The goal of the original Macintosh was to turn computers into appliances. Along the way there have been some "trucks" that allowed virtually every part to be replaced, but that end goal has always been in sight and is nearly a reality for the vast majority of computers today. Watch: appliance, iPhone: appliance, iPad: appliance, MacBook: appliance, Mini & 21.5" iMac: appliances. Heck even the Mac Pro is close to a sealed box with no configurability after initial purchase.
The problem with the appliance business model is clear: people don't replace most appliances unless they absolutely have to. That forces technology companies to find ways to entice people to toss electronics that still work as well as they day they were made. Tying cell phones to 2-year subsidization plans is one such scheme. "Perfectly good" phones get recycled or tossed in the landfill every day because the latest model is "free". Everyone who cares about this world should decry that practice and refuse to participate, but most of us are attracted to shiny new things and free sounds perfect when you're struggling to make ends meet.
I realize I'm an outlier, but I've never owned a computer that I didn't add RAM to. When it was easy I replaced internal HDs, optical drives, video cards, etc. I've always had one or more external drives attached too. I hope Apple continues to allow RAM upgrades in the 27" model.
Most consumers will never upgrade their machines after purchase. By the time something does go wrong, the tech has evolved enough to where it's better to just buy a new one. Simple fact.
Nothing to read here. Move along.
And where did you get information about "most consumers" this to make that crude statement? Actually when you use Mac in professional publishing studios then you do upgrade them as they can live up to 5-8 years with system upgrades. Have you run one (I do) or you just pulling this statement from some local consumer reports how it should be rather than how it really is?
I'd be careful with such statements as they are near close to reality. Some do not need to go MacPro to do publishing work to keep low cost. In fact, Apple killed that possibility perpetuating high cost MacPro's when they were not necessarily needed for basic publishing work. It was itching to kill quad core mac minis and iMacs that were sufficient to do some basics in that market. They even had upgrade options that suited heavy RAM applications.
And pardon me but extension of RAM is performance increase - basic of technology in addition to bus bandwidth and CPU speed... especially for RAM hungry publishing transformation history.
Deary me. Apple really sinking to new lows on the stingy up sell thing. As opposed to upping the Fusion from 128 gigs to 256 gigs SSD.
At least on some options of iMac you can opt for the 256 gig SSD for the 'same' price. And just buy an external SSD or HHD for little coin.
Every device Apple sells has SSD. What the hell is going on with the iMac? It's historically more expensive than the old bubble wrap iMac. Still including 5400 rpm spinners? SSD drives up to 256 gigs cost next to nowt for a large company like Apple.
Include a 128 gigs SSD like the Air. Let the customer buy a cheap, crummy external HD for £30-50.
The Macbook Air has SSD as standard and it's cheaper than the entry iMac.
Bizarre.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Nice that the 21 incher got the 4k screen.
Agreed. Why SSD's are not the baseline storage configuration on Apple's entire lineup is frustrating.
And where did you get information about "most consumers" this to make that crude statement? Actually when you use Mac in professional publishing studios then you do upgrade them as they can live up to 5-8 years with system upgrades. Have you run one (I do) or you just pulling this statement from some local consumer reports how it should be rather than how it really is?
I think it is safe to say that 'most consumers' are not running professional publishing studios. They have far lower memory capacity demands.
It is hard to get exact numbers, but third-party DRAM module makers have seen dips in shipments. I think non-OEM DDR accounts for 10-15% of DDR sales, which would indicate that memory is not getting upgraded too frequently. I would also guess that most of those upgrades occur in professional settings (particularly publishing and engineering offices) or to servers, not consumer/home machines.
Apple advices you to have 32GB of RAM while the maximum you could have with the 21.5 inch iMac is 16GB of RAM
From the Apple website:
"The 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives pair a larger hard drive with 128GB of fast flash storage, providing even more space for your most frequently used files.For the best performance, iMac systems with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB or larger Fusion Drive or all flash storage."
It's not advising you to get a 21.5" iMac with 32GB of RAM, it's saying for the best possible performance, an iMac with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB+ Fusion drive... Obviously that means the 21.5" iMac is not the system to get if you want the best performance possible.
With the design convergence in all in one designs of desktops the difference in internal configuration between desktop and laptop tends to disappear. They're both cramming everything into smaller and smaller spaces and anything that allows for user access wastes space when not accessed.. for fittings, access panels etc. Why batteries went builtin.
Yes, but Apple computers can last a long time. I upgraded my day to day machine - a 2009 Alu MB to double the Ram it is supposed to take, and two SSDs, and the machine got a new lease of life. It's running fine with El Capitan, and can even handle some light PHotoShop work. With the original HD and the amount of Ram I bought it with it would have been unusable.
...and the same 5,400 rpm hard drive that was in the 1998 G3. lol. On Apple’s then an now page http://www.apple.com/imac/then-and-now/ they compare a 1998 iMac with one from 2015. The funny part the leave out is that the 1998 one had a 5,400 rpm drive and so does the 2015 21” one. They haven’t progressed at all in 17 years.
Generally... The average person who knows anything about computers will upgrade the GPU twice and the RAM once in a desktop to prolong the life of the system. Since neither are possible with an iMac anyway the smart thing to do is order the maximum RAM right from the beginning. I'd be far more annoyed if they soldered NVME storage to the motherboard, as doing so means the system has an expiry date of about 3 years, if not from wearout, certainly from lack of storage options.
Contrast with the iPhone/iPad which you are not constantly read/writing to the NAND flash in large chunks. Well unless you're using it as a 4K camera day in and out.
my suggestion for you: get a PC, Dell or HP if you want it upgradable. Running out of space? There's something called External SSD.
Yes, but Apple computers can last a long time. I upgraded my day to day machine - a 2009 Alu MB to double the Ram it is supposed to take, and two SSDs, and the machine got a new lease of life. It's running fine with El Capitan, and can even handle some light PHotoShop work. With the original HD and the amount of Ram I bought it with it would have been unusable.
ny 2010 Mac Mini is running fine with El Capitan and Photoshop without any upgrade. It only had 8GB of RAM since day 1.
It's not advising you to get a 21.5" iMac with 32GB of RAM, it's saying for the best possible performance, an iMac with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB+ Fusion drive... Obviously that means the 21.5" iMac is not the system to get if you want the best performance possible.
Yes. I've already made clear I was mistaken in a previous post.
In my defence, it is confusing that they write this advice for the 27 inch iMac with the 21.5 inch iMac.
Comments
The goal of the original Macintosh was to turn computers into appliances. Along the way there have been some "trucks" that allowed virtually every part to be replaced, but that end goal has always been in sight and is nearly a reality for the vast majority of computers today. Watch: appliance, iPhone: appliance, iPad: appliance, MacBook: appliance, Mini & 21.5" iMac: appliances. Heck even the Mac Pro is close to a sealed box with no configurability after initial purchase.
The problem with the appliance business model is clear: people don't replace most appliances unless they absolutely have to. That forces technology companies to find ways to entice people to toss electronics that still work as well as they day they were made. Tying cell phones to 2-year subsidization plans is one such scheme. "Perfectly good" phones get recycled or tossed in the landfill every day because the latest model is "free". Everyone who cares about this world should decry that practice and refuse to participate, but most of us are attracted to shiny new things and free sounds perfect when you're struggling to make ends meet.
I realize I'm an outlier, but I've never owned a computer that I didn't add RAM to. When it was easy I replaced internal HDs, optical drives, video cards, etc. I've always had one or more external drives attached too. I hope Apple continues to allow RAM upgrades in the 27" model.
And it achieved that with it with iPad (Son of Mac.)
The best value 'Mac.' Ever.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quit with the conspiracy theories.
Most consumers will never upgrade their machines after purchase. By the time something does go wrong, the tech has evolved enough to where it's better to just buy a new one. Simple fact.
Nothing to read here. Move along.
And where did you get information about "most consumers" this to make that crude statement? Actually when you use Mac in professional publishing studios then you do upgrade them as they can live up to 5-8 years with system upgrades. Have you run one (I do) or you just pulling this statement from some local consumer reports how it should be rather than how it really is?
I'd be careful with such statements as they are near close to reality. Some do not need to go MacPro to do publishing work to keep low cost. In fact, Apple killed that possibility perpetuating high cost MacPro's when they were not necessarily needed for basic publishing work. It was itching to kill quad core mac minis and iMacs that were sufficient to do some basics in that market. They even had upgrade options that suited heavy RAM applications.
And pardon me but extension of RAM is performance increase - basic of technology in addition to bus bandwidth and CPU speed... especially for RAM hungry publishing transformation history.
I can't take apart my iPhone or iPad and repair them! And my AppleTV is unexpandable too!
It must be planned obsolescence. They're out to get us.
That's interesting: I've taken my iPhone apart to replace the battery, dock connector, and home button. Worked good as new after the repairs.
Deary me. Apple really sinking to new lows on the stingy up sell thing. As opposed to upping the Fusion from 128 gigs to 256 gigs SSD.
At least on some options of iMac you can opt for the 256 gig SSD for the 'same' price. And just buy an external SSD or HHD for little coin.
Every device Apple sells has SSD. What the hell is going on with the iMac? It's historically more expensive than the old bubble wrap iMac. Still including 5400 rpm spinners? SSD drives up to 256 gigs cost next to nowt for a large company like Apple.
Include a 128 gigs SSD like the Air. Let the customer buy a cheap, crummy external HD for £30-50.
The Macbook Air has SSD as standard and it's cheaper than the entry iMac.
Bizarre.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Nice that the 21 incher got the 4k screen.
Agreed. Why SSD's are not the baseline storage configuration on Apple's entire lineup is frustrating.
And where did you get information about "most consumers" this to make that crude statement? Actually when you use Mac in professional publishing studios then you do upgrade them as they can live up to 5-8 years with system upgrades. Have you run one (I do) or you just pulling this statement from some local consumer reports how it should be rather than how it really is?
I think it is safe to say that 'most consumers' are not running professional publishing studios. They have far lower memory capacity demands.
It is hard to get exact numbers, but third-party DRAM module makers have seen dips in shipments. I think non-OEM DDR accounts for 10-15% of DDR sales, which would indicate that memory is not getting upgraded too frequently. I would also guess that most of those upgrades occur in professional settings (particularly publishing and engineering offices) or to servers, not consumer/home machines.
How does that work out?:
Apple advices you to have 32GB of RAM while the maximum you could have with the 21.5 inch iMac is 16GB of RAM
From the Apple website:
"The 2TB and 3TB Fusion Drives pair a larger hard drive with 128GB of fast flash storage, providing even more space for your most frequently used files. For the best performance, iMac systems with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB or larger Fusion Drive or all flash storage."
It's not advising you to get a 21.5" iMac with 32GB of RAM, it's saying for the best possible performance, an iMac with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB+ Fusion drive... Obviously that means the 21.5" iMac is not the system to get if you want the best performance possible.
...and the same 5,400 rpm hard drive that was in the 1998 G3. lol. On Apple’s then an now page http://www.apple.com/imac/then-and-now/ they compare a 1998 iMac with one from 2015. The funny part the leave out is that the 1998 one had a 5,400 rpm drive and so does the 2015 21” one. They haven’t progressed at all in 17 years.
It's not advising you to get a 21.5" iMac with 32GB of RAM, it's saying for the best possible performance, an iMac with 32GB of memory should be configured with a 2TB+ Fusion drive... Obviously that means the 21.5" iMac is not the system to get if you want the best performance possible.
Yes. I've already made clear I was mistaken in a previous post.
In my defence, it is confusing that they write this advice for the 27 inch iMac with the 21.5 inch iMac.