I don't remember any of you bitching like little girls about the "unnecessary ODD" in your previous iMac. The redesign was for 1 reason only, to bring down the price of manufacture and to increase profit. No ODD, less material, less weight to ship, smaller packaging. If it had resulted in a cheaper iMac then fair enough but it didn't.
Yes I realise that spending your life on here bitching and arguing like your opinions are facts doesn't require a CD drive, however, many of us use this still very current form of media. What's the point in a super thin AIO if you have to clutter your desktop up with thing to make it as useable as the previous model.
"Don't buy one then". I hear you and I won't. I suspect a lot of other everyday users won't either. The current iMac is really no different to a Mac mini with a screen. However the mini is easier to work on and cheaper. If you are going to be forced to have an external ODD then you aren't losing out by having a Mac mini there as well.
Well, you could stop 'detesting add-on speakers' -- like most of the rest of the world that likes to listen to music -- and you'd not have much to whine about?
If not, just suck it up.
You're right, yeah, of course I am aware the fact the the new iMac speakers sound much worse than the old model is my fault. My bad. I must remember your username @anantksundaram, you're really clever.
I didn't even know about sound, and I don't think he did either. However - are you sure it is not your unit rather than general problem?
I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did. But you can tell the sound isn't defective as much as an abysmal design decision. It wouldn't be the first time Apple has chosen looks as their core design decision. It's why I can't use their mice. The iMac is great in many other ways, like the screen quality and on such a large display (27") 16:9 suits far better. The smaller chin and the lack of front facing aluminium in the frame are nice too.
I didn't mind waiting for my new 27" iMac. It's really sweet with the big bright non-glare display, 32 GB RAM, faster processors, etc. I've been buying Macs since 1985, and every new one I get is so much better than the one it replaces. And this one's the most beautiful of them all.
I'm very grateful to Tim and his crew for their resolve to keep creating the best products on the planet. My life is so much better as a result.
But he doesn't wish the speakers weren't shit. Which they are. This is my forth iMac and it has by far the worst audio. I use it for music all the time while I work on it, I detest add-on speakers. It annoys me that innovation of the iMac has come to not rate audio quality as near as important as just plain thinness. Design is about trade offs and I can tell you they've made the wrong ones with this iMac. While the bass is good and the treble piercing, the mid range is completely gone and the whole sound sounds like it's been funnelled through a street construction cone, thanks to its thin chin. It was so bad when I first heard it I was actually in shock.
Internal speakers always suck. I've used many iMac models are they're always crap. Just buy a good pair of external speakers and be done with it. Stop bitching about something thats easily fixed because you're too stubborn to get external speakers that will blow any iMac's speakers out of the water. Or, get a good pair of headphones like I have. Use airplay and stream your music through AppleTV to a nice surround sound system.
I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did.
I like music. Big time. I have previous iMac models. Their speakers are pretty shitty too. Given where its already is on the audio quality scale, I am not sure that the even worse speaker quality on the new iMac matters all that much.
I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did. But you can tell the sound isn't defective as much as an abysmal design decision.
If you were big into music you wouldn't be big into any internal speakers. Thus far everyone but you seems to understand this.
If you were big into music you wouldn't be big into any internal speakers. Thus far everyone but you seems to understand this.
My thoughts exactly. If you were into music then you'd get a real set of speakers and possibly even a sub woofer and not rely on crappy small internal speakers that will always sound like crap. These can be had relatively cheap. You don't have to spend $500 to get good sound quality. There are a lot of 2.1 systems that sound pretty damn good for the price you pay.
The other difference would be the Mac mini has a dual-core core i5, while the iMac has a quad-core core-5. I would assume this is done more to keep the cost of the Mac mini down than anything else.
I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two. I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM. That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.
I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk. The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....
I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.
Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...
I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two. I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM. That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.
I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk. The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....
I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.
Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...
Why do you need access to the RAM? These days I really don't see it very necessary. If you order the iMac with the proper amount of RAM in the first place then its a non-issue. I support over 100 Macs in a school district and have never needed to touch the RAM slots. 4GB of RAM was more than enough for anything they've used them for, including photo editing, iMovie, graphics design, etc.
If something were to go wrong well then thats why you have AppleCare. I've had to use them in the past for different misc issues and you ship it to them overnight, its there being fixed 1 day, 2 at the most, and shipped back to you overnight. I've never had a Mac out more than 3-4 days. Not a big deal. I would also hope you purchased AppleCare with your Macs. Really, really silly if you don't.
Why do you need access to the RAM? These days I really don't see it very necessary. If you order the iMac with the proper amount of RAM in the first place then its a non-issue. I support over 100 Macs in a school district and have never needed to touch the RAM slots. 4GB of RAM was more than enough for anything they've used them for, including photo editing, iMovie, graphics design, etc.
If something were to go wrong well then thats why you have AppleCare. I've had to use them in the past for different misc issues and you ship it to them overnight, its there being fixed 1 day, 2 at the most, and shipped back to you overnight. I've never had a Mac out more than 3-4 days. Not a big deal. I would also hope you purchased AppleCare with your Macs. Really, really silly if you don't.
Apple charges too much for RAM - and I (unlike you) have upgraded the RAM in virtually every Mac I have ever owned since my IIfx in 1991 ...
Programs and needs change - will 8 GB ordered today be enough in 3 years? Since I run my own studio - rather than some tax payers - I'll still be using the computers after the Apple Care has expired. Having to pay a "Genius" to pull off the front of the computer to update RAM is just plain dumb -- IMHO. Just to make it thin ???? Who makes these decisions and what is their motivation?
I have a 2010 iMac that's been in the "shop" 3x in the past three years because soot was sucked into the space between the LED and the glass enclosure. I've Googkled it and thousands of iMac owners suffered the same fate. So Apple had to refresh the iMac to correct this design defect regardless of the upgrade cycle. I've contested for month Apple release too many products at the same time last Fall, many of which they couldn't deliver because of unforseen manufacturing snafus.
The other difference would be the Mac mini has a dual-core core i5, while the iMac has a quad-core core-5. I would assume this is done more to keep the cost of the Mac mini down than anything else.
The $799 Mini is a quad core i7. The $1,299 21.5" iMac has a quad core i5.
The $799 Mini is a quad core i7. The $1,299 21.5" iMac has a quad core i5.
You failed to point out why you'd compare the the slower performing, cheaper Mac mini to the costlier, higher performing iMac that comes with a lot more HW.
Are we talking about announcing the new iMac or launching it? Maybe saying "the new iMac, coming in 2013" would have been better but to still announce it in October.
Are we talking about announcing the new iMac or launching it? Maybe saying "the new iMac, coming in 2013" would have been better but to still announce it in October.
Announcing it so far in advance would have dire consequences.
Comments
The redesign was for 1 reason only, to bring down the price of manufacture and to increase profit.
No ODD, less material, less weight to ship, smaller packaging. If it had resulted in a cheaper iMac then fair enough but it didn't.
Yes I realise that spending your life on here bitching and arguing like your opinions are facts doesn't require a CD drive, however, many of us use this still very current form of media. What's the point in a super thin AIO if you have to clutter your desktop up with thing to make it as useable as the previous model.
"Don't buy one then". I hear you and I won't. I suspect a lot of other everyday users won't either.
The current iMac is really no different to a Mac mini with a screen. However the mini is easier to work on and cheaper.
If you are going to be forced to have an external ODD then you aren't losing out by having a Mac mini there as well.
I guess it doesn't matter at this point, the issues are all solved now. And such a beautiful computer.
Originally Posted by Achilles
Where is the value for users…
You'll see in a few years.
Originally Posted by bmeclipse
Tim should have waited on its iPad revamp last fall and it should have anticipated consumer demand for cheaper and also larger iPhone lines.
No, not at all.
You're right, yeah, of course I am aware the fact the the new iMac speakers sound much worse than the old model is my fault. My bad. I must remember your username @anantksundaram, you're really clever.
I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did. But you can tell the sound isn't defective as much as an abysmal design decision. It wouldn't be the first time Apple has chosen looks as their core design decision. It's why I can't use their mice. The iMac is great in many other ways, like the screen quality and on such a large display (27") 16:9 suits far better. The smaller chin and the lack of front facing aluminium in the frame are nice too.
I didn't mind waiting for my new 27" iMac. It's really sweet with the big bright non-glare display, 32 GB RAM, faster processors, etc. I've been buying Macs since 1985, and every new one I get is so much better than the one it replaces. And this one's the most beautiful of them all.
I'm very grateful to Tim and his crew for their resolve to keep creating the best products on the planet. My life is so much better as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
But he doesn't wish the speakers weren't shit. Which they are. This is my forth iMac and it has by far the worst audio. I use it for music all the time while I work on it, I detest add-on speakers. It annoys me that innovation of the iMac has come to not rate audio quality as near as important as just plain thinness. Design is about trade offs and I can tell you they've made the wrong ones with this iMac. While the bass is good and the treble piercing, the mid range is completely gone and the whole sound sounds like it's been funnelled through a street construction cone, thanks to its thin chin. It was so bad when I first heard it I was actually in shock.
Internal speakers always suck. I've used many iMac models are they're always crap. Just buy a good pair of external speakers and be done with it. Stop bitching about something thats easily fixed because you're too stubborn to get external speakers that will blow any iMac's speakers out of the water. Or, get a good pair of headphones like I have. Use airplay and stream your music through AppleTV to a nice surround sound system.
Waits to be called an idiot....
I like music. Big time. I have previous iMac models. Their speakers are pretty shitty too. Given where its already is on the audio quality scale, I am not sure that the even worse speaker quality on the new iMac matters all that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
The current iMac is really no different to a Mac mini with a screen. However the mini is easier to work on and cheaper.
If you are going to be forced to have an external ODD then you aren't losing out by having a Mac mini there as well.
Except for the lack of GPU I'd agree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I am sure. If you're not big into your music and didn't own the previous iMac models you might not notice as much as I did. But you can tell the sound isn't defective as much as an abysmal design decision.
If you were big into music you wouldn't be big into any internal speakers. Thus far everyone but you seems to understand this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
If you were big into music you wouldn't be big into any internal speakers. Thus far everyone but you seems to understand this.
My thoughts exactly. If you were into music then you'd get a real set of speakers and possibly even a sub woofer and not rely on crappy small internal speakers that will always sound like crap. These can be had relatively cheap. You don't have to spend $500 to get good sound quality. There are a lot of 2.1 systems that sound pretty damn good for the price you pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Except for the lack of GPU I'd agree...
The other difference would be the Mac mini has a dual-core core i5, while the iMac has a quad-core core-5. I would assume this is done more to keep the cost of the Mac mini down than anything else.
I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two. I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM. That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.
I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk. The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....
I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.
Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPhotos
I was in line to order a new 21.5 inch iMac at the end of the year --- I have a classroom with 8 of them and I wanted to update one or two. I did NOT place my order for one reason: no access to the RAM. That is, IMHO, a really, really dumb idea.
I have no need or desire for a 1mm thin edge - or even a slight reduction in weight - for a computer that will never leave the desk. The 27 inch is too big for the classroom, but that would be the only way to get an iMac today with a little door over the RAM chips ....
I won't even start to talk about the 2009 Mac Pros that I have been waiting to update in the editing studio.
Someone has to take responsibility for these bad decisions ...
Why do you need access to the RAM? These days I really don't see it very necessary. If you order the iMac with the proper amount of RAM in the first place then its a non-issue. I support over 100 Macs in a school district and have never needed to touch the RAM slots. 4GB of RAM was more than enough for anything they've used them for, including photo editing, iMovie, graphics design, etc.
If something were to go wrong well then thats why you have AppleCare. I've had to use them in the past for different misc issues and you ship it to them overnight, its there being fixed 1 day, 2 at the most, and shipped back to you overnight. I've never had a Mac out more than 3-4 days. Not a big deal. I would also hope you purchased AppleCare with your Macs. Really, really silly if you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
Why do you need access to the RAM? These days I really don't see it very necessary. If you order the iMac with the proper amount of RAM in the first place then its a non-issue. I support over 100 Macs in a school district and have never needed to touch the RAM slots. 4GB of RAM was more than enough for anything they've used them for, including photo editing, iMovie, graphics design, etc.
If something were to go wrong well then thats why you have AppleCare. I've had to use them in the past for different misc issues and you ship it to them overnight, its there being fixed 1 day, 2 at the most, and shipped back to you overnight. I've never had a Mac out more than 3-4 days. Not a big deal. I would also hope you purchased AppleCare with your Macs. Really, really silly if you don't.
Apple charges too much for RAM - and I (unlike you) have upgraded the RAM in virtually every Mac I have ever owned since my IIfx in 1991 ...
Programs and needs change - will 8 GB ordered today be enough in 3 years? Since I run my own studio - rather than some tax payers - I'll still be using the computers after the Apple Care has expired. Having to pay a "Genius" to pull off the front of the computer to update RAM is just plain dumb -- IMHO. Just to make it thin ???? Who makes these decisions and what is their motivation?
I have a 2010 iMac that's been in the "shop" 3x in the past three years because soot was sucked into the space between the LED and the glass enclosure. I've Googkled it and thousands of iMac owners suffered the same fate. So Apple had to refresh the iMac to correct this design defect regardless of the upgrade cycle. I've contested for month Apple release too many products at the same time last Fall, many of which they couldn't deliver because of unforseen manufacturing snafus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
The other difference would be the Mac mini has a dual-core core i5, while the iMac has a quad-core core-5. I would assume this is done more to keep the cost of the Mac mini down than anything else.
The $799 Mini is a quad core i7. The $1,299 21.5" iMac has a quad core i5.
You failed to point out why you'd compare the the slower performing, cheaper Mac mini to the costlier, higher performing iMac that comes with a lot more HW.
Announcing it so far in advance would have dire consequences.