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.
Opinion on iMac Huff Post review.
- Thread starter DelMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The one thing is sure. She will never create, only criticise. I kinda feel sorry for people like that. Movie critics come to mind. This is why she will never grasp the concept of design inside and out in the computer. Their lack of knowledge in this area makes them get very defensive about themselves and therefore have a need to lash out (human instinct) because they feel threatened. This is why Apple gets hated by a lot of uncreative people.
----------
Well the current maxed out iMac would crush performance in single threaded applications but when it comes to multicore support, Mac Pro is the go.
----------
Well the current maxed out iMac would crush performance in single threaded applications but when it comes to multicore support, Mac Pro is the go.
I hear ya buddy. I mean what the heck do teenagers in the year 2013 know about computers?
The optical drive being a 'con' sounds like the floppy drive being axed in the iMac being a 'con' or serial/parallel ports being axed are a 'con'. It's not yet a dead technology, but it IS fading. Every major OS allows over-the-air updating INCLUDING to new editions now, and every major OS (Linux, Mac AND Windows, Linux has had it for a loooong time) has ways to install software for free and for pay from a single, easy, software repository. We also have services like Steam and Origin for games. Personally, if I never have to buy software on optical media again I'll be very happy. For example, when upgrading to a new PC or re-installing the OS, being able to click 'download all' or some such function on various pieces of software, leaving it overnight, then coming back to all my apps? Priceless.
However, just like the days of missing floppy drives and missing serial/parallel ports, it's easy to add if you MUST have it. If you are buying a computer that costs AT LEAST $1,300, why is an external optical drive out of reach? If you MUST have a shiny aluminum one from Apple it's $70, or you could hack one together yourself with a $15 DVD burner and a $15 USB enclosure. Voila. $30 and you have an external optical drive. Shave the $15 for the drive off if you have an old PC with an optical drive in it.
UNFORTUNATELY, I still find myself needing an optical drive once in a while. But just like in the days when I grudgingly accepted a floppy disk from someone behind the times, I just use a cheap external. In my case, I have the superdrive out of my MBP in an enclosure (I have a drive mounted where the superdrive goes).
On the Hard Drive, well, first off, RPM (which is REVOLUTIONS, my dear author!) isn't the only factor determining speed. I guarantee you my 12,000 RPM 2.0GB SCSI drive from a million years ago is much slower than my 5400rpm notebook drive I have stuffed in a USB enclosure. Hard disk density, cache, etc., all matter. That said, it is true that a drop to a 5400rpm drive is a bit disappointing, though if performance is what you're after, then get the 27" iMac OR the Mac Pro!
Finally, I really dislike the 'laptop in a desktops body' stuff. Why? Well because people are so focused on whether or not the letter 'M' graces a component. If this was 1994, I'd be with you, but it's not. Benchmark wise, the iMac with it's 'mobile' CPU, GPU and RAM, will outpace many 'desktop' components used in PC's today. Apple knows that. Apple's engineers aren't looking at the letters, they are looking at the numbers. How fast is the chip? So we have similar performance, but with substantially less heat and less power consumption. That's huge for a lot of customers. There ARE thin desktop PC's that are HUGE in the education and business market that use laptop components (but not nearly as good as the iMac.) Why? Switch 500 CPU's from desktop CPU's to mobile CPU's, and you are likely saving HUNDREDS each month in electricity. Even been in a big computer lab on a college campus when it's 30 degrees outside but the A/C is on? Getting rid of heat saves even MORE power. Although the savings aren't as massive replacing one computer at home, it's still there, and some consumers care about that. But ultimately, tit-for-tat, performance is so close it's hard to really care comparing the iMac to a desktop class system, aside from a high end system, which the iMac is not.
Which brings me to my last point. The iMac has ALWAYS been Apples lower-end consumer device. Originally in the late 90's, it was "i" and "Power". iMac and iBook were the consumer grade, and Power Mac and PowerBook where the high end. All the way back to the iMac's introduction, it used a 233MHz PowerPC CPU while the corresponding 'PowerMac' used a 275MHz CPU with more cache and overall, much much more performance AND upgradability.
In over a decade, NOTHING has changed with the iMac. It's a seldom upgradable, mid-range CONSUMER machine. The Mac Pro on the other hand uses high end desktop CPU's, has limitless (for most purposes) RAM upgradability, and several hard drive bays. Nothing has changed, you've got the consumer (i) and the Professional (now more aptly named 'Pro').
When I read these reviews, I can't help but wonder if these same people would bash a $299 Wal-Mart Acer for not being able to handle Maya rendering or for lacking a solid state RAID array and FibreChannel cards. Granted, the iMac is expensive, but you are paying for some things other than performance alone, like the IPS panel, the build quality, and the service. If you don't think that's a good deal, buy a PC and spend $1300 on a more powerful, albeit cheaper built, system; and a cheap TN panel. Or, if you want a Mac, buy a used Mac Pro which will still outpace an iMac in the types of high end uses that you might need, and it can be upgraded even further down the road to really scream.
If the price is too high for a system of that performance level, don't buy it! Vote with your dollar! Apple is not an evil corporation stealing peoples wallets and forcing them to buy their products. They have a loyal fan base but it's not as big as people think, they nearly went bankrupt in the 90's. Why? The products were more expensive, but didn't really do anything different. The same, beige, plastic, crappy built computers, performance that lagged behind Wintel, and an OS that was ahead of it's time.... a long time ago. People voted with their Dollar.
I don't buy Apple products for cutting edge performance at a bargain price. I build homebuilt PC's for that. Works great. Reliability isn't always great and sometimes I have to replace parts, Windows is definitely not Mac OS, and they are power hungry, hot, and ugly. But they perform well. But my other machines serve other excellent purposes, like a MacBook Pro; a laptop with a truly excellent battery life that is light, cool, and performs excellently. If I was in the market, I'd buy an iMac, though I think I'd rather have a Mac Pro. But to me the iMac's performance, if you look at the numbers and not dwell on the letter 'M', is just fine, and the low power use and low heat IS nice. I've been more conscious of my computer power usage and trying to use lower watt parts in my builds, and it's made a difference on my monthly power bill. A computer that does everything I ask it to do but saves me money? What the heck is wrong with that?
However, just like the days of missing floppy drives and missing serial/parallel ports, it's easy to add if you MUST have it. If you are buying a computer that costs AT LEAST $1,300, why is an external optical drive out of reach? If you MUST have a shiny aluminum one from Apple it's $70, or you could hack one together yourself with a $15 DVD burner and a $15 USB enclosure. Voila. $30 and you have an external optical drive. Shave the $15 for the drive off if you have an old PC with an optical drive in it.
UNFORTUNATELY, I still find myself needing an optical drive once in a while. But just like in the days when I grudgingly accepted a floppy disk from someone behind the times, I just use a cheap external. In my case, I have the superdrive out of my MBP in an enclosure (I have a drive mounted where the superdrive goes).
On the Hard Drive, well, first off, RPM (which is REVOLUTIONS, my dear author!) isn't the only factor determining speed. I guarantee you my 12,000 RPM 2.0GB SCSI drive from a million years ago is much slower than my 5400rpm notebook drive I have stuffed in a USB enclosure. Hard disk density, cache, etc., all matter. That said, it is true that a drop to a 5400rpm drive is a bit disappointing, though if performance is what you're after, then get the 27" iMac OR the Mac Pro!
Finally, I really dislike the 'laptop in a desktops body' stuff. Why? Well because people are so focused on whether or not the letter 'M' graces a component. If this was 1994, I'd be with you, but it's not. Benchmark wise, the iMac with it's 'mobile' CPU, GPU and RAM, will outpace many 'desktop' components used in PC's today. Apple knows that. Apple's engineers aren't looking at the letters, they are looking at the numbers. How fast is the chip? So we have similar performance, but with substantially less heat and less power consumption. That's huge for a lot of customers. There ARE thin desktop PC's that are HUGE in the education and business market that use laptop components (but not nearly as good as the iMac.) Why? Switch 500 CPU's from desktop CPU's to mobile CPU's, and you are likely saving HUNDREDS each month in electricity. Even been in a big computer lab on a college campus when it's 30 degrees outside but the A/C is on? Getting rid of heat saves even MORE power. Although the savings aren't as massive replacing one computer at home, it's still there, and some consumers care about that. But ultimately, tit-for-tat, performance is so close it's hard to really care comparing the iMac to a desktop class system, aside from a high end system, which the iMac is not.
Which brings me to my last point. The iMac has ALWAYS been Apples lower-end consumer device. Originally in the late 90's, it was "i" and "Power". iMac and iBook were the consumer grade, and Power Mac and PowerBook where the high end. All the way back to the iMac's introduction, it used a 233MHz PowerPC CPU while the corresponding 'PowerMac' used a 275MHz CPU with more cache and overall, much much more performance AND upgradability.
In over a decade, NOTHING has changed with the iMac. It's a seldom upgradable, mid-range CONSUMER machine. The Mac Pro on the other hand uses high end desktop CPU's, has limitless (for most purposes) RAM upgradability, and several hard drive bays. Nothing has changed, you've got the consumer (i) and the Professional (now more aptly named 'Pro').
When I read these reviews, I can't help but wonder if these same people would bash a $299 Wal-Mart Acer for not being able to handle Maya rendering or for lacking a solid state RAID array and FibreChannel cards. Granted, the iMac is expensive, but you are paying for some things other than performance alone, like the IPS panel, the build quality, and the service. If you don't think that's a good deal, buy a PC and spend $1300 on a more powerful, albeit cheaper built, system; and a cheap TN panel. Or, if you want a Mac, buy a used Mac Pro which will still outpace an iMac in the types of high end uses that you might need, and it can be upgraded even further down the road to really scream.
If the price is too high for a system of that performance level, don't buy it! Vote with your dollar! Apple is not an evil corporation stealing peoples wallets and forcing them to buy their products. They have a loyal fan base but it's not as big as people think, they nearly went bankrupt in the 90's. Why? The products were more expensive, but didn't really do anything different. The same, beige, plastic, crappy built computers, performance that lagged behind Wintel, and an OS that was ahead of it's time.... a long time ago. People voted with their Dollar.
I don't buy Apple products for cutting edge performance at a bargain price. I build homebuilt PC's for that. Works great. Reliability isn't always great and sometimes I have to replace parts, Windows is definitely not Mac OS, and they are power hungry, hot, and ugly. But they perform well. But my other machines serve other excellent purposes, like a MacBook Pro; a laptop with a truly excellent battery life that is light, cool, and performs excellently. If I was in the market, I'd buy an iMac, though I think I'd rather have a Mac Pro. But to me the iMac's performance, if you look at the numbers and not dwell on the letter 'M', is just fine, and the low power use and low heat IS nice. I've been more conscious of my computer power usage and trying to use lower watt parts in my builds, and it's made a difference on my monthly power bill. A computer that does everything I ask it to do but saves me money? What the heck is wrong with that?
What? I'm not telling or trying to convince myself of anything. My 2012 21.5" iMac is a great machine and looks sexy as hell. It's a massive improvement over my old DIY Windows 7 PC. If it annoys you that much, stop posting in threads about the new model and get on with your life?
I hate to be the one to tell you this but your sexy 2012 iMac doesn't look any different to my 2011 iMac from - the front! Not sure how you use yours but that's the view I tend to have of mine. The point I make is that they could have done so many different things with the new model but instead decided to put it on a diet, shed a few pounds and crippled the base unit. It's probably a good job Apple simply call it a new model and not an upgrade otherwise they could be had under the trades descriptions act (UK legislation for those that do not know).
Actually, from the front there's a considerable difference. I sold my 2009 and got a 2012, and the reflection reduction is astronomical. I never see myself in the screen anymore. That, to me, is a huge difference.
Yes it does. As another poster pointed out, it's less reflective!
The point is they did do a lot of things with the new iMac. It's far less reflective, better screen enclosure, USB 3, runs much cooler, has a BTO fusion drive option, is much lighter and thinner (great for the environment), and got plenty of great upgrades under the hood as well.
This was a big step forward for the iMac.
How did they cripple the base unit? They made it more expensive, but it's not crippled. You CAN get FD, an external ODD and more ram for it if you want.
Be happy with your 2011. Alhtough it's amusing that nearly all the negative comments about the 2012 are coming from 2011 owners!
TBH, you're just sounding like you have a chip on your shoulder now. Did you buy your 2011 model the day before they released the new one or something?
Actually, from the front there's a considerable difference. I sold my 2009 and got a 2012, and the reflection reduction is astronomical. I never see myself in the screen anymore. That, to me, is a huge difference.
Well for the light levels we get in the UK reflection isn't that much of an issue. Certainly where my iMac is located reflection is a zero issue - but seriously is that it? Wow hold the front page.
----------
Absolutley I did - June 2011
I love mine to bits but sadly unless Apple come up with something distinctly different before 2014 it will be my last.Well for the light levels we get in the UK reflection isn't that much of an issue. Certainly where my iMac is located reflection is a zero issue - but seriously is that it? Wow hold the front page.
----------
Absolutley I did - June 2011
That's a pretty significant difference for a lot of creative professionals. It is VERY big news in some circles.
I'm curious though, I love innovation as much as the next guy, but wouldn't you buy the best computer within your budget anyway? I mean why buy an iMac if you don't feel it's the best, contrastly, if you do think its the best in that price range for your needs, would you really go with a different one just because it wasn't radically different than the one before?
It's nothing new. There have one been 3 real styles of iMac in over a decade. Incremental changes within each style sure, but for a computer that undergoes radical design changes, the iMac is not it! It's radical, sure, but it's only been significantly changed twice since its inception (giving it three 'styles') at least in terms of appearance.
Personally, I'm torn on the issue of upgradability. If I'm being honest with myself, I rarely, RARELY upgrade my computers anymore, certainly not like I did 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Fact is, by the time I finally feel like I need to swap to a new hard drive or add RAM (sans failure), I'm pretty much ready for an all new machine, complete with the latest I/O, CPU and GPU.
HOWEVER, Apples upgrade prices are pretty high, and in the past I have upgraded macs "out of the box", including my 2012 MBP which arrived at my doorstep along with two crucial SSD's, an optibay, and 16GB of RAM. I could have gotten a similar machine from apple, but I would have spent a lot more vs upgrading it myself. Can't do that with the new iMacs. So I am a little torn.
In the end though, I'm not "offended" by the lack of radical design change in the Apple line. They continue to be the better machine, even if they look somewhat the same as last years model.
Easy, tiger. First, I grew up in London and moved to Seattle some years back. Both climates are similar, and yes it's a huge difference. And I owned the 2009 27" iMac for three years, so I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference.
Absolutley I did - June 2011
So? Nobody cares.
Well that's not very fair.
Unfortunately, she embodied everything you might think would be wrong with a 'teen blogger and tech writer', LOL, but she could've been good! I at least skimmed past that and read most of the article. Unfortunately, it was crap...
You know it was a couple snot nosed kids in Palo Alto that started this company right?
It's the huff post anything taken seriously there is likely to your own detriment. It's a rabble rousing rag whose primary claim to fame is drawing moths to flames nothing more. I don't know why I see it cited so much when so many of the articles like this one are baseless editorial full of misinformation and half truths.
Mine came in Friday and it's been one jaw dropping experience after the other ever since. One thing I recommend is upgrade the RAM, it's cheap and will help extend the life of the unit. I thought I would never use more than 8GB of ram. Boy was I wrong, I now have the power to run multiple virtual machines and game at the same time and I have been using it for the past few days. The only slow downs I've seen doing this is due to the ram being maxed out and slight pauses as it swaps to disk, which is fast but not quite fast enough for 0 slowdowns. I plan on fixing this soon enough though.
Mine came in Friday and it's been one jaw dropping experience after the other ever since. One thing I recommend is upgrade the RAM, it's cheap and will help extend the life of the unit. I thought I would never use more than 8GB of ram. Boy was I wrong, I now have the power to run multiple virtual machines and game at the same time and I have been using it for the past few days. The only slow downs I've seen doing this is due to the ram being maxed out and slight pauses as it swaps to disk, which is fast but not quite fast enough for 0 slowdowns. I plan on fixing this soon enough though.
To me I'm not taking this review too seriously. And are you going to let this enjoy your new iMac any less? I'm sure not!
One thing I have noticed with Apple products is that specs aren't everything. I ordered my base 21.5" iMac with a fusion drive as my first Mac and I'm very excited! After I used one at an Apple Store I was fully convinced and I'm sure that had the regular hdd.
One thing I have noticed with Apple products is that specs aren't everything. I ordered my base 21.5" iMac with a fusion drive as my first Mac and I'm very excited! After I used one at an Apple Store I was fully convinced and I'm sure that had the regular hdd.