I believe demand is lower for several simple reasons.
They are built to last. The previous iMacs still perform well. My first iMac has been handed off to a cousin who is a professional photographer. He uses it daily and it is as fast as ever.
I think there's some truth in that. My iMac is three years old now, and it still runs great. Much though I'd like one of the new ones, I'm finding it hard to justify buying one, since my current one continues to do what I need it to very well.
Ten years ago, I would have upgraded my compter (which at the time was a PC - shudder) every couple of years, since the increased processor speed made a very appreciable difference in general computing tasks, but now, I don't think that's the case - you only need a faster machine if you do "pro" stuff with your computer.
Since I switched to Macs in 2004, I now upgrade when I'm forced to by the OS. I kept my orignal iMac until 2009 and only got rid of it then because it couldn't run Snow Leopard. I suspect I'll keep this one until they ditch support for the Core 2 Duo.
1. Nope. Apple's still up above everyone else there.
2. Desktops are the lowest-cost computers they sell.
3. lol, "saturation". That's not it, either.
4. And they never will. Because people don't actually "want" that.
On your second point you can't have it both ways. You will be the first to jump in a thread and say the iPad is a personal computer when it's announced that Apple leads personal computer sales if the iPad is counted. As will everyone else on this forum.
Apple really screwed up on the iMac refresh. 18 months was just taking the piss. The new models are very nice, shame about the rubbish 5400RPM Hard Drives as standard but you can configure a very nice spec if needed.
Personally I wish they had gone with higher performance over thin design, but that's just my personal view.
I'll keep my 2010 iMac for a bit longer and upgrade next year, that is if they care enough to do an update within 12 months of course......
I'm going to do the same thing- I'll hold onto my 2 2010 BTOs until the 2013 model (maybe even 2014). The 5400 Drives are insane- luckily, that's only for the 21.5. I would love to hear the argument about how much better a 5400rpm drive is from the typical people who apologize and defend apple for every move. So far, all we know is that the new fusion drive for the mini is 5400- but hopefully just because its the mini. If the fusion is 5400 on the 27" iMac.... I think I might scream (I definitely won't be getting it- I'll just settle for a 1 or 2 TB)
..... So for a lot of people boot time is also a relevent factor ....
This sounds to me as being a complaint just for the sake of complaining. Just how much longer does it take to boot from a 5400 than a 7200 HD ... 40 seconds or so? Jeez Louise, I can't even fart 3 times in a row in that time frame. Get real.
The new iMac is a total disappointment. Apple is going for cosmetic changes instead of addressing the needs of people who use their computers for serious work. Until the 27" iMac gets a higher resolution screen, I'm not going to update.
Why do you need a higher resolution on such a large screen? The resolution is perfectly adequate. I don't know of any third party monitors that offer retina quality on such a large screen. I say that because you were expecting a retina screen. Right? I guess if it was a retina screen you wouldn't have a problem paying $4000 for it. If I were you. Id' stop bitching about the screen and I'd ask a more important question. Why didn't Apple include 802.11 ac WiFi in its new macs.
Why do you need a higher resolution on such a large screen? The resolution is perfectly adequate.
Personally, I'd prefer a higher resolution. I can see the pixels on mine. "Adequate" is exactly right. It's just adequate, nothing more.
I don't know of any third party monitors that offer retina quality on such a large screen.
Of course not. Apple hasn't made them yet.
Why didn't Apple include 802.11 ac WiFi in its new macs.
"Why do you need networking that fast in a computer? The networking is perfectly adequate. I guess if it had 802.11ac, you wouldn't have a problem paying $whatever more for it."
I'll get ahead of it and say, "Touché," for you. ????
GPU is unprecedented for an iMac...let along one this 'thin.'
CPU is as fast as quad cores currently are. Turbo'd to 3.9 gig. (We could only dream of that in a tower under PPC.)
8 gigs of ram. Expandable to 32 gigs?
Hello workstation.
Sure, it's not a tower. But they're losing their relevance...and have been for a long time.
Fusion drive and SSD sound good as options.
But there in the rub.
UK gets prices hikes, AGAIN! SSD drives are so DIRT cheap now, Apple could have included a 128 gig SSD as standard. The prices on these have fallen like rocks. 128 gig SD and a TB HD and kept the prices the same.
iMac used to be the affordable iMac. Now? It's entry price is as high as when the bubble iMac was 1st released.
...and I wonder how much more expensive the 'top end' model is going to be when you add i7 (which should be standard on machines about 1200£. No doubt. And the bto of the 680MX should be standard on a top end model.
They're still creaming and nickle and diming.
It's a forward looking design. Though some will moan about the lack of DVD (how to boot camp windows?) and the SD card being awkward on the back.
Much to like.
Design.
Ram 8 gigs...and bigger limit?
GPU power upto 2 gigs of vram and 12th fastest gpu on the planet?
CPU power. As good as it gets for now, consumer wise./prosumer wise.
Thunderbolt of course. ...and USB 3.
Some things to quibble.
Price.
SSD not standard.
i7 and
gpu not standard...on high end machines.
It's the modern workstation....come prosumer come gamer's paradise. The ultimate consumer all in one.
Is anything without it's faults though?
...and it's not retina. Though the new lamination process is some appeasement. Should look gorgeous.
With Haswell round the corner (wonder how many cores the consumer version will have? And what speed?)...and that 8xxx Radeon beastie...this seems like the testbed for 'more powerful' tech' to come.
Though if we don't get Retina (will we?) on a 27 inch Haswell, you could say you may as well buy now. But they high end with SSD drive, gpu options maxed won't be cheap.
Buy now or get a last gen Sandy to sandbag until Haswell? Decisions, decisions...
A nice thunderbolt enclosure with one large hard drive (possibly two) for time machine backups as well as more storage space along with a CD/DVD burner is sure to appear soon if not already available.
Sadly I tend to agree, it isn't just the iMac that sucks though the Mini update is a big regression too. Frankly I don't even care about the screen resolution, it is the focus on thinnest at the expense of performance that really hurts.
The best thing people can do is hold off buying and make sure Apple knows why.
The new iMac is a total disappointment. Apple is going for cosmetic changes instead of addressing the needs of people who use their computers for serious work. Until the 27" iMac gets a higher resolution screen, I'm not going to update.
Sadly I tend to agree, it isn't just the iMac that sucks though the Mini update is a big regression too. Frankly I don't even care about the screen resolution, it is the focus on thinnest at the expense of performance that really hurts.
The best thing people can do is hold off buying and make sure Apple knows why.
I am very excited for this new iMac. Even better than I had hoped.
I heard that in theory, a 5400rpm disk can be as fast (or faster) than a 7200rpm disk depending on the amount of platters it uses. A 5400rpm disk with less platters could (unless I've been misinformed) be faster than a 7200rpm disk with more platters. But that still doesn't make it strange that Apple chose for such a disk. If they wanted to reduce space and chose to use a 2.5" instead of a 3.5" HD, they could still choose a 2.5" 7200rpm HD instead.
What you have heard is not technically correct. Newer drives have higher recording densities which result in faster data transfers for a given spindle speed. However this is in respect to older drives, given the same tech a drive with a faster spindle will still be faster.
I know many will not want to hear this but this really appears to be Apple trying to sell the expensive hybrid technology in place of modern performance drives. Sad really because the hybrid approach they are offering is grossly over priced.
And the Fusion HD upgrade is an easy 250 bucks on top of the regular price, which feels like a steep increase… especially since I feel almost forced to do so because of the apparently slow 5400rpm standard HD.
It is extremely steep if you ask me. We don't know all the implementation details yet but you are basically paying $250 for 128GB of flash storage or almost 2.5 times the going rate.
But looking at GPU comparisation charts, the GT650M seems like a decent upgrade, and the new Ivy Bridge CPU's are looking quite nice as well. I'm quite positive that they'll prove to be a very nice speedbump compared to my current 2009 iMac, especially since the Sandy ánd Ivy Bridge CPU's offer a surprisingly large speedbump in general over the first generation of iX-CPU's.
I'm so disappointed with the GPU being dropped from the Mini that I haven't looked closely at iMac options. However it is a given that it will be much faster than the 2009 machine.
An impossible ram and/or HD upgrade as a user-replacable part does feel really shitty though… that will prove to become a very expensive repair if either of them ever breaks outside of your warranty. Plus RAM not being upgradable is definitely a bad choice as far as I'm concerned. A new system 2-3 years from now that might need more ram will suck immensely. And we all know that RAM at Apple cost a premium if you do consider a BTO.
The 27" is listed as having so-dimm capability. Apple has actually gotten better pricing RAM, but it still is expensive. The whole serviceability issue with iMacs though is very significant in my mind. The new iMac does not inspire any confidence that serviceability hs gotten better.
A nice 5400rpm vs 7200rpm discussion on Apple's forum: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3011064?start=0&tstart=0
From the looks of it you can actually lóse about 20% snappyness. Why on earth would Apple increase the speed of the CPU, GPU and RAM, while lowering the speed of the already main bottleneck on a computer's speed… the HD? Fusion HD or not, it's a painfully harsh move to "force" people to use it by crippling the standard HD.
Frankly it is a good reason to leave your money in the bank.
p.s.:
I honestly believe Apple deliberately stopped selling the previous model because they're concerned a lot of critics would pass the new model (which obviously has a somewhat higher production cost looking at the thinness and monitor), and would instead buy the previous model in order to keep the Superdrive and other elements they'd otherwise miss out on.
Err no the general do stop selling older models once new ones are announced. Frankly I don't care about the SuperDrive, it is the other factors that tweak me in the negative direction with respect to the iMac. I really never have liked the flat panel iMacs but this rendition just seems to focus or enhance everything I dislike about the iMac. It is a good thing I had no intention of buying a Mac this year. It would have been a Mini but frankly neither of these machines impress me one bit.
Comments
Originally Posted by benanderson89
Can't tell if trolling...
Completely trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTBuzz
I believe demand is lower for several simple reasons.
They are built to last. The previous iMacs still perform well. My first iMac has been handed off to a cousin who is a professional photographer. He uses it daily and it is as fast as ever.
I think there's some truth in that. My iMac is three years old now, and it still runs great. Much though I'd like one of the new ones, I'm finding it hard to justify buying one, since my current one continues to do what I need it to very well.
Ten years ago, I would have upgraded my compter (which at the time was a PC - shudder) every couple of years, since the increased processor speed made a very appreciable difference in general computing tasks, but now, I don't think that's the case - you only need a faster machine if you do "pro" stuff with your computer.
Since I switched to Macs in 2004, I now upgrade when I'm forced to by the OS. I kept my orignal iMac until 2009 and only got rid of it then because it couldn't run Snow Leopard. I suspect I'll keep this one until they ditch support for the Core 2 Duo.
The real reasons desktop computer shipments are down:
1. It's the economy, stupid.
2. Tablets and lower cost computers are good enough for most purposes.
3. Apple has already supplied most of the all-in-ones that anyone is going to buy.
4. Apple still hasn't built the desktop computer that people really want.
Originally Posted by mytdave
The real reasons desktop computer shipments are down:
1. It's the economy, stupid.
2. Tablets and lower cost computers are good enough for most purposes.
3. Apple has already supplied most of the all-in-ones that anyone is going to buy.
4. Apple still hasn't built the desktop computer that people really want.
1. Nope. Apple's still up above everyone else there.
2. Desktops are the lowest-cost computers they sell.
3. lol, "saturation". That's not it, either.
4. And they never will. Because people don't actually "want" that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
1. Nope. Apple's still up above everyone else there.
2. Desktops are the lowest-cost computers they sell.
3. lol, "saturation". That's not it, either.
4. And they never will. Because people don't actually "want" that.
On your second point you can't have it both ways. You will be the first to jump in a thread and say the iPad is a personal computer when it's announced that Apple leads personal computer sales if the iPad is counted. As will everyone else on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
Apple really screwed up on the iMac refresh. 18 months was just taking the piss. The new models are very nice, shame about the rubbish 5400RPM Hard Drives as standard but you can configure a very nice spec if needed.
Personally I wish they had gone with higher performance over thin design, but that's just my personal view.
I'll keep my 2010 iMac for a bit longer and upgrade next year, that is if they care enough to do an update within 12 months of course......
I'm going to do the same thing- I'll hold onto my 2 2010 BTOs until the 2013 model (maybe even 2014). The 5400 Drives are insane- luckily, that's only for the 21.5. I would love to hear the argument about how much better a 5400rpm drive is from the typical people who apologize and defend apple for every move. So far, all we know is that the new fusion drive for the mini is 5400- but hopefully just because its the mini. If the fusion is 5400 on the 27" iMac.... I think I might scream (I definitely won't be getting it- I'll just settle for a 1 or 2 TB)
Originally Posted by extremeskater
On your second point you can't have it both ways.
Okay. So they sell tablets. No reason to sell laptops, and the desktop takes over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabber
..... So for a lot of people boot time is also a relevent factor
This sounds to me as being a complaint just for the sake of complaining. Just how much longer does it take to boot from a 5400 than a 7200 HD ... 40 seconds or so? Jeez Louise, I can't even fart 3 times in a row in that time frame. Get real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartmann
The new iMac is a total disappointment. Apple is going for cosmetic changes instead of addressing the needs of people who use their computers for serious work. Until the 27" iMac gets a higher resolution screen, I'm not going to update.
Why do you need a higher resolution on such a large screen? The resolution is perfectly adequate. I don't know of any third party monitors that offer retina quality on such a large screen. I say that because you were expecting a retina screen. Right? I guess if it was a retina screen you wouldn't have a problem paying $4000 for it. If I were you. Id' stop bitching about the screen and I'd ask a more important question. Why didn't Apple include 802.11 ac WiFi in its new macs.
Originally Posted by gimpymw
Why do you need a higher resolution on such a large screen? The resolution is perfectly adequate.
Personally, I'd prefer a higher resolution. I can see the pixels on mine. "Adequate" is exactly right. It's just adequate, nothing more.
I don't know of any third party monitors that offer retina quality on such a large screen.
Of course not. Apple hasn't made them yet.
Why didn't Apple include 802.11 ac WiFi in its new macs.
"Why do you need networking that fast in a computer? The networking is perfectly adequate. I guess if it had 802.11ac, you wouldn't have a problem paying $whatever more for it."
I'll get ahead of it and say, "Touché," for you. ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981
Eventually apple will stop with desktops and make docks for the ipad.
iPads are great but there is so much you can't do with them. Most of my work happens on an iMac, my fun happens on an iPad.
The new iMac is a stunning design.
I'm still wowed 24 hrs after.
GPU is unprecedented for an iMac...let along one this 'thin.'
CPU is as fast as quad cores currently are. Turbo'd to 3.9 gig. (We could only dream of that in a tower under PPC.)
8 gigs of ram. Expandable to 32 gigs?
Hello workstation.
Sure, it's not a tower. But they're losing their relevance...and have been for a long time.
Fusion drive and SSD sound good as options.
But there in the rub.
UK gets prices hikes, AGAIN! SSD drives are so DIRT cheap now, Apple could have included a 128 gig SSD as standard. The prices on these have fallen like rocks. 128 gig SD and a TB HD and kept the prices the same.
iMac used to be the affordable iMac. Now? It's entry price is as high as when the bubble iMac was 1st released.
...and I wonder how much more expensive the 'top end' model is going to be when you add i7 (which should be standard on machines about 1200£. No doubt. And the bto of the 680MX should be standard on a top end model.
They're still creaming and nickle and diming.
It's a forward looking design. Though some will moan about the lack of DVD (how to boot camp windows?) and the SD card being awkward on the back.
Much to like.
Design.
Ram 8 gigs...and bigger limit?
GPU power upto 2 gigs of vram and 12th fastest gpu on the planet?
CPU power. As good as it gets for now, consumer wise./prosumer wise.
Thunderbolt of course. ...and USB 3.
Some things to quibble.
Price.
SSD not standard.
i7 and
gpu not standard...on high end machines.
It's the modern workstation....come prosumer come gamer's paradise. The ultimate consumer all in one.
Is anything without it's faults though?
...and it's not retina. Though the new lamination process is some appeasement. Should look gorgeous.
With Haswell round the corner (wonder how many cores the consumer version will have? And what speed?)...and that 8xxx Radeon beastie...this seems like the testbed for 'more powerful' tech' to come.
Though if we don't get Retina (will we?) on a 27 inch Haswell, you could say you may as well buy now. But they high end with SSD drive, gpu options maxed won't be cheap.
Buy now or get a last gen Sandy to sandbag until Haswell? Decisions, decisions...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Is anything without it's faults though?
Outside of the 21.5" hard drive- nope
Also, when you choose the 16GB option you get 2x8GB instead of 4x4GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Also, when you choose the 16GB option you get 2x8GB instead of 4x4GB.
That's pretty awesome- didn't catch that Sol.
The best thing people can do is hold off buying and make sure Apple knows why.
I am very excited for this new iMac. Even better than I had hoped.
I know many will not want to hear this but this really appears to be Apple trying to sell the expensive hybrid technology in place of modern performance drives. Sad really because the hybrid approach they are offering is grossly over priced. It is extremely steep if you ask me. We don't know all the implementation details yet but you are basically paying $250 for 128GB of flash storage or almost 2.5 times the going rate. I'm so disappointed with the GPU being dropped from the Mini that I haven't looked closely at iMac options. However it is a given that it will be much faster than the 2009 machine. The 27" is listed as having so-dimm capability. Apple has actually gotten better pricing RAM, but it still is expensive. The whole serviceability issue with iMacs though is very significant in my mind. The new iMac does not inspire any confidence that serviceability hs gotten better. Frankly it is a good reason to leave your money in the bank. Err no the general do stop selling older models once new ones are announced. Frankly I don't care about the SuperDrive, it is the other factors that tweak me in the negative direction with respect to the iMac. I really never have liked the flat panel iMacs but this rendition just seems to focus or enhance everything I dislike about the iMac. It is a good thing I had no intention of buying a Mac this year. It would have been a Mini but frankly neither of these machines impress me one bit.