They haven't downgraded the options that were available before this new model was added. This is just a cheaper option for people who can happily get by with a slower CPU. The 11" Macbook Air is one of Apple's best-selling machines so lots of people must be happy with this level of performance. The SSD helps a lot of course but you can add one to the base model iMac.
If you look at the entry iMac with a 256GB SSD at $1350 vs the next model up with 256GB SSD, the price difference becomes $150 because the higher model had a 1TB HDD in it. What do you lose for that $150 saving? You lose Iris Pro for the HD 5000 and the i5-4570R for the i5-4260U.
Half the GPU power and just over half the CPU. It will still play some games ok:
[VIDEO]
The CPU has 4 threads and is faster than original quad Mac Pros and having a CPU that is 15W, the fan should barely kick in at all. That power saving is pretty big: 65W down to 15W but over 50% of the performance. To get nearly double the GPU and CPU for $150 is a good deal and it's supposed to be. The higher models are there for the upsell, if they made the lower models too compelling, they'd lose sales of the higher models. The entry model is there to cater to people who have a very limited budget where the extra processing performance doesn't make a difference to their experience. They still get USB 3, Thunderbolt, IPS display, bundled kb/mouse.
For people who prefer the other options, they haven't changed so it's business as usual.
Back in the day, computer manufacturers (including Apple with the power mac) made a big deal about RAM expandability, and always advertised the maximum amount of memory the user could add after purchase. Even if you weren't looking for bottom-of-the-barrel performance, it made sense to buy cheap and upgrade RAM later because RAM prices would inevitably come down. Have RAM prices more or less stabilized?
I see a market for Connectix RAM Doubler to make a comeback.
The latest generation of iMacs is quite disappointing: they are very difficult to upgrade or can’t be upgraded at all, like this new “entry level” iMac and this means that the actual useful life of the system is reduced, especially with such a low end processor. I own a 2008 iMac, which is still a valid and useable machine since I was able to upgrade it, doubling the RAM (from 2GB to 4GB) and replacing the initial 320 GB hard drive with a 1TB hybrid hard drive.
I really don’t care to have an iMac so thin, I would accept a thickness increase to have the possibility to expand the RAM and replace the hard drive (with a faster one, the 5400 rpm drives are unacceptable for me).
Soldering on RAM has many advantages in terms of manufacturing speed and efficiency, as well as reliability. This bitching and whining is exactly the same as the bitching and whining that occurs every time Apple makes a change to streamline, simplify, and move things forward, whether it be getting rid of floppy drives, firewire connector, making batteries non-replaceable, removing optical drives, making OSX download only, etc etc. Every single time, these led to BETTER overall products. This latest movie is the mildest of them all, since it's just on ONE iMac model that anyone who knows anything about technology probably wouldn't choose anyway. Big fucking deal. Noone who would buy this will need more than 8GB for a very long time, as I've been fine with 4GB for the last few years and I'm a heavy user of all adobe apps.
Each article on this is for a particular time zone. Sometimes you jump into a thread when it has already died because you are in a different time zone.
This way, people from every time zone can complain about this iMac!
You can say that AI is an equal opportunity click-bait site!
That's why you have Adblock installed so they don't get any money from you.
Apart from the fact that Apple can replace the RAM if it fails, and that the RAM is more reliable than that used in any other desktop because it’s soldered, and is therefore less likely to fail.
How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
Wrong.
Up until last year, my 2009 iMac has been running on 8GB. I only upgraded it because I got a really good deal on the RAM chips. I didn't "need" to upgrade it. I was using my iMac to run 1-2 virtual machines and it was fine. I am a power user and I am certainly not the norm. If 8GB was fine for me considering how much I was hammering my machine in ways most folks of the low-end iMac will never do, I think 8GB will be more than adequate for the Joe Consumer.
And btw, my 2011 MBA with 4GB runs just fine along with running Windows 7 or 8 as a VM side-by-side. So your argument is flawed on so many rookie levels.
You shouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't even know. I've used Macs continuously since 1984 and I have plenty of experience. In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM. Now it may be that you aren't doing much else with the machine at the same time, but I don't consider running Windows along side Mac OS and having a few other applications open at the same time to be unusual.
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
To the authors of this and all other posts like it,
What is so difficult for you to comprehend about the product that Apple has released? Are you blind? Have you been to store.apple.com since its announcement? Do you not see that Apple continues to sell iMacs of specifications more worthy your standards? Do you truly believe that they have stopped selling everything but this blindingly obviously low end model? Why would you think that? Why is this entire letter in question form? Don’t I have enough confidence to state these things?
Sincerely,
COME THE HECK ON.
PS: Magic Trackpad, not pen. My cursive is better than that.
Originally Posted by bryand
I’ve used Macs continuously since 1984…
Doesn’t matter to the discussion.
In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM.
So don’t run a VM on them. Why do people think that every computer Apple sells is designed for the same thing? These are the people who buy a Mac Pro to use for Facebook and e-mail and whine that the MacBook Air can’t live edit uncompressed 3840p.
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
You're completely full of it. My 2012 MBA is still running as smooth as silk with 4GB of RAM, since the day I got it, and through 3 OSX updates (running Yosemite Beta too). OSX updates are almost making BETTER use of RAM, not worse. Mavericks performs better than ML, which performed better than Lion. You're post is full of generalizations and fail on so many levels. Not to mention that I'm a POWER user, so for the average user, even less of an issue. I know people that have Macs and do nothing but web browse and check email. Tell me, why would this NOT be a good option for them if they can save $200? Your post is nothing but junk.
You shouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't even know. I've used Macs continuously since 1984 and I have plenty of experience. In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM. Now it may be that you aren't doing much else with the machine at the same time, but I don't consider running Windows along side Mac OS and having a few other applications open at the same time to be unusual.
..and you think the average person is running a virtual machine? Why do you take your own experience and project it on others? You're so disconnected from reality, the the length of time you've been using Macs for doesn't change that. Nothing will NEED 16GB of RAM anytime soon, and definitely not in the next couple years.
Just my 2 cents: It is almost as if this was meant to be the 'e-iMac' as in educational model, intended only for the education market at a much lower price but some how has ended up available for the masses at this price.
The 8GB of RAM is a non-issue for most home users - funny this is even being debated.
However that CPU is a bit surprising as it's quite anemic. That might be OK for an Ultrabook form factor, but not so much for a desktop.
I'm really surprised they couldn't drop in a bit higher performing Intel SKU for no increase in cost, considering the extreme power/thermal limits of the Air don't apply. Sockets should be the same - so why not drop in the lowest end dual-core i5 from the MBP? At the cost Apple gets it from Intel, I bet we're talking about single digit dollars difference.
In a couple of years 8GB will feel like 4GB today.
..and 4GB feels absolutely fine today, so am not too worried about that. Also, I doubt it. Memory requirements, especially for desktops, are not going to keep doubling linearly. I do heavy lifting in all the adobe applications daily on 4GB of RAM - the average user doesnt do 10% of what I do. What mainstream task exactly do you presume will need 16GB of RAM 2 years from now? Nothing. Also, OSX is getting MORE memory efficient, not less. This is a complete non-issue for the target audience.
Absolutely right. In a couple years, what used to require 8GB to run efficiently will only require 4GB to run efficiently. That's the way things are going.
This specific model of the iMac, after the low-cost 5th-gen iPod Touch that drops the rear-facing camera, along with some other announcements in the same vein in the last 18 months (IIRC), gives me the feeling that Apple is repeating the same mistakes that it made in 1990 with the so-called "low-cost Macs" (Mac Classic, Mac IIsi & Mac LC).
You do not bring out newer models with cut-down specs (or, worse, with ill-advised designs). You find ways to bring down the costs of existing specs, whilst you find ways to improve the machines you already have. This is not progress, this is just spinning your wheels.
I don't understand why the RAM could not have been socketed, the increase in production costs would have been marginal at best. This was a bad design decision.
I could go on and on, but I fear that Apple is stuck in a rut and their critics will end up being right. The company is apparently well managed (at least, *that* is different from the 1990 Apple), but there is something missing, that could keep the company moving forward.
I really hope they *do* have an exciting pipeline of upcoming products and not just questionable refreshes.
Comments
My toaster isn't upgradeable to 4-slices, either. I'm stuck toasting 2 slices at a time. But for a low-end device, I didn't expect much.
My toaster isn't upgradeable to 4-slices, either. I'm stuck toasting 2 slices at a time. But for a low-end device, I didn't expect much.
Enjoy your $1100 toaster. For making toast, I would rather something a bit cheaper.
They haven't downgraded the options that were available before this new model was added. This is just a cheaper option for people who can happily get by with a slower CPU. The 11" Macbook Air is one of Apple's best-selling machines so lots of people must be happy with this level of performance. The SSD helps a lot of course but you can add one to the base model iMac.
If you look at the entry iMac with a 256GB SSD at $1350 vs the next model up with 256GB SSD, the price difference becomes $150 because the higher model had a 1TB HDD in it. What do you lose for that $150 saving? You lose Iris Pro for the HD 5000 and the i5-4570R for the i5-4260U.
Half the GPU power and just over half the CPU. It will still play some games ok:
[VIDEO]
The CPU has 4 threads and is faster than original quad Mac Pros and having a CPU that is 15W, the fan should barely kick in at all. That power saving is pretty big: 65W down to 15W but over 50% of the performance. To get nearly double the GPU and CPU for $150 is a good deal and it's supposed to be. The higher models are there for the upsell, if they made the lower models too compelling, they'd lose sales of the higher models. The entry model is there to cater to people who have a very limited budget where the extra processing performance doesn't make a difference to their experience. They still get USB 3, Thunderbolt, IPS display, bundled kb/mouse.
For people who prefer the other options, they haven't changed so it's business as usual.
Back in the day, computer manufacturers (including Apple with the power mac) made a big deal about RAM expandability, and always advertised the maximum amount of memory the user could add after purchase. Even if you weren't looking for bottom-of-the-barrel performance, it made sense to buy cheap and upgrade RAM later because RAM prices would inevitably come down. Have RAM prices more or less stabilized?
I see a market for Connectix RAM Doubler to make a comeback.
Thanks for the heads-up OWC and AI!
The latest generation of iMacs is quite disappointing: they are very difficult to upgrade or can’t be upgraded at all, like this new “entry level” iMac and this means that the actual useful life of the system is reduced, especially with such a low end processor. I own a 2008 iMac, which is still a valid and useable machine since I was able to upgrade it, doubling the RAM (from 2GB to 4GB) and replacing the initial 320 GB hard drive with a 1TB hybrid hard drive.
I really don’t care to have an iMac so thin, I would accept a thickness increase to have the possibility to expand the RAM and replace the hard drive (with a faster one, the 5400 rpm drives are unacceptable for me).
Soldering on RAM has many advantages in terms of manufacturing speed and efficiency, as well as reliability. This bitching and whining is exactly the same as the bitching and whining that occurs every time Apple makes a change to streamline, simplify, and move things forward, whether it be getting rid of floppy drives, firewire connector, making batteries non-replaceable, removing optical drives, making OSX download only, etc etc. Every single time, these led to BETTER overall products. This latest movie is the mildest of them all, since it's just on ONE iMac model that anyone who knows anything about technology probably wouldn't choose anyway. Big fucking deal. Noone who would buy this will need more than 8GB for a very long time, as I've been fine with 4GB for the last few years and I'm a heavy user of all adobe apps.
Each article on this is for a particular time zone. Sometimes you jump into a thread when it has already died because you are in a different time zone.
This way, people from every time zone can complain about this iMac!
You can say that AI is an equal opportunity click-bait site!
That's why you have Adblock installed so they don't get any money from you.
Apart from the fact that Apple can replace the RAM if it fails, and that the RAM is more reliable than that used in any other desktop because it’s soldered, and is therefore less likely to fail.
How does being soldered on make it more reliable? Can you provide sources to back up that claim?
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
Wrong.
Up until last year, my 2009 iMac has been running on 8GB. I only upgraded it because I got a really good deal on the RAM chips. I didn't "need" to upgrade it. I was using my iMac to run 1-2 virtual machines and it was fine. I am a power user and I am certainly not the norm. If 8GB was fine for me considering how much I was hammering my machine in ways most folks of the low-end iMac will never do, I think 8GB will be more than adequate for the Joe Consumer.
And btw, my 2011 MBA with 4GB runs just fine along with running Windows 7 or 8 as a VM side-by-side. So your argument is flawed on so many rookie levels.
You shouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't even know. I've used Macs continuously since 1984 and I have plenty of experience. In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM. Now it may be that you aren't doing much else with the machine at the same time, but I don't consider running Windows along side Mac OS and having a few other applications open at the same time to be unusual.
To the authors of this and all other posts like it,
What is so difficult for you to comprehend about the product that Apple has released? Are you blind? Have you been to store.apple.com since its announcement? Do you not see that Apple continues to sell iMacs of specifications more worthy your standards? Do you truly believe that they have stopped selling everything but this blindingly obviously low end model? Why would you think that? Why is this entire letter in question form? Don’t I have enough confidence to state these things?
Sincerely,
COME THE HECK ON.
PS: Magic Trackpad, not pen. My cursive is better than that.
Doesn’t matter to the discussion.
So don’t run a VM on them. Why do people think that every computer Apple sells is designed for the same thing? These are the people who buy a Mac Pro to use for Facebook and e-mail and whine that the MacBook Air can’t live edit uncompressed 3840p.
What a piece of junk. Its not worth the $200 savings in price to get non-upgradeable ram and a significantly slower processor. Those who think 8GB is sufficient have never kept a computer longer than 2 years. People on a budget are most likely to keep their computers longer and the ram will become deficient quickly as new system upgrades start chewing up memory and processing power.
You're completely full of it. My 2012 MBA is still running as smooth as silk with 4GB of RAM, since the day I got it, and through 3 OSX updates (running Yosemite Beta too). OSX updates are almost making BETTER use of RAM, not worse. Mavericks performs better than ML, which performed better than Lion. You're post is full of generalizations and fail on so many levels. Not to mention that I'm a POWER user, so for the average user, even less of an issue. I know people that have Macs and do nothing but web browse and check email. Tell me, why would this NOT be a good option for them if they can save $200? Your post is nothing but junk.
You shouldn't be so quick to insult people you don't even know. I've used Macs continuously since 1984 and I have plenty of experience. In that experience I have found Macs with 4GB ram to be unusably slow when running even one VM. Now it may be that you aren't doing much else with the machine at the same time, but I don't consider running Windows along side Mac OS and having a few other applications open at the same time to be unusual.
..and you think the average person is running a virtual machine? Why do you take your own experience and project it on others? You're so disconnected from reality, the the length of time you've been using Macs for doesn't change that. Nothing will NEED 16GB of RAM anytime soon, and definitely not in the next couple years.
The 8GB of RAM is a non-issue for most home users - funny this is even being debated.
However that CPU is a bit surprising as it's quite anemic. That might be OK for an Ultrabook form factor, but not so much for a desktop.
I'm really surprised they couldn't drop in a bit higher performing Intel SKU for no increase in cost, considering the extreme power/thermal limits of the Air don't apply. Sockets should be the same - so why not drop in the lowest end dual-core i5 from the MBP? At the cost Apple gets it from Intel, I bet we're talking about single digit dollars difference.
In a couple of years 8GB will feel like 4GB today.
..and 4GB feels absolutely fine today, so am not too worried about that. Also, I doubt it. Memory requirements, especially for desktops, are not going to keep doubling linearly. I do heavy lifting in all the adobe applications daily on 4GB of RAM - the average user doesnt do 10% of what I do. What mainstream task exactly do you presume will need 16GB of RAM 2 years from now? Nothing. Also, OSX is getting MORE memory efficient, not less. This is a complete non-issue for the target audience.
Absolutely right. In a couple years, what used to require 8GB to run efficiently will only require 4GB to run efficiently. That's the way things are going.
You do not bring out newer models with cut-down specs (or, worse, with ill-advised designs). You find ways to bring down the costs of existing specs, whilst you find ways to improve the machines you already have. This is not progress, this is just spinning your wheels.
I don't understand why the RAM could not have been socketed, the increase in production costs would have been marginal at best. This was a bad design decision.
I could go on and on, but I fear that Apple is stuck in a rut and their critics will end up being right. The company is apparently well managed (at least, *that* is different from the 1990 Apple), but there is something missing, that could keep the company moving forward.
I really hope they *do* have an exciting pipeline of upcoming products and not just questionable refreshes.