Estimated delivery times for Apple's 21.5" iMac begin slipping - Page 2

That's actually wise. Even on the MBA, pulling from a 100% flash disk can feel slow (but it might be Mountain Lion that sucks). Switching from Office to Photoshop to XCode to Firefox to Excel to Eclipse -- possibly to EVE if I feel so inclined -- yes, I do that routinely) can feel annoyingly slow.

4. The left article is a MBA hit.

1_ I disagree.

2- You work at C|net?

1- Where the hell is the text from the quote gone. AppleInsider, your quote feature sucks.

2- "Now are product choices are low end and crazy high end. Very disappointing."

 

_Really._

 

Low end: Mini.

Medium range: 21 iMac, lowest 27 iMac

High range: maxed out iMac (3300€, that's starting to be serious money, you can buy a few camels for that price and start your own visit-the-egyptian-temples business for that money. Or something else.)

Very high-range: Maxed out MacPro.

Super high-range: Maxed out MacPro2013, super-secret-please-do-not-mention-before-announcement.

Can you actually in any way influence that? I'd be ready to pay a little more (not upto 50% more, though) to get not-assembled-in-China stuff.

OSX devices are more popular now than ever before. That's probably the biggest factor.

No, that's a silly test of Fusion Drive performance. You're intentionally filling the computer (which few people do) and then intentionally choosing the apps that would have the least benefit. That's the same error that the people cited above make. They're intentionally choosing a worst case scenario (obviously, working with a massive drive that is on the 5400 rpm drive rather than on the SSD is going to be slow).

The best test is always to try to mimic what you do most of the time. By definition, the things that you do most of the time will be on the SSD drive and the things you rarely do will be on the platter. So if you want to find out how much it speeds up things that you do every day, you're mostly going to be hitting the SSD (after the system becomes familiar enough with your usage patterns to have reached equilibrium). When you run an app that hasn't been used for a long time, it is NOT representative of your normal usage.

Now, there might be scenarios where your situation is relevant. Let's say that you run a very computer-intensive app only once a month or once a quarter -- perhaps some scientific app that requires massive resources. Fusion would not really help in that case. Fortunately, very few people actually operate like that. And even if you do, you can get around it by simply getting a small SSD Thunderbolt disk and using it when you need to run that app.

That's just about what I would have expected. Fusion is going to be faster than a platter drive for the things people do routinely. If you are in the group that uses a wide variety of apps and data (> 128 GB worth) or have a data-intensive app that you use so infrequently that it's downgraded to the 5400 rpm drive, then fusion probably won't help as much (although it will still be faster than just the platter drive because the OS will be on SSD).

 

Pretty sure he is referencing over all size including the stand. 

 

Last 21.5" iMac 

 

Depth: 7.42 inches 

 

http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC812LL/A

 

New 21.5" iMac

 

Stand depth: 6.9 inches

 

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

 

It looks like the slimming of the new iMacs allowed them to slim the stand by half of an inch on the 21.5" model. The 27" model has a current stand depth of 8". It was probably 9" in the last model. 

You're using all those apps on an MBA and complaining that the SSD is slow? Did it ever occur to you that it might simply be that you're overloading the system so much that even blazing fast SSD can't make up for all the additional swapping you're doing?

It's not a miracle worker. It is, however, far faster than anything else. If you were to try doing all those tasks on a different system with the same processor and same RAM as your MBA but with a platter drive, I think you'd understand just how much time the SSD is saving you.

Here is the anti-Apple pathology in stark relief, assuming you are serious.

How is Apple a theocracy? Do you see yourself in the heroic role of "shaking" that theocracy?

Also, the 2.5" drives are much less reliable than 3.5" drives, even if they are used in a desktop. And when that drive fails, it might be cheaper to just throw away the iMac and get an equivalent used Mac Mini and 21" display. The new 21" iMac wasn't designed to be serviced. So it's thin and disposable versus less than an inch thicker and repairable/upgradable, I'd choose the latter.

 

pik80: 7800 should be 7200

 

p.s. With the Thunderbolt port as an input, you can use the iMac with a dead hard drive as a display. So that's why they designed it that way.

 

He screwed up his post tabbing, so it screwed up your quote. Nothing to do with Huddler.

 

And I'm referencing the size of the device because the stand doesn't matter. It's specifically designed to be as out of the way in this regard as possible. All that matters is the thickness of the device. 

 

That would explain a little.

LOL, those cnet site headlines read like Fandroid posts.

 

I'm not surprised about this sort of thing when I see it, I just wish the people responsible would be jailed, fined, or have their websites shut down. 

 

Video game companies pay their industry's review sites for better reviews. Many have been caught at it, and the only price they pay is player outrage for as long as the event is remembered. No tangible or repeatedly quantifiable repercussion.

 

I expect some players within the tech industry to do the same. So it's not surprising, it's just disgusting.

That is basically the reason why I always get a Mac Pro. They seems expensive, but actually they're cheaper.

I don't understand how one can complain about Fusion when it's filled when HDDs slow down as they are filled. At least with Fusion you have the OS, all frequently used apps or all apps if you have the space, and other files that would benefit from being on the SSD along with a designated area for caching on the SSD.

As I'm sure you've seen me write before I've been using dual drives in my 13' MBP for years. My OS and apps on the SSD and my ~/User folder on the HDD. Fast boots and app launches with 1.08TB capacity. Only in the last few months did I combine the drives into a single Fusion Drive. Works great!

During those years of two separate volumes I've never filled more than half the drive with the OS and apps. I do have MS Office and Xcode but I don't have any professional Adobe products installed. I'm sure there are users that would benefit from a 256GB SSD because 128GB isn't enough for all their apps but they are atypical users. Even more atypical would be users that would frequently need access to all 128GB+ of apps on the SSD which makes me wonder why one would want to design a test that isn't real world but designed to make Fusion Drive look bad.


Here is AnandTech's review of Fusion Drive: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6679/a-month-with-apples-fusion-drive

I have noticed that too. I am currently writing this comment on a nine year old PowerMac G5 since it has lasted so long. If Apple ever comes out with a mid-range machine I would be interested in buying that but in the mean time I shall wait.....

 

I respect Cnet for doing this rather than just praising everything Apple puts out. I think reviews on Apple products have gotten a little overly positive recently so it is good to have them come along and ground us back to reality.

 

So you're ignoring the past three years or so?

Hmmm.. The lowest price PowerMac G5 was $2,000. The lowest priced Mac Pro is $2500. Not sure how they're in such different categories.

And Apple DOES have a mid-range machine. It's call the iMac. Whether or not it meets your needs, it is certainly mid-range (above the Mini and below the Mac Pro - although the iMac can easily beat a low end Mac Pro at many tasks).

"back to reality"? More like "back to the 90s when it was apparently illegal to say anything positive about Apple or Apple products".

Apple's reviews have been so positive because they've been so far ahead of the competition at most things. Posting a ridiculously negative, error-filled review does not provide balance.

The PowerMac was priced at $1,600 for the longest time and then skyrocketed up nearly $1,000 so they are in very different categories. For a while they sold the PowerMac G4 and PowerMac G5 at the same time this provided a nice mid range and high end option. Unfortunately they killed off their mid-range line about seven years ago and are yet to replace it with anything else.

Wow! $1600 was only for some of the G3 & G4 models (some were even cheaper) but to compare it with todays' iMac prices seems...off. Currently the mid range is the iMac and high end is the MP. Buy what you need.

I wasn't making a comparison with the iMac. Doing that wouldn't make sense since the iMac isn't a mid-range machine.

 

*sigh* So what is the iMac, then. Tell us.

 

It is a niche product that has it's place in crowded spaces like a dorm room or very small apartment but it's difficult expansion, single hard drive, and laptop drive leave it out of the mid-range category. I just can't bring myself to replace a PowerMac with an iMac and the MacPro is way more expansion then is necessary for my needs. Also the 27" monitor on the iMac is way too big.

I understand what you wish for, and many people have the same wish. Still, I don't think Apple will cater to such a request. But you never know; they sure as hell created enough iPod versions/designs/sizes. If the iPhone5 is any indication, they might create a S/M/L iPhone and expand that philosophy over to the Mac where they might create the xMac.

If I were an analyst I'd take that key word might out of my post ¡

 

No. The iMac is a "whole package" computer for people who couldn't care less about any of this. So roughly 90% of people.

 

You'll notice you're talking about replacing a professional product with a consumer product. So it's to be expected that you don't want to swap there! Except, of course, that even the Mac Mini is three times more powerful in every respect than even the newest PowerMac.

 

So buy a 21.5". Simple.

And get stuck with a laptop HD, 1TB drive, measly 256GB of SS storage on the fushion drive, and snail slow performance? I'll pass.

 

So what I am supposed to upgrade to?

 

The minimal number of HDs for a desktop should be two not having a backup is inexcusable. Being able to easily replace the drive is a must. Having to wait for someone to install a drive at the Apple store is stupid (and many people don't live by an Apple store making the task impossible.) The iMac is not a whole package computer and requires other devices to make it function properly.

The Mac Mini server can be ordered with 2x1TB HDD, so there.

The Mac Pro is able to easily replace the drive, so there.

"not having a backup is inexcusable" backups should be kept off site and therefore are not to be made 'inside the Mac'.

You don't sounds reasonable by saying that the Fusion Drive is snail slow performance. All your comments comes across as whining. I don't think I've read one reasonable comment from you in this thread. You want something Apple doesn't offer and you come across as if Apple has made it a personal vendetta to not service your very specific and unusual needs. You sound entitled and elitist. If you have to have a 3.5" HDD (something you think is higher performance than Fusion Drive) then you can't get the 21.5" iMac. It's that simple!

Snail slow? The iMac? I guess you just proved that you're spewing FUD. Even the slowest iMac you can buy today is at least 10 times more capable than the PowerMac G5 that you say you're using. And its a very powerful desktop machine - certainly well within the range of other computers in its price range.

Of course it is. It's between the Mini and the dual CPU Mac Pro.

Granted, it's not the very narrowly defined product that you demand and insist on calling the required 'mid-range' machine, but by any REASONABLE standard, it is.


The PowerMac G5 which you claim to own was never $1600. So which part are you lying about? Owning a G5 or the price?

Yes, I am entitled. When I spend a premium on Apple's hardware I am entitled to get a product that makes up for the cost that I spent on it. If this was some bargin bin PC I was buying I wouldn't have such high expectations but for the premium Apple charges I expect more and the fact is that Apple's current desktop line is nothing but a joke. I bought my PowerMac in 2005 because they had a decent line up back then and I expected them to keep it up but man have they gone in the toliet. If you haven't figured it out by now I am not one of those Apple users that just makes up excuses for every poor decision Apple makes. They have other products a like but there is nothing in the desktop line even worth considering.

1) That's all bullshit because there is no bait-and-switch marketing here so you are entitled to nothing. You know what the specs of the machine are prior to buying it hence your complaining now about a machine you don't own.

2) For someone that claims there is nothing in their desktop line worth considering you sure have spent a lot of time complaining about it.

Yes, and I was satisfied with that machine when I bought it in 2005. Now that I am locked into the Mac platform as I have spent thousands on Mac software and have no other options. The lineup looked good at the time but they are now stuck in a rut. I am entitled to better then this.

 

You keep saying this as though it's the truth. Do you not know it isn't? Come on.

 

Let's see, pro desktop, don't want to upgrade to a consumer desktop, ignoring that the consumer desktop on the high end can give pro desktops a run for their money… I guess the answer is to upgrade to a pro desktop.

 

1) This isn't your decision to make.

2) You're wrong, anyway.

3) One is the minimum, as that's all that is needed. Regular people couldn't care less about nor need more than one. That's why Fusion Drive combines two drives visually; they'd get confused otherwise.

 

Enlighten me, what else do I need to buy to get an iMac to run?

 

No. Discussion over.

 

No.

 

Right, you make up lies about what Apple makes.

I never said the PowerMac G5 was $1,600, I just said the PowerMac was priced at that without mentioned any particular model. The G5 wasn't even that far off from that price at $1,800 but that was a good attempt at trying to make me look like I was not creditable.

So I have to buy an enormous case that has twice as many drives as I need, two processor which I don't need, two optical drives which I don't need, and more expansion ports then I know what to do with? I'll pass.

 

"Enlighten me, what else do I need to buy to get an iMac to run?"

You need an internal back up drive. Off site storage is fine (I have this) but I need to have two back ups for my work I don't feel comfortable with only one. If something were to happen to one back up I want to know that I have another back up available. Also I want to use my internal drive for hourly time machine backups and I can't do that with an off site solution. I can't believe we still make computers that have one drive in them in the year 2013.

 

"That's why Fusion Drive combines two drives visually; they'd get confused otherwise."

The fusion drive doesn't provide the back up functions I need.

The only options you can think of are INTERNAL backups and OFF SITE backups? I understand that many people aren't good at breaking down a problem to find a solution but you're purposely ignoring EXTERNAL backups. Get a USB or TB RAID and you move on.

Or buy the 2011 21.5" iMac with the 3.5" HDD. Or don't buy anything from Apple at all. Or make your own machine since you feel that no machine in 2013 should have less than 2 drives.

Whatever you do please stop inventing obscure problems that make you think entitle Apple to build a machine just for your needs.

I do have an external back up. My offsite back up is my internal drive. I bring my external drive into the office every couple of weeks to back it up and then bring it back home so that if someone stole my computer or there was a fire I would still have my work.

 

"Or make your own machine since you feel that no machine in 2013 should have less than 2 drives."

Kind of hard to do when Apple is the only one that can make Macs.

 

"Whatever you do please stop inventing obscure problems that make you think entitle Apple to build a machine just for your needs."

They are not obscure problems these are the problems that effect the majority of computer users and all Apple offers are computers that are made for niche markets.

 

 

Wow.  My first Mac was more expensive, and therefore I guess in a different category than your PowerMac.  It cost about $2000 with a student discount, if I recall correctly as it was many, many moons ago (1988 or something).  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Plus

 

Had a whopping 8MHz CPU and 1MB RAM, no internal HD and a floppy drive.  Even came with a 9 inch mono display with an incredible 512x342 pixel spread.

 

 

If only Apple would release something in the same range...