Why the new iMac sucks so much!

[nuckinfutz]

I guess the aesthetic of the iMac is some what compromised having an external burner plugged into it? The apparent thin edge seems irrelevant to a desktop.

The thin edge and reduction of 8 lbs is more relevant than worrying about the "aesthetics" of an external DVD drive.

Reality is no amount of bellyaching about today's iMac changes the fact that people before you paid more and got less and that people after you will pay less and get more.

Glass half-empty people can always find a reason why they feel they've been screwed.

 

[spcdust]

The thin edge and reduction of 8 lbs is more relevant than worrying about the "aesthetics" of an external DVD drive.

Reality is no amount of bellyaching about today's iMac changes the fact that people before you paid more and got less and that people after you will pay less and get more.

Glass half-empty people can always find a reason why they feel they've been screwed.

Your response is somewhat defensive, I have no great issue with the thin edge but I guess you could equally argue that, in relative terms, the 2011 iMac you actually paid less and got more - it will be interesting to see what the cost of the options comes in at to build an equally capable iMac. Also, aesthetic is everything to Apple and dropping the ODD on this generation, although not a deal breaker, does contradict the AIO philosophy. On a personal level dropping the FireWire 800 port seems a generation or two to early, but I guess we can all buy Apples overpriced Thunderbolt - FireWire cables

The 2012 iMac is not a bad revision, but the Fusion Drive seems to be a bit of a stop gap until SSD drives come down in price. Saying all this if I was in the market to buy one I would be excited, however the only real attraction for me with a top spec 2011 iMac is the improved GPU, but isn't that always the case on each revision.

The iMac seems to best represent Apples pursuit of the highest profit margin they are able to squeeze out of their customers both in retail cost compared to hardware and the way they have specced the various models to "force" buyers towards the costlier higher specced iMacs.

 

[haruki]

Looking at the leak photo of imac before the event, some people were certain that apple uses 2.5" hdd. But now, i'm guessing the 21.5 inch imac uses the 1 tb 2.5 hdd 5400rpm while the 27 use 3.5 hdd 7200 rpm that can go up to 3 tb.

The 5400 rpm on a 1 tb drive is good enough actually, it can go to 114 MB/s of read and write.

Can't wait for ifixit get their hands on.

Is this faster than the previous 21.5 model that had 7200rpm?

 

[the8thark]

Is this faster than the previous 21.5 model that had 7200rpm?

No one knows till we get 5400 and fusion benchmarks.

 

[mchoffa]

the only reason the new iMac sucks at all is that it's not on my desk yet

 

[chris1987]

Your response is somewhat defensive, I have no great issue with the thin edge but I guess you could equally argue that, in relative terms, the 2011 iMac you actually paid less and got more - it will be interesting to see what the cost of the options comes in at to build an equally capable iMac. Also, aesthetic is everything to Apple and dropping the ODD on this generation, although not a deal breaker, does contradict the AIO philosophy. On a personal level dropping the FireWire 800 port seems a generation or two to early, but I guess we can all buy Apples overpriced Thunderbolt - FireWire cables

The 2012 iMac is not a bad revision, but the Fusion Drive seems to be a bit of a stop gap until SSD drives come down in price. Saying all this if I was in the market to buy one I would be excited, however the only real attraction for me with a top spec 2011 iMac is the improved GPU, but isn't that always the case on each revision.

The iMac seems to best represent Apples pursuit of the highest profit margin they are able to squeeze out of their customers both in retail cost compared to hardware and the way they have specced the various models to "force" buyers towards the costlier higher specced iMacs.

It has nothing to do with 'Philosophy'. Just because it's called an All-In-One doesn't mean it is obliged to literally offer everything available. Sorry to break it to you but ODD's are getting old fashioned quicker than what you anticipate. I'm going to assume that you realise ODD's will soon die out, however i think it's funny how people think it's too early. Haven't used a CD in months - i certainly welcome a thinner iMac for the expense of an ODD.

I agree on the FireWire removal though - guessing the SD slot at the back will be next.

 

[xgman]

All the complaining in the world is not likely to change Apple's mind on this, so either get one, get an old one, stick with what you have, or move on to something else.

 

[dlewis23]

i5: I grant it for the base model, but the remaining 3 should have i7 NO BTO, why Apple doesn't get it? it's unethical to make profit from HT benefits when the processors costs about the same and there's no customization due from their part in any way. We're talking about desktop PC's not an iToy. We already know many sacrifices are made to keep the all-in-one box concept alive, why making even more? the "space" issue was already taken care of IMO and current iMacs still look superb compared to the new ones. So wtf is doing a tablet on a stick with already old technology at such a high price?

Why stinging on power and sacrificing flexibility? I don't really get it, Apple's failing to deliver the processing power that makes the difference between mobile devices and PC's, Some might say they're more light consumer oriented, so what are the iPads and laptops for? Give me a break. I'm an audio producer and many professional audio interfaces use FW800, others use it for storage etc. Now one is supposed to buy a converter and lose a TB port, not only that but (5400 rpm) Hard drives... are you freaking kidding me? @#$=)(#$. No optical drive when I expected at least a bump to Blue-ray, today I'm being forced to pay for like 80 bucks just to be able to burn my music sacrificing an USB port as well. No eSATA, Fewer USB ports. All in all no improvements on this field but a major step back.

Why limiting customization and maintenance even more? Soldered RAM, not serviceable hard drive... We yelled at Apple about it!!! even an Xbox is more efficient in this matter and that's ridiculous if we're talking about a personal computer. The overall design of the product and its concept was defused by this refresh, iMacs are even farther from being "all in one" now, the price to performance ratio is also outrageous, denying entry to professional users who can't afford a Mac Pro and won't spend 3k on a 27" maxed out model.

Screw Apple, they're evil.

You actually expected a bump to blu-ray? How does it have fewer USB ports? Only the 21.5 uses 5400 RPM drives and has fixed ram. The 27" uses 3.5 drives and has upgradable ram.

Sounds to me like you should just buy one of the older iMacs to keep your self happy.

 

[Jetson]

I want a computer that has a way to input data/programs WITHOUT having to buy an extra device or being connected to the internet.

That's not half empty - it's a customer request!

This is something we've ALWAYS had with the Mac and to arbitrarily remove it for the sake of "aesthetics" doesn't cut it.

I ask you, how are you going to rip or burn a CD? How will you watch you DVDs? The fanboy will answer, well go and buy an external device? Well I expect my iMac to already HAVE a media input/output device. This is a RADICAL change and the fanboys don't even question it.

I tell you what - lets remove the CD/DVD drive from ALL Apple devices, starting with the iMac, then the MacBook Pro, etc. Yeah, YOU carry a host of external devices along with your MacBook pro everywhere you go.

We don't need no stinkin' internal CD/DVD drive!

Honestly these smug fanboys think that anyone who "thinks different" from them is whining. IDIOTS!

 

[aliensporebomb]

Ah!

But this is the next logical step in the progression of eliminating floppy drives, now eliminating optical drives.

It's the cloud motif now. Watching movies you buy on a built-in optical drive doesn't make Apple money. Watching movies you buy on the itunes store makes Apple money.

Cloud = makes Apple Money
iTunes = makes Apple Money

You see?

External drive will work better than those lousy slow Optiarc drives in the iMac anyway - I ought to know, I just had one internally replaced and a 24x speed write to a CD-R is pitiful. External will get you better performance anyway.

Speaking of audio production: I'm using an i7 2009 iMac 2.8 ghz with 16 gigs of memory. I routinely do large projects in the 80+ track arena or more. It's not unusual. With multiple effects plug-ins on every instrument usually. As an example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/this-is-aliensporebomb/id391880218
Most of the tunes on this are in the 60-120 track area.

I do believe a 7200 rpm drive is more helpful for this process but honestly the sooner I can abandon Firewire for Thunderbolt the better. Either my enclosure is unreliable or the connection is because every 2-3 reboots I have to power cycle the case, reseat cables, etc. So I generally record to my internal drive rather than FW external.

 

[Jetson]

The bottom line shouldn't be what makes a company sitting on $100 billion in cash more money.

It should be what makes the customers happy.

And if Apple is using lousy, slow optical drives, then why don't they update THOSE?

I still like Apple, but if this is their strategy, then it's a wrongheaded one.

I can't imagine Steve Jobs approving this.

 

[AR999]

um is there really that much of a difference between 7200 and 5400 would the average user give a ****?

Hardly the damn point is?

Look at the price of these things. What Apple are doing is disgraceful, come on you guys would be all over Samsung or MS if they pulled this crap with slow HDDs, stop making excuses like "but nobody would notice" because its Apple.

----------

Stupid statement - Apple sells stacks more 21.5's than 27s. The people that buy them are home users - a perfect computer for them - if they want more power they can spec it up online - I don't know of many other companies that make it that easy.

WHAT?!?!?!?!

Apple degrade the HDD, up the price and you just say "well they will sell you the old one for more money".

How do people like you exist.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Humma

If you don't like the 5400 rpm drive spec an SSD possibly?

 

[nagareru]

I am happy without the OD in fact if they kept it I would be as angry as you are because I would have paid more for something I never use.

So who is right? You or me?

 

[Jetson]

The world still sells commercial content on optical media and will for the forseeable future. It's cheap and simple to use.

Apple ignores the HUGE Blu-ray market - just because!

And yes, I can use a USB ram drive to get data/programs in and out of my iMac. But nobody is selling commercial content on USB drives.

I love Apple products and have owned them since before most of these fanboys were even born.

Face it - the ONLY reason Apple dropped the Superdrive from the iMac is because some "creative" executive with a 7 figure salary decided that making Apple products razor thin is now the driving criteria for all technical decisions.

 

[AR999]

If you don't like the 5400 rpm drive spec an SSD possibly?

Hardly the point though is it, an ssd costs a lot more, 20 months after the iMac 11 and they have degraded the hdd and put the price up. But who cares, it's thinner

 

[Hairlesswookiee]

the MacBook Pro, etc. Yeah, YOU carry a host of external devices along with your MacBook pro everywhere you go.

We don't need no stinkin' internal CD/DVD drive!

I've been doing this for almost 2 years now with my '08 MBP. I can only think of a handful of times where I missed the OD. I bought a much better slim USB powered DVD drive and the problem was solved. While I do understand your statement that a desktop shouldn't have this problem I believe Apple should address this by including a Superdrive if the customer wishes.

 

[Jetson]

I've been doing this for almost 2 years now with my '08 MBP. I can only think of a handful of times where I missed the OD. I bought a much better slim USB powered DVD drive and the problem was solved. While I do understand your statement that a desktop shouldn't have this problem I believe Apple should address this by including a Superdrive if the customer wishes.

Well Hairlesswookiee, that is a reasonable opinion, and I'm glad that solution works for you.

Unfortunately the new iMac design precludes the possibility of a Superdrive option. There's simply no place to put it.

 

[Reason077]

2012 iMac - No IR remote receiver?

It is confirmed that the new 2012 iMac has no receiver for the IR remote? There's no mention of it in the tech specs, but then it also isn't mentioned in the specs for other models, like MacBook Air, which do have it.

I know there's a remote app that has many of the same functions, but I find it much quicker to use the real remote. No messing around starting up the app and waiting for it to connect, etc.

Perhaps Apple will bring out a Bluetooth based remote as an alternative?

 

[leman]

BTW, I have now checked the Newegg price for a PC box with exactly the same components as the higher-end 27" iMac: i5-3470, 8Gb DDR3, 1Tb HDD, GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB, 450mbit WiFI, cheapish Lian-Li alu case, a Corsair PSU, Gigabyte ATX Mainboard + a 27" PLS Samsung monitor. Without an OS, mouse and keyboard the price was $1900. Add an OS + decent wireless keyboard/mouse + some cheap speakers and you will cross the $2000 range. It is possible to get a somehow cheaper IPS 1440p display though.

All in all, the 27" iMac seems to be excellent value. If the 680MX update costs around $200, it is similar to getting a GTX 670 instead of the 560 Ti.

 

[Hairlesswookiee]

Well Hairlesswookiee, that is a reasonable opinion, and I'm glad that solution works for you.

Unfortunately the new iMac design precludes the possibility of a Superdrive option. There's simply no place to put it.

This seems like a less than desireable situation for many desktop users. If you plan on keep your iMac on the stand 12 South makes the "Book Shelf", or something like that. Sturdy enough to handle an external hard drive, and it can keep the OD drive and the cables tucked out of sight behind the iMac.

If I didn't already have beastly external Blu Ray and HD DVD drives sitting on my desk I'd either go with the 12 South device, or find a way to attach a slim DVD drive to the back of the iMac via Velcro strips (unsightly, but desperation calls for drastic measures).

 

[xgman]

Face it - the ONLY reason Apple dropped the Superdrive from the iMac is because some "creative" executive with a 7 figure salary decided that making Apple products razor thin is now the driving criteria for all technical decisions.

They said the same thing about floppy drives.

 

[Cory Bauer]

They don't all suck...

Here's the way I see it. The $1,999 iMac is a fantastic machine, and if that's the machine/price-point a potential iMac buyer had their heart set on before the 2012 models were announced then there's really little to complain about. But the remainder of the iMac line appears to only exist for the purpose of upselling consumers to the $1,999 model. If a person only needed the 21.5" iMac, they're getting royally screwed. No accessible memory slots, 5400rpm drive, no option for 1GB VRAM, and the $1,299 model doesn't even give the option for Fusion drive or SSD. The base 27" model offers few configuration options either. And the bottom three models are crippled with 512MB VRAM.

All I wanted from a 2012 Mac was a quad-core processor and an Nvidia Graphics card with 1GB VRAM (required by After Effects CS6 for the ray-trace render engine). Apple offers nothing that meets those requirements for under $1,999 (desktop) or $2,199 (laptop), and refuses to allow buyers to configure a less-expensive machine with those features.

 

[kazmac]

Here's the way I see it. The $1,999 iMac is a fantastic machine, and if that's the machine/price-point a potential iMac buyer had their heart set on before the 2012 models were announced then there's really little to complain about. But the remainder of the iMac line appears to only exist for the purpose of upselling consumers to the $1,999 model. If a person only needed the 21.5" iMac, they're getting royally screwed. No accessible memory slots, 5400rpm drive, no option for 1GB VRAM, and the $1,299 model doesn't even give the option for Fusion drive or SSD. The base 27" model offers few configuration options either. And the bottom three models are crippled with 512MB VRAM.

All I wanted from a 2012 Mac was a quad-core processor and an Nvidia Graphics card with 1GB VRAM (required by After Effects CS6 for the ray-trace render engine). Apple offers nothing that meets those requirements for under $1,999 (desktop) or $2,199 (laptop), and refuses to allow buyers to configure a less-expensive machine with those features.

I agree with the lack of options for 21" iMac buyers (which would include me if I stick with this particular Mac. I'm not.) It is very disappointing for those who do not need a 27" version.

 

[nuckinfutz]

On a personal level dropping the FireWire 800 port seems a generation or two to early, but I guess we can all buy Apples overpriced Thunderbolt - FireWire cables

The 2012 iMac is not a bad revision, but the Fusion Drive seems to be a bit of a stop gap until SSD drives come down in price. Saying all this if I was in the market to buy one I would be excited, however the only real attraction for me with a top spec 2011 iMac is the improved GPU, but isn't that always the case on each revision.

The iMac seems to best represent Apples pursuit of the highest profit margin they are able to squeeze out of their customers both in retail cost compared to hardware and the way they have specced the various models to "force" buyers towards the costlier higher specced iMacs.

The only people that feel "forced" are ones have not updated their workflows to match 21st century technology. We're starting to see more and more people that are using ODD drives in edge cases mainly. Even the average internet connected consumer knows they can upload photos and video to sites like Facebook or Youtube very easily. In fact Apple put all these services right into the apps. For those with legacy FW needs a $29 adapter isn't bad at all. It's cheaper than many FW cables.

The bottom line shouldn't be what makes a company sitting on $100 billion in cash more money.

It should be what makes the customers happy.

And if Apple is using lousy, slow optical drives, then why don't they update THOSE?

I still like Apple, but if this is their strategy, then it's a wrongheaded one.

I can't imagine Steve Jobs approving this.

You don't have to imagine. Steve said on an All Things Digital D8 conference that if people didn't like what they were doing they wouldn't buy the products. If the sales are going up it's a sign that a company is pleasing more users that is upsetting.

I am happy without the OD in fact if they kept it I would be as angry as you are because I would have paid more for something I never use.

So who is right? You or me?

I believe neither is right. In a perfect world every computer would have every connection on it since the birth of the first computer. Total legacy support would be there. Sadly we don't have the space for such a beast so someone is going to be unhappy. I realize that my desire not to have a ODD is just as selfish as someone's desire to have one.

It is confirmed that the new 2012 iMac has no receiver for the IR remote? There's no mention of it in the tech specs, but then it also isn't mentioned in the specs for other models, like MacBook Air, which do have it.

I know there's a remote app that has many of the same functions, but I find it much quicker to use the real remote. No messing around starting up the app and waiting for it to connect, etc.

Perhaps Apple will bring out a Bluetooth based remote as an alternative?

The iMac should now have BT 4.0 which would make the Mac Pro as the last device that doesn't have BT 4.0. I'm looking forward to seeing what BT 4.0 can do to replace IR.

No accessible memory slots, 5400rpm drive, no option for 1GB VRAM, and the $1,299 model doesn't even give the option for Fusion drive or SSD. The base 27" model offers few configuration options either. And the bottom three models are crippled with 512MB VRAM.

All I wanted from a 2012 Mac was a quad-core processor and an Nvidia Graphics card with 1GB VRAM (required by After Effects CS6 for the ray-trace render engine). Apple offers nothing that meets those requirements for under $1,999 (desktop) or $2,199 (laptop), and refuses to allow buyers to configure a less-expensive machine with those features.

The issue though is Apple has a CTO site. If you don't like the 5400rpm then upgrade your configuration. If you're worried about RAM then upgrade to the 16GB. Apple's configurations shouldn't be beholden to what requirement Adobe has put on their software.

I think there are too many Apple users with "Champagne tastes on a beer budget"