Oh dear oh dear, what a muddle. So many fanboys out to defend Apple's refusal to adopt blu-ray and USB 3. "Why would we want these new fangled 'technologies'! Steve tells us they are no good, he is always right. Hail Steve!". Etc.
Okay, here's why blu-ray and USB 3 are good.
Blu-ray - Movies come on blu-ray discs. DVD is on it's way out, blu-ray is it's replacement. Avatar sold 40% of it's units on BD, so this is hardly a niche format with no future. No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio. iTunes downloads, loaded with toxic DRM and at a whopping 5mbit 720p are clearly not comparable. Why would I want to watch a movie on my computer? Perhaps because my wife is using the KURO downstairs, or perhaps I just want to ripp my BDs so I can watch them on my iPhone 4 or iPad.
USB 3 - USB is the standard for external hard drives. Yes there are a few here and there with firewire or eSATA, but USB basically dominates the market. USB 2 is too slow for external hard drives if you transfer a lot of data. Therefore USB 3 is the solution.
I do hope that makes sense, even to the most angry of mac heads. If I were you, I'd take this refusal to properly update the PC line as a clear sign that Apple is beginning it's exit front he PC market altogether. Funnily enough, Dell, HP etc have had BD drives in their PCs for a very, very long time now, perhaps because they actually give a damn about consumer choice and new technology.
This is an exceedingly lame update after 10 months. The CPUs are only 5-10% faster and the GPUs are a sideways step from last year's weak offerings.
"What took you so long?" is my response to finally seeing 1333 RAM paired with Core i CPUs.
Oh and I just love the fact that you can't order an iMac with just the magic trackpad. They force you to buy one of their stupid mouses.
I knew this update wouldn't be impressive, but I really didn't expect it to be this underwhelming. I'm so glad I spent my iMac money on new golf equipment.
I haven't noticed every other machine out there with all of these. It's still fresh tech and there could be licensing and other issues.
Now when you can get them on even the dumpiest of cheapo computers but not Apple, there's a problem.
Quote:
no Blu-ray. WTF?
Why is anyone shocked about this. Jobs has all but said there will never be built in Blu-ray in the Macs. He is going with digital downloads and SD cards. It's clear in his statements and in their actions.
Quote:
Looks like computers are no longer Steve's priority. Only iPads and iPhones
Based on what? That they aren't designing their systems the way you and the supergeeks that make up perhaps 5% of the customer base want them to be designed. Get over it. You and your buddies are a serious minority. And Apple is a business that is about making scads of money, so they are going to design for the bigger group especially in terms of their imacs and laptops. And that group doesn't care about esata, usb 3.0 etc. Nor are they bothered by a lack of blu-ray in their computers cause they would rather watch them on their big 40"+ tvs. Especially since so many blu-rays come with free digital copies for their computers, ipads etc
If you only care about specs Dell is always the way to go. This is a fine engneered computer.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The iMac looks pretty, if that's what's most important to you, but that fancy metal body won't help much when you try to ripp a BD or plug a UDB 3 hard drive into it.
Specs matter, especially with stuff as absolutely fundamental as optical drives and connectivity.
I asked for Firewire 1600, 3200 and USB 3.0 not eSATA. And of course having a faster connection helps backing up huge data, which is my problem.
But you'd still need a RAID array to really benefit from the faster connection. I didn't look up to your original post and mixed your's with all the ones asking for eSATA in addition to faster FW. At least faster FW would be backward compatible, and so would be more reaonsable request. And you could attached multiple drives to help take up all that extra bandwith that a single drive on an eSATA port wouldn't be able to make use of. But that wouldn't really help you with backups which are likely targeting a single backup target, so you would still likely need a RAID array. And in that case Apple probably considers you outside of their target demographic for the iMac and thinks you should buy a Mac Pro.
Why blame Intel? They couldn't use Via or or NEC controllers to implement it? Motherboards from Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, and others have had USB 3.0 on them for awhile now.
But are they any good. Technically having a feature so you list it on your tech specs isn?t the same as having a feature that is viable for your product. Then there is the potential issue of Apple not being able to get enough product from NEC to satisfy their requirements.
For example, when SATAIII came out people expected Apple to jump on that but that tests from AnandTech showed they were often worse than SATAII performance and when better weren?t reliable or useful enough to recommend.
That may not be the case here, but we need to consider it from Apple?s perspective.
I have been holding back on a Mac desktop hoping for a Blu-ray drive some day soon.
I am really disappointed to have to wait longer.
Prepare to never own a Mac. Because the company is unlikely to ever put a drive (even just a reader) in the machines or even offer native playback. Their own comments and actions have played to this.
The only 'support' is likely to remain in the pro apps as the ability to create the high def video and audio which would then be funnelled into 3rd party apps for disc construction (including menus) and burning on an external drive or 3rd party internal in a Pro tower.
Meanwhile Apple will party into those working on codecs for online video of 'blu-ray' quality without an excess file size overhead.
I do video editing, web design, photography using photoshop and apeture, and some light animation.
Torn between the 21.5" and the 27". If I go 27", I might as well go quad core I guess.
But if I go with the 3.2ghtz 21.5" apple says the i3 is turbo boosted(unlike the base 21.5")....so I was thinking there is no real reason to get the i5 version for $180 more. I mean the diff would seem minor for the above tasks right?
But if I did go with the 27" dual core....would the i5 help since the screen is bigger? Or would it not matter?
Also the 27" wether it's dual or quad core gives you the option for an ATI Radeon 5750 graphics card with 1gb of sdram over the included ATI 5670 with 512mb of sdram. What tasks of the ones I listed above would help the most in?
Lastly...if I went with the 27" without the SSD option, could I add one later to compliment the HDD 1tb drive I'd Get now?
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
YES! It Would be WORTH $200. Even if I COULD build my own "hackintosh" I WOULDNT. Some people just don't want to slap together their own computer out of various parts a la Frankenstein. Yes, part of it is the clean "look"....but mostly it's the hassle. I don't want to go thru the hassle. I like the simplicity of the all in one iMac, and personally don't want to worry about getting the right components. When I get an iMac, I KNOW it will all work seamlessly. I don't want to create a computer out of hodge podge parts just to save $200. Plus I'd rather use all that time and energy on my creative projects.
According to Apple the 3.2GHz Core i3 supports TurboBoost
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost
One of them isn't telling the truth.
I don't know one way or the other, but this wouldn't be the first time that Apple ordered custom silicon from Intel.
It's possible that only the Apple version of that CPU supports TurboBoost; the same way it was possible that only the Apple version of the 2.0GHz C2D in the mini supported hardware virtualization (i.e. Intel VT-x).
It's a big disappointment that Apple did not bring back the matte, anti-glare screen, in spite of a substantial minority of people needing such screens for the work, or for those who are susceptible to eyestrain from the glare. All those who need matte screens need to add to the growing petition at macmatte.wordpress.com - the aim is for a hardcopy of that petition to be sent to Steve Jobs, so please contribute to the 1,000+ petition.
Well, I don't want to buy a compressed crap, sold as HD movie, on iTunes store for 20 bucks, when I can get a true HD movie for 10 bucks. That's called throwing away your money on utter shit.
Apple is not expecting the family to gather around the computer to watch a movie. Sony is (with their TV and Blu-Ray player). Apple expects you to download the movie and watch it on an airplane or commuter train. Sony is not.
I agree that Blu-Ray should be left to the TV. I also agree that it's ridiculous that the MacPro does not come with a Blu-Ray recorder. Give the pros the option to choose which media they want.
Comments
Does using an embiggened font somehow make your argument more compelling?
Or less...
Fine, I took them out, but kept the ones about being an All-In-One; it is something people really need to remember.
No USB 3.0
That could be due to outside factors. It's not like they can just put it in without licensing etc. Same as with blu-ray.
Okay, here's why blu-ray and USB 3 are good.
Blu-ray - Movies come on blu-ray discs. DVD is on it's way out, blu-ray is it's replacement. Avatar sold 40% of it's units on BD, so this is hardly a niche format with no future. No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio. iTunes downloads, loaded with toxic DRM and at a whopping 5mbit 720p are clearly not comparable. Why would I want to watch a movie on my computer? Perhaps because my wife is using the KURO downstairs, or perhaps I just want to ripp my BDs so I can watch them on my iPhone 4 or iPad.
USB 3 - USB is the standard for external hard drives. Yes there are a few here and there with firewire or eSATA, but USB basically dominates the market. USB 2 is too slow for external hard drives if you transfer a lot of data. Therefore USB 3 is the solution.
I do hope that makes sense, even to the most angry of mac heads. If I were you, I'd take this refusal to properly update the PC line as a clear sign that Apple is beginning it's exit front he PC market altogether. Funnily enough, Dell, HP etc have had BD drives in their PCs for a very, very long time now, perhaps because they actually give a damn about consumer choice and new technology.
"What took you so long?" is my response to finally seeing 1333 RAM paired with Core i CPUs.
Oh and I just love the fact that you can't order an iMac with just the magic trackpad. They force you to buy one of their stupid mouses.
I knew this update wouldn't be impressive, but I really didn't expect it to be this underwhelming. I'm so glad I spent my iMac money on new golf equipment.
No firewire 1600, 3200, no USB 3.0
I haven't noticed every other machine out there with all of these. It's still fresh tech and there could be licensing and other issues.
Now when you can get them on even the dumpiest of cheapo computers but not Apple, there's a problem.
no Blu-ray. WTF?
Why is anyone shocked about this. Jobs has all but said there will never be built in Blu-ray in the Macs. He is going with digital downloads and SD cards. It's clear in his statements and in their actions.
Looks like computers are no longer Steve's priority. Only iPads and iPhones
Based on what? That they aren't designing their systems the way you and the supergeeks that make up perhaps 5% of the customer base want them to be designed. Get over it. You and your buddies are a serious minority. And Apple is a business that is about making scads of money, so they are going to design for the bigger group especially in terms of their imacs and laptops. And that group doesn't care about esata, usb 3.0 etc. Nor are they bothered by a lack of blu-ray in their computers cause they would rather watch them on their big 40"+ tvs. Especially since so many blu-rays come with free digital copies for their computers, ipads etc
If you only care about specs Dell is always the way to go. This is a fine engneered computer.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The iMac looks pretty, if that's what's most important to you, but that fancy metal body won't help much when you try to ripp a BD or plug a UDB 3 hard drive into it.
Specs matter, especially with stuff as absolutely fundamental as optical drives and connectivity.
I asked for Firewire 1600, 3200 and USB 3.0 not eSATA. And of course having a faster connection helps backing up huge data, which is my problem.
But you'd still need a RAID array to really benefit from the faster connection. I didn't look up to your original post and mixed your's with all the ones asking for eSATA in addition to faster FW. At least faster FW would be backward compatible, and so would be more reaonsable request. And you could attached multiple drives to help take up all that extra bandwith that a single drive on an eSATA port wouldn't be able to make use of. But that wouldn't really help you with backups which are likely targeting a single backup target, so you would still likely need a RAID array. And in that case Apple probably considers you outside of their target demographic for the iMac and thinks you should buy a Mac Pro.
Does using an embiggened font somehow make your argument more compelling?
Or less...
does using a word like embiggened make you somehow more like Sarah Palin
Or less ...
Why blame Intel? They couldn't use Via or or NEC controllers to implement it? Motherboards from Asus, MSI, Gigabyte, and others have had USB 3.0 on them for awhile now.
But are they any good. Technically having a feature so you list it on your tech specs isn?t the same as having a feature that is viable for your product. Then there is the potential issue of Apple not being able to get enough product from NEC to satisfy their requirements.
For example, when SATAIII came out people expected Apple to jump on that but that tests from AnandTech showed they were often worse than SATAII performance and when better weren?t reliable or useful enough to recommend.
That may not be the case here, but we need to consider it from Apple?s perspective.
I have been holding back on a Mac desktop hoping for a Blu-ray drive some day soon.
I am really disappointed to have to wait longer.
Prepare to never own a Mac. Because the company is unlikely to ever put a drive (even just a reader) in the machines or even offer native playback. Their own comments and actions have played to this.
The only 'support' is likely to remain in the pro apps as the ability to create the high def video and audio which would then be funnelled into 3rd party apps for disc construction (including menus) and burning on an external drive or 3rd party internal in a Pro tower.
Meanwhile Apple will party into those working on codecs for online video of 'blu-ray' quality without an excess file size overhead.
Torn between the 21.5" and the 27". If I go 27", I might as well go quad core I guess.
But if I go with the 3.2ghtz 21.5" apple says the i3 is turbo boosted(unlike the base 21.5")....so I was thinking there is no real reason to get the i5 version for $180 more. I mean the diff would seem minor for the above tasks right?
But if I did go with the 27" dual core....would the i5 help since the screen is bigger? Or would it not matter?
Also the 27" wether it's dual or quad core gives you the option for an ATI Radeon 5750 graphics card with 1gb of sdram over the included ATI 5670 with 512mb of sdram. What tasks of the ones I listed above would help the most in?
Lastly...if I went with the 27" without the SSD option, could I add one later to compliment the HDD 1tb drive I'd Get now?
Thanks
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost
One of them isn't telling the truth.
does using a word like embiggened make you somehow more like Sarah Palin
Or less ...
Actually, it makes me look like a Simpsons fan. Which I am.
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
Um, it's supported by Apple?
After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).
My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?
Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?
(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)
YES! It Would be WORTH $200. Even if I COULD build my own "hackintosh" I WOULDNT. Some people just don't want to slap together their own computer out of various parts a la Frankenstein. Yes, part of it is the clean "look"....but mostly it's the hassle. I don't want to go thru the hassle. I like the simplicity of the all in one iMac, and personally don't want to worry about getting the right components. When I get an iMac, I KNOW it will all work seamlessly. I don't want to create a computer out of hodge podge parts just to save $200. Plus I'd rather use all that time and energy on my creative projects.
Nuff said.
According to Apple the 3.2GHz Core i3 supports TurboBoost
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost
One of them isn't telling the truth.
I don't know one way or the other, but this wouldn't be the first time that Apple ordered custom silicon from Intel.
It's possible that only the Apple version of that CPU supports TurboBoost; the same way it was possible that only the Apple version of the 2.0GHz C2D in the mini supported hardware virtualization (i.e. Intel VT-x).
Well, I don't want to buy a compressed crap, sold as HD movie, on iTunes store for 20 bucks, when I can get a true HD movie for 10 bucks. That's called throwing away your money on utter shit.
Apple is not expecting the family to gather around the computer to watch a movie. Sony is (with their TV and Blu-Ray player). Apple expects you to download the movie and watch it on an airplane or commuter train. Sony is not.
I agree that Blu-Ray should be left to the TV. I also agree that it's ridiculous that the MacPro does not come with a Blu-Ray recorder. Give the pros the option to choose which media they want.
Actually, it makes me look like a Simpsons fan. Which I am.
that's far more embarrassing.