or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Teardown of Apple's low-end iMac reveals non-upgradeable soldered RAM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Teardown of Apple's low-end iMac reveals non-upgradeable soldered RAM - Page 2

post #41 of 97
I won't be buying that bullish**!
post #42 of 97

My toaster isn't upgradeable to 4-slices, either. I'm stuck toasting 2 slices at a time. But for a low-end device, I didn't expect much.

post #43 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
 

My toaster isn't upgradeable to 4-slices, either. I'm stuck toasting 2 slices at a time. But for a low-end device, I didn't expect much.

Enjoy your $1100 toaster.  For making toast, I would rather something a bit cheaper.

post #44 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

I won't be buying that bullish**!

They haven't downgraded the options that were available before this new model was added. This is just a cheaper option for people who can happily get by with a slower CPU. The 11" Macbook Air is one of Apple's best-selling machines so lots of people must be happy with this level of performance. The SSD helps a lot of course but you can add one to the base model iMac.

If you look at the entry iMac with a 256GB SSD at $1350 vs the next model up with 256GB SSD, the price difference becomes $150 because the higher model had a 1TB HDD in it. What do you lose for that $150 saving? You lose Iris Pro for the HD 5000 and the i5-4570R for the i5-4260U.

Half the GPU power and just over half the CPU. It will still play some games ok:



The CPU has 4 threads and is faster than original quad Mac Pros and having a CPU that is 15W, the fan should barely kick in at all. That power saving is pretty big: 65W down to 15W but over 50% of the performance. To get nearly double the GPU and CPU for $150 is a good deal and it's supposed to be. The higher models are there for the upsell, if they made the lower models too compelling, they'd lose sales of the higher models. The entry model is there to cater to people who have a very limited budget where the extra processing performance doesn't make a difference to their experience. They still get USB 3, Thunderbolt, IPS display, bundled kb/mouse.

For people who prefer the other options, they haven't changed so it's business as usual.
post #45 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Back in the day, computer manufacturers (including Apple with the power mac) made a big deal about RAM expandability, and always advertised the maximum amount of memory the user could add after purchase. Even if you weren't looking for bottom-of-the-barrel performance, it made sense to buy cheap and upgrade RAM later because RAM prices would inevitably come down. Have RAM prices more or less stabilized?

 

I see a market for Connectix RAM Doubler to make a comeback.

 

Thanks for the heads-up OWC and AI!

post #46 of 97

The latest generation of iMacs is quite disappointing: they are very difficult to upgrade or can’t be upgraded at all, like this new “entry level” iMac and this means that the actual useful life of the system is reduced, especially with such a low end processor. I own a 2008 iMac, which is still a valid and useable machine since I was  able to upgrade it, doubling the RAM (from 2GB to 4GB) and replacing the initial 320 GB hard drive with a 1TB hybrid hard drive.

I really don’t care to have an iMac so thin, I would accept a thickness increase to have the possibility to expand the RAM and replace the hard drive (with a faster one, the 5400 rpm drives are unacceptable for me).

post #47 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

My toaster isn't upgradeable to 4-slices, either. I'm stuck toasting 2 slices at a time. But for a low-end device, I didn't expect much.
Are you suggesting that iMacs are appliances? I wonder if Lisa Jackson has a say in these decisions.
post #48 of 97

Soldering on RAM has many advantages in terms of manufacturing speed and efficiency, as well as reliability. This bitching and whining is exactly the same as the bitching and whining that occurs every time Apple makes a change to streamline, simplify, and move things forward, whether it be getting rid of floppy drives, firewire connector, making batteries non-replaceable, removing optical drives, making OSX download only, etc etc. Every single time, these led to BETTER overall products. This latest movie is the mildest of them all, since it's just on ONE iMac model that anyone who knows anything about technology probably wouldn't choose anyway. Big fucking deal. Noone who would buy this will need more than 8GB for a very long time, as I've been fine with 4GB for the last few years and I'm a heavy user of all adobe apps. 

post #49 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post
 

 

Each article on this is for a particular time zone. Sometimes you jump into a thread when it has already died because you are in a different time zone.

This way, people from every time zone can complain about this iMac!

 

You can say that AI is an equal opportunity click-bait site!

 

That's why you have Adblock installed so they don't get any money from you.

post #50 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


Apart from the fact that Apple can replace the RAM if it fails, and that the RAM is more reliable than that used in any other desktop because it’s soldered, and is therefore less likely to fail.

 

How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?

post #51 of 97
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
post #52 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryand View Post

What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.


Wrong.

Up until last year, my 2009 iMac has been running on 8GB.  I only upgraded it because I got a really good deal on the RAM chips.  I didn't "need" to upgrade it.  I was using my iMac to run 1-2 virtual machines and it was fine.  I am a power user and I am certainly not the norm.  If 8GB was fine for me considering how much I was hammering my machine in ways most folks of the low-end iMac will never do, I think 8GB will be more than adequate for the Joe Consumer.

And btw, my 2011 MBA with 4GB runs just fine along with running Windows 7 or 8 as a VM side-by-side.  So your argument is flawed on so many rookie levels.

post #53 of 97

You shouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't even know. I've used Macs continuously since 1984 and I have plenty of experience. In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM. Now it may be that you aren't doing much else with the machine at the same time, but I don't consider running Windows along side Mac OS and having a few other applications open at the same time to be unusual.

post #54 of 97
Originally Posted by bryand View Post
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.

 

To the authors of this and all other posts like it,

What is so difficult for you to comprehend about the product that Apple has released? Are you blind? Have you been to store.apple.com since its announcement? Do you not see that Apple continues to sell iMacs of specifications more worthy your standards? Do you truly believe that they have stopped selling everything but this blindingly obviously low end model? Why would you think that? Why is this entire letter in question form? Don’t I have enough confidence to state these things? 

 

Sincerely,

COME THE HECK ON.

 

PS: Magic Trackpad, not pen. My cursive is better than that. :p 

 

Originally Posted by bryand View Post
Ive used Macs continuously since 1984


Doesn’t matter to the discussion.

 
In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM.

 

So don’t run a VM on them. Why do people think that every computer Apple sells is designed for the same thing? These are the people who buy a Mac Pro to use for Facebook and e-mail and whine that the MacBook Air can’t live edit uncompressed 3840p.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #55 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryand View Post

What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.

 

You're completely full of it. My 2012 MBA is still running as smooth as silk with 4GB of RAM, since the day I got it, and through 3 OSX updates (running Yosemite Beta too). OSX updates are almost making BETTER use of RAM, not worse. Mavericks performs better than ML, which performed better than Lion. You're post is full of generalizations and fail on so many levels. Not to mention that I'm a POWER user, so for the average user, even less of an issue. I know people that have Macs and do nothing but web browse and check email. Tell me, why would this NOT be a good option for them if they can save $200? Your post is nothing but junk. 

post #56 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryand View Post
 

You shouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't even know. I've used Macs continuously since 1984 and I have plenty of experience. In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM. Now it may be that you aren't doing much else with the machine at the same time, but I don't consider running Windows along side Mac OS and having a few other applications open at the same time to be unusual.

 

..and you think the average person is running a virtual machine? Why do you take your own experience and project it on others? You're so disconnected from reality, the the length of time you've been using Macs for doesn't change that. Nothing will NEED 16GB of RAM anytime soon, and definitely not in the next couple years. 

post #57 of 97
Just my 2 cents: It is almost as if this was meant to be the 'e-iMac' as in educational model, intended only for the education market at a much lower price but some how has ended up available for the masses at this price.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #58 of 97

The 8GB of RAM is a non-issue for most home users - funny this is even being debated. 

 

However that CPU is a bit surprising as it's quite anemic. That might be OK for an Ultrabook form factor, but not so much for a desktop.

 

I'm really surprised they couldn't drop in a bit higher performing Intel SKU for no increase in cost, considering the extreme power/thermal limits of the Air don't apply. Sockets should be the same - so why not drop in the lowest end dual-core i5 from the MBP? At the cost Apple gets it from Intel, I bet we're talking about single digit dollars difference. 

post #59 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post
 

 

In a couple of years 8GB will feel like 4GB today.

 

..and 4GB feels absolutely fine today, so am not too worried about that. Also, I doubt it. Memory requirements, especially for desktops, are not going to keep doubling linearly. I do heavy lifting in all the adobe applications daily on 4GB of RAM - the average user doesnt do 10% of what I do. What mainstream task exactly do you presume will need 16GB of RAM 2 years from now? Nothing. Also, OSX is getting MORE memory efficient, not less. This is a complete non-issue for the target audience. 

Absolutely right. In a couple years, what used to require 8GB to run efficiently will only require 4GB to run efficiently. That's the way things are going.

post #60 of 97
Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post
Absolutely right. In a couple years, what used to require 8GB to run efficiently will only require 4GB to run efficiently. That's the way things are going.

 

That's the opposite of the way things are going. Everything now is more disk space! More RAM needed! Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Because if you do, THANK BALLMERING HEAVENS THAT PEOPLE ARE BECOMING INTELLIGENT AGAIN. I miss the days when code had to be good and tight simply because the hardware couldn't handle laziness.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #61 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post
 

 

How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?

 

I'll provide at least one anecdotal point of evidence here. On two occasions I've had RAM modules come loose in my Macs.  Re-seating them solved the problem.  An old trick involved using a pencil-eraser to clean the surface of the contacts.  Soldered RAM is less likely to come loose because once it passes QA, it's stable.

post #62 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Are you suggesting that iMacs are appliances? I wonder if Lisa Jackson has a say in these decisions.

 

Yes... iMacs are computing appliances.  That's a great metaphor.  What has Lisa Jackson to do with this???

post #63 of 97

HUH???

post #64 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Apart from the fact that Apple can replace the RAM if it fails, and that the RAM is more reliable than that used in any other desktop because it’s soldered, and is therefore less likely to fail.

How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?

Non-soldered RAM is more likely to induce kernel panics due to its physical looseness.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Are you suggesting that iMacs are appliances?

Computers are appliances, at least to a vast group of users.

 

You might think of your Mac as "One Ring to Rule Them All" or "My Precious" but Joe Consumer thinks of computers like vacuum cleaners or juice blenders. That's why most PCs never get upgraded to new operating systems, and most computers never get hardware upgrades (like more RAM).

 

I generally view my tech gear (cellphone, tablet, computer) as appliances. Connected? Sure. But essentially they are tools. 

post #66 of 97

I saw that Primate Labs has Geekbench 3 results for the new iMac. The results (single/multiple CPU) are 2820/5435 for the Core i5-4260U Haswell CPU. I ran the same test on my early 2009 24" 2.93GHz Core2Duo iMac and my results were only 1641/2971 or close to 50% of this "worthless" (per lots of you) iMac. I spent $2200 in March 2009, then added more RAM (8GB) later on along with a SSD/2TB HDD Fusion combination. I'm still trying to find benchmarks for the GPU but a quick search seems to say the HD5000 runs circles around my NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB in gaming stats even though the GT 130 has more memory and a faster GPU.

 

Yes, the 27" iMacs run circles around the little iMac but comparing it to an iMac I bought fully loaded 5 years ago shows just how far Apple has come in providing good computers at a low cost. This iMac should do very well in schools and many businesses. All of us are spoiled because we bought the top of the line even though many of us never really use the power. 

post #67 of 97

Which explains why a bunch of MacBook Air users are pretty damned happy with their "underpowered" devices. I have last year's model. Runs fine for me.

 

A lot of AI commenters are completely clueless about what makes the average Apple customer happy. More reason for Apple to completely ignore AppleInsider and similar forums.

post #68 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post
 

 

That's why you have Adblock installed so they don't get any money from you.

 

Not me. I'm fine with the ads on AI. It is the least I can do for the entertainment that this site offers!

post #69 of 97

Here in Australia thanks to 'currency fluctuations' the new "low end" iMac is exactly the same price as I paid for my quad-core 18 months ago :no:

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #70 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryand View Post
 

In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM.

 

Personal experience may be quite variable. I have a black Macbook, a late 2007 model with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU. It has 4 GB of RAM on board, the maximum I could buy at that time. I still run a VM with Windows 2000 on it without any problem. Recently I installed also a Linux VM, taking 1 GB of RAM to run. I saw in activity monitor that this amount of RAM goes into wired status, so the system is left with only 3 GB of memory to function. There is definitely a slowdown, especially during the phase of memory "wiring", but after that it still runs relatively well, as long as I don't use many memory-demanding applications simultaneously. Also, the last reboot of the machine was in December 2013. :)

 

I am surprised how well this Macbook runs after so many years of faithful service. In fact, this is the first Macintosh that I use without interruption for so long.

post #71 of 97
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

These are the people who buy a Mac Pro to use for Facebook and e-mail

 

Facebook is such a disgusting memory hog, that I would not have it run on anything less than a fully charged high-end iMac or a Mac Pro. My daughter is using it on a MBP with 8 GB of memory and I see frequently swapfiles (in /var/vm) between 6 and 10 GB total! It is mad. This happens of course after loading tons of pictures in pages updating their content dynamically, and it takes some time, but it does happen. At that times the machine becomes fairly unresponsive for anything beyond Safari, which is active in the foreground, and a memory cleaning is needed (quitting Safari and/or logging out and back in again).

post #72 of 97

Facebook is a waste period! I would never own a computer for that piece of crap people view as so great.

post #73 of 97

While I see many features missing from this iMac that enthusiasts would like, I see this as a great opportunity for Apple to increase its margin on iMacs.  1.4GHz with 2.7GHz boost should be decent for a while for the average consumer.  The 500GB HDD should be fine for the average consumer.  The non-upgradeable ram is fine for the average consumer.

 

If this raises margins and the stock goes up, that will be good for the stockholder (I'm one of those).

 

Every Apple product doesn't have to be everything to everyone.  They make their money by not installing unnecessary fluff that most people don't need.  So be it.

post #74 of 97

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=21%27%27+monitor&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=31429478480&hvpos=1s1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5488204054343611983&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_34esr5pc9k_b

 

There are plenty of 21 inch monitors that cost peanuts.  Because they're crap?  No.

 

Because it's ancient tech'.

 

Take any £100 monitor.  Bundle it with the Mac Mini and you've got a £600 'iMac' entry Mac system.

 

It wasn't that long ago, under Steve Jobs, at the height of the 'colour' iMac's popularity that Apple had a low end model for £595.  Yep.  That.

 

How Apple's entry model for a desktop went up to £999 and then £1195 is beyond me.  And that was after they stripped the DVD player out of it which they had the blooming cheek to charge me £60 quid for.  'Only Apple.'

 

As for the 'low end' (joking, right?) Apple model with a pathetic 1.4 gig Duo.  uHM.  Underwhelming at the price point.  Let's take £899 and say, a Dell desktop (crap, right?) for £399.  Let's give a nod to the Apple tax and draw a mark half way.  £625.  

 

That 1.4 Duo is a £599 desktop machine.  And they'd still make a profit on it and give some up sell to better specced models.

 

The next up at £1095 is a joke at that price and is a £799 computer if ever there was one.

 

What's really crazy is that Apple had a 24 inch iMac for those kind of prices not so long ago. How we're still on a cheap ass 21 inch for £900 to £1095 is a joke.

 

Apple and their shareholders.  Or Greed.  

 

The Macbook Air is cheaper and has SSD, and you could buy a 21inch screen from the above link and still have a better deal than the 'entry' 'cheap' iMac... or just buy a 21incher and stick it with the Mac Mini.  The iMac is the only (bar the Mini) machine without an SSD.  Why?  It costs more than the Air but doesn't have SSD?

 

Maybe they have an expensive design.  Maybe they should have made the cheap versions out of plastic?  (But that didn't help the iPhone 5c and it's p*ss taking price either.)

 

The Air, the iPad are better examples of how Apple can price things more effectively for the specs.  Their software is priced at bargain levels.  Really competitive.

 

But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer.  *points to the entry Mac Pro.  Points to the entry iMac models.  

 

The recent iMac upgrades have been about ass reaming.  Not about giving the customer good value.

 

I should know.  I forked for the top of the line about a year ago.  Looking back with hindsight.  I'd have just bought a Mac Mini and a 24 IPS monitor and waited for the 4k thing to hit mainstream.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

 

PS.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultrasharp-U2412M-inch-Widescreen-Monitor/dp/B005LNDPPS

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #75 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Meh, 8GB should be fine for a long time, especially for someone opting for the cheapest iMac. If there was a 4GB model, I would have an issue.

 

At first I would have likely screamed all kinds of invective at you for saying that, but honestly? I bumped the RAM in my 2013 MBP from 4 to 8GB, and I have yet to see any pressure against the ceiling, so to speak... the CG software I play with is mostly CPU and vidcard intensive during renders, so my bottlenecks reside there (and there ain't much one can do on a laptop about those...)

 

All that said, I find it kind of sad that Apple's gone this way. I remember when I was able to bump my now long-gone Mac Cube from a 500MHz G4 to a 1.2GHz one, all with a drop-simple replacement chip from Powerlogix. Vidcard? Took a lot more in the way of technical and physical gymnastics, but I went from a Rage 128 Pro to a Radeon 7000-series card (it barely fit, but after a bit of solder-jockeying and cable-making, fit it did.) Same with the RAM.

 

I suspect I could, if I needed an uber-customizable tinker-friendly machine, go get a Mac Pro desktop and see what I can do with one of those, but on a practical level, I find that I have no use for such a feature these days (and the cost of the Mac Pro is high enough that I damned sure wouldn't want to go flirting with the warranty anyway.)

 

Hardware evolution has slowed down to a crawl these days; the only reason I bumped the RAM on the laptop was because I did see enough of a performance bump to justify the cost (and it may be heresy, but damn it's cheaper to get decent RAM from Newegg than it is to order the extra RAM at purchase-time from Apple...) The days where newer, more, or overclocked hardware would make a difference is, sadly, long gone. 

 

Damned nostalgia anyways.

post #76 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar Pucillo View Post

[...] So a machine with an i5 chip - Intel's second best CPU instead of their WORST - is worth $200 right off the bat.

 

It's actually an i3. I have no idea how much that affects the price comparison but the difference will be smaller.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar Pucillo View Post

[...] The extra 4GB of RAM is worth $150 more, at least.

 

Too many digits. 4GB of RAM is about $50 at retail these days.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #77 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer.  *points to the entry Mac Pro.  Points to the entry iMac models. 

 

I won't re-open the debate about the price of the Pro, but it must be at least comparable to the HP workstations we use in our Avid suites because the bean-counters approved our request for one.

 

Further, the new Pro is not just fast. It is holy-crap-sunnofabitch-fucking-WOW fast. I imported an 800MB impulse library into a reverb plug-in in under a second. You really have to try one to appreciate just how ridiculously powerful this thing is.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #78 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

Which explains why a bunch of MacBook Air users are pretty damned happy with their "underpowered" devices. I have last year's model. Runs fine for me.

A lot of AI commenters are completely clueless about what makes the average Apple customer happy. More reason for Apple to completely ignore AppleInsider and similar forums.

Most of the commenters on this thread do understand. The few who don’t understand shout loudly to appear greater than they really are. The still, silent majority are wise to Apple’s strengths.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #79 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=21%27%27+monitor&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=31429478480&hvpos=1s1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5488204054343611983&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_34esr5pc9k_b

There are plenty of 21 inch monitors that cost peanuts.  Because they're crap?  No.

Because it's ancient tech'.

Take any £100 monitor.  Bundle it with the Mac Mini and you've got a £600 'iMac' entry Mac system.

It wasn't that long ago, under Steve Jobs, at the height of the 'colour' iMac's popularity that Apple had a low end model for £595.  Yep.  That.

How Apple's entry model for a desktop went up to £999 and then £1195 is beyond me.  And that was after they stripped the DVD player out of it which they had the blooming cheek to charge me £60 quid for.  'Only Apple.'

As for the 'low end' (joking, right?) Apple model with a pathetic 1.4 gig Duo.  uHM.  Underwhelming at the price point.  Let's take £899 and say, a Dell desktop (crap, right?) for £399.  Let's give a nod to the Apple tax and draw a mark half way.  £625.  

That 1.4 Duo is a £599 desktop machine.  And they'd still make a profit on it and give some up sell to better specced models.

The next up at £1095 is a joke at that price and is a £799 computer if ever there was one.

What's really crazy is that Apple had a 24 inch iMac for those kind of prices not so long ago. How we're still on a cheap ass 21 inch for £900 to £1095 is a joke.

Apple and their shareholders.  Or Greed.  

The Macbook Air is cheaper and has SSD, and you could buy a 21inch screen from the above link and still have a better deal than the 'entry' 'cheap' iMac... or just buy a 21incher and stick it with the Mac Mini.  The iMac is the only (bar the Mini) machine without an SSD.  Why?  It costs more than the Air but doesn't have SSD?

Maybe they have an expensive design.  Maybe they should have made the cheap versions out of plastic?  (But that didn't help the iPhone 5c and it's p*ss taking price either.)

The Air, the iPad are better examples of how Apple can price things more effectively for the specs.  Their software is priced at bargain levels.  Really competitive.

But somethings, hardware wise, are mind bendingly expensive for what they offer.  *points to the entry Mac Pro.  Points to the entry iMac models.  

The recent iMac upgrades have been about ass reaming.  Not about giving the customer good value.

I should know.  I forked for the top of the line about a year ago.  Looking back with hindsight.  I'd have just bought a Mac Mini and a 24 IPS monitor and waited for the 4k thing to hit mainstream.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultrasharp-U2412M-inch-Widescreen-Monitor/dp/B005LNDPPS

I agree. However, I don’t think Apple care. Also, I think they will wait until ARM is ready and bring out a much cheaper ARM Mac; it will have significantly more impact that way. Otherwise, they’ll just be destroying their margins. No point in doing it with Intel.

Edit: my first bottom of the line iMac was £799 in 2001. So £899 thirteen years later doesn’t seem so much. In fact, taking inflation into account, it’s much cheaper. And, of course, today’s entry-level iMac could be considered a tad better than the admittedly lovely transparent design of the 500 MHz.
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 6/20/14 at 4:41pm
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #80 of 97

As long as you are satisfied what you have now that is the most important thing.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Teardown of Apple's low-end iMac reveals non-upgradeable soldered RAM