People who complain about a 5400rpm HD in a premium desktop computer are sane. Those that take it blindly from Apple are stupid. They are probably also the same people that think a thinner desktop is a good thing, lol.
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.
Why so much hate for the new iMac?
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People who complain about a 5400rpm HD in a premium desktop computer are sane. Those that take it blindly from Apple are stupid. They are probably also the same people that think a thinner desktop is a good thing, lol.
2012 is a lovely machine and has its uses.
apple were always gunna lose the optical drive in this refresh, as they have with every other model (macpro is exception)
i have just recently bought a 2011 model and im happy with it.
all the whining about a slower hdd is nonsense. do u really notice that much difference between the 2.
plain simple fact, if you dont like the 2012 model dont buy it!!
apple were always gunna lose the optical drive in this refresh, as they have with every other model (macpro is exception)
i have just recently bought a 2011 model and im happy with it.
all the whining about a slower hdd is nonsense. do u really notice that much difference between the 2.
plain simple fact, if you dont like the 2012 model dont buy it!!
I agree exept that pat about HDD:
- standard HDD is bottleneck for imac even if its 7200 rpm
- if apple did no never ever seen magix, 5400 rpm and 2.5 will be simply slower, thus event thinner bottle neck
- last thing, I still believe, that in 2012 with all airs fully SSD, there shoul be SSD as default
But you are right, if you dont like it, dont buy it.. this is gonna happen, of course
They tried that, the company didn't do so well.
They're a hardware company, OSX is one of the big reasons people buy their hardware. If they get rid of that exclusivity, there is less incentive to buy their products.
Currently the other companies's iMac clones are getting dangerously close to the iMac. They looked similar, had the same (or better) specs.
They chose to change the design around to set them apart from Dell, Vizio, etc.
It looks different, as has consumer Video Card options that blow the competition AllInOnes out of the water (for 27")
I agree exept that pat about HDD:
- standard HDD is bottleneck for imac even if its 7200 rpm
- if apple did no never ever seen magix, 5400 rpm and 2.5 will be simply slower, thus event thinner bottle neck
- last thing, I still believe, that in 2012 with all airs fully SSD, there shoul be SSD as default
But you are right, if you dont like it, dont buy it.. this is gonna happen, of course
ahh ok,
well in my experience i cant tell the difference between 5400rpm and 7200rpm
ssd should have been the route they went with this really though. or at least the fusion drive.
in a nutshell reply to the thread title
ahh ok,
well in my experience i cant tell the difference between 5400rpm and 7200rpm
ssd should have been the route they went with this really though. or at least the fusion drive.
in a nutshell reply to the thread title
I am not hater and I think that we two can agree on SSD way...
None of that has anything to do with this thread or the iMac or any of Apple's products.
First, there's more to drive performance than rotation speed. Some 5400rpm drives outperform some 7200rpm drives. Second, some users value capacity over speed. Third, there is no standard anywhere for what's "reasonable" to put into any computer. Manufacturers could build a desktop with a 5 1/4" floppy drive if they elected to. It's up to each consumer to decide if they want to buy it. It's incredibly naive to suggest that any company has an obligation to make a computer in any particular configuration. If you don't like what they make, don't buy it.
I disagree that the optical drive is used 'very unoften' by a minority. Do you or anyone have proof or research study that says the "majority" of Mac/PC users no longer use their optical CD/DVD drives?
People must remember that the so-called "Cloud" is still in its infancy. A little over a year ago, even Apple was reluctant to use the word "cloud", right before it decided to jump into the "cloudy bandwagon", then releasing iCloud only in Summer 2011.
Hence, my point is the "Cloud" is still a fledgeling technology, not a proven medium of storage in terms of accessability, reliability, redundancy, or ubiquity in the same way that CDs and DVD-R/DVD-RAM have proven themselves for many years. At the very least, Apple should have waited another 1 or 2 years before it phased out the built-in optical drive from its iMacs.
NOW.... before someone retorts that we can always buy an external optical drive (Apple sells a nice USB one, I understand)..... PFFFT, because you just failed to comprehend the meaning of an "all-in-one" machine.
Do you have evidence to prove me wrong?
Point is why remove the drive then say you can buy one if you want, They remove the drive but price goes up (UK) its clearly a ploy to rake in more money, by telling customer to buy their external drive, this is and all in one that cost over £1000 after increase. I for one like Apple but refuse to be blinded by blatant rip off. Why not include it with the iMac? Probably will in the future.
Apple say jump and most do on here. Apple can and sometimes do make wrong decisions. If Apple were to bring it back on next refresh people would ignore the fact they are saying they made the wrong choice removing it and make up some excuse.
The iMac is a desktop computer who asked for it to be thin on the sides? Then to remove the need for user to upgrade ram on 21" I give up. As i've said since update. its a miss for me until I get bang for my buck, if this was Microsoft people would be fuming and abusing them saying why they chose Apple etc.
I hate Being charged more money for less, Thats not appealing. I feel like Apple is thinking that it's customers will tolerate anything. That's my personal opinion.
Apple say jump and most do on here. Apple can and sometimes do make wrong decisions. If Apple were to bring it back on next refresh people would ignore the fact they are saying they made the wrong choice removing it and make up some excuse.
The iMac is a desktop computer who asked for it to be thin on the sides? Then to remove the need for user to upgrade ram on 21" I give up. As i've said since update. its a miss for me until I get bang for my buck, if this was Microsoft people would be fuming and abusing them saying why they chose Apple etc.
I hate Being charged more money for less, Thats not appealing. I feel like Apple is thinking that it's customers will tolerate anything. That's my personal opinion.
Last edited:
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
- RPM isn't the only factor in HDD speed. The entry iMac should have the same overall HDD performance as the 2011 entry iMac, and higher capacity.
- The entry GPU sucks by 2012 standards, but it beats the bleepity-bleep out of the GPU in the 2011 entry 21". Apples to apples, friend.
- You can't upgrade the RAM but if you're looking at an entry-level model I'm not sure how you plan to use more than 8GB anyway, which is more than you got stock in 2011 (and at higher speed). We don't yet know the BTO price to go from 8GB to the max 16GB but it shouldn't be too bad. Or if you're in to that sort of thing, you can take it apart, add yourself some RAM, and swap out the HDD while you're at it.
If raw power is your concern, you shouldn't be looking at entry level.
I hate it because the thinness is unnecessary. Because I would rather have a desktop level graphics card with all that lost space. Because I want 802.11ac so it has some future-proofing.
Basically, because they updated a very out-of-date computer with a mediocre computer that focused on the wrong things.
Apple's obsession with smallness has gone too far - it is slowly doing a disservice to users.
Basically, because they updated a very out-of-date computer with a mediocre computer that focused on the wrong things.
Apple's obsession with smallness has gone too far - it is slowly doing a disservice to users.
The 680MX is about as close to a desktop solution you can get, and much closer then they've ever come with the iMac. No other BIG-box company that makes All-In-Ones has come that close yet.
Complaining they haven't put a desktop GPU this time is like complaining that the 2013 Volkswagen Jetta isn't getting all wheel drive. They haven't ever done it in the past, but you're annoyed they didn't do it this time. And at least with the iMac, there are REASONS why they haven't.
I seem to gravitate to your opinion on these forums, and was wondering if you wouldnt mind giving me some advice or what you think would be best. I will be a first time mac owner and I cant wait to make the change, but after reading these forums, Im a bit confused about everything.
I will be using my iMac for mainly photo and video editing, I have a photography website as well as a youtube channel. I edit all photos on photoshop cs6 and will be using imovie for video editing. Other than those two, I will use my mac for very basic things like word processing, web browsing, blog posts, etc.
I do have a budget ranging from 1500-1800 but would obviously want to save as much money as possible. Which iMac do you think will best fit my needs? Im obviously not a power user, but I do a good bit of editing and things like that.
I would also like to get a 4TB external to store my thousands of pictures and videos(not sure if that would matter)
Depending on how serious you are at video editing you may be able to take advantage of an i7. That would put you at the top 21" iMac, built to order with at least an i7. You should also consider the fusion drive for improved performance in everything you do, especially with photoshop. Apple hasn't told us the build-to-order prices yet but I'm thinking that gets you to about $1850-$1900. If your video editing is less intense then you won't get much use out of the i7 can would probably save $100-200 by staying with the i5.
tell me, my friend, why then there is 7200 rpm in 27incher, because it is slower then 5400 one?
I havent said a word about GPUs, so, I am not going to argue about them.
And upgradable RAM - so times are changing, month ago you bought entry imac and could max out memory by yourself.. trust me, there are things you do with entry imac that use 16gigs of memory...
tell me, my friend, why then there is 7200 rpm in 27incher, because it is slower then 5400 one?
Well no.. but the 27" is more of a performance machine than the 21", and they selected parts appropriately. While last year's 21" and this year's 21" probably have equivalent HDD performance, this year's 27" probably improves over last year's 27" HDD.
tell me, my friend, why then there is 7200 rpm in 27incher, because it is slower then 5400 one?
I havent said a word about GPUs, so, I am not going to argue about them.
And upgradable RAM - so times are changing, month ago you bought entry imac and could max out memory by yourself.. trust me, there are things you do with entry imac that use 16gigs of memory...
The 5400 RPM drive appears to be 2.5" based on some reports; the 7200 RPM drive is 3.5" based on pictures. You are comparing two different animals on just one spec. You need to also look at the data density, number of platters and cache to truly compare the I/O. You can get the same user experience from a 2.5" 5400 RPM drive as a 3.5" 7200RPM drive if chosen correctly.
A lot of bellyaching over probably nothing.
^ I'm not sure if this was directed towards me or if you made a mistake but either way I'd like to know why you quoted me here.
Thanx!
Not much else apple could have done???? Seriously ???
wow...just wow.
If that's "as good as it gets" for the iMac, then Apple must be giving up on it.
Various PC manufacturers of all-in-ones are experimenting with different adjustable stands, screen sizes, BTO components (like Blu-Ray drives, touch screens, HDTV tuners), matt screens, glossy screens, upgradability features allowing one to swap out almost any standard component, etc. There's lots of different companies offering lots of options.
But hey, if that's all Apple can come up with for the iMac, then it looks like they'll be left behind.
According to what? The HDD in the new iMac is slower than the one from the 2011. HDD technology hasn't moved at all in the past year. In fact if you didn't remember last year there was a huge shortage of hdd's and they spent time getting production back up. Not to mention that hard drive's have been relatively stagnant since around 2006 anyway.