I just got two of the 4K 21.5" model, one for my mother, another for a family friend. In both cases i convinced them to configure it for top of the line features so that we could avoid the slowness of 5400 RPM hard drives and other issues (like RAM expandability). So they look like this:
Core i7 3.3 Ghz
16 gigs RAM
2.1 TB Fusion Drive
Applecare
This configuration was speedy enough for most uses....going with the Fusion Drive is a no brainer. The only way I really stressed it was 60 FPS 4K videos on Youtube (wired Ethernet, 105 mbit/sec cable internet service), which tended to drop a few frames every now and then (30 FPS 4K was fine). The screen is gorgeous.
If you buy this machine, go whole hog. Don't scrimp. You'll thank me.
Skip all iMacs, I say. A friend of mine is fretting horribly because his iMac has developed a display flicker. From his previous iMac, he knows that if anything goes out in an iMac, you must junk the entire machine. That's about $1500 down a rat hole.
I'm afraid I was a bit mean with him. I reminded him that when one of the displays attached to my Mac mini went out, replacing it was trivial and inexpensive. Component computers beat the socks off all-in-one machines such as the iMac. They'd do that even if, like the iMac, they weren't deliberately designed to be hard to fix.
Posters complaining about the low-end iMac should keep in mind that Apple doesn't follow the old Sears policy of offering three product lines: good, better, and best. Apple's low-end products are almost always deliberately crippled to force users to step up to a more expensive model. They're bad, better and best. Storage and memory are typically how Apple degrades their products.
We've been using the same pair of iMacs for eight years now without a single issue. Maybe they would be hard to repair, but then, they've never needed any, and now they are way too old to think about repairing. It's difficult to imagine getting this sort of service out of any other PC.
Yes, Apple is good at up-selling, but then so is every other product-maker. This is exactly what you are getting with the Sears good-better-best. The lesson here is get the one you want to own for a long time.
if the HD does not suit your needs buy the fusion for $100.
You have a brain, use it.
Bottom line is there is a significant population that has no need of a fusion drive and are perfectly happy with the HD. Why force them to pay for a fusion drive they won't need? This price structure is just giving iMac a lower price point for light users.
But you say why don't Apple just give the fusion drive for 'free'? Reason is Apple wants to stay in business. For a very long time. Look at the other PC makers. They all are losing BILLIONS and could go bankrupt in a matter of months. Is that what you want to happen to Apple? Thats what happens when you start giving things away for 'free'.
Look at competing All-in-Ones. Those that start at $1000-$1200. They all have HD drives also. Stop making up a fantasy world where all PC's have fusion drives as a standard.
"Bottom line is there is a significant population that has no need of a fusion drive and are perfectly happy with the HD. Why force them to pay for a fusion drive they won't need? This price structure is just giving iMac a lower price point for light users."
Question is, how many light users are going to fork over $1,499 for a computer? Not many, if any, at least that I know of. At $1,499 you're already in premium territory so it wouldn't behoove Apple to put the 1TB Fusion as standard.
Show me another All-in-one that has 3 years warranty standard. There is none. You just don't get it. If Apple made the 3 year warranty standard the price would go up.
Fact is some people are perfectly fine with HDD. There are literally MILLIONS of people who use their PC just to check email and browse the web. Why the hell would they need any thing faster. They don't. But if they follow your 'plan' then these consumers would have to pay extra for something they don't need.
Bottom line is you don't know anything about running a business. You think everything should be cheap. It doesn't work that way.
You keep grumbling about the high prices of iMac but show me a competing All-in-one that is better for a cheaper price? There isn't any.
And stop your mindless drivel of Apple being greedy. Their profit margin was only 25% last year. If you think that's greedy then go shop at Goodwill. And look at all the other PC makers. NONE of them make profits. They are all losing BILLIONS. Is that what you want Apple to become? Apple is the only PC maker that makes profit. The prices they charge is a NECESSITY unless you want them to go out of business in a few years like dozens of PC makers.
Show me another All-in-one that has 3 years warranty standard. There is none. You just don't get it. If Apple made the 3 year warranty standard the price would go up.
Fact is some people are perfectly fine with HDD. There are literally MILLIONS of people who use their PC just to check email and browse the web. Why the hell would they need any thing faster. They don't. But if they follow your 'plan' then these consumers would have to pay extra for something they don't need.
Bottom line is you don't know anything about running a business. You think everything should be cheap. It doesn't work that way.
You keep grumbling about the high prices of iMac but show me a competing All-in-one that is better for a cheaper price? There isn't any.
And stop your mindless drivel of Apple being greedy. Their profit margin was only 25% last year. If you think that's greedy then go shop at Goodwill. And look at all the other PC makers. NONE of them make profits. They are all losing BILLIONS. Is that what you want Apple to become? Apple is the only PC maker that makes profit. The prices they charge is a NECESSITY unless you want them to go out of business in a few years like dozens of PC makers.
You just don't get it
I love this. I am going to skip the nominations and declare you the greatest Apple fanboy in the history of time.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
The big selling point is the 4k screen which will be AWESOME with 4k videos and regular photos that resolution is far greater than 1080p. Now find me an all-in-one that is priced at $1499 with 4k screen.
People who don't need a fast HDD or a decent amount of RAM probably don't need a 4K display either. The exact use-cases you mention (photos and videos) benefit significantly from a fast HDD. Editing either benefits significantly from more RAM.
Adding a $100 hybrid drive is the sensible option but then you can't walk into most stores and simply buy one on the spot.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
If that is the use case, then I would recommend to spend $499 on an iPad Air 2 and save a thousand dollars.
Maybe I'm confused but isn't that disk test saying that the machine can't run any HD video, even 1080p? Aren't the numbers on the right side the frame rate? If it's not playing all the frames, even aside from how the image looks, it makes it impossible to edit with accuracy. This is the problem I have on my late-2008 MacBook Pro, but it's understandable there because it's so old (although I did swap the hard drive for a fusion drive).
The huge upside to the Asus AiO is that it has a dedicated graphics card though the downside is that it contains bloatware. When the Iris Pro 580 comes out though, it should be a significant improvement over the Iris Pro 6200 but not the nVidia GeForce GTX 950M or 960M.
The huge upside to the Asus AiO is that it has a dedicated graphics card though the downside is that it contains bloatware. When the Iris Pro 580 comes out though, it should be a significant improvement over the Iris Pro 6200 but not the nVidia GeForce GTX 950M or 960M.
Only problem is, is that Intel has no plans to make a Skylake desktop CPU that will have the Iris Pro 580 iGPU. So far they only have plans to make Skylake desktop CPU's with the Intel HD Graphics 530 iGPU;
I am shocked a basic 5,400 amp HD is offered in 2015 (even a 7,200 rpm is bad these days). At the very least the low entry should be a Fusion Drive on any Mac. It's time SSD or other solid state storage costs fell dramatically and Apple is the company that always has the clout to cause manufactures to ramp up and reduce costs. Offering HD technology is going against that. Meanwhile I await some reasonably priced option to upgrade the SSD I'm my new Mac Pro. I have upgraded all other Mac to SSD myself already but the cost on the nMac Pro is horrific.
Agree.
I'd like to have 1 Tb Fusion Drive as base model , 2 Tb Fusion as mid tier and SSD only for high end configuration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Easy solutions: Just upgrade to Fusion for $100
This is just like the 16GB iPhone debate. People make such a big deal about $100. This is alot better than before when the fusion upgrade was $250 more (for a bigger SSD).
So the total for a 21 inch 4k iMac with fusion is $1600.
Now find me a Windows all in one thats better than that? You won't be able to.
No PC better than an iMac for the same price on the market, but a 5400 RPM spinner on a 2015 iMac is laughable nonetheless....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
Kudos to AI for calling Apple out on this bull. A 5400RPM disk is a joke. I've seen the still sold 2012 MBP model take 30 seconds to open System Preferences, and it was near new.
What's worse is Apple crippled the base 1TB Fusion Drive option, as it now only has 24GB of flash storage instead of 128GB. That barely fits OS X and maybe a few programs.
OS X needs an SSD these days. Windows 8/8.1/10 really benefits from it, but performance on a 5400RPM disk is nowhere near as bad as OS X can be (El Cap is a step in the right direction but there's a lot more steps needed).
The whole question about the 24 Gb SSD portion of the Fusion Drive is debatable. Every review/ user opinion seen so far pointed out there is no performance difference from the previous 128 Gb model.
Maybe 128 Gb was just overkill on a 1 Tb drive....
And it isn't true that 24 Gb barely fits OS X: the fusion drive logic isn't application-based but file-based, so NOT ALL of the OS X files need to stay on the SSD to be quickly accessed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear
Yes. 8gb is silly to buy if you cant upgrade. 16gb is dissapointing if it is the top size considering a 5 year use. I suggest the 27" model as well.
RAM requirements aren't increasing on a year-after-year basis ....
4 years ago 8 Gb was a decent amount of RAM for any general purpose utilize . Today is the same, and 16 Gb are needed only for some specific works.
In 5 years the situation isn't going to change, so 8 Gb will be enough for light use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
The big selling point is the 4k screen which will be AWESOME with 4k videos and regular photos that resolution is far greater than 1080p. Now find me an all-in-one that is priced at $1499 with 4k screen.
Its easy to bash Apple but look at the competition:
ASUS 4k All-in-One starts at $1200.................and has a slow HDD
The huge upside to the Asus AiO is that it has a dedicated graphics card though the downside is that it contains bloatware. When the Iris Pro 580 comes out though, it should be a significant improvement over the Iris Pro 6200 but not the nVidia GeForce GTX 950M or 960M.
The base model of the AiO S will have a 1 Gb GTX 950M .... not sure if it is any better than a Iris Pro 580.
Give it a break. What kind of nonsense FUD are you trying to spread?
iMacs in general are about the most reliable machines out there. My 2009 iMac is a perfect example of that. Sure, sometimes some go bad but that's what warranties and AppleCare are for.
The only complaining posters should be doing is to the mods to have your rant deleted.
You give it a break... he makes valid points and of course like a tea party, climate denying nut you just want any opposing opinions deleted while you have your fingers in your ears going "blah, blah, blah"... of course if this were a Microsoft product launch you'd be bashing these configs away.
And I'm speaking as an Apple fan since 1977... I'm just not blinding religious and have seen plenty of junk come out of the company... they're human and very good at products... but not deities.
Agree.
I'd like to have 1 Tb Fusion Drive as base model , 2 Tb Fusion as mid tier and SSD only for high end configuration.
No PC better than an iMac for the same price on the market, but a 5400 RPM spinner on a 2015 iMac is laughable nonetheless....
The whole question about the 24 Gb SSD portion of the Fusion Drive is debatable. Every review/ user opinion seen so far pointed out there is no performance difference from the previous 128 Gb model.
Maybe 128 Gb was just overkill on a 1 Tb drive....
And it isn't true that 24 Gb barely fits OS X: the fusion drive logic isn't application-based but file-based, so NOT ALL of the OS X files need to stay on the SSD to be quickly accessed.
RAM requirements aren't increasing on a year-after-year basis ....
4 years ago 8 Gb was a decent amount of RAM for any general purpose utilize . Today is the same, and 16 Gb are needed only for some specific works.
In 5 years the situation isn't going to change, so 8 Gb will be enough for light use.
even for email and Facebook, a 5400 RPM spinner is frustrating ....
I can't see any valid reason not to use a 1 Tb Fusion Drive on the base model.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
The big selling point is the 4k screen which will be AWESOME with 4k videos and regular photos that resolution is far greater than 1080p. Now find me an all-in-one that is priced at $1499 with 4k screen.
Its easy to bash Apple but look at the competition:
ASUS 4k All-in-One starts at $1200.................and has a slow HDD
This point from The Verge review echoes my thoughts;
"It’s 2015, and Apple somehow thinks it’s reasonable to put cheap 5400-rpm hard disks in these wondrous Retina machines (7200 rpm in the case of the 27-inch version). Everyone should stay far away from these configurations, otherwise your new Mac will feel noticeably slow the moment you take it out of the box. Try opening even basic, everyday apps like Safari and Mail and you’ll be met with maddening delays."
"So consider the $100 Fusion Drive upgrade to be a mandatory one if you’re buying these machines."
Only problem is, is that Intel has no plans to make a Skylake desktop CPU that will have the Iris Pro 580 iGPU. So far they only have plans to make Skylake desktop CPU's with the Intel HD Graphics 530 iGPU;
"The unfortunate thing is that Intel tells us that there are no plans to make socketed Skylake CPUs with Iris or Iris Pro GPUs or eDRAM."
"We haven't heard anything about soldered-on R-series CPUs for desktops and all-in-ones with Iris and eDRAM..."
If, or when, Apple moves to Skylake, this 4K iMac might better off having a discreet GPU from AMD or Nvidia
Apple just won't move the 21.5" to Skylake *unless* there will be an appropriate Skylake CPU with decent integrated graphics (as they did with the 27" version). If they were to include discrete graphics, they could have done that right now. But for cost or - more likely - power envelope reasons the 21.5" iMac is limited to integrated graphics.
RAM requirements aren't increasing on a year-after-year basis ....
4 years ago 8 Gb was a decent amount of RAM for any general purpose utilize . Today is the same, and 16 Gb are needed only for some specific works.
In 5 years the situation isn't going to change, so 8 Gb will be enough for light use.
...
Agree. When I got my early-2009 20" iMac, it came with 2 GB which was too little back then. I immediately upgraded to 4 GB which was fine for quite a while. Only with OS X Lion / Mountain Lion the 4 GB started feeling tight and I upgraded to 8 GB. With Yosemite I replaced the aging HDD with a 512 GB SSD, and the iMac feels like a new machine now. Apart from photo editing with Aperture which shows the age of the CPU, for my use cases the almost 7 year old iMac is totally fine. Having really fast SSDs rather than slow HDDs mitigates the impact of RAM a lot. On my work Win7 PC I am constantly maxing out the less than 3 GB (due to 32 bit Windows), but it doesn't matter at all because of the fast SSD.
While I wouldn't buy a non-expandable 8 GB iMac today, I do believe with 16 GB and a fast SSD / Fusion HDD one would be quite future-proof. Of course unless you're into heavy video editing etc.
Apple just won't move the 21.5" to Skylake *unless* there will be an appropriate Skylake CPU with decent integrated graphics (as they did with the 27" version). If they were to include discrete graphics, they could have done that right now. But for cost or - more likely - power envelope reasons the 21.5" iMac is limited to integrated graphics.
Makes no sense. Right up until around a couple of weeks before these new iMacs went sale, previous 21.5" iMacs could be configured with an Nvidia 750M discreet GPU.
I think all of the 21.5" models moved to soldered ram, so there isn't much difference there aside from starting price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
Skip all iMacs, I say. A friend of mine is fretting horribly because his iMac has developed a display flicker. From his previous iMac, he knows that if anything goes out in an iMac, you must junk the entire machine. That's about $1500 down a rat hole.
I'm afraid I was a bit mean with him. I reminded him that when one of the displays attached to my Mac mini went out, replacing it was trivial and inexpensive. Component computers beat the socks off all-in-one machines such as the iMac. They'd do that even if, like the iMac, they weren't deliberately designed to be hard to fix.
Posters complaining about the low-end iMac should keep in mind that Apple doesn't follow the old Sears policy of offering three product lines: good, better, and best. Apple's low-end products are almost always deliberately crippled to force users to step up to a more expensive model. They're bad, better and best. Storage and memory are typically how Apple degrades their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
AppleCare.
I've had applecare on some things. It runs out if you keep the thing long enough. After that you pay for depot service either way. If something goes wrong after year 1, it's $350. I would buying anything that requires multiple major repairs. In my experience, you get the same offer with expired applecare.
Comments
I just got two of the 4K 21.5" model, one for my mother, another for a family friend. In both cases i convinced them to configure it for top of the line features so that we could avoid the slowness of 5400 RPM hard drives and other issues (like RAM expandability). So they look like this:
Core i7 3.3 Ghz
16 gigs RAM
2.1 TB Fusion Drive
Applecare
This configuration was speedy enough for most uses....going with the Fusion Drive is a no brainer. The only way I really stressed it was 60 FPS 4K videos on Youtube (wired Ethernet, 105 mbit/sec cable internet service), which tended to drop a few frames every now and then (30 FPS 4K was fine). The screen is gorgeous.
If you buy this machine, go whole hog. Don't scrimp. You'll thank me.
Skip all iMacs, I say. A friend of mine is fretting horribly because his iMac has developed a display flicker. From his previous iMac, he knows that if anything goes out in an iMac, you must junk the entire machine. That's about $1500 down a rat hole.
I'm afraid I was a bit mean with him. I reminded him that when one of the displays attached to my Mac mini went out, replacing it was trivial and inexpensive. Component computers beat the socks off all-in-one machines such as the iMac. They'd do that even if, like the iMac, they weren't deliberately designed to be hard to fix.
Posters complaining about the low-end iMac should keep in mind that Apple doesn't follow the old Sears policy of offering three product lines: good, better, and best. Apple's low-end products are almost always deliberately crippled to force users to step up to a more expensive model. They're bad, better and best. Storage and memory are typically how Apple degrades their products.
We've been using the same pair of iMacs for eight years now without a single issue. Maybe they would be hard to repair, but then, they've never needed any, and now they are way too old to think about repairing. It's difficult to imagine getting this sort of service out of any other PC.
Yes, Apple is good at up-selling, but then so is every other product-maker. This is exactly what you are getting with the Sears good-better-best. The lesson here is get the one you want to own for a long time.
if the HD does not suit your needs buy the fusion for $100.
You have a brain, use it.
Bottom line is there is a significant population that has no need of a fusion drive and are perfectly happy with the HD. Why force them to pay for a fusion drive they won't need? This price structure is just giving iMac a lower price point for light users.
But you say why don't Apple just give the fusion drive for 'free'? Reason is Apple wants to stay in business. For a very long time. Look at the other PC makers. They all are losing BILLIONS and could go bankrupt in a matter of months. Is that what you want to happen to Apple? Thats what happens when you start giving things away for 'free'.
Look at competing All-in-Ones. Those that start at $1000-$1200. They all have HD drives also. Stop making up a fantasy world where all PC's have fusion drives as a standard.
"Bottom line is there is a significant population that has no need of a fusion drive and are perfectly happy with the HD. Why force them to pay for a fusion drive they won't need? This price structure is just giving iMac a lower price point for light users."
Question is, how many light users are going to fork over $1,499 for a computer? Not many, if any, at least that I know of. At $1,499 you're already in premium territory so it wouldn't behoove Apple to put the 1TB Fusion as standard.
You just don't get it.it's
I love this. I am going to skip the nominations and declare you the greatest Apple fanboy in the history of time.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
The big selling point is the 4k screen which will be AWESOME with 4k videos and regular photos that resolution is far greater than 1080p. Now find me an all-in-one that is priced at $1499 with 4k screen.
People who don't need a fast HDD or a decent amount of RAM probably don't need a 4K display either. The exact use-cases you mention (photos and videos) benefit significantly from a fast HDD. Editing either benefits significantly from more RAM.
Adding a $100 hybrid drive is the sensible option but then you can't walk into most stores and simply buy one on the spot.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
If that is the use case, then I would recommend to spend $499 on an iPad Air 2 and save a thousand dollars.
If that is the use case, then I would recommend to spend $499 on an iPad Air 2 and save a thousand dollars.
Or buy an iPad Pro.
Maybe I'm confused but isn't that disk test saying that the machine can't run any HD video, even 1080p? Aren't the numbers on the right side the frame rate? If it's not playing all the frames, even aside from how the image looks, it makes it impossible to edit with accuracy. This is the problem I have on my late-2008 MacBook Pro, but it's understandable there because it's so old (although I did swap the hard drive for a fusion drive).
I wouldn't buy a computer with a spinner HDD in 2015. Even the Fusion Drive isn't an attractive option in my vision.
A 256 Gb SSD with an external USB3 storage HDD would be my setup.
The huge upside to the Asus AiO is that it has a dedicated graphics card though the downside is that it contains bloatware. When the Iris Pro 580 comes out though, it should be a significant improvement over the Iris Pro 6200 but not the nVidia GeForce GTX 950M or 960M.
Only problem is, is that Intel has no plans to make a Skylake desktop CPU that will have the Iris Pro 580 iGPU. So far they only have plans to make Skylake desktop CPU's with the Intel HD Graphics 530 iGPU;
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/09/skylake-for-desktops-new-socketed-processors-from-core-i7-to-pentium/
"The unfortunate thing is that Intel tells us that there are no plans to make socketed Skylake CPUs with Iris or Iris Pro GPUs or eDRAM."
"We haven't heard anything about soldered-on R-series CPUs for desktops and all-in-ones with Iris and eDRAM..."
If, or when, Apple moves to Skylake, this 4K iMac might better off having a discreet GPU from AMD or Nvidia
I am shocked a basic 5,400 amp HD is offered in 2015 (even a 7,200 rpm is bad these days). At the very least the low entry should be a Fusion Drive on any Mac. It's time SSD or other solid state storage costs fell dramatically and Apple is the company that always has the clout to cause manufactures to ramp up and reduce costs. Offering HD technology is going against that. Meanwhile I await some reasonably priced option to upgrade the SSD I'm my new Mac Pro. I have upgraded all other Mac to SSD myself already but the cost on the nMac Pro is horrific.
Agree.
I'd like to have 1 Tb Fusion Drive as base model , 2 Tb Fusion as mid tier and SSD only for high end configuration.
Easy solutions: Just upgrade to Fusion for $100
This is just like the 16GB iPhone debate. People make such a big deal about $100. This is alot better than before when the fusion upgrade was $250 more (for a bigger SSD).
So the total for a 21 inch 4k iMac with fusion is $1600.
Now find me a Windows all in one thats better than that? You won't be able to.
No PC better than an iMac for the same price on the market, but a 5400 RPM spinner on a 2015 iMac is laughable nonetheless....
Kudos to AI for calling Apple out on this bull. A 5400RPM disk is a joke. I've seen the still sold 2012 MBP model take 30 seconds to open System Preferences, and it was near new.
What's worse is Apple crippled the base 1TB Fusion Drive option, as it now only has 24GB of flash storage instead of 128GB. That barely fits OS X and maybe a few programs.
OS X needs an SSD these days. Windows 8/8.1/10 really benefits from it, but performance on a 5400RPM disk is nowhere near as bad as OS X can be (El Cap is a step in the right direction but there's a lot more steps needed).
The whole question about the 24 Gb SSD portion of the Fusion Drive is debatable. Every review/ user opinion seen so far pointed out there is no performance difference from the previous 128 Gb model.
Maybe 128 Gb was just overkill on a 1 Tb drive....
And it isn't true that 24 Gb barely fits OS X: the fusion drive logic isn't application-based but file-based, so NOT ALL of the OS X files need to stay on the SSD to be quickly accessed.
Yes. 8gb is silly to buy if you cant upgrade. 16gb is dissapointing if it is the top size considering a 5 year use. I suggest the 27" model as well.
RAM requirements aren't increasing on a year-after-year basis ....
4 years ago 8 Gb was a decent amount of RAM for any general purpose utilize . Today is the same, and 16 Gb are needed only for some specific works.
In 5 years the situation isn't going to change, so 8 Gb will be enough for light use.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
The big selling point is the 4k screen which will be AWESOME with 4k videos and regular photos that resolution is far greater than 1080p. Now find me an all-in-one that is priced at $1499 with 4k screen.
Its easy to bash Apple but look at the competition:
ASUS 4k All-in-One starts at $1200.................and has a slow HDD
http://www.winbeta.org/news/asus-launches-the-zen-aio-s-desktop-with-a-stunning-4k-display
even for email and Facebook, a 5400 RPM spinner is frustrating ....
I can't see any valid reason not to use a 1 Tb Fusion Drive on the base model.
The huge upside to the Asus AiO is that it has a dedicated graphics card though the downside is that it contains bloatware. When the Iris Pro 580 comes out though, it should be a significant improvement over the Iris Pro 6200 but not the nVidia GeForce GTX 950M or 960M.
The base model of the AiO S will have a 1 Gb GTX 950M .... not sure if it is any better than a Iris Pro 580.
Give it a break. What kind of nonsense FUD are you trying to spread?
iMacs in general are about the most reliable machines out there. My 2009 iMac is a perfect example of that. Sure, sometimes some go bad but that's what warranties and AppleCare are for.
The only complaining posters should be doing is to the mods to have your rant deleted.
You give it a break... he makes valid points and of course like a tea party, climate denying nut you just want any opposing opinions deleted while you have your fingers in your ears going "blah, blah, blah"... of course if this were a Microsoft product launch you'd be bashing these configs away.
And I'm speaking as an Apple fan since 1977... I'm just not blinding religious and have seen plenty of junk come out of the company... they're human and very good at products... but not deities.
I agree with you on all points.
Many light users are willing to pay $1499 for computer. For example many elderly people just want something that works. All they need is a computer to email, facebook, and browse the net. They don't want to worry about virus of a Windows computer. They won't be running memory intensive programs.
The big selling point is the 4k screen which will be AWESOME with 4k videos and regular photos that resolution is far greater than 1080p. Now find me an all-in-one that is priced at $1499 with 4k screen.
Its easy to bash Apple but look at the competition:
ASUS 4k All-in-One starts at $1200.................and has a slow HDD
http://www.winbeta.org/news/asus-launches-the-zen-aio-s-desktop-with-a-stunning-4k-display
This point from The Verge review echoes my thoughts;
"It’s 2015, and Apple somehow thinks it’s reasonable to put cheap 5400-rpm hard disks in these wondrous Retina machines (7200 rpm in the case of the 27-inch version). Everyone should stay far away from these configurations, otherwise your new Mac will feel noticeably slow the moment you take it out of the box. Try opening even basic, everyday apps like Safari and Mail and you’ll be met with maddening delays."
"So consider the $100 Fusion Drive upgrade to be a mandatory one if you’re buying these machines."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/5/9670426/apple-imac-review-27-inch-5k-21-inch-4k-retina
Only problem is, is that Intel has no plans to make a Skylake desktop CPU that will have the Iris Pro 580 iGPU. So far they only have plans to make Skylake desktop CPU's with the Intel HD Graphics 530 iGPU;
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/09/skylake-for-desktops-new-socketed-processors-from-core-i7-to-pentium/
"The unfortunate thing is that Intel tells us that there are no plans to make socketed Skylake CPUs with Iris or Iris Pro GPUs or eDRAM."
"We haven't heard anything about soldered-on R-series CPUs for desktops and all-in-ones with Iris and eDRAM..."
If, or when, Apple moves to Skylake, this 4K iMac might better off having a discreet GPU from AMD or Nvidia
Apple just won't move the 21.5" to Skylake *unless* there will be an appropriate Skylake CPU with decent integrated graphics (as they did with the 27" version). If they were to include discrete graphics, they could have done that right now. But for cost or - more likely - power envelope reasons the 21.5" iMac is limited to integrated graphics.
...
RAM requirements aren't increasing on a year-after-year basis ....
4 years ago 8 Gb was a decent amount of RAM for any general purpose utilize . Today is the same, and 16 Gb are needed only for some specific works.
In 5 years the situation isn't going to change, so 8 Gb will be enough for light use.
...
Agree. When I got my early-2009 20" iMac, it came with 2 GB which was too little back then. I immediately upgraded to 4 GB which was fine for quite a while. Only with OS X Lion / Mountain Lion the 4 GB started feeling tight and I upgraded to 8 GB. With Yosemite I replaced the aging HDD with a 512 GB SSD, and the iMac feels like a new machine now. Apart from photo editing with Aperture which shows the age of the CPU, for my use cases the almost 7 year old iMac is totally fine. Having really fast SSDs rather than slow HDDs mitigates the impact of RAM a lot. On my work Win7 PC I am constantly maxing out the less than 3 GB (due to 32 bit Windows), but it doesn't matter at all because of the fast SSD.
While I wouldn't buy a non-expandable 8 GB iMac today, I do believe with 16 GB and a fast SSD / Fusion HDD one would be quite future-proof. Of course unless you're into heavy video editing etc.
Apple just won't move the 21.5" to Skylake *unless* there will be an appropriate Skylake CPU with decent integrated graphics (as they did with the 27" version). If they were to include discrete graphics, they could have done that right now. But for cost or - more likely - power envelope reasons the 21.5" iMac is limited to integrated graphics.
Makes no sense. Right up until around a couple of weeks before these new iMacs went sale, previous 21.5" iMacs could be configured with an Nvidia 750M discreet GPU.
Soldered memory means skip the entire product.
I think all of the 21.5" models moved to soldered ram, so there isn't much difference there aside from starting price.
Skip all iMacs, I say. A friend of mine is fretting horribly because his iMac has developed a display flicker. From his previous iMac, he knows that if anything goes out in an iMac, you must junk the entire machine. That's about $1500 down a rat hole.
I'm afraid I was a bit mean with him. I reminded him that when one of the displays attached to my Mac mini went out, replacing it was trivial and inexpensive. Component computers beat the socks off all-in-one machines such as the iMac. They'd do that even if, like the iMac, they weren't deliberately designed to be hard to fix.
Posters complaining about the low-end iMac should keep in mind that Apple doesn't follow the old Sears policy of offering three product lines: good, better, and best. Apple's low-end products are almost always deliberately crippled to force users to step up to a more expensive model. They're bad, better and best. Storage and memory are typically how Apple degrades their products.
AppleCare.
I've had applecare on some things. It runs out if you keep the thing long enough. After that you pay for depot service either way. If something goes wrong after year 1, it's $350. I would buying anything that requires multiple major repairs. In my experience, you get the same offer with expired applecare.