Thinner, Limited iMac

Guys lets not get carried away. A decent spec bump will suffice 80-90% of iMac users ie

Sandy - ivy. 8 gb ram and nvidia graphics 256SSD 21 or 27 inch

If that was a base spec and then things got bigger / more expensive BTO I would expect the base price to be similar to the £999 - $1200 maybe £100 -$1400

This may be what I am hoping for, but what I have learnt on this forum is that the high end users have very individual needs and 1 machine does not fit all hence BTO, some need more memory others need speed. I think what is mentioned above would be a decent starting point.

P.s. any new form factor would obviously be a bonus.!!,! Lets just hope we get the update.



:apple: iPhone 4 :apple: iPhone 4S :apple: Apple TV :apple: ipad2 :apple:

:apple: busting for an iMac. :apple:
 
1.) No, I would not buy a Mac like that.
2.) I would hesitate to speculate on sales impact at this point although I don't think they would sell as well as current Macs - the GPU being the issue.

I like to play games on my Mac as well as the other things I do with it. I want one system that does it all and my iMac does this very nicely for me. I don't require the performance of a high end windows gaming PC, medium to high settings with playable frame rates is just fine with me.

I don't know what percentage of iMacs are "home" computers but for those that are, being capable of gaming I would think is fairly important for some subset of those folks. Again though, I could only guess at what the numbers might be here, as in wild guess. Still, it is a market with plenty of room for growth for Apple, so creating machines that rule it out doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The good looks of my iMac is very nice but how it works is more important when it comes down to choosing. This is coming from someone who just converted from many years of Windows and before that MS-DOS on PCs. I like that my iMac looks cool but it is not what drove my purchase. OS X did that and the fact that a fair number of good gaming titles now release regularly on the Mac thanks to Blizzard, Feral and Aspyr and on top of that I can bootcamp if desired not to mention run old classics in a Windows XP VM with Parallels. The Mac gives me every option I could want or need. This is why I bought a Macintosh. I can work in OS X and play wherever I want.
 
Last edited:
Dirtyharry50 said:
1.) No, I would not buy a Mac like that.
2.) I would hesitate to speculate on sales impact at this point although I don't think they would sell as well as current Macs - the GPU being the issue.

I like to play games on my Mac as well as the other things I do with it. I want one system that does it all and my iMac does this very nicely for me. I don't require the performance of a high end windows gaming PC, medium to high settings with playable frame rates is just fine with me.

I don't know what percentage of iMacs are "home" computers but for those that are, being capable of gaming I would think is fairly important for some subset of those folks. Again though, I could only guess at what the numbers might be here, as in wild guess. Still, it is a market with plenty of room for growth for Apple, so creating machines that rule it out doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The good looks of my iMac is very nice but how it works is more important when it comes down to choosing. This is coming from someone who just converted from many years of Windows and before that MS-DOS on PCs. I like that my iMac looks cool but it is not what drove my purchase. OS X did that and the fact that a fair number of good gaming titles now release regularly on the Mac thanks to Blizzard, Feral and Aspyr and on top of that I can bootcamp if desired not to mention run old classics in a Windows XP VM with Parallels. The Mac gives me every option I could want or need. This is why I bought a Macintosh. I can work in OS X and play wherever I want.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

I wonder if people who game on Macs would be the primary protestants to such a reduction. Gamers are (or so it seems to me), sometimes more interested in specs than are photographers and video editors, who, despite their need for a higher-end all-in-one, are not as interested in the specifics of the components (personal observation, and confession).
 
:confused: Does anyone really thinks Apple could do something that stupid ? Really ?? Come on, this site deserves better ... ;)
 
One Still Sheep said:
Thank you for your response.

I wonder if people who game on Macs would be the primary protestants to such a reduction. Gamers are (or so it seems to me), sometimes more interested in specs than are photographers and video editors, who, despite their need for a higher-end all-in-one, are not as interested in the specifics of the components (personal observation, and confession).
Click to expand...

I'm one of those who game on an iMac and have for years. The main concern most any gamers who do the same is mostly centered around the graphic card. The processor would be a secondary concern, but one most put up with. And honestly the processor really is never a deal breaker over the graphic component. Apple's not exactly known for having the newest or most current setup under the hood. Even if they went with Ivy Bridge, that'll be outdated soon, if it's not already. But the graphic card is the biggie. iMacs tend to have mid-level graphic chips in them at best, which may or may not be sufficient enough for somebody playing D3, WoW or any other graphic intensive games. Plenty of examples from past iMacs where the newest iMacs in the series actually performed worse than older ones.

Granted, I have a lol Mid-2007 iMac whose back cannot even be taken off without Apple's special wrenches (yay for unique?) so pretty much anything would be an upgrade at this point by a beefy margin. But I'm definitely curious to see which chip Apple releases the iMacs with.
 
The new iMac will be make or break for me about whether I stick with Apple or switch back to a PC. I expect to pay more for an iMac compared to a PC, but this next version will determine whether they're serious about their user base or simply relying on their fanboys and milking them for cash.
 
I'm highly doubtful that will happen, I don't remember an instance where Apple actually downgraded their machines, there always seems to be a incremental upgrade from the last model..

But If it were to happen then no I would not invest $2000 on a machine with integrated GPU. I think it would be very silly for Apple to release an i7 system with a GPU thats lacking to the extent of a Intel HD 4000, especially on a 27" iMac considering the 2560x1440 resolution..

Most PC manufactures release a well balanced system, I don't see how Apple will be any different, especially at the $2000 price point..
 
I'm certain Apple will not sacrifice any performance on the upcoming iMacs, the only thing that I think may be removed is the DVD Drive, & they will switch over to 2.5" Hard Drives..

Also need to keep in mind Ivy-Bridge uses less power and produces less heat, same goes for the latest Radeon HD 7000 series.. So I don't think we will encounter any more heat then the current iMac line, despite the new iMacs being thinner..
 
MacAlien said:
Even if they went with Ivy Bridge, that'll be outdated soon, if it's not already.
Click to expand...

This stuff drives me crazy. Listen, if Intel meets their expectations, it's still 6 months before Ivy Bridge's successor, Haswell, comes out. Expect it to be longer than that - 9 months at minimum. So the iMac coming out next week can have the latest CPU for ~9 months before it's "outdated", and that's the normal shelf life of an iMac anyway.


MacAlien said:
But the graphic card is the biggie. iMacs tend to have mid-level graphic chips in them at best
Click to expand...

The top 27" 2011 iMac had the best mobile GPU available at the time it was released. I expect no different in the 2012's, and 2012 is an excellent year for mobile GPUs. The top option should get you to the equivalent of mainstream desktop performance, which is good for everyone not trying to play Battlefield 3 at Ultra on a 4K screen.

Apple has a checkered history with their GPUs, but they did start caring around 2010-2011.
 
One Still Sheep said:
... However, in order to accommodate the reduction in girth, the iMac's internal design was changed dramatically: it no longer features a GPU (it utilizes on-board graphics) and a small SSD (128MB) with no option for a 3.5 drive; also, in order to achieve maximal thinness, the RAM is now soldered to the main board. (Obviously, the optical drive has also been removed.) ...
Click to expand...

It can be argued that Apple's recent choices re: soldering on RAM and using proprietary SSD form factors were to save footprint and not just height. Less space on RAM connectors and a 2.5" drive chassis means more space for a battery, all things being equal.

But there is no such design restriction for an iMac. A 21.5" screen is *enormous* compared to the logic board of a rMPB. You could easily fit a few full-size RAM slots and a few SATA connectors for 2.5" drives along the sides of such a board without increasing the thickness of such a system at all.

If Apple were so inclined, they could make this the most user-configurable and user-upgradable iMac ever, all while making it about as thin as a rMPB.
 
I couldn't tell you if it would hurt sales overall, but I would guess not. If Apple was a college student, it seems to be majoring in iDevices, with a minor in laptops.

I can tell you that I would not buy it. I would be forced to buy an imperfectly equipped 2011 refurb.

The machine would be so underpowered in the graphics department that it would be laughable for any serious graphics application. What is the point of such a large, beautiful screen with no horsepower to drive it? Games, video and photo editing would be crippled.

I get that there is a performance boost from a SSD, but making it thinner, and forcing such a small sized drive would result in the need for an external HDD. What is the point of an AIO if you must immediately add clutter to your desk?

In short, I would like an across the board spec bump over a drastic redesign or even retina.
 
motrek said:
If Apple were so inclined, they could make this the most user-configurable and user-upgradable iMac ever, all while making it about as thin as a rMPB.
Click to expand...

This is quite a statement; it would be interesting if Apple would take such a statement as a challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top