We're just in a bad time. USB had this same transition period, where adapters were required for everything. Once Haswell picks up, Thunderbolt will become the standard.
I don't believe that Thunderbolt is a replacement for everything. They're great for RAID, most other things are just not practical, or is simply overkill.
I don't believe that Thunderbolt is a replacement for everything. They're great for RAID, most other things are just not practical, or is simply overkill.
What if the IO speed of NAND chips was a non-issue. Would that change minds?
Not nearly enough for the capacities expected of a desktop.
No of course, but I meant coupled with a hard drive even in a regular two drives situation, although Apple have come with the Fusion Drive, but not on the base model.
I just mean read/write. Had that, changed it. Don't know why, come to think of it.
Part of my response is that the alternative IO, wireless, doesn't seem to be doing well enough. I can see storage going to Thunderbolt, but a lot of non-storage connectivity needs improvement to do away with the USB. Maybe if a hub was available or wasn't priced so silly.
Wireless for data is pretty good now. But I'm having bad luck with the multitouch on Apple's Bluetooth products. I like Bluetooth audio for the convenience, but sometimes that just doesn't cut it for quality.
My printers are networked, so that can go away or use an adapter at worst, I suppose. But it seems silly to use a $30 adapter to get a $50 labeller connected.
[" url="/t/153730/apple-slims-down-imac-40-with-friction-stir-welding-ditching-the-disc-drive/80#post_2219750"]Yes, I'm sure that that will be an option.
I just misunderstood the comment for a moment.
It's pretty obvious why the bottom model doesn't come with SSD standard though, as you're correct, a small sized SSD is not nearly enough for a desktop machine.
Perhaps a 128GB SSD coupled with a 500GB HDD would've been seen as a decent entry into SSD tech for base model users, giving them the obvious benefits of SSD.
I think I would've gone with that option, but have Apple have come out with their own Fusion hybrid drive which is great but you need to spend £350 over the base model to get it. I dont quite get that decision. Does the Fusion drive require at least a 2.9GHz processor?
Some of you are missing the point. Apple are slowly migrating us all towards a high speed (almost) always on cloud based future, where machines like the iMac will be sexy 'light weight' terminals, and won't require as much power or memory as pure desktop paradigm hardware does. Just as Siri offloads most if not all the work to Apple's servers, so, power apps (including those like Photoshop) will one day also hand over some of their tasks to remote servers making the 'terminal' device more affordable and of course, easier to keep 'active'.
IE, if your iMac fails and you receive a replacement/loaner, you'll simply login to a future version of iCloud and continue where you left off. This is what Google are trying to do with the Chromebook concept, even if on a less ambitious scale.
Apple know YOUR future even if you're not aware of it - yet!
Oh I've heard of this concept. It is a really good idea that so far isn't working. Google's Chromebook is ahead of Apple in this regard. It's just that right now most people don't want this, at least not at the prices Google must charge for the hardware. Would Apple want to charge us less for iPad devices that connect to the web for all of our work? I don't think so. Companies want to maximize their profit per purchase. They want us to buy more expensive things. A terminal with a keyboard and mouse won't cost much. ISPs could give us those things with our subscriptions instead of just modems. Perhaps competition will create more cloud products forcing Apple to offer less expensive devices for doing work via the internet.
This comment might seem sarcastic but I don't mean it to be. Unless the world really begins to trust off site storage as their main storage location I don't see such a future happening. For that reason alone I expect home computers to continue to get faster and more expensive. Smaller is good but that doesn't make it better.
Some of you are missing the point. Apple are slowly migrating us all towards a high speed (almost) always on cloud based future, where machines like the iMac will be sexy 'light weight' terminals, and won't require as much power or memory as pure desktop paradigm hardware does.
This will be great if you live in Finland or Seoul and have ubiquitous and reasonable high-speed internet available before 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland
Lack of simple serviceability is a real value issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
All of my computers have needed a repair at one point. Parts wear out on machines that are kept more than five years....
One thing that really bugs me is iTunes is still being updated for Windows XP but not for older versions of OS X. We gave Apple our money for our computers. XP owners didn't give Apple diddly squat yet they continue to get updated versions of iTunes.
This thinner is better mantra from the Apple corporation is just crazy.
Agree wholeheartedly with these two comments. Apple products are worth their premium but when you invest in a premium product, it needs to last. You should be able to upgrade the memory and possibly swap drives after a few years, for example. (And your legacy support should equal what is offered to Windows users!)
Sadly, the absence of an optical drive, downgrade of the hard drive rpm and paltry processor boost are deal breakers for me. My willingness to pay a lot more for an Apple is strained when I have to add peripherals to accomplish the same functions that the outgoing model performs. I think a refurbished May 2011 release model is much more useful to me.
Nothing should have been sacrificed for the sake of thinness on the iMac. The first gen all-in-one iMac looks just as thin when you sit down to work on it. Is the iMac a desktop computer or a laptop on a stick?
Why do you think they are trying to hid the bulge over just taking the most attractive picture possible. This is not the first time Apple hasn't shown the back of their product in print ad.
Bleh it's a weird obsession at Apple. I just don't buy into the idea that thinner should be the highest priority in a stationary form factor. In terms of misleading images, this isn't any worse than some of the comparisons posted on here at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimguy
I noticed. Ergonomics are weird, although I've accidentally put sd cards in the dvd slot when I wasn't looking ;-D
I think the new imac is very attractive, but frankly a step backward in every other way (except performance).
This computer, as one Macrumors user posited, seems geared to a purely consumer/home user demographic, perhaps to segment itself from any future Mac Pro models that come out.
Well, i have a few imacs at my law office, and these computers are really not viable designs overall. I don't know where DED, or Apple, gets the statistic that it doesn't save money to have user-accessible parts inside. I had to swap out a bum hard drive on my 2007 iMac. That cost me $70 versus a heck of a lot more through apple (who would have only given me a 250GB drive, whereas I got a 1TB drive instead). I upgraded ram on a 27" iMac to 12GB for about $50. I expect apple to charge $150-200 to go from 8 to 16 GB of RAM.
I'm not even going into the need for an external DVD, which, I'm sorry to say Mr. Cook, is the "now" and not the "past," at least if you work in any professional field. All my discovery comes on CD/DVD. I can live with an external drive, however, as I can throw it in a drawer when not used, and it will doubtlessly offer better performance than what you've put in my iMacs.
Nice computer, but I think I'd rather get last years model as a refurb.
Performance at the bottom may be slightly lower on things like application launches and things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Everything you said the iMac should have are reasons why you are not the target customer. Of course this is a consumer machine. It's the iMac. It always has been and everything to it always being geared toward the average user who doesn't use CDs and doesn't ever service their 'PC's' HDD, RAM, GPU, etc.
I tend to think that "average user" crowd would go more for the Air or macbook pro. Not everyone has a dedicated space for their machine, especially if it's only on less than a couple hours a day. The 5400 RPM drive seems weird to me. That is one of the biggest sticking points. SSD has become a buzz word in itself, as these people associate it with snappiness whether they understand it or not. I think to really see continued growth, the imac would need to embrace more than the facebook and email crowd. My main point of objection remains the way they prioritize. They decided at some point that it was okay to make compromises in the interest of a thinned out machine, and I'm not talking about the optical drive.
You must a key word in the post - anyone who RECEIVES. That means they get data. The reader is plenty fast enough to move media off of, even if the burning part is slow.
Only if you don't really use your computer for anything other than surfing the web and downloading things. There are MANY people that have a need for an optical drive, for MANY reason. For a desktop computer, this is nonsense. Apple should at least offer a model that isn't so anti-user designed and then let the sales see which one does better.
I've had my iMac for about 7 years and at some point I might replace it. The one thing that has ALWAYS annoyed me was all of the ports on the back. Now, everything is on the back (even card slot) and there is no optical drive. Having to add one, and having to add port splitters that sit on your desk just to make your computer functional, sort of kills the point of an AIO design. Unless you have your computer sitting on a desk with no back, or away from the wall, it's a major pain to plug anything in. And with all of the different peripherals to the computer - iPhone, iPad/Pod, cameras, etc - that's a lot that can be plugged in and out a lot. Sorry to say, but NOTHING we have is moved through the cloud at this point. I don't see that changing for a long time, so wires and connectivity are a must in a desktop computer.
Come on Apple, too much form over function in many of your latest designs. Just like the last version of the iPod - all that thinness and rounding off the edges made it a pain to plug the dock connector in and out. Any tiny amount of testing on that should have shown that to be the case. A straight port on an angled surface? come on!
Comments
I don't believe that Thunderbolt is a replacement for everything. They're great for RAID, most other things are just not practical, or is simply overkill.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't believe that Thunderbolt is a replacement for everything. They're great for RAID, most other things are just not practical, or is simply overkill.
What if the IO speed of NAND chips was a non-issue. Would that change minds?
Not all IO is storage, so no.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Not all IO is storage, so no.
I just mean read/write. Had that, changed it. Don't know why, come to think of it.
Part of my response is that the alternative IO, wireless, doesn't seem to be doing well enough. I can see storage going to Thunderbolt, but a lot of non-storage connectivity needs improvement to do away with the USB. Maybe if a hub was available or wasn't priced so silly.
Wireless for data is pretty good now. But I'm having bad luck with the multitouch on Apple's Bluetooth products. I like Bluetooth audio for the convenience, but sometimes that just doesn't cut it for quality.
My printers are networked, so that can go away or use an adapter at worst, I suppose. But it seems silly to use a $30 adapter to get a $50 labeller connected.
Yes, the options are 3TB HDD, 1TB or 3TB Fusion Drive or 768GB SSD on the 27" and 1TB Fusion Drive on the 21".
Or did I misunderstand too?
Perhaps a 128GB SSD coupled with a 500GB HDD would've been seen as a decent entry into SSD tech for base model users, giving them the obvious benefits of SSD.
I think I would've gone with that option, but have Apple have come out with their own Fusion hybrid drive which is great but you need to spend £350 over the base model to get it. I dont quite get that decision. Does the Fusion drive require at least a 2.9GHz processor?
Those are options shown on the current product page. I would hope the options on the final post are broader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife
Some of you are missing the point. Apple are slowly migrating us all towards a high speed (almost) always on cloud based future, where machines like the iMac will be sexy 'light weight' terminals, and won't require as much power or memory as pure desktop paradigm hardware does. Just as Siri offloads most if not all the work to Apple's servers, so, power apps (including those like Photoshop) will one day also hand over some of their tasks to remote servers making the 'terminal' device more affordable and of course, easier to keep 'active'.
IE, if your iMac fails and you receive a replacement/loaner, you'll simply login to a future version of iCloud and continue where you left off. This is what Google are trying to do with the Chromebook concept, even if on a less ambitious scale.
Apple know YOUR future even if you're not aware of it - yet!
Oh I've heard of this concept. It is a really good idea that so far isn't working. Google's Chromebook is ahead of Apple in this regard. It's just that right now most people don't want this, at least not at the prices Google must charge for the hardware. Would Apple want to charge us less for iPad devices that connect to the web for all of our work? I don't think so. Companies want to maximize their profit per purchase. They want us to buy more expensive things. A terminal with a keyboard and mouse won't cost much. ISPs could give us those things with our subscriptions instead of just modems. Perhaps competition will create more cloud products forcing Apple to offer less expensive devices for doing work via the internet.
This comment might seem sarcastic but I don't mean it to be. Unless the world really begins to trust off site storage as their main storage location I don't see such a future happening. For that reason alone I expect home computers to continue to get faster and more expensive. Smaller is good but that doesn't make it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oflife
Some of you are missing the point. Apple are slowly migrating us all towards a high speed (almost) always on cloud based future, where machines like the iMac will be sexy 'light weight' terminals, and won't require as much power or memory as pure desktop paradigm hardware does.
This will be great if you live in Finland or Seoul and have ubiquitous and reasonable high-speed internet available before 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland
Lack of simple serviceability is a real value issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
All of my computers have needed a repair at one point. Parts wear out on machines that are kept more than five years....
One thing that really bugs me is iTunes is still being updated for Windows XP but not for older versions of OS X. We gave Apple our money for our computers. XP owners didn't give Apple diddly squat yet they continue to get updated versions of iTunes.
This thinner is better mantra from the Apple corporation is just crazy.Agree wholeheartedly with these two comments. Apple products are worth their premium but when you invest in a premium product, it needs to last. You should be able to upgrade the memory and possibly swap drives after a few years, for example. (And your legacy support should equal what is offered to Windows users!)
Sadly, the absence of an optical drive, downgrade of the hard drive rpm and paltry processor boost are deal breakers for me. My willingness to pay a lot more for an Apple is strained when I have to add peripherals to accomplish the same functions that the outgoing model performs. I think a refurbished May 2011 release model is much more useful to me.
Nothing should have been sacrificed for the sake of thinness on the iMac. The first gen all-in-one iMac looks just as thin when you sit down to work on it. Is the iMac a desktop computer or a laptop on a stick?
Quote:
Originally Posted by m3m
I think a refurbished May 2011 release model is much more useful to me.
Then you should be very happy, as those can be gotten for a pretty nice price, now that the new models have been announced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Why do you think they are trying to hid the bulge over just taking the most attractive picture possible. This is not the first time Apple hasn't shown the back of their product in print ad.
You could say Apple is trying to hid the bulge in this image if you wanted to but I think you'd agree that it's just a shot from the front, nothing dubious: http://images.apple.com/macbookair/images/design_multitouch.jpg
Bleh it's a weird obsession at Apple. I just don't buy into the idea that thinner should be the highest priority in a stationary form factor. In terms of misleading images, this isn't any worse than some of the comparisons posted on here at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimguy
I noticed. Ergonomics are weird, although I've accidentally put sd cards in the dvd slot when I wasn't looking ;-D
I think the new imac is very attractive, but frankly a step backward in every other way (except performance).
This computer, as one Macrumors user posited, seems geared to a purely consumer/home user demographic, perhaps to segment itself from any future Mac Pro models that come out.
Well, i have a few imacs at my law office, and these computers are really not viable designs overall. I don't know where DED, or Apple, gets the statistic that it doesn't save money to have user-accessible parts inside. I had to swap out a bum hard drive on my 2007 iMac. That cost me $70 versus a heck of a lot more through apple (who would have only given me a 250GB drive, whereas I got a 1TB drive instead). I upgraded ram on a 27" iMac to 12GB for about $50. I expect apple to charge $150-200 to go from 8 to 16 GB of RAM.
I'm not even going into the need for an external DVD, which, I'm sorry to say Mr. Cook, is the "now" and not the "past," at least if you work in any professional field. All my discovery comes on CD/DVD. I can live with an external drive, however, as I can throw it in a drawer when not used, and it will doubtlessly offer better performance than what you've put in my iMacs.
Nice computer, but I think I'd rather get last years model as a refurb.
Performance at the bottom may be slightly lower on things like application launches and things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Everything you said the iMac should have are reasons why you are not the target customer. Of course this is a consumer machine. It's the iMac. It always has been and everything to it always being geared toward the average user who doesn't use CDs and doesn't ever service their 'PC's' HDD, RAM, GPU, etc.
I tend to think that "average user" crowd would go more for the Air or macbook pro. Not everyone has a dedicated space for their machine, especially if it's only on less than a couple hours a day. The 5400 RPM drive seems weird to me. That is one of the biggest sticking points. SSD has become a buzz word in itself, as these people associate it with snappiness whether they understand it or not. I think to really see continued growth, the imac would need to embrace more than the facebook and email crowd. My main point of objection remains the way they prioritize. They decided at some point that it was okay to make compromises in the interest of a thinned out machine, and I'm not talking about the optical drive.
I don't think those options will change at all.
test
You must a key word in the post - anyone who RECEIVES. That means they get data. The reader is plenty fast enough to move media off of, even if the burning part is slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Removed the optical drive?
About damn time.
Only if you don't really use your computer for anything other than surfing the web and downloading things. There are MANY people that have a need for an optical drive, for MANY reason. For a desktop computer, this is nonsense. Apple should at least offer a model that isn't so anti-user designed and then let the sales see which one does better.
I've had my iMac for about 7 years and at some point I might replace it. The one thing that has ALWAYS annoyed me was all of the ports on the back. Now, everything is on the back (even card slot) and there is no optical drive. Having to add one, and having to add port splitters that sit on your desk just to make your computer functional, sort of kills the point of an AIO design. Unless you have your computer sitting on a desk with no back, or away from the wall, it's a major pain to plug anything in. And with all of the different peripherals to the computer - iPhone, iPad/Pod, cameras, etc - that's a lot that can be plugged in and out a lot. Sorry to say, but NOTHING we have is moved through the cloud at this point. I don't see that changing for a long time, so wires and connectivity are a must in a desktop computer.
Come on Apple, too much form over function in many of your latest designs. Just like the last version of the iPod - all that thinness and rounding off the edges made it a pain to plug the dock connector in and out. Any tiny amount of testing on that should have shown that to be the case. A straight port on an angled surface? come on!
Originally Posted by ericole
There are MANY people that have a need for an optical drive, for MANY reason.
No. Stop the hyperbole.
I doubt a typical user needs an optical drive so much that they need one in every computer.