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
I meant after spending the money to replace the drive, I don't want to put more into it, since I plan on getting a new one as soon as I knew one way or another if there was going to be a new one coming soon.
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.
I think it may be time for you to move on...... (or just buy a big thick case and pretend)
I tend to agree. I would much rather have a 21.5" iMac rocking a 2560x1440 resolution than the same display with 3840x2160. Fewer pixels for the GPU to push around and far more actual space for work. With so many complaints about the mobile GPUs being insufficient for gaming and other graphics-intensive tasks on the iMacs already, why burden them with 4x the pixels?
2560x1440 gives you 30% the real estate as 1920x1080 and only adds 66% more pixels (136 PPI). According to this spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...MFRfYW5VbThORXc&single=true&gid=0&output=html), from a viewing distance of 18 inches (1.5 feet), that would make this display approximately 81% retina. Back up to a (in my opinion) healthier 22-24 inches (2 feet) and you're right on the nose.
3840x2160 (at retina) gives you 0% additional real-estate and 400% more pixels (204 PPI).
Well... you make a lot of assumptions about what people use their computers for. If we go to the high end, the assumed new CPU for the iMac, the i7-3770, is twice as fast as the i7-3520m MBP.
A 680M is more than twice as fast as a 650M. Furthermore, the additional 1GB of VRAM will be most helpful at the high display resolutions above 1080p particularly for gaming and CAD. Most modern games will present framerate issues with a 650M 1GB at 1440p unless the details are turned down.
For anything processor intensive or GPU intensive, the iMac will (if it gets updated) easily surpass the high-end MBP and at a much lower price if you include the 27" display. If you don't find saving money appealing, you may well want to opt for the slower and more expensive MBP.
Away to cancel the appointment with the bank manager to remortgage the house for one of these, really thought apple were going to out price me for a 27" for a while there.
What a beauty,well played apple!
What a beauty,well played apple!
+10,000.
Seriously, the 27" has enough room for like a dozen USB ports in the back. That'd sure help me get rid of the extra hubs I have sitting on the desk. I know they'll never do this, as it might look ever so slightly less clean those 3 times you look at the back of the machine in its lifetime.
+10,000.
Seriously, the 27" has enough room for like a dozen USB ports in the back. That'd sure help me get rid of the extra hubs I have sitting on the desk. I know they'll never do this, as it might look ever so slightly less clean those 3 times you look at the back of the machine in its lifetime.
Quickly, someone photshop a current iMac with 12 USB ports in the back!
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
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
I hope this also means some models get 8Gb RAM standard but I would love the top 27" to get 16Gb with 2 free slots!
My bet is the upgrades will be similar to the MBP, Ivy Bridge internals but no physical changes with a separate Retina model iMac. Even with no retina on the majority of new iMac's there is still hope for a new less glossy LCD.
I mean seriously without some physical change even if it's just a newer LCD why would Apple not have upgraded the iMac to Ivy Bridge months ago, like they did with the MBP?
My bet is the upgrades will be similar to the MBP, Ivy Bridge internals but no physical changes with a separate Retina model iMac. Even with no retina on the majority of new iMac's there is still hope for a new less glossy LCD.
I mean seriously without some physical change even if it's just a newer LCD why would Apple not have upgraded the iMac to Ivy Bridge months ago, like they did with the MBP?
Well, that's what we have all been wondering. What is it about the new iMacs that made them 6 months late?
Maybe both of the rumours are true
Standard update to the iMacs... and then... thinner Retina iMacs!
Probably not but
Standard update to the iMacs... and then... thinner Retina iMacs!
Probably not but
That's Apple for ya... love their products but hate their audacious combination of premium pricing AND corner cutting. I remember when the first Mac Mini was introduced and everyone was like "Ha! See? Apple CAN make affordable products, this thing's a steal!" Right, but... once you scrutinized the specs you found stuff that hadn't been in computers for ages, stuff they must've acquired by asking their suppliers if they could get a bargain deal on the scrap pile outside the factory. 32 MB video RAM, 4200 RPM drive with laughable capacity... and of course none of the usual accessories like keyboard and mouse... they had somehow managed to make a computer that was dirt cheap AND overpriced.
Yeah for handhelds it makes sense to a point, but I never understood the fascination with making thin-as-possible 27" monitors or 56" TVs. It's sitting on your desk, or it's on a TV stand, who cares how thin it is? iMacs were super thin to begin with considering what's inside.
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
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.
A: Those `benchmarks' on Windows are quite a different beast on OS X and LLVM/Clang. Yet the latest ones provided below from Tom's Hardware shows the maturity of the AMD platform.
B: A huge amount of work for the LLVM/Clang 3.2 release with OpenCL is going into the project, including the new OpenCL SPIR specification.
C: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-650-ti-benchmark-gk106,3318-14.html
D: OpenCL 1.2 stack is fully supported on AMD and not remotely close on Nvidia who is still pushing CUDA as their solution first and foremost.
E: OS X Apps will be leveraging LLVM/Clang 3.2 after December for all their application base, not to mention Apple for the OS and its applications.
A large amount of improvements to LLVM/Clang 3.2 will make it a bigger pop for applications than the big push for C++ 11 support.
The next first class citizen being added to trunk is OpenMP support but in a manner that adheres to the LLVM/Clang design philosophy.
What's even better is when people line up and say "well those specs are good enough for what I need! More computing power would just be a waste!" and then actually applaud apple for their ridiculous profit margins as if they are proud to contribute to them.
The only way I see this is Apple cannibalizing two of their USB 2.0 slots or offer a dongle thrown in to go from Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 which would be a new cable adaptor.