I've been a Mac Mini fan as I see no reason to upgrade screens every time you get a new computer, but with a 21.5 retina screen, I could justify, buying the iMac with the intention of using it as a second screen some day when it becomes obsolete.
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.
Sixth OS X El Capitan Beta Includes More Hints to 4K 21.5-Inch Retina iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
21.5" is a bit small to me. I have a 24" 1920x1200 display now and I think a 4k 24" iMac would be sweet. It would also be big enough to scale 2560 x 1440 every now and then when you need more space.
The sooner the better. As 21.5" have not run external monitors, will Apple do the special work around to get the 5k to work on the 21.5" as they did with last October's 27"?
Imo 21.5" is too small. Apple should release 24" and 30" iMacs.
No it is not. It is a single drive. But 15mm thick, compared to usually 9mm (if I remember correctly)
http://www.storagenewsletter.com/ru...tb-record-for-2-5-inch-hdd-by-samsungseagate/
Go the Retina..
So, we have 4K, and 5K....... At the easy stages we would hurt our eyes. .... now the same thing would be true with 4 and 5k
I thank Apple for over the top high res screens but at what cost to us ? Laser surgery to "correct" our vision, it was fine until we got a Retina ? I think that that was when people started taking off their glasses to see. The proof that no one does this on normal-non Retina displays proves this...
So, we have 4K, and 5K....... At the easy stages we would hurt our eyes. .... now the same thing would be true with 4 and 5k
I thank Apple for over the top high res screens but at what cost to us ? Laser surgery to "correct" our vision, it was fine until we got a Retina ? I think that that was when people started taking off their glasses to see. The proof that no one does this on normal-non Retina displays proves this...
I was replying to a post that implied that SSDs shouldn't be standard in the iMac because SSDs aren't yet available in a 3TB size. Let's keep that in context.
First, Fusion drives are less reliable than a single drive. No way around it, any time you're relying on two drives concurrently instead of one, the odds of failure go up and reliability goes down. If the odds of each failing is 1%, then the odds of either of them failing is 2% (which is what a Fusion drive is, it fails if one of the two drives fail). It's just math.
Second, I agree that most drives are totally reliable. Not all spinners are bad. 500GB spinners and 1TB spinners are totally fine. But if you read reviews of the 3TB spinners and reports from EMC and other storage experts, the 3TB HDDs are just plain unreliable. They either have 5 platters of 600GB/platter, or 3 platters of 1TB/platter. In the former, that many platters causes a problem. In the latter, that density causes a problem.
So to say that you've had 30 HDDs and only 1 failed is irrelevant, unless you've had 30 3TB HDDs, which I doubt you have.
Most external drives fail due to the controller in improper OS-level support, not the drive itself inside. Most USB drives don't ever sleep, for example. That obviously affects reliability. Even USB drives that supposedly support sleep don't work because OS X doesn't fully support the sleep command over USB, so most controllers don't work well with it. Thunderbolt and Firewire drives, in my experience, have been much more compatible with OS X and always sleep reliably. I don't think USB3 has solved that issue, and I don't have any USB3.1 hardware to test it with. If I were looking for large storage today, I would go with a Thunderbolt solution.
People should really read the Google study they did on testing hard drives. MTBF (mean-time-before-failure)
Most of that is actually correct.
A bezeless Mac, i can see that one day, and the laptop line as well. u don't need that much space for the camera tech.
One way would be to shrink the form factor, but not the viewable area. or make the viewable area larger and call it a .... (no articles talk about the bezel width) .. and i'm lazy to measure.. on the count i don't even have an iMac.
Most of that is actually correct.
A bezeless Mac, i can see that one day, and the laptop line as well. u don't need that much space for the camera tech.
One way would be to shrink the form factor, but not the viewable area. or make the viewable area larger and call it a .... (no articles talk about the bezel width) .. and i'm lazy to measure.. on the count i don't even have an iMac.
Last edited:
If you believe that 3 TB 3.5" drives are unreliable, I am not sure I can trust your judgement. We had 3 TB 3.5" drives for three years or so. And we had 2 TB before that and 4, 5, and even 6 TB drives after that (the 8 TB are only good for archival purposes due to the way the individual data 'lines' overlap). I vaguely remember that Backblaze had trouble with one particular size of drives, in particular from one brand (which I think were 3 TB drives from Seagate). But other reports have shown that what really just one model that had problems.
This. I never understood people demanding standard this or that because of this logic hole you pointed out. When it comes down to it, they just want more for cheaper.
It wasn't released before the end of last month, Toshiba released a 3TB 2.5" 1-2 months before this Samsung/Seagate came out.
Still pretty expensive, I got the Toshiba, just don't trust anything Seagate/WD, the drive was about €180, the Samsung costs about € 40
more.
AFAIK you can't use the new iMacs in Display mode anymore.
I mean come on!!! Who on earth would want to do that?!!! They are like SOOOOO cheap!
Bell end comment if I ever read one. Not everyone has money pissing out of their pockets...
You basically just wrote "Haha, you're poor!". I hope it feels good.
Well then, most 1 TB drives just have one platter as well. Same density problem then?
What annoys me more is how Apple is always pushing how SSDs are the future in every product category except the iMac. Also, I wish Apple would give us the option to use a standard SATA SSD. A standard SATA III SSD will still beat the fusion by a significant margin, and now you can get a 500GB SSD for less than the $200 which is even cheaper than paying Apple for a fusion drive. It makes no sense to buy a non-SSD equipped machine in 2015 at the price range of iMacs.
This is true. The HDD used in the retina iMac definitely isn't a slouch for an HDD.
What about new displays? It's been like 1421 days according to macrumors buyer's guide. WTF?
I got a Mac Pro a year ago - still no appropriately matching Apple Display. What the hell is happening to Apple???
I got a Mac Pro a year ago - still no appropriately matching Apple Display. What the hell is happening to Apple???