Availability of Apple's 27" iMac dwindles ahead of expected Ivy Bridge upgrade

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 57


    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

    The slotless Mac mini design is not new. It existed two years ago in the Mac mini server (Mid-2010), side-by-side with the single-HDD Mac minis.

    In 2011, Apple just switched to the slotless design which had already been around for an entire year.


     


    I know, but OS X only has an icon for the latter, not the former (for whatever reason) and my point wasn't compromised by using the new design.


     


    Fun fact: the icon for the Retina MacBook Pro doesn't have "MacBook Pro" on the screen bezel… which I'm now just noticing is a reflection of the actual device… why didn't I notice that or hear it before anywhere?

  • Reply 22 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Taking out the optical drive and making it thinner definitely qualifies as a 'full redesign'. Anything that alters the exterior casing is a redesign. And no, there won't be retina display yet. It just is still too much of a technical hit at this point. 





    Perhaps SSD standardized too? Or is that overall for a non-mobile computer?

  • Reply 23 of 57
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jw2003 View Post


    15' MBP was a great choice to start with introducing retina, because it's a tool of choise for photo community where resolution and clarity matters. Most photographers won't touch iMac with 100ft pole.


     



     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


     


    Photographers, care to chime in here?


     



     


    My wife is a photographer and does phenomenal work... on an iMac.  I, too, am confused why photographers wont touch an iMac?  There are no viewing angle/color changes like a laptop has, and you have 27" to work with full screen.  If you think Photoshop takes a lot of juice to run- you're wrong... its pretty minor.


     


    If they chunk the optical and replace it with a 32gb SSD instead- I am so for this it's ridiculous.

  • Reply 24 of 57
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,803member
    andysol wrote: »
    If they redesign- I agree wholeheartedly.  I would hope they wouldn't make it thinner as it gets crazy hot as it is.  I'd like for them to put a small sdd boot drive in place of the optical and add an extra fan and push air right to left as well as bottom to top.
    crazy hot is relative. If the iMacs where too hot we would have a constant flow of reports of them overheating. As it is right now only a few seem to have trouble.

    As to right to left fans heat rises, if you want to remove it efficiently you don't work against that. On top of that Ivy Bridge, SSDs and a host of other technologies would lower the heat profile. It would not be impossible to actuall see a thinner and cooler iMac.
    I would be shocked beyond belief if they had retina- I'd bed my house payment against it.
    Retina would be easier in an iMac assuming a longer viewing distance.
    Although I, too, hope for a redesign... my gut tells me that won't happen until retina... which means we won't see it until late next year.  Ivy Bridge, updated GPU, and 1666 ram... I think that's all we see (much like the macbook pros).
    That said- if the base 27" is as fast or faster than my BTO 27" 2010 i7s- I'll upgrade one of them.

    It isn't speed that keeps me from upgrading to an iMac. I rather hate it's anti service designs. I wouldn't even consider an iMac unless serviceability was addressed.

    That being said we have yet to hear any Mini rumors or even replacements for the Mini. This is a big concern as they need something other than iMac on the desktop.
  • Reply 25 of 57
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,803member
    jw2003 wrote: »
    It will probably have USB3, no cd-dvd, bump in speeds and no retina.
    Everything but the retina makes sense above
    Why is everyone so obsessed with Retina iMac? Retina works on closely controled walled garden, with applications specifically designed for it.
    However this makes no sense at all. Retina displays are in no way tied to the walled garden. I really don't see how such a foolish statement could be made in public.
    Half of the apps on iPad still don't support retina resolutions and their products show that. Time Inc. are you listening?
    Lack of support doesn't imply anything other than developers can drag ass just as well as Apple can. As for Time magazine have you considered that it is another liberal magazine in failure mode? Sometime apps don't get updated because there is no economic reason to do so.
    15' MBP was a great choice to start with introducing retina, because it's a tool of choise for photo community where resolution and clarity matters. Most photographers won't touch iMac with 100ft pole.
    Yeah right.
    So, my guess is we will see retina ACD way before we see the iMac. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the first retina wouldn't come in 24' size, instead of 27'.
    The problem with an ACZd is how do you feed it? This would require yet another port upgrade/switch from Apple.
    What I hope to see instead is the screen advancements of retina MBP less resolution bump (removing the extra layer of glass to make it less reflective).

    So, Apple, if you improve the screen, deliver USB3, remove CD rom drive and slim down the chasis (unlike what you've done with mac mini when you removed the cd drive), I'll upgrade. If not, I'll wait and see. My purchase decission clearly have no impact on your stock price.

    Nor does any other single persons purchase decision. What drives stock prices is mind share, if Apple maintains a buzz and clearly innovates the stock won't have pricing issues.
  • Reply 26 of 57
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member


    Every time I hear about them upgrading the iMac, I am torn.  I have a Late-2009 27" model.  I'm sure a brand new one would be SO cool.  OTOH, the one I have now works damned well, so I'm not sure I could justify getting a new one.


     


    So torn.  So torn.

  • Reply 27 of 57
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member

    Hopefully with a matte display option. Or else it is a deal-braker, since it is a serious health and productivity issue. MacMatte.
  • Reply 28 of 57
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,797member


    Thinner on a phone, iPad, or laptop makes sense. Thinner on an iMac really doesn't.  If they remove optical drives I hope they add least add something to compensate for that loss. 

  • Reply 29 of 57
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member


    I would think if they do, they'll just make another drive bay available like they did on the mini. It's an easy change. Removing the optical drive on an iMac doesn't change the thickness profile at all since the 3.5 internal drives are already far thicker than any optical, but it does free up space in that area for a new component.


     


    Considering the only major improvement over the 2009 which I also have is the bus speed, I would be more interested in the Disk subsystem getting some perks.


     


    Far more interested in this than the retina topic. The resolution on a 27" iMac is already one of the best on the market, and the PPI is decent and the display is a quality one.



    Worse case, I wait another year or two for a refresh and by then I'll be ready to update my late 2009 ;)

  • Reply 30 of 57


    I have a "late 2006" model iMac.  I'd be happy with a 27' with updated internals.


     


    i don't understand this fetish for being thin [i wouldn't mind losing more than a few pounds]  The iMac sits on a desk/table. Very few people [make that none in 6 years] have ever commented on it's waist size


    I just don't get the benefit of an anorexic desktop!

  • Reply 31 of 57
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gwmac View Post


    Thinner on a phone, iPad, or laptop makes sense. Thinner on an iMac really doesn't.  If they remove optical drives I hope they add least add something to compensate for that loss. 



     


    Even though I basically agree with you that thinness on an iMac (and it's not like they're huge now) isn't necessarily a big deal, I do also understand how the aesthetics could be improved with a slightly thinner look.


     


    Honestly, I don't care either way, since I can't remember the last time I used the optical drive on my iMac.   

  • Reply 32 of 57
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    No, it's not insane. iMacs are now commonly set up in living rooms, kitchens, etc and are part of the decor of the room instead of being relegated to the basement in shame as other desktops are. Anything that makes it even take less space, weight, and generally add to the attractiveness of the environment is a good thing. I agree that thinness shoudnt be an absolute priority like their portable machines, but I'm not going to complain if they do make it thinner without compromising other things. Taking out the optical drive should help a lot in that, as it will free up a ton of space. Also, their reason for removing the drive would be primarily because they want to wean everyone off optical media, not because of thinness.  In terms of overheating, I've never had an iMac overheat, so no clue what you're talking about. 



     


    You don't wean people off optical media by removing the drive, you do it by making digital alternatives that are cheaper and better.  Optical is often cheaper, sometimes dramatically so (box sets in particular), so only a fool would want that option removed. Unless of course, you're rich, in which case, bully for you, but don't spoil things for the rest of us.


     


    Personally I use the optical drive in my Win 7 desktop often, in fact it's in use this very second to rip a DVD.

  • Reply 33 of 57
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post


    Every time I hear about them upgrading the iMac, I am torn.  I have a Late-2009 27" model.  I'm sure a brand new one would be SO cool.  OTOH, the one I have now works damned well, so I'm not sure I could justify getting a new one.


     


    So torn.  So torn.



     


    A PC should last at least 5 years. The tech is mature and evolves very slowly now.


     


    My desktop is 7 years old. It still works fine, but is feeling a little stale, so I may buy a new system this year.

  • Reply 34 of 57


    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

    You don't wean people off optical media by removing the drive, you do it by making digital alternatives that are cheaper and better. 


     


    No, you do it by removing the drive. This has worked for every technology Apple has removed from devices.


     




    …only a fool would want that option removed. Unless of course, you're rich, in which case, bully for you, but don't spoil things for the rest of us.


     


    Personally I use the optical drive in my Win 7 desktop often, in fact it's in use this very second to rip a DVD.




     


    So feel free to continue to use last century's technology while Apple moves everyone else forward.

  • Reply 35 of 57
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,219moderator
    kotatsu wrote:
    only a fool would want that option removed

    The option to use an optical isn't being removed, it's just changing to be an optional external peripheral. This is better for poor people because it means you aren't forced to pay Apple's expensive charge for an optical unit so Apple takes that money off or puts it towards something more valuable and you can buy a faster 3rd party DVD drive for $30-50 or even a Blu-Ray drive for as little as $140.
  • Reply 36 of 57
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The option to use an optical isn't being removed, it's just changing to be an optional external peripheral. This is better for poor people because it means you aren't forced to pay Apple's expensive charge for an optical unit so Apple takes that money off or puts it towards something more valuable and you can buy a faster 3rd party DVD drive for $30-50 or even a Blu-Ray drive for as little as $140.


     


    An external drive is a wonderful idea for an all in one computer, nicely undoing the removal of desk clutter such a design strove to eliminate.


     


    I'd be interested to see the stats of how many DVD/BD drives are commonly used in desktop computers, should should such a stat exist of course. My own view is that a desktop should include options for everything a user could ever want to configure, and all in the same case. It makes PC makers lives more difficult, but that's not my problem.

  • Reply 37 of 57
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    No, you do it by removing the drive. This has worked for every technology Apple has removed from devices.


     


     


    So feel free to continue to use last century's technology while Apple moves everyone else forward.



     


    DVDs and BDs are still very much current technology. If you can show me a streaming site which can match BD quality, then I'd like to see it. Or a place to buy TV series box sets digitally which matches the prices on Amazon perhaps?


     


    I just like choice. If a digital option makes sense, then I'll use it, but if optical makes sense, I'll use that too. Choice is good, a reduction of choice is very, very bad.

  • Reply 38 of 57


    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

    An external drive is a wonderful idea for an all in one computer, nicely undoing the removal of desk clutter such a design strove to eliminate.


     


    Did'ja ever notice that there aren't too many (read: any at all) external floppy drives around anymore?



    Did'ja ever wonder why that might be?





    My own view is that a desktop should include options for everything a user could ever want to configure, and all in the same case. It makes PC makers lives more difficult, but that's not my problem.



     


    That's right; your problem is wanting that in the first place. image

  • Reply 39 of 57
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    What graphics do you put in the iMac? Would the GTX 680M run too hot? Since the display isn't expected to increase, is 1 GB enough or do you at least give 2 GB for the ultimate as standard?
  • Reply 40 of 57
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,219moderator
    kotatsu wrote:
    I'd be interested to see the stats of how many DVD/BD drives are commonly used in desktop computers, should should such a stat exist of course.

    About 30-35% of Apple's customers buy desktops. The amount of that portion of users watching DVDs on their computers is probably very small because you can't really sit comfortably in front of a desktop computer. Optical drives can be noisy too, I'd rather not have drive noise interrupting a movie.
    kotatsu wrote:
    I just like choice. If a digital option makes sense, then I'll use it, but if optical makes sense, I'll use that too. Choice is good, a reduction of choice is very, very bad.

    There is no reduction of choice though. You aren't forced to use a digital option. You just don't have to pay for a drive you might never use.
    winter wrote:
    What graphics do you put in the iMac? Would the GTX 680M run too hot? Since the display isn't expected to increase, is 1 GB enough or do you at least give 2 GB for the ultimate as standard?

    The GTX 680M looks like a good choice. They can also use the 7970M but from this site, it looks like the 680M would be a better choice:

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

    1GB of memory should be enough at the current resolution. Apple is always tight with video memory for some reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.