I guess if all you care about are USB ports. The thing about this adapter is it doesn't use the four USB ports on the iMac, it uses just one so it's the same thing as an unpowered hub. Certain devices need the built-in port to work (like my Apple Lightning cable and some printers) and don't work even with powered hubs. Frankly, putting all the cables above my keyboard puts them in the way.
The MacBook was Apple's smallest mobile computer until they brought out the iPhone. The iPod couldn't be classified as such then, as it was only an mp3 player, even though it had some token extra functionality.
The same can be said of the iPad, if you find calling the iPhone a computer too far of a stretch. That's what a change in form factor is; not a simple redesign of external casing.
Are you purposely being daft?
The iPhone is a new product category. The MBP with an ODD to the MBP sans the ODD is the same product category with a new form factor. Form factor is the physical size and shape of a particular piece of computer hardware.
Whatever. You're splitting hairs over terminology. My initial point still stands: the latest iMac is an incremental improvement over the last one. We're still waiting for the next revolution in computing, which they last did in 2010 with the iPad. I believe we'll be waiting for another eight years.
Whatever. You're splitting hairs over terminology. My initial point still stands: the latest iMac is an incremental improvement over the last one. We're still waiting for the next revolution in computing, which they last did in 2010 with the iPad. I believe we'll be waiting for another eight years.
Better technology is always in the future, and still will be in eight years time.
Learn to appreciate the "now" or you will never be happy.
I understand you're stubbornness but the Fusion drive was created to speed up disk access at a time when SSD's were prohibitively expensive. In many ways they still are and getting some speed improvement using a combination of flash and hard disk storage still is a faster solution than using only hard drives. A Fusion drive is generally $200 more for the 128GB flash storage. This gives you either 1TB or 3TB of storage for the iMacs for a lot less than a 512GB or 1TB flash storage module. I don't see the cost of flash storage coming down to anywhere near the cost of hard disks any time soon. For those users who want the biggest bang for their limited bucks, getting a Fusion drive is still the way to go.
You need to shop around. Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SATA-III SSD for only $428 at Amazon. Far better than a Fusion Drive and far less than you are trying to claim with "prohibitively expensive" SSDs. They are not as expensive as you think they are. Granted, Apple screwed the pooch with the 2012 iMacs by sealing them with glue, preventing an easy drive swap (or making it quite difficult). Apple now has lowered the cost of the flash memory with the retina iMac, but oddly enough, still charge more for the same flash drive in the non-retina model. Very odd. I would prefer 1TB of flash memory compared with 128GB of SSD matched with 1TB of a traditional hard drive. My iPhoto library is larger than 128GB, so you can't tell me OS X will try to cache the iPhoto library to the SSD portion of a Fusion Drive. iPhoto would still have to pull data from the hard drive, slowing you down.
I have the Samsung EVO 1TB in my 2011 iMac 27" and 2011 MacBook Pro 15", and the drive is super-fast. Using the Trim Enabler app, trim is enabled on both Macs. The original hard drive is still installed in the iMac, but rarely used now. I did not want to remove it in case the temperature sensors would act strangely if the drive was missing. When I retire this iMac, my next iMac will definitely have flash memory only. I can't go back to a slow hard drive, or even a fusion drive knowing there would still be hard drive lag by accessing files on the slow hard drive. I would definitely pay $800 (or less in the future...already dropped $200 in the new iMac) for 1TB of flash memory, to get rid of the Fusion Drive.
Whatever. You're splitting hairs over terminology. My initial point still stands: the latest iMac is an incremental improvement over the last one. We're still waiting for the next revolution in computing, which they last did in 2010 with the iPad. I believe we'll be waiting for another eight years.
Better technology is always in the future, and still will be in eight years time.
Learn to appreciate the "now" or you will never be happy.
And as no Thunderbolt 2 ports support DisplayPort 1.3, nor did Apple swap out to a custom standard run across Thunderbolt 2, Thunderbolt 2 can’t do it.
4K isn’t 5K.
My point was made, the iMac Retina cannot drive an external 4K (or 5K) display. It can only drive a standard resolution display. The Mac Pro can drive a 4K display using its Thunderbolt 2 ports, but the iMac retina cannot. A limitation of the iMac retina, in case someone would think it can do 4K external displays. It cannot even do Target Display Mode.
I must admit I didn't think that Apple could pull this off. I had a good look at the screen in the Brisvegas Apple shop and they allowed me to play with their set up so I could put the retina and non retina side by side. Of course the retina is absolutely magical close up, just like my rMBP, at 2 or more feet away pixels were not visible on the non retina, however I was surprised to notice that in spite of this the retina imac screen was able to reproduce finer detail.
The review mentions things like being able to fit full screen video as well as controls, but what it does not mention is the way that my gf will be using it when we get one next year. From my point of view retina screen is essential on my MBP because of my astigmatism 35cm is the perfect viewing distance so I do not have to wear glasses. I would never want to be working on a 27" screen at that distance and I imagine that video editors would not want to either. BUT, the gf, is an artist and does not like working at the computer due to the cramped space, for her purposes, to be able to work on a 27" screen at a distance of 14" would be a completely immersive experience that my not work for video editing but definitely works for painting. And it is at these very close distances that a retina screen is absolutely essential.
My initial point still stands: the latest iMac is an incremental improvement over the last one.
There is no other computer on Earth as far as I know that has a 27" retina screen that allows me to work at a distance of 14" and see no pixels thus allowing a completely immersive design experience. To call that 'incremental' is mental trollish nonsense.
This is a little unfair. You're comparing the 5K, 3.5GHz i5, 1TB fusion drive, 2GB GPU, Thunderbolt-2 to the base 3.2GHz, 1 TB hard drive, 1GB GPU, Thunderbolt-1 iMac. The fusion drive alone adds $200 to the old iMac. The 3.2GHz iMac isn't offered with the 2GB 775M or faster 4GB 780M, which costs more as well (not $200 because the next step up iMac includes a faster CPU). The base 5K Mac offers a faster CPU, 1TB Fusion drive and much faster GPU along with the higher resolution display. Overall it's $700 more (as you say) but labeling the additional cost as a "con" doesn't take into account the fact that many people don't purchase the base model and after factoring in comparable hardware, the display only costs (maybe) $300 more. For people who need the a 4K monitor with space for the GUI, the iMac 5K display is basically free.
Ahhh I wouldn't say free. They want to ensure a certain minimum sale, so they spec it appropriately. I wouldn't compare it directly to cto upgrades. Cto is almost always more expensive, and that holds up with other models when comparing base units and cto options against the mid or higher end ones at stock specifications.
First sentence teases those Mac Pro owners wanting a retina display for their Macs. It's not a display. It's an integrated computer, with laptop-style parts that will likely suffer premature heat death on the GPU, after a few years of pro-level use of GPU and CPU, if recent history MacBooks are any example. Not interested.
My point was made, the iMac Retina cannot drive an external 4K (or 5K) display. It can only drive a standard resolution display.
That's not correct. You can run the internal 5K display and one (but not two) external 4K@60Hz display at the same time. If you want to run 2 external displays they have to be 2560x1600 max (I think this is because the two Thunderbolt 2 ports in the iMac 5K are on a single controller).
Just got my 5K iMac last Friday. I was actually more interested in the ability to review spreadsheets, architectural plans and other technical diagrams as opposed to video or photo work.
I must say, I am really impressed. Text is amazing. AutoCAD looks freaking awesome. I kept my old computer with 24" 1920x1200 display turned on while I was setting up the iMac and I'm already at the point where I can barely stand to look at the 24". Everything looks so fuzzy on the 24" now.
I'm not quite sure why some posters criticized the off-axis viewing. I did detect some very minor brightness fall-off, but it does not show at all in any normal viewing position. Who looks at their screen off-axis anyway? So far as brightness, I work in a well lighted office with a window and even with all the ambient light, I found that It was actually better to lower the screen brightness a bit. Having 27" of retina class screen real estate is truly a sight to behold.
Now if you want to read a real review of the retina iMac, hop over to ArsTechnica, where they actually tested the iMac... The retina iMac does not support Target Display Mode, and it cannot drive external 4K displays, even though it has the power to run an internal 5K display. The limitation is the DisplayPort 1.2 standard."
Good point. I really like the new iMac and would love to own one, but there are additional pros and cons that aren't in this article. No surprise that Ars Technica would be the place to get the full story.
(I can appreciate a simple summary-style overview too, as AI offers here, but I have to say: I didn't have high expectations for this review after seeing the incredibly lazy "Mac faithful" in the first sentence.)
When I tested one I wasn't really impressed. The screen wasn't as good as the regular 27" iMac sitting next to it. Yes, the 5k portion was pretty cool, but I don't think it was on par with colors, contrast, etc with the regular 27" iMac. It would also lose its colors at certain angles, something the regular 27" iMac doesn't do. Yes, I know its an IPS 5k panel, but there was still some noticeable color shift.
I also noticed it WAS laggy, even with the most simple tasks it would sometimes stutter. There are some other video reviews that show it still stuttering (dropping frames) with the upgraded AMD graphics. I would forget about playing any kind of games on it if you want to use full res.
I don't know if I should question your judgement or if the one you used was a lemon, but your experience seems to be different from pretty much everyone else's. Even pro photographers say that this is the best iMac display ever, and not just in terms of resolution.
The previous 27" panel is still really good, but for many of us the 5k resolution is a game changer, and it doesn't sacrifice colour reproduction. The backlight is also more even than on the previous display.
As for being laggy, my initial thought was that these issues were software related issues. And this has also been confirmed by Apple. I'm sure they will be sorted out. It's no gaming rig for sure, but it will do fine for casual gamers.
Comments
I cannot imagine why they did not meet their $10,000 goal. But this seems to have been worked out well:
They could be available in the future.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/huback-plug-play-no-more-turning-imac
I guess if all you care about are USB ports. The thing about this adapter is it doesn't use the four USB ports on the iMac, it uses just one so it's the same thing as an unpowered hub. Certain devices need the built-in port to work (like my Apple Lightning cable and some printers) and don't work even with powered hubs. Frankly, putting all the cables above my keyboard puts them in the way.
from referenced website
Are you purposing being daft?
Congratulations, you've been Frosted.
He's a troll. He doesn't believe any of the guff that he constantly spouts, he's just looking for a rise.
I can't believe that.
I doubt they let you spend an entire hour hogging the machine in the store.
You'll come around.
Yes.
The MacBook was Apple's smallest mobile computer until they brought out the iPhone. The iPod couldn't be classified as such then, as it was only an mp3 player, even though it had some token extra functionality.
The same can be said of the iPad, if you find calling the iPhone a computer too far of a stretch. That's what a change in form factor is; not a simple redesign of external casing.
Are you purposely being daft?
The iPhone is a new product category. The MBP with an ODD to the MBP sans the ODD is the same product category with a new form factor. Form factor is the physical size and shape of a particular piece of computer hardware.
Whatever. You're splitting hairs over terminology. My initial point still stands: the latest iMac is an incremental improvement over the last one. We're still waiting for the next revolution in computing, which they last did in 2010 with the iPad. I believe we'll be waiting for another eight years.
Better technology is always in the future, and still will be in eight years time.
Learn to appreciate the "now" or you will never be happy.
I understand you're stubbornness but the Fusion drive was created to speed up disk access at a time when SSD's were prohibitively expensive. In many ways they still are and getting some speed improvement using a combination of flash and hard disk storage still is a faster solution than using only hard drives. A Fusion drive is generally $200 more for the 128GB flash storage. This gives you either 1TB or 3TB of storage for the iMacs for a lot less than a 512GB or 1TB flash storage module. I don't see the cost of flash storage coming down to anywhere near the cost of hard disks any time soon. For those users who want the biggest bang for their limited bucks, getting a Fusion drive is still the way to go.
You need to shop around. Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SATA-III SSD for only $428 at Amazon. Far better than a Fusion Drive and far less than you are trying to claim with "prohibitively expensive" SSDs. They are not as expensive as you think they are. Granted, Apple screwed the pooch with the 2012 iMacs by sealing them with glue, preventing an easy drive swap (or making it quite difficult). Apple now has lowered the cost of the flash memory with the retina iMac, but oddly enough, still charge more for the same flash drive in the non-retina model. Very odd. I would prefer 1TB of flash memory compared with 128GB of SSD matched with 1TB of a traditional hard drive. My iPhoto library is larger than 128GB, so you can't tell me OS X will try to cache the iPhoto library to the SSD portion of a Fusion Drive. iPhoto would still have to pull data from the hard drive, slowing you down.
I have the Samsung EVO 1TB in my 2011 iMac 27" and 2011 MacBook Pro 15", and the drive is super-fast. Using the Trim Enabler app, trim is enabled on both Macs. The original hard drive is still installed in the iMac, but rarely used now. I did not want to remove it in case the temperature sensors would act strangely if the drive was missing. When I retire this iMac, my next iMac will definitely have flash memory only. I can't go back to a slow hard drive, or even a fusion drive knowing there would still be hard drive lag by accessing files on the slow hard drive. I would definitely pay $800 (or less in the future...already dropped $200 in the new iMac) for 1TB of flash memory, to get rid of the Fusion Drive.
Will do.
And as no Thunderbolt 2 ports support DisplayPort 1.3, nor did Apple swap out to a custom standard run across Thunderbolt 2, Thunderbolt 2 can’t do it.
4K isn’t 5K.
My point was made, the iMac Retina cannot drive an external 4K (or 5K) display. It can only drive a standard resolution display. The Mac Pro can drive a 4K display using its Thunderbolt 2 ports, but the iMac retina cannot. A limitation of the iMac retina, in case someone would think it can do 4K external displays. It cannot even do Target Display Mode.
I must admit I didn't think that Apple could pull this off. I had a good look at the screen in the Brisvegas Apple shop and they allowed me to play with their set up so I could put the retina and non retina side by side. Of course the retina is absolutely magical close up, just like my rMBP, at 2 or more feet away pixels were not visible on the non retina, however I was surprised to notice that in spite of this the retina imac screen was able to reproduce finer detail.
The review mentions things like being able to fit full screen video as well as controls, but what it does not mention is the way that my gf will be using it when we get one next year. From my point of view retina screen is essential on my MBP because of my astigmatism 35cm is the perfect viewing distance so I do not have to wear glasses. I would never want to be working on a 27" screen at that distance and I imagine that video editors would not want to either. BUT, the gf, is an artist and does not like working at the computer due to the cramped space, for her purposes, to be able to work on a 27" screen at a distance of 14" would be a completely immersive experience that my not work for video editing but definitely works for painting. And it is at these very close distances that a retina screen is absolutely essential.
There is no other computer on Earth as far as I know that has a 27" retina screen that allows me to work at a distance of 14" and see no pixels thus allowing a completely immersive design experience. To call that 'incremental' is mental trollish nonsense.
"Retina 5K display, buffed internals command $700 premium"
This is a little unfair. You're comparing the 5K, 3.5GHz i5, 1TB fusion drive, 2GB GPU, Thunderbolt-2 to the base 3.2GHz, 1 TB hard drive, 1GB GPU, Thunderbolt-1 iMac. The fusion drive alone adds $200 to the old iMac. The 3.2GHz iMac isn't offered with the 2GB 775M or faster 4GB 780M, which costs more as well (not $200 because the next step up iMac includes a faster CPU). The base 5K Mac offers a faster CPU, 1TB Fusion drive and much faster GPU along with the higher resolution display. Overall it's $700 more (as you say) but labeling the additional cost as a "con" doesn't take into account the fact that many people don't purchase the base model and after factoring in comparable hardware, the display only costs (maybe) $300 more. For people who need the a 4K monitor with space for the GUI, the iMac 5K display is basically free.
Ahhh I wouldn't say free. They want to ensure a certain minimum sale, so they spec it appropriately. I wouldn't compare it directly to cto upgrades. Cto is almost always more expensive, and that holds up with other models when comparing base units and cto options against the mid or higher end ones at stock specifications.
Better technology is always in the future, and still will be in eight years time.
Learn to appreciate the "now" or you will never be happy.
I'm pretty sure Moore's law ends in eight years time. Then buy. /s
You’re not wrong. At least for silicon.
My point was made, the iMac Retina cannot drive an external 4K (or 5K) display. It can only drive a standard resolution display.
That's not correct. You can run the internal 5K display and one (but not two) external 4K@60Hz display at the same time. If you want to run 2 external displays they have to be 2560x1600 max (I think this is because the two Thunderbolt 2 ports in the iMac 5K are on a single controller).
https://support.apple.com/en-us/ht6008
Also you are getting your DisplayPort versions mixed up in earlier posts.
Thunderbolt 1 has DisplayPort 1.1a = only standard resolutions.
Thunderbolt 2 has DisplayPort 1.2 = 4K@60Hz using MST. This is what the iMac 5K has.
Thunderbolt 3 has (presumably) DisplayPort 1.3 = 5K support.
I must say, I am really impressed. Text is amazing. AutoCAD looks freaking awesome. I kept my old computer with 24" 1920x1200 display turned on while I was setting up the iMac and I'm already at the point where I can barely stand to look at the 24". Everything looks so fuzzy on the 24" now.
I'm not quite sure why some posters criticized the off-axis viewing. I did detect some very minor brightness fall-off, but it does not show at all in any normal viewing position. Who looks at their screen off-axis anyway? So far as brightness, I work in a well lighted office with a window and even with all the ambient light, I found that It was actually better to lower the screen brightness a bit. Having 27" of retina class screen real estate is truly a sight to behold.
Now if you want to read a real review of the retina iMac, hop over to ArsTechnica, where they actually tested the iMac... The retina iMac does not support Target Display Mode, and it cannot drive external 4K displays, even though it has the power to run an internal 5K display. The limitation is the DisplayPort 1.2 standard."
Good point. I really like the new iMac and would love to own one, but there are additional pros and cons that aren't in this article. No surprise that Ars Technica would be the place to get the full story.
(I can appreciate a simple summary-style overview too, as AI offers here, but I have to say: I didn't have high expectations for this review after seeing the incredibly lazy "Mac faithful" in the first sentence.)
When I tested one I wasn't really impressed. The screen wasn't as good as the regular 27" iMac sitting next to it. Yes, the 5k portion was pretty cool, but I don't think it was on par with colors, contrast, etc with the regular 27" iMac. It would also lose its colors at certain angles, something the regular 27" iMac doesn't do. Yes, I know its an IPS 5k panel, but there was still some noticeable color shift.
I also noticed it WAS laggy, even with the most simple tasks it would sometimes stutter. There are some other video reviews that show it still stuttering (dropping frames) with the upgraded AMD graphics. I would forget about playing any kind of games on it if you want to use full res.
I don't know if I should question your judgement or if the one you used was a lemon, but your experience seems to be different from pretty much everyone else's. Even pro photographers say that this is the best iMac display ever, and not just in terms of resolution.
The previous 27" panel is still really good, but for many of us the 5k resolution is a game changer, and it doesn't sacrifice colour reproduction. The backlight is also more even than on the previous display.
As for being laggy, my initial thought was that these issues were software related issues. And this has also been confirmed by Apple. I'm sure they will be sorted out. It's no gaming rig for sure, but it will do fine for casual gamers.