I agree that he may have gone over the top with calling everything trash. But I do believe he had some valid points. I, too, wanted to have an all SSD option and Apple has clearly priced it WELL out of my price range by only including a $1300 768 SSD option.
But it will certainly not cause me to miss out on this machine. My mouth waters at the thought of it
The new iMac is very difficult to assemble/build, just like the retina. I'm sure you read somewhere about that.
So, before they can ramp up the production, they are demanding premium for flash, just like they did with the rMBP 15.
Who told you that in 1 month apple won't offer more SSD options, just like they did with the laptop?
I'm actually surprised to see so much empty space inside the casing. Assuming the photos are of the 21.5" version, looks like they just took a 17" MBP and shoved it into a bigger case with larger display and bigger fans. Obviously that's not the case here since it's clear they designed all the components from the ground up. Just really amazing to see how little you need to produce a truly powerful PC.
That being said, I still think that the better deal is to buy the Mac Mini paired with an external display. For the same price as the iMac you have pretty much the same powerful machine, and you can keep the display for years to come. I always thought the iMac was beautiful and the perfect All-in-one, but displays last so much longer than CPUs and I always felt like it was such a waste to have to pitch the monitor and the CPU every time you upgrade. The primary deal-breaker for me.
That also being said. As not surprising as it is, It's sill a bit strange that nobody but Apple has adopted Intel's Thunderbolt I/O. What makes this kind of frustrating is that in order to get full resolution for Apple's computers, you have to use TB. So really if you want 2560x1440 from your Macbook or Mac Mini, you have to go Thunderbolt. This irks me quite a bit, since there are other monitors out there that are just as good and have much less glare than the TB Display. Dell and Acer both offer equal 27" solutions but without TB, the best resolution you'll get is 1920x1080. Way to continue to suck us in Apple.
I wonder if the Fusion drive can be reformatted as separate drives. That would give you a 128 GB SSD and a 1 TB hard disk - which might satisfy some of the people who want pure SSD.
Apparently it can which is what I am going to do. Looks very simple using terminal.
I'm actually surprised to see so much empty space inside the casing. Assuming the photos are of the 21.5" version, looks like they just took a 17" MBP and shoved it into a bigger case with larger display and bigger fans. Obviously that's not the case here since it's clear they designed all the components from the ground up. Just really amazing to see how little you need to produce a truly powerful PC.
That being said, I still think that the better deal is to buy the Mac Mini paired with an external display. For the same price as the iMac you have pretty much the same powerful machine, and you can keep the display for years to come. I always thought the iMac was beautiful and the perfect All-in-one, but displays last so much longer than CPUs and I always felt like it was such a waste to have to pitch the monitor and the CPU every time you upgrade. The primary deal-breaker for me.
That also being said. As not surprising as it is, It's sill a bit strange that nobody but Apple has adopted Intel's Thunderbolt I/O. What makes this kind of frustrating is that in order to get full resolution for Apple's computers, you have to use TB. So really if you want 2560x1440 from your Macbook or Mac Mini, you have to go Thunderbolt. This irks me quite a bit, since there are other monitors out there that are just as good and have much less glare than the TB Display. Dell and Acer both offer equal 27" solutions but without TB, the best resolution you'll get is 1920x1080. Way to continue to suck us in Apple.
But that's because the other OEMs suck and are slow to adapt and evolve. so?
I think you guys don't really understand how the Fusion drive works. There's really not need to re-partition, the software sort of does that on the fly to maximize speed to the programs you use the most. At least, that's how I understand it.
I think you guys don't really understand how the Fusion drive works. There's really not need to re-partition, the software sort of does that on the fly to maximize speed to the programs you use the most. At least, that's how I understand it.
But they wan't to control everything themselves.
They want to put the programs and files they want on the SSD, always.
Some of the comments out there claiming that everything in this new iMac revolved around a deceiving 5mm edge are ridiculous, Just like the floppy drive, Apple is getting rid of things they see trending out of the product lines, like optical drives and wired networking. The decision to remove the optical drive and laminate the display directly to the cover glass allowed for a thinner design. But there's no evidence Apple chose to remove the optical drive for the sole purpose of being able to brag about a 5mm edge on the display. :rolleyes:
Hmm... It is delicious but why the chin? The LED and Thunderbolt Cinema Displays are lovely without the chin. With the thinness dropping the chin would have been perfect.
the 680MX upgrade for the 27" inch is only 150 dollars! (on a 2000 dollar system) but the only drawback (compared to the desktop card) is that the clock speed of 680MX is approx 720MHz... (the retail card is about 50% faster... but it is also 500 dollars)
SWEET, that you can get the [B]FASTEST[/B] laptop GPU ever (apart from SLI) !!!! (in a mac) (now all of those "boat Anchor" gaming laptops will have to include a tow rope!!! LOL)
so if you are going to get the 2000 dollar 27 inch, the 680MX is a must (even if your going to need to run WIN7 to game on it...to "stretch the legs" of that GPU.)
I think you guys don't really understand how the Fusion drive works. There's really not need to re-partition, the software sort of does that on the fly to maximize speed to the programs you use the most. At least, that's how I understand it.
But they wan't to control everything themselves.
They want to put the programs and files they want on the SSD, always.
Hmm... It is delicious but why the chin? The LED and Thunderbolt Cinema Displays are lovely without the chin. With the thinness dropping the chin would have been perfect.
Every all-in-one Macintosh computer has had a "chin". Ever since the very first one. And guess what; it's fine. It's a computer; not a monitor.
Yes, cool design, and nice pricing too, but, unfortunately, they chose to not support pure SSD (except for the 768GB SSD option, which is a joke).
The Mac Mini was almost perfect: Good CPU, good pure SSD (256GB), and good RAM (16GB). But with a bad GPU. So I cannot justify its purchase.
The iMac fixes the Mac Mini weakness by adding a good GPU, but unfortunately drops the 256GB SSD option, so I won't buy it either (yes, I know Fusion well, and no thanks, I won't buy it, I want pure SSD -if you can put it in the Mac Mini, you can also put it on the iMac, so there's no excuse for you here Apple).
Now let's wait for the Mac Pro. Chances are that they'll manage to trash the Mac Pro too, just like they did with the Mini and the iMac...
Anyway, no reason to worry, as Apple wants us to use iOS for all computing tasks in the future, so don't worry if there's no useful Mac desktop in the market... we'll be forced to move to iPads at some point anyway.
I agree about "pure" SSD being preferable but it's kind of silly that you are arguing that the only thing "wrong" with the new iMac is that it's "pure" SSD isn't small enough?
I agree about "pure" SSD being preferable but it's kind of silly that you are arguing that the only thing "wrong" with the new iMac is that it's "pure" SSD isn't small enough?
This is ridiculous on the face of it.
Well, you know what they say, "250 TB is too much for anyone."
As someone who's had to shell out a bunch of money and be stressed to the max getting my old SE/30's, IIci's etc. recapped I find it quite annoying that Apple is still using the same capacitor technology in their current products.
Why are they not using Tantalum caps???? Anyone? Oh right, designed for future failure.
Why are they not using Tantalum caps???? Anyone? Oh right, designed for future failure.
Uh… if you plan to be using it as a primary, secondary, tertiary, or even museum exhibit machine, you don't need to worry about them actually, you know, failing, at any point.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhallais
I agree that he may have gone over the top with calling everything trash. But I do believe he had some valid points. I, too, wanted to have an all SSD option and Apple has clearly priced it WELL out of my price range by only including a $1300 768 SSD option.
But it will certainly not cause me to miss out on this machine. My mouth waters at the thought of it
The new iMac is very difficult to assemble/build, just like the retina. I'm sure you read somewhere about that.
So, before they can ramp up the production, they are demanding premium for flash, just like they did with the rMBP 15.
Who told you that in 1 month apple won't offer more SSD options, just like they did with the laptop?
I'm actually surprised to see so much empty space inside the casing. Assuming the photos are of the 21.5" version, looks like they just took a 17" MBP and shoved it into a bigger case with larger display and bigger fans. Obviously that's not the case here since it's clear they designed all the components from the ground up. Just really amazing to see how little you need to produce a truly powerful PC.
That being said, I still think that the better deal is to buy the Mac Mini paired with an external display. For the same price as the iMac you have pretty much the same powerful machine, and you can keep the display for years to come. I always thought the iMac was beautiful and the perfect All-in-one, but displays last so much longer than CPUs and I always felt like it was such a waste to have to pitch the monitor and the CPU every time you upgrade. The primary deal-breaker for me.
That also being said. As not surprising as it is, It's sill a bit strange that nobody but Apple has adopted Intel's Thunderbolt I/O. What makes this kind of frustrating is that in order to get full resolution for Apple's computers, you have to use TB. So really if you want 2560x1440 from your Macbook or Mac Mini, you have to go Thunderbolt. This irks me quite a bit, since there are other monitors out there that are just as good and have much less glare than the TB Display. Dell and Acer both offer equal 27" solutions but without TB, the best resolution you'll get is 1920x1080. Way to continue to suck us in Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I wonder if the Fusion drive can be reformatted as separate drives. That would give you a 128 GB SSD and a 1 TB hard disk - which might satisfy some of the people who want pure SSD.
Apparently it can which is what I am going to do. Looks very simple using terminal.
See http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20121103_2-DiskUtility-nasties.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I'm actually surprised to see so much empty space inside the casing. Assuming the photos are of the 21.5" version, looks like they just took a 17" MBP and shoved it into a bigger case with larger display and bigger fans. Obviously that's not the case here since it's clear they designed all the components from the ground up. Just really amazing to see how little you need to produce a truly powerful PC.
That being said, I still think that the better deal is to buy the Mac Mini paired with an external display. For the same price as the iMac you have pretty much the same powerful machine, and you can keep the display for years to come. I always thought the iMac was beautiful and the perfect All-in-one, but displays last so much longer than CPUs and I always felt like it was such a waste to have to pitch the monitor and the CPU every time you upgrade. The primary deal-breaker for me.
That also being said. As not surprising as it is, It's sill a bit strange that nobody but Apple has adopted Intel's Thunderbolt I/O. What makes this kind of frustrating is that in order to get full resolution for Apple's computers, you have to use TB. So really if you want 2560x1440 from your Macbook or Mac Mini, you have to go Thunderbolt. This irks me quite a bit, since there are other monitors out there that are just as good and have much less glare than the TB Display. Dell and Acer both offer equal 27" solutions but without TB, the best resolution you'll get is 1920x1080. Way to continue to suck us in Apple.
But that's because the other OEMs suck and are slow to adapt and evolve. so?
Ben, nice dramatic video
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
But that's because the other OEMs suck and are slow to adapt and evolve. so?
If you really read and understood my last paragraph, you wouldn't have to ask the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus1923
Apparently it can which is what I am going to do. Looks very simple using terminal.
See http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20121103_2-DiskUtility-nasties.html
I think you guys don't really understand how the Fusion drive works. There's really not need to re-partition, the software sort of does that on the fly to maximize speed to the programs you use the most. At least, that's how I understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I think you guys don't really understand how the Fusion drive works. There's really not need to re-partition, the software sort of does that on the fly to maximize speed to the programs you use the most. At least, that's how I understand it.
But they wan't to control everything themselves.
They want to put the programs and files they want on the SSD, always.
:rolleyes:
Hmm... It is delicious but why the chin? The LED and Thunderbolt Cinema Displays are lovely without the chin. With the thinness dropping the chin would have been perfect.
SWEET, that you can get the [B]FASTEST[/B] laptop GPU ever (apart from SLI) !!!! (in a mac) (now all of those "boat Anchor" gaming laptops will have to include a tow rope!!! LOL)
so if you are going to get the 2000 dollar 27 inch, the 680MX is a must (even if your going to need to run WIN7 to game on it...to "stretch the legs" of that GPU.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I think you guys don't really understand how the Fusion drive works. There's really not need to re-partition, the software sort of does that on the fly to maximize speed to the programs you use the most. At least, that's how I understand it.
But they wan't to control everything themselves.
They want to put the programs and files they want on the SSD, always.
Then simply open them frequently.
Originally Posted by sr2012
Hmm... It is delicious but why the chin?
So that people aren't scammed during a resale and so that the hardware can actually fit inside the computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos
Another masterpiece from Sir Jony!
Hmm... It is delicious but why the chin? The LED and Thunderbolt Cinema Displays are lovely without the chin. With the thinness dropping the chin would have been perfect.
Every all-in-one Macintosh computer has had a "chin". Ever since the very first one. And guess what; it's fine. It's a computer; not a monitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
Yes, cool design, and nice pricing too, but, unfortunately, they chose to not support pure SSD (except for the 768GB SSD option, which is a joke).
The Mac Mini was almost perfect: Good CPU, good pure SSD (256GB), and good RAM (16GB). But with a bad GPU. So I cannot justify its purchase.
The iMac fixes the Mac Mini weakness by adding a good GPU, but unfortunately drops the 256GB SSD option, so I won't buy it either (yes, I know Fusion well, and no thanks, I won't buy it, I want pure SSD -if you can put it in the Mac Mini, you can also put it on the iMac, so there's no excuse for you here Apple).
Now let's wait for the Mac Pro. Chances are that they'll manage to trash the Mac Pro too, just like they did with the Mini and the iMac...
Anyway, no reason to worry, as Apple wants us to use iOS for all computing tasks in the future, so don't worry if there's no useful Mac desktop in the market... we'll be forced to move to iPads at some point anyway.
I agree about "pure" SSD being preferable but it's kind of silly that you are arguing that the only thing "wrong" with the new iMac is that it's "pure" SSD isn't small enough?
This is ridiculous on the face of it.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I agree about "pure" SSD being preferable but it's kind of silly that you are arguing that the only thing "wrong" with the new iMac is that it's "pure" SSD isn't small enough?
This is ridiculous on the face of it.
Well, you know what they say, "250 TB is too much for anyone."
Why are they not using Tantalum caps???? Anyone? Oh right, designed for future failure.
Originally Posted by pondosinatra
Why are they not using Tantalum caps???? Anyone? Oh right, designed for future failure.
Uh… if you plan to be using it as a primary, secondary, tertiary, or even museum exhibit machine, you don't need to worry about them actually, you know, failing, at any point.