about wanting desktop gpu.
6. USB3 given
7. No optical
1. thinner (or somewhat changed form factor)
2. that does not mean you can not fit 4 ram-slots? my guess they keep four ram slots (32 gb-possibility)
3. no 3.5 disk anymore. only 2.5 and SSD. they will probably tell us to use thunderbolt for storage.
4. obviously updated cpu. i doubt they will use anything else than desktop cpu.
5. they will continue using mobile gpu - even though we hard-core users moan about wanting desktop gpu.
6. USB3 given
7. No optical
If this is true, then what's the point of buying an iMac anymore? The storage space and the speed of the desktop class HD's is really the only benefit an iMac holds over a Macbook Pro combined with a Thunderbolt Display.
.
Sounds about right on. That's why it's a total snooze of an update. Should have just done a silent update a couple weeks or months ago instead of selling outdated crap. Oh well.
I'm just glad to see all these iMac news stories on the front page. It's been a long year and you get fed up with hearing it will be out next week etc. personally I'm not looking for a retina display. Just IB processers, USB3 and a standard SSD. Happy with current look to.
Ok. RAM Module. Can anyone explain? External? Internal? We can order an iMac now with 16GB of ram. How bout a video card capable of running FCPX faster?
Last edited:
It's going to be a sad day for me when these are released. I love my 2011 iMac and am certainly not in a place to upgrade yet but it's been nice having the newest iMac while it lasted.
More on topic, I wish they would make the iMac's thicker, not thinner. This is a desktop computer, not a laptop. I understanding wanting something like the MBA be small but what does it matter if your workhorse desktop is thin? I would rather they make it larger so it can fit a desktop GPU in both models and maybe dual drives (HDD +SSD) in the 21.5" model. If they make it thinner the GPU is only going to suffer more, users won't be able to upgrade anything and heat will become a problem.
It's a desktop computer apple, we don't carry them around, weight and thinness is irrelevant. Give us a desktop computer, not a pretty monitor with ****** parts.
More on topic, I wish they would make the iMac's thicker, not thinner. This is a desktop computer, not a laptop. I understanding wanting something like the MBA be small but what does it matter if your workhorse desktop is thin? I would rather they make it larger so it can fit a desktop GPU in both models and maybe dual drives (HDD +SSD) in the 21.5" model. If they make it thinner the GPU is only going to suffer more, users won't be able to upgrade anything and heat will become a problem.
It's a desktop computer apple, we don't carry them around, weight and thinness is irrelevant. Give us a desktop computer, not a pretty monitor with ****** parts.
To make it look sexy on TV shows and on reception desks in front of some girl who chews gum with her mouth open. Duhh.
Ah, of course, how could I forget that.
Apple is starting to make it really hard for me to fight people off who say macs are just pretty. It's already tricky to justify my workhorse having a mobile GPU.
lol @ all the people talking about how they are going to pop in more ram after buying.. better get your chisel and hammer ready for all that solder lol.
Hopefully not but I fear that will be the case. If so can another company please stand up and do an OS on freeBSD and make awesome hardware.... anyone.....*quiet* booooooo
Wish Apple had a CEO that "got it" as far as hardware being a little more varied and not all like MBA style stuff. RAM is dirt cheap and 32 gigs would be nice but not at Apple's prices.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd worry about that the day they rename it "iMac Pro". As you know, that's not short for "Professional", it's code for "Prada". The iMac may have grown from the entry-level consumer model it once was, but Apple isn't entirely oblivious of the fact that most people who buy iMacs and Mac Minis wouldn't be able to afford them if they were Gucci-fied. The Mini has actually gotten more DIY friendly over the years, with that big jar lid on the bottom so you can upgrade the memory easily. The previous Mini design was like a Gordian knot. Putty knife, really?lol @ all the people talking about how they are going to pop in more ram after buying.. better get your chisel and hammer ready for all that solder lol.
Hey, no problem you can explain the iMac has been transformed himself. Needless to say the truth. The guys at Apple are very advanced, look honey...
Hej,
Well - my guess it was - and based on rumors that it will be thinner. Maybe 2 x 2.5"? This way you can choose 1TB spinning disc and 256/512 SSD?
I would manage with 2 x 2.5" for example. I would also manage with 1 x SSD. I dont mind having an external disc or two.
Well - my guess it was - and based on rumors that it will be thinner. Maybe 2 x 2.5"? This way you can choose 1TB spinning disc and 256/512 SSD?
I would manage with 2 x 2.5" for example. I would also manage with 1 x SSD. I dont mind having an external disc or two.
I just found that out a couple months ago, and then my hard drive died last month. At this point, I don't want to put more money into it though, so I'm just living with it
"I'm just living with it" as a large expensive paper weight? If your hard drive is dead it would be quite unusable. How could you just keep on living with it? If you have replaced the hard drive and it was worth it how is $30 more for ram not worth it?
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.
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.
The RAM is certainly an important component for a select few. Although most would be MORE than fine with 16GB in a Macbook Pro.
As for the CPU, correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd only notice this difference when encoding video, etc. It might shave 5-20% encoding time off or something like that? Most of the time, you'd never notice a difference, even in programs like Photoshop, etc.
As for GPU's, not much difference between the two, correct? High end Macbook Pro has very similar GPU, both are mobile, and both are sufficient for everything other than extreme gaming.
So, like I said... if they move to mobile HD's, the iMac consequently loses a LOT of it's appeal.
Rumor has it that the new Mac Mini will have a single I/O port that supports a TBD technology called FlowTron. Gone are HDMI, Thunderboy, USB and FW. FlowTron features a single "nanowire" that is as thin as a human hair. Compatible peripherals are expected by 2017 so be sure to buy a new Apple computer TODAY so you can claim yourself as a "bleeding edge" hipster!!!
I agree that Apple's obsession with thinness has crossed the line. It's great to have thin and light mobile products for obvious practical reasons, and it's aesthetically pleasing as well. I'm happy I don't have to lug around my 2002 Dell Inspiron 8200 which was about 2 inches thick and weighed a ton. I'm happy I don't have to put up with my first smartphone, the SonyEricsson P900 which was a brick that would almost pull down your pants if you put it in your back pocket. But at some point, things are light and thin enough. I seem to put my iPhone 4 in a different pocket every time and when I reach for it I usually have to feel a couple of pockets before finding the right one. If I don't feel the weight of the phone or discern a bulge in the pocket, I'd say it's reached the point where making it thinner doesn't accomplish anything of practical value. Same with my '09 MBP, it still looks sexy thin, it's comfortably light and therefore the only aspect of the Retina MBP that appeals to me is the high resolution. They soldered the RAM to the motherboard needlessly as far as I'm concerned, at considerable practical cost since you can't upgrade the damn thing.
Today I saw that HTC has released a phone called Butterfly with a 440 dpi screen. Now, pardon me but wasn't approx. 300 dpi the point where the human eye no longer discerns pixels? So what the hell do you need a 440 dpi screen for? You trade battery life and frame rate for the right to brag about the highest res screen EVVAR. That's all it does.
>> No Retina iMac = no buy.
Do you work for a competitor or are you psycho?
Do you put your face as close to an iMac screen as you do a retina iPhone? If not, then the iMac is going to look as good from the proper distance, no?
Do you work for a competitor or are you psycho?
Do you put your face as close to an iMac screen as you do a retina iPhone? If not, then the iMac is going to look as good from the proper distance, no?
Unfortunately, this would require far more space and heftier thermal dissipation methods, just turning the machine into a headless Apple "desktop," which will probably not happen.
The base Mini will probably stick with HD4000 graphics. Hopefully it's the BTO options which will see a nice, solid GPU bump.
Interesting. On many benchmarks, the 650m and 7770m come out almost evenly. If AMD's chips are better for OpenCL, that'd be fine with me. I'm just exasperated by the anemic 6630m and thought the current use of 650m GPUs in the MacBook Pro line might make them attractive.
God, I hope your fears don't come true
. It's almost a given that any low-end Mac Mini will keep a dual-core CPU and HD4000. The 645m is not a terrible option compared to the 650m, but it still looks to be about 8-10% slower across the board. A 625m would be useless; it doesn't even have GDDR5 support. I would pay $800 for a 2.1GHz quad-core 2630QM-equivalent (or the 2.3GHz 3615QM which is already in MacBook Pros) and an Nvidia 650m w/ 512MB GDDR5 or an AMD 7770m w/ 512MB GDDR5, 640GB 2.5" HDD, and 4GB base RAM. After the removal of the optical drive, there's plenty of space to handle thermal dissipation. Granted, this sounds like a pipe dream even to me. But I would not hesitate for a second to pick up a Mini with these specs.
Even more amazing would be an option for a 128GB SSD on the base model in lieu of an HDD. 2.5" 500GB HDDs and 128GB SSDs are almost equal in price. Or dual 256GB SSDs in RAID0 for $500? That would be glorious.