# The next iMac, anyone excited?



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

Haven't seen much discussion about this, just wondering if anyone else is waiting for this as badly as I have been. Rumours are just that until the Keynote, but a case redesign is supposedly on course as well as the long overdue Ivy Bridge and USB 3.0 update. I am really hoping for standard SSD options and decent graphics. Surely 8GB RAM standard should also be in the mix. Despite the "Post-PC" era, the iMac has been my most loved Apple product. I really hope Apple doesn't make it a form over function update.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*Yes!*

Mainly because one of my iMacs was put to sleep (permanently). The other iMac has screen problems but still workable. Time for a new one after 6 years. Both of my lucky kids have Macbooks so i need just one with a large screen.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The glassy display is still a deal killer for me.

Looks like Mini Macs as the time is rapidly approaching for a new computer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> The glassy display is still a deal killer for me.
> 
> Looks like Mini Macs as the time is rapidly approaching for a new computer.


You mean to tell me that that eMac I gave you is crapping out? Gee and after only how many years use now?


----------



## DavidH (Jan 4, 2009)

I am hoping for Thunderbolt, USB 3.0, and 8 GB RAM.

Thunderbolt is on my wish list as I am considering a RAID Disk Storage addition and I might as well wait for a Thuderbolt Connection.

DavidH


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

DavidH said:


> I am hoping for Thunderbolt, USB 3.0, and 8 GB RAM.
> 
> Thunderbolt is on my wish list as I am considering a RAID Disk Storage addition and I might as well wait for a Thuderbolt Connection.
> 
> DavidH


It has two of those three things already. Just missing USB 3.0


----------



## DavidH (Jan 4, 2009)

Crawford your right I forgot about the Thunderbolt upgrade that they did sort of "mid stream" i.e. between major updates.

In regards to the 8 GB RAM I was thinking more in terms of that being the new "base" configuration for all iMacs instead of the current 4 GB. This was done for a number of the MacBook Pros on their last update.

Thanks
DavidH


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

DavidH said:


> In regards to the 8 GB RAM I was thinking more in terms of that being the new "base" configuration for all iMacs instead of the current 4 GB. This was done for a number of the MacBook Pros on their last update.


Only the Retinas (which have memory soldered to the logic board) have entry level 8GB RAM. All the MacBooks that take SO-DIMMs - which I am guessing (hoping!) the iMacs will still take - are still entry at 4GB.


----------



## DavidH (Jan 4, 2009)

G-MO thank you for clarifying the RAM question.

DavidH


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

I have been very happy with my 2011 iMac (especially now that I have a new hard drive). It's humming along nicely. I obviously won't be upgrading anytime soon, but I do lament that it doesn't have USB 3.0. Thunderbolt drives and interfaces are just so expensive and I could really use a fast external drive for the 40gb photo libraries I backup all the time.

I also wish I sprung for the SSD option, but it was so expensive at the time. My local AASP still has not gotten back to me with a price to do it.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

yes I am already on my local dealer's wait list, my current (4 year old 24") iMac is on it's last legs, and has major screen burn in that is driving me nuts. I have been ready to purchase for about 3-4 months but have been waiting for Apple to rev to USB 3

I have just purchased a 11" MBA with the 128GB SSD and I am BLOWN away at the speed difference, for that reason I really hope there is an option to have SSD in the new iMac!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Okay, so here's a dumb question .... with all the advancement that seems to be going into the laptops ( first I would think ) is Apple just waiting to put a slow death to the desk top models? I don't know anyone who has bought a desktop in the last 4 years or so ( now I know that some jobs or applications it makes sense to have a desk top ) so is there still a market out there? I have a mini and was thinking of moving up, but was wondering if the lap top might be a better long term investment choice?


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

G-Mo said:


> Only the Retinas (which have memory soldered to the logic board) have entry level 8GB RAM. All the MacBooks that take SO-DIMMs - which I am guessing (hoping!) the iMacs will still take - are still entry at 4GB.


i wouldn't hold your breath on that. i would bet $20 that new imacs, should they be as "revolutionary" as they are rumoured to be, will be as integrated as rMBP and Airs are. 

i hope im wrong, but im not counting on it


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

G-Mo said:


> Only the Retinas (which have memory soldered to the logic board) have entry level 8GB RAM. All the MacBooks that take SO-DIMMs - which I am guessing (hoping!) the iMacs will still take - are still entry at 4GB.


This isn't true. 

Purchase MacBook Pro with 13-inch, 15-inch or Retina display from the Apple Online Store and get free shipping. - Apple Store (Canada)

Both the "better" tiers - the 2.9Ghz 13" MBP and the 2.6Ghz 15" MBP come standard with 2x4GB SODIMMS for 8GB Total from Apple, standard Config. It's very likely the higher end 21"/27" iMacs will also come with 8GB of RAM standard - but of course we'll know for sure tomorrow.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

DempsyMac said:


> I have just purchased a 11" MBA with the 128GB SSD and I am BLOWN away at the speed difference, for that reason I really hope there is an option to have SSD in the new iMac!


The iMacs have had SSD options since 2011 when they were last revised. Expensive, yes, but an option nonetheless. Don't expect revised '12 iMacs to have inexpensive SSD options just now all of a sudden.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

I guess it depends on how you define inexpensive. Given the advances in SSD technology since the last iMac revision, I would bet that an SSD boot drive could become the standard while keeping the price the same. The entry level MBA is quite reasonably priced. Alternatively, eliminating the HDD entirely would offer some interesting re-packaging options -- it could become a lot thinner (though I would hate to lose the on-board storage space).


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> This isn't true.
> 
> Purchase MacBook Pro with 13-inch, 15-inch or Retina display from the Apple Online Store and get free shipping. - Apple Store (Canada)
> 
> Both the "better" tiers - the 2.9Ghz 13" MBP and the 2.6Ghz 15" MBP come standard with 2x4GB SODIMMS for 8GB Total from Apple, standard Config. It's very likely the higher end 21"/27" iMacs will also come with 8GB of RAM standard - but of course we'll know for sure tomorrow.


Read "entry level".


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

broad said:


> i wouldn't hold your breath on that. i would bet $20 that new imacs, should they be as "revolutionary" as they are rumoured to be, will be as integrated as rMBP and Airs are.
> 
> i hope im wrong, but im not counting on it


They gain nothing by taking away the upgradabity of desktops... On portables (Airs, Retina) it's done purely to reduce size (and weight), you don't have those concerns with a desktop... (Unless they go back to a 2 RAM slot arrangement on the iMac.)


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

monokitty said:


> The iMacs have had SSD options since 2011 when they were last revised. Expensive, yes, but an option nonetheless. Don't expect revised '12 iMacs to have inexpensive SSD options just now all of a sudden.


Thanks I did not actually realize that, but I guess I have not shopped for an iMac in a long time (yet).

I guess I am really guessing that if the rumors of thinner are true my guess is that they drop the optical drive and I am hoping replace with a stock SDD + HD build.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> You mean to tell me that that eMac I gave you is crapping out? Gee and after only how many years use now?


Sort of. The better half tends to watch loooooooooooooong documentaries. After awhile the video card says: "That's not in my contract." and fades to black. Have had to teach her how to safely shut down with a black display. She has also become extremely conscientious about backing up.

Still not too bad for a 2004 built machine, but nowhere near the life of the LC we bought back in '95 which is still going.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> Sort of. The better half tends to watch loooooooooooooong documentaries. After awhile the video card says: "That's not in my contract." and fades to black. Have had to teach her how to safely shut down with a black display. She has also become extremely conscientious about backing up.
> 
> Still not too bad for a 2004 built machine, but nowhere near the life of the LC we bought back in '95 which is still going.



When was the last time you cleaned out the dust from its fan and vents?

Also is the fan actually running?

And you can always do some mods:
Apple eMac Upgrade Guide


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

Rps said:


> Okay, so here's a dumb question .... with all the advancement that seems to be going into the laptops ( first I would think ) is Apple just waiting to put a slow death to the desk top models? I don't know anyone who has bought a desktop in the last 4 years or so ( now I know that some jobs or applications it makes sense to have a desk top ) so is there still a market out there? I have a mini and was thinking of moving up, but was wondering if the lap top might be a better long term investment choice?


This is something that has been debated for quite some time. Apple has clearly shown signs of moving their users towards portables. iMac sales have been up year over year and their desktop market is still over 25% of their Mac sales. It is purely a preference, but there are plenty of us who love having a dedicated workspace for all our computing needs. It would be horrible if Apple cut the iMac out of their line for a lot of us. In my case, more people I know have purchased iMacs over MacBooks because they feel they are a better overall value for the money. AppleCare is much cheaper and from my own experience they last longer. Time will tell though. Post-PC is a nice marketing tool, but I do hope Apple does realize that the smaller percentile of desktop users are paying customers. How much they put into the iMac this year will say everything.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dumpling, I hope you are right, not trying to derail here, but I love my mini, I had an iMac years ago but found it was pain to up-grade and carry everywhere to get fixed .... I'm not a tekkie, That said, you can't beat the value of the things, but, again, I've read of all sorts of monitor problems with the iMac. So, for those that love them, I hope you get the advances you wish....


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

fyrefly said:


> This isn't true.
> 
> Purchase MacBook Pro with 13-inch, 15-inch or Retina display from the Apple Online Store and get free shipping. - Apple Store (Canada)
> 
> Both the "better" tiers - the 2.9Ghz 13" MBP and the 2.6Ghz 15" MBP come standard with 2x4GB SODIMMS for 8GB Total from Apple, standard Config. It's very likely the higher end 21"/27" iMacs will also come with 8GB of RAM standard - but of course we'll know for sure tomorrow.


Tomorrow???? Am I missing something? Geez better do some quick searching, need the new iMac soon.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

JCCanuck said:


> Tomorrow???? Am I missing something? Geez better do some quick searching, need the new iMac soon.


The rumours put new iMacs at the iPad mini announcement event. But new intel today suggests they may not be ready in time. We'll see in just under 12 hours at 1pm EST on Tuesday...


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

G-Mo said:


> *They gain nothing *by taking away the upgradabity of desktops... On portables (Airs, Retina) *it's done purely to reduce size (and weight)*, you don't have those concerns with a desktop... (Unless they go back to a 2 RAM slot arrangement on the iMac.)


wanna buy a bridge?


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

Better to wait for the event before I jump to conclusions, but it looks like the iMac is about to be delayed making it essentially the iPod Classic in the Mac lineup. I hope I am wrong but it is quite pathetic if it doesn't even get a mention with a delayed shipping date.


----------



## DempsyMac (May 24, 2007)

Hey all just a heads up for the first time in a LOOOOONG time Apple is streaming live the event today via Safari and Apple TV here is the link:
Apple - Apple Events - Apple Special Event October 2012


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Wow, I think this was the stunner of the keynote. I love the new iMac.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Mmm Fusion drive.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

I think I just viewed my newest computer. Wow. Nice. Awesome. 27" iMac with Fusion drive.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

the new iMac is stunning. I have a 27 inch at home already, dont use it a lot but I am tempted to replace it with this thinner model. Hopefully would give off less heat to. Very very nice design.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

wonderings said:


> the new iMac is stunning. I have a 27 inch at home already, dont use it a lot but I am tempted to replace it with this thinner model. Hopefully would give off less heat to. Very very nice design.


Your iMac gives off a lot of heat? My 27" only gets warm at the top when encoding video, then quickly cools down.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

I am going to have to start saving my pennies because it is going to take a whole lot after all the upgrades I will want. Yikes.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

broad said:


> wanna buy a bridge?


RAM is still user upgradeable, DDR3 1600MHz SO-DIMMs.

Edit: RAM is upgradeable in the 27-inch model. 21.5-inch doesn't seem to have an external access panel, not to say it isn't upgradeable internally.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

I would like to know more about the display, specifically its colour gamut. If it gets between 95%-100% of AdobeRGB, I'll be VERY interested. If it's just sRGB like the current modeld, it's not so great, my current external display does much better.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

dona83 said:


> Mmm Fusion drive.


As soon as he explained it thats when I got all excited. Reminded me of what Steve used to always say "It just works". 

I might have to make some cuts to the wedding budget for this new iMac.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> As soon as he explained it thats when I got all excited. Reminded me of what Steve used to always say "It just works".
> 
> I might have to make some cuts to the wedding budget for this new iMac.


You just need to include the iMac INTO the wedding budget. You need to make picture books, slide shows, videos, all sorts of wedding things need, and I emphasize NEED, to be done with this new iMac.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

wonderings said:


> You just need to include the iMac INTO the wedding budget. You need to make picture books, slide shows, videos, all sorts of wedding things need, and I emphasize NEED, to be done with this new iMac.


Oh boy. :love2: I don't think my fiancee will take this well as we just discussed to not buy her a new car until after the wedding. I think I will have to hold off as the saying goes "happy wife (or wife to be), happy life."


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

RAM is not user upgradeable on the 21.5" model. Love the new machine and the 27" is my next Mac, but form over function will affect the base models. The Fusion drive is interesting but until they show pricing for BTO models, an all flash Mac is still going to hit the wallet hard. Was really hoping for all flash Macs with Fusion upgrades as BTO options. Nevertheless, I am so relieved they gave that much focus and attention to the iMac. It is a stunner and had me shrieking like a child. Lol.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Mmm Fusion drive.


Yeah, but the fact that they don't let Base Model iMac or MacMini BTO to a Fusion Drive just screams "same old Apple upselling". Blerg.



 Dumpling;1227075 said:


> RAM is not user upgradeable on the 21.5" model.


Yeah, the tech specs say only the 27". There's probably no room for it on the 21" Model - though I dunno which one they show in these pictures on the website, but the RAM's not where it used to be (at least on the 21"?)



 Dumpling;1227075 said:


> The Fusion drive is interesting but until they show pricing for BTO models, an all flash Mac is still going to hit the wallet hard.


Fusion Drive on the Mac Mini ($799+ models only) adds $250 to the cost. So I'd expect similar for the iMacs, if not a little less. The fusion Drive on the Mini must be a 2.5" - would they use the same one for the iMac? Or do a full 3.5" (cheaper?) fusion drive? Seems very Apple-like to use the same one - they way they add 2.5" SSDs to the current iMacs.

Also VERY sneaky of Apple - the 1TB Drives in the 21" iMacs are 5400RPM models now. Previous Gen 21"ers had 500GB/1TB, but both were 7200RPM. Only the 27" models get 7200RPM drives standard now.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

--


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The new iMacs still aren't VESA mountable... why????


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

monokitty said:


> --


Agreed.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

gmark2000 said:


> The new iMacs still aren't VESA mountable... why????


the current models are..the 27s anyway


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

monokitty said:


> The iMacs still use 3.5" drives, including for the Fusion Drives. The Mac mini use 2.5" drives. The flash drives on the iMacs use the same type of cards found in the MacBook Air, not 2.5" SSD's, at least from what I gathered from the photos posted.


New iMac uses 2.5" drives (at least that's what's being reported on multiple sites), 5400rpm at that in the lower end models.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

G-Mo said:


> New iMac uses 2.5" drives (at least that's what's being reported on multiple sites), 5400rpm at that in the lower end models.


That explains the slower speed drives on the 21.5" iMacs; do the 27" iMacs use the same? They have 3TB drive options, which sound like 3.5" drives.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

monokitty said:


> That explains the slower speed drives on the 21.5" iMacs; do the 27" iMacs use the same? They have 3TB drive options, which sound like 3.5" drives.


27-inch must be using 3.5".

To be honest, this machine is looking like a total disaster to me, especially the 21.5-inch.

I simply don't get the obsession with "thin" (which it's not really, only at the edges, the middle is pretty much the same as the current iMac) in a desktop unit, at the cost of practicality, usability, upgradability and cost.


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

I hate that the only option for Flash only architecture is 768GB. That is one expensive upgrade. I hope they reconsider that option and give choices for people that don't need a lot of onboard storage a chance to choose 256GB or 512GB. Fusion is nice and all, but I would rather skip the spinning HDD completely. One less component on such a tightly packed machine to worry about.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

So help me out here, is the new iMac just a very large iPad, or a Lap Top tipped on its side???????


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Rps said:


> So help me out here, is the new iMac just a very large iPad, or a Lap Top tipped on its side???????


The iMac is not a touch screen...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

monokitty said:


> The iMac is not a touch screen...


Yet!


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

No DVD drive? Does this bother anyone, I would be using 27 inch iMac as my computer and entertainment centre. Im forced to add an external optical drive. That has some advantages It takes up desk space and uses a port but it's one less thing to break down inside your iMac. The other option for me would be a Mac Mini plus a screen and dvd drive. It really is a better deal to get the 27 inch Imac,than a upgraded mini plus a high end screen 27-30 inch. Yeh, in 10 years, I won't want an optical drive, I wish it was still there for a couple of years though.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

I ll be ready next May to upgrade, so I hope to read lots of reviews before then. The only misgiving I have is, I was hoping for a bigger screen, 28-30 inch. I still might look at a mini with the fusion drive, 8 GB ram, and a big external 3rd party monitor.
Hmmm....


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

monokitty said:


> --


Do I dare ask what "--" actually means or refers to?


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

G-Mo said:


> 27-inch must be using 3.5".
> 
> To be honest, this machine is looking like a total disaster to me, especially the 21.5-inch.
> 
> I simply don't get the obsession with "thin" (which it's not really, only at the edges, the middle is pretty much the same as the current iMac) in a desktop unit, at the cost of practicality, usability, upgradability and cost.



+1.

And it may be a nightmare for any Mac service rep/user to work on if even an option is available to replace any hard drive etc...??? 

I hear that there might be an option to add a thinner sharper edge and an upcoming app so that it can be used as an auto slicer with various thickness options to slice up any bologna or salami type loafs.

Sort of Apple's way of "slicing your meat any way you like it" maybe??? !!


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> The new iMacs still aren't VESA mountable... why????


'Cause look at the side of it - other than the flat screen, it's a concave bubble on the back.



G-Mo said:


> 27-inch must be using 3.5".
> 
> To be honest, this machine is looking like a total disaster to me, especially the 21.5-inch.
> 
> I simply don't get the obsession with "thin" (which it's not really, only at the edges, the middle is pretty much the same as the current iMac) in a desktop unit, at the cost of practicality, usability, upgradability and cost.


Agreed. Is there really a reason (other than Marketing) for the iMac to be this thin? Especially when you throw out upgradability (in the 21" especially) and get rid of the optical drive (which is helpful in a desktop, imho). There's no reason to be concerned with weight or profile in a bag issues - this is a desktop. It's thin for the sake of thin.



minnes said:


> No DVD drive? Does this bother anyone, I would be using 27 inch iMac as my computer and entertainment centre. Im forced to add an external optical drive. That has some advantages It takes up desk space and uses a port but it's one less thing to break down inside your iMac. The other option for me would be a Mac Mini plus a screen and dvd drive. It really is a better deal to get the 27 inch Imac,than a upgraded mini plus a high end screen 27-30 inch. Yeh, in 10 years, I won't want an optical drive, I wish it was still there for a couple of years though.


If you need an optical drive, why not get a cheap refurb of the 2011 generation? The 27" basemodel is now $1359, saving you some change, and giving you a full warranty. Other than USB 3.0 and thin-ness, (and Ivy Bridge if you're doing heavy lifting...) is there really a huge difference? (other than losing the optical drive).

Speaking of the Optical Drive - that to me is a weird omission. Sure the writing's been on the wall for a while - Air, Retina MacBook Pro, Last year's Mini Update - but is there a valid *reason* to throw it out, other than to push the Mac App Store? Has Apple actually done studies that say people aren't using the drives? It's so weird to me on a desktop especially. In the mini it made room for a second Hard Drive, which was nice, but on the iMac, it's just to make the sides thin (even though the middle balloons out). 

One big plus I see with this generation is that glare is apparently reduced. They put a glare-reducing coating on - so if you're using the 27" beast in a sunny room


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

I have to say, I'm actually pretty impressed with this iMac update. For myself the BIGGEST selling feature is the Fusion drive (though I would prefer if there was a way to convert my current setup to fusion, it should technically be possible as it is a software feature and I already have a 256GB SDD paired with a 2TB HDD) but Apple being Apple I would be SHOCKED if they enabled this software feature on old models... 

As far as the loss of the optical drive... good riddance, I can count on one hand the number of times I've used mine... and can't remember the last time...

Other features are all solid spec bumps, it is a shame the 21.5 lose user upgradable RAM, but I'm mainly interested in the 27" so not too concerned about that.

About my only wish list feature missing is an even larger screen. 30 or 32 would be nice (though I completely understand it would be overkill for most people). I also would like to see more customization options for SDD and Fusion drive options, ability to pair 756GB SDD with 3TB HDD for a total of 3.7 TB of storage would be awesome (though likely to be crazy expensive)... But one can dream right?


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

fyrefly said:


> Agreed. Is there really a reason (other than Marketing) for the iMac to be this thin? Especially when you throw out upgradability (in the 21" especially) and get rid of the optical drive (which is helpful in a desktop, imho). There's no reason to be concerned with weight or profile in a bag issues - this is a desktop. It's thin for the sake of thin.


This is Apple; it IS about marketing, that's what they do best. The average iMac buyer, especially the low-end model, knows little, if any, about computer hardware. They buy it because it looks cool, and is made by the same company that makes their beloved iPhone. It is indeed thin for the sake of thin, and that's what sells.

The removal of the optical drive has everything to do with steering users towards iTunes and the App Store. Removing the optical drive may inconvenience some, but not enough to prevent sales. So people buy it anyways, and in the end Apple reaches their goal of more online content and app sales.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

FWIW, optical drives can be shared over a local network by going in the settings in Control Panel. So one doesn't need to purchase the external drive.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

thinner! Faster! It reminds me of this: What it's like to own an Apple product - The Oatmeal

But the new iMac, is damn sweet looking. Apple wins on design hands down, and it seems to me hardware wise, it's gotten a whole lot better after a shaky period (to me it's like 2002ish to 2010ish)


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

ldphoto said:


> the removal of the optical drive has everything to do with steering users towards itunes and the app store. Removing the optical drive may inconvenience some, but not enough to prevent sales. So people buy it anyways, and in the end apple reaches their goal of more online content and app sales.


+10


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Say what you like about there being no need for the iMac to be thinner, but my 15" Retina has awesome thinness, and the new iMacs look pretty amazing being that thin. Not that I have anything against previous versions..


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

HowEver said:


> Say what you like about there being no need for the iMac to be thinner, but my 15" Retina has awesome thinness, and the new iMacs look pretty amazing being that thin. Not that I have anything against previous versions..


I love the new version and will be my next purchase but is it really that thin? You can't ignore the bubble on the back. How thick is it at that point? I wonder if it is as thick there as the previous gen. Not that it matters but it seems this "5mm thin at the edge" is just a bunch of marketing weasel words.

I still love it and the fusion drive sealed it for me. No need for DVD drive, can buy a super drive and stick it in a closet when needed or use my MBP and move content over. I can't wait too see what the prce will cost once they let you build it on the site with all the upgrades. Sticker Shock!!


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Apple has had a long standing mentality towards removing digital media, part drive to online iTunes. iCloud, iEtc... part a recognition of the limited capacity, refusal to licence Blu-Ray, and part that Optical drives and Hard drives as well are the most likely to fail. Given the difficulties in user access and the low price of externals, why waste time engineering them internally when you can market the iMac and Macbooks as thinner than the other brands.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

It looks nice, but I still think Apple is refining its products to become a 27" iPad. That's the future as I see it, this is just one step along the way.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Personally I don't see what the big deal is about the so called "Fusion Drive" aside from it being in an iMac. It isn't like it is anything new, the Seagate Momentus XT which is a hybrid drive has been around for a couple of years now...

Typical Apple marketing hype makes it sound like it is something they developed and is brand new.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

Being in college, I actually use the college iMac's. And ive got to say, the new thinner design draws my attention alot. Although i wonder why they left the base non user uprgadable but the 27 have 4 user accessible slots.. Also, Why not put the Cooling vents at the top so using natural forces, heat rises and cool air is sucked in by the fan?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I wonder if the difference is that the Fusion drive also benefits from faster write speeds. The Seagate's Hybrid drive has a very small SSD buffer and is designed to act like a cache to speed up boot times and application loading but anything that involves writing still goes through the hard drive so it's pretty slow. Fusion drive with 128GB of SSD may allow for instant write speed benefits.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I suspect that most who purchase the smallest iMac probably do not upgrade as much. I know many iMac users who do not know where the ram access is.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Personally I don't see what the big deal is about the so called "Fusion Drive" aside from it being in an iMac. It isn't like it is anything new, the Seagate Momentus XT which is a hybrid drive has been around for a couple of years now...


The Seagate Hybrid drive is not like the Fusion Drive at all, so comparing the two is unrealistic.

More:

Digging Into Apple's Fusion Drive Details - The Mac Observer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> I wonder if the difference is that the Fusion drive also benefits from faster write speeds. The Seagate's Hybrid drive has a very small SSD buffer and is designed to act like a cache to speed up boot times and application loading but anything that involves writing still goes through the hard drive so it's pretty slow.* Fusion drive with 128GB of SSD* may allow for instant write speed benefits.


Where are you seeing this? I can't find where there is reference to this?


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

screature said:


> Personally I don't see what the big deal is about the so called "Fusion Drive" aside from it being in an iMac. It isn't like it is anything new, the Seagate Momentus XT which is a hybrid drive has been around for a couple of years now...
> .


Fusion Drive is nothing like a hybrid drive... It's two different and separate drives software *fused* into a single usable drive.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Apple wins on design hands down, and i*t seems to me hardware wise, it's gotten a whole lot better* after a shaky period (to me it's like 2002ish to 2010ish)


I'm not sure how you can say it's better hardware wise when the base units have gone from 7200 to 5400rpm... That's a step backwards, not forwards.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

screature said:


> Where are you seeing this? I can't find where there is reference to this?


What Is Apple Fusion Drive?


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

G-Mo said:


> Fusion Drive is nothing like a hybrid drive... It's two different and separate drives software *fused* into a single usable drive.


That's been possible on PCs for a while. Certain 3rd party SATA controllers as well as certain Intel chipsets have had a provision for this for over a year. Intel called it SSD caching on their Z77 and H77 chipsets.

I use a 64GB SSD as a cache for a 600GB Velociraptor in my gaming PC, and it works well. I suspect Fusion Drive is the same thing, with a catchy name.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

ldphoto said:


> That's been possible on PCs for a while. Certain 3rd party SATA controllers as well as certain Intel chipsets have had a provision for this for over a year. Intel called it SSD caching on their Z77 and H77 chipsets.


Of course it has, it's a native part of the Ivy Bridge architecture I believe... No one said this was a brand new concept by Apple, but, it's not a hybrid drive.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

G-Mo said:


> Of course it has, it's a native part of the Ivy Bridge architecture I believe... No one said this was a brand new concept by Apple, but, it's not a hybrid drive.


its definitely the thinnest and lightest desktop that this has ever been implemented in. 

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

broad said:


> its definitely the thinnest and lightest desktop that this has ever been implemented in.
> 
> :lmao::lmao:


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

leo72793 said:


> Being in college, I actually use the college iMac's. And ive got to say, the new thinner design draws my attention alot. Although i wonder why they left the base non user uprgadable but the 27 have 4 user accessible slots.. Also, Why not put the Cooling vents at the top so using natural forces, heat rises and cool air is sucked in by the fan?


The thin edges looks great, but its kind of deceptive as it gets bigger in the rear. The press pictures, and even when he showed it on stage, they only tilted so much. If the whole machine was that thing, then it would be a real WOW


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

monokitty said:


> The Seagate Hybrid drive is not like the Fusion Drive at all, so comparing the two is unrealistic.
> 
> More:
> 
> Digging Into Apple's Fusion Drive Details - The Mac Observer.





G-Mo said:


> Fusion Drive is nothing like a hybrid drive... It's two different and separate drives software *fused* into a single usable drive.


It is very much like a hybrid drive, the real difference is that it integrates with OS and the nature of how it caches (or not caches, depending on how one refers to it):



> There are other hybrid models of blending SSD and mechanical disks to save money, but none of them are able to integrate with the OS and do it as intelligently as Apple is able to with Fusion Drive.
> 
> The real benefit, of course, is dependent on how Apple has set up its algorithms to manage all this.


It does sound like this approach is a step up from other hybrid concepts. Time will tell.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

screature said:


> It is very much like a hybrid drive, the real difference is that it integrates with OS and the nature of how it caches (or not caches, depending on how one refers to it):
> 
> 
> 
> It does sound like this approach is a step up from other hybrid concepts. Time will tell.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

It will be very interesting to see how Boot Camp, CCC and Super Duper handle all this Fusion Drive stuff.

More info AnandTech - Understanding Apple's Fusion Drive


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

screature said:


> It is very much like a hybrid drive, the real difference is that it integrates with OS and the nature of how it caches (or not caches, depending on how one refers to it):


everything ive read about this seems to suggest the OS copies "apps" onto the SSD. well thats great, but what about my documents? photos? videos? all the other crap i use on a daily basis?


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

screature said:


> It is very much like a hybrid drive, the real difference is that it integrates with OS and the nature of how it caches (or not caches, depending on how one refers to it):


From Anand:

"4GB write buffer is the only cache-like component to Apple's Fusion Drive. Everything else works as an OS directed pinning algorithm instead of an SSD cache." 



broad said:


> everything ive read about this seems to suggest the OS copies "apps" onto the SSD. well thats great, but what about my documents? photos? videos? all the other crap i use on a daily basis?


From Anand:
"In other words, Mountain Lion will physically move frequently used files, data and entire applications to the 128GB of NAND Flash storage and move less frequently used items to the hard disk"


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

broad said:


> everything ive read about this seems to suggest the OS copies "apps" onto the SSD. well thats great, but what about my documents? photos? videos? all the other crap i use on a daily basis?


All your "crap" stuff gets coppied to the HDD apparently, that is until certain files get accessed and opened with some frequency, then they *may* get moved to the SSD for faster access.

Edit: Sorry fyrefly, I missed seeing that you had already replied.


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

The fusion drive really solves a lot of issues in the desktop space going forward. Desktop storage with Flash performance for the things you do the most is a really great solution to the problem with storage for a desktop machine. The fact that this all happens at OS level is great. My big gripe is that it should have been standard across the board (knowing Apple it will be by the next update or the one after). Form over function will always be a factor in any Apple product as they value design as much as performance. That is part of Steve culture, and what creates that emotional response to a product that takes it from a reasonable seller, to a colossal success. It is the not so secret sauce that the rest of the industry just doesn't grasp. So the rest of the industry sells you specs in a utilitarian package. If that is what you want, the choice is yours. Having said that, it will never be what you lust. Apple creates that lust and this iMac will invigorate their desktop sales. I love it, I will buy it in the next year as I have been waiting for over a year to see this come. The one thing we never heard during the Keynote emphasized was "Post-PC." That was a relief to me personally. The iMac looks good in pictures, but I imagine it will knock people out in person.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

G-Mo said:


>





Joker Eh said:


> It will be very interesting to see how Boot Camp, CCC and Super Duper handle all this Fusion Drive stuff.
> 
> More info AnandTech - Understanding Apple's Fusion Drive


Thanks for the link Joker Eh... Anand is my trusted source on such matters.

G-Mo no need for the face plant... even Anand thought the same until he learned more... It seems you are really on top of this stuff, good for you.


----------



## greydoggie (Apr 21, 2009)

minnes said:


> No DVD drive? Does this bother anyone, I would be using 27 inch iMac as my computer and entertainment centre. Im forced to add an external optical drive. That has some advantages It takes up desk space and uses a port but it's one less thing to break down inside your iMac. The other option for me would be a Mac Mini plus a screen and dvd drive. It really is a better deal to get the 27 inch Imac,than a upgraded mini plus a high end screen 27-30 inch. Yeh, in 10 years, I won't want an optical drive, I wish it was still there for a couple of years though.


It bothers me. I use my imac to watch DVDs and still have programs and games that run off them. I also work with a lot of businesses that use imacs and use the DVD drive all the time for project files. If apple wants to get rid of it they should have made it an option, its too soon to get rid of it completely. iMacs are turning into oversized ipads with a built in stand and minus the touching, which is probably coming.

mini is out because they never match imac performance and it doesn't look like the new ones have the drive either.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

greydoggie said:


> It bothers me. I use my imac to watch DVDs and still have programs and games that run off them. I also work with a lot of businesses that use imacs and use the DVD drive all the time for project files. If apple wants to get rid of it they should have made it an option, its too soon to get rid of it completely. iMacs are turning into oversized ipads with a built in stand and minus the touching, which is probably coming.
> 
> mini is out because they never match imac performance and it doesn't look like the new ones have the drive either.


You can buy an external.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

Regardless id the optical drive is gone, its still nice to see the imac get refreshed. Plus, its very sexy new design. Now the price point is very nice. 1299 for the 21.5 which in terms is big enough for the average user. BUT The lack of discrete graphics in the mac mini and 13" retina display are very sad.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

greydoggie said:


> It bothers me. I use my imac to watch DVDs and still have programs and games that run off them. I also work with a lot of businesses that use imacs and use the DVD drive all the time for project files. If apple wants to get rid of it they should have made it an option, its too soon to get rid of it completely. iMacs are turning into oversized ipads with a built in stand and minus the touching, which is probably coming.
> ... ...


+1. And I'm a bit disappointed.

I still have needs for both CD and DVD optical discs and plus the lack of any Firewire port, and the need to purchase some TB -> FW adapter, or any new external USB CD/DVD drive, both of which don't always work according to several reports and comments.

Nor do I like the 16:9 "mail slot" viewing experience and I much prefer my 24" 16:10 "Golden Ratio" viewing experience.

And who gives a sh*t about any "thinness" at the edges. Gheese, what's the point.

And even more serious to me, where in He__ are the top air flow cooling vents that a previous poster alluded to.

Lots in the bottom, but I couldn't find anything showing any top vents.

Hey Steve Ive and your designer guys, doesn't heated air have a tendency to rise when displaced by cooler denser air??


----------



## thedarkhorse (Jul 12, 2008)

I've use an external USB DVD drive with no problems at all for a couple years, the one I got is basically just an LG desktop drive in an external enclosure. Have had 0 issues with it on my retina 15, my old 15" c2d with broken superdrive, and on the mac pro at work(superdrive isn't burning). Also used it on my friends macbook air to install office. I've burned using various apps from finder burning, dvd studio pro, toast, they all recognize it perfectly fine, plug and play.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I just don't want or need to add any more clutter to my already over-cluttered desk with any USB optical drive thanks.

But I will admit that every non-Apple if you like, optical drives I have ever used were much faster and more satisfyingly reliable than any Apple Mac supplied optical drive, and proven many times when I added a second optical drive in my G4 MDD Mac.

And the only USB external CD/DVD drive I have and used was an older Lacie drive which was so slow it was hard to tell if it was working or not.

But I'd guess that with the newer USB 3.0 capable Macs and equivalent speed optical drives, things would be better. And possibly faster and cheaper that the older FW optical drives maybe???


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

The external drive Apple is now selling is USB 2.0, and seems dated in the new USB 3 era. I'm also thinking a truly USB3 drive should be more reliable and the only option for many since firewire optical drives are not easy to find anymore. Is there a usb 3 enclosure that holds hard drives and optical drives? That would be ideal for me.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

That's what I read also and that's just so pathetic. Not even any of their FW supported either.

For a good start for optical enclosures, FW included have a look at: 
Search Results for optical enclosures at MacSales.com


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

pm-r said:


> And even more serious to me, where in He__ are the top air flow cooling vents that a previous poster alluded to.
> 
> Lots in the bottom, but I couldn't find anything showing any top vents.
> 
> Hey Steve Ive and your designer guys, doesn't heated air have a tendency to rise when displaced by cooler denser air??


It looks like the holes at the bottom are part vents, part speakers, IMHO. This inside look during the keynote:










Shows two fan assemblies on either side - and the rest are speaker holes? Or just further air intake? 

There are also vent grills hidden behind the stand of the 2012 iMac - and comparing those to the inside picture above, it looks like those vents are specifically for the processor (they're right over where the processor is inside...


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Also, if you look at the new iMac the "wrong" way (ala Steve Jobs' infamous "you're holding it wrong" iPhone 4 email  ), it doesn't exactly look that "thin".  As opposed to all the perfectly angled Apple press shots...


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

fyrefly said:


> Also, if you look at the new iMac the "wrong" way (ala Steve Jobs' infamous "you're holding it wrong" iPhone 4 email  ), it doesn't exactly look that "thin".  As opposed to all the perfectly angled Apple press shots...


Ya when Phil was showing off the iMac and when he went to unveil it and was turning it around I think he just realized oops. "I don't think we planned this all the way through. People are going to see it is not actually that thin it has a fat ass."


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> Ya when Phil was showing off the iMac and when he went to unveil it and was turning it around I think he just realized oops. "I don't think we planned this all the way through. People are going to see it is not actually that thin it has a fat ass."


Oh, no he was turning it so precisely... he knew EXACTLY where to stop that turn so that to the keynote camera it still was razor thin. You can tell they rehearsed that turn.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

greydoggie said:


> It bothers me. I use my imac to watch DVDs and still have programs and games that run off them. I also work with a lot of businesses that use imacs and use the DVD drive all the time for project files. If apple wants to get rid of it they should have made it an option, its too soon to get rid of it completely. iMacs are turning into oversized ipads with a built in stand and minus the touching, which is probably coming.
> 
> mini is out because they never match imac performance and it doesn't look like the new ones have the drive either.


Okay, so here's a focus group question: How do you inexpensively back up files you consider key if you don't have time capsule, or iCloud ........ email them to your hotmail account? I think Apple is forcing us to buy their cloud services with this and I think it is premature to dump the drives, I still use my mini for burning backups and also as a dvd player. I guess this leaves the USB drives, but really, some of us still use optical drives and an external is just another expense on a "new" machine....maybe that's the ploy, everyone will flock to the existing inventory and they will be SRO


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

minnes said:


> The external drive Apple is now selling is USB 2.0, and seems dated in the new USB 3 era. I'm also thinking a truly USB3 drive should be more reliable and the only option for many since firewire optical drives are not easy to find anymore. Is there a usb 3 enclosure that holds hard drives and optical drives? That would be ideal for me.


Would a CD/DVD drive even saturate USB2.0 bandwidth?


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Rps said:


> Okay, so here's a focus group question: How do you inexpensively back up files you consider key if you don't have time capsule, or iCloud ........ email them to your hotmail account? I think Apple is forcing us to buy their cloud services with this and I think it is premature to dump the drives, I still use my mini for burning backups and also as a dvd player. I guess this leaves the USB drives, but really, some of us still use optical drives and an external is just another expense on a "new" machine....maybe that's the ploy, everyone will flock to the existing inventory and they will be SRO


Your backups must change with technology because one day you will not be able to get to your backups because there will be no machine to hook up those optical drives. And those are not 100% safe anyways. I have discs which I burnt and can't access/read for whatever reason. Anyone still backing up to 5 1/4 floppy or 3.5 floppy or better yet ZIP drives?

Doing what you have always done is not a plan.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

fyrefly said:


> Oh, no he was turning it so precisely... he knew EXACTLY where to stop that turn so that to the keynote camera it still was razor thin. You can tell they rehearsed that turn.


For sure! The exact thought went through my head and I told someone else I was watching with.


----------



## DavidH (Jan 4, 2009)

*Well Said*



Joker Eh said:


> Your backups must change with technology because one day you will not be able to get to your backups because there will be no machine to hook up those optical drives. And those are not 100% safe anyways. I have discs which I burnt and can't access/read for whatever reason. Anyone still backing up to 5 1/4 floppy or 3.5 floppy or better yet ZIP drives?
> 
> Doing what you have always done is not a plan.


Joker,

I totally agree.
I find it hard to understand the reluctance to move forward and always wanting retain "strings" to the past and older technology.
Just as we upgrade our computer and OS, I think we also must be willing to upgrade the components and peripherals that we use with our computer.

Just my two cents.
DavidH


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

AS with upgrading our own hardware etc. Once they cut out parts, they pretty much make us consumers SOL.

Why not give us a completely configurable platform and do this.:

MacBook Pro 13 Retina
Optional Ram styles such as user upgradeable
Real SSD's not those plug in chips
Optional GPU makers. such as 512 vram Nvidia GPU's
Optional screen cover glossy or matte

Something of that sort


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

leo72793 said:


> AS with upgrading our own hardware etc. Once they cut out parts, they pretty much make us consumers SOL.
> 
> Why not give us a completely configurable platform and do this.:
> 
> ...


We're sacrificing a lot of what you're asking for as a trade-off for thin-ness and weight. Which I can see mattering in the rMBP or another laptop, but not in the iMac.

In the 13" Retina, for instance, the SSD "chips" are snuck under the trackpad. The whole laptop is only .75" thick, so there's no way a user upgradeable 2.5" SSD would fit under there. Apple's focus on design has always involved trade-offs. If you want the upgradability, then get the regular 13" MBP, that is still available, and processor-wise, just as fast. You can change the HD and the RAM in that all you want. 

But if you want the thin, svelte, "sexy" machine, you're gonna have some tradeoffs. And re: making consumers SOL - not really. Unless your machine breaks and you're out of warranty... otherwise, the computer you buy today will still do the same things it did 5 years ago... maybe a bit slower, but still.

I'm typing this on an early 2008-era (all silver) C2D MacBook Pro, and it's working great - almost 5 years later.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I really fail to see how "thinness" is a value added proposition for a contemporary iMac as the "footprint", i.e. the amount of desktop real estate required, doesn't change.

For some I guess there is a "cool" factor associated with it being thin but there is no practical benefit whatsoever.

In fact with the lack of a built in Superdrive, for those who still need one, it actually adds to the required desktop space.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

fyrefly said:


> We're sacrificing a lot of what you're asking for as a trade-off for thin-ness and weight. Which I can see mattering in the rMBP or another laptop, but not in the iMac.
> 
> In the 13" Retina, for instance, the SSD "chips" are snuck under the trackpad. The whole laptop is only .75" thick, so there's no way a user upgradeable 2.5" SSD would fit under there. Apple's focus on design has always involved trade-offs. If you want the upgradability, then get the regular 13" MBP, that is still available, and processor-wise, just as fast. You can change the HD and the RAM in that all you want.
> 
> ...


Computers don't get slower. 



screature said:


> I really fail to see how "thinness" is a value added proposition for a contemporary iMac as the "footprint", i.e. the amount of desktop real estate required, doesn't change.
> 
> For some I guess there is a "cool" factor associated with it being thin but there is no practical benefit whatsoever.
> 
> *In fact with the lack of a built in Superdrive, for those who still need one, it actually adds to the required desktop space.*


Only for time you need to take the external super drive out of the closet or drawer for the time you need it. Otherwise it is away and unseen.

But for those ( few and far between) who actually need it on a regular basis then yes, this omission from the iMac leaves them SOL. Truth be told I could care less if this new version came with one or not it wouldn't bother me. I like the fusion drive feature and going to get one anyways now that and hopefully is true the glossy is toned down.

And I would venture to guess that this new iMac is not all that thinner then the previous gen iMac. Forget about the edges I mean the true thickness.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

Personally. I love the mac and i wonder how the Intel HD 4000 will perform. I still play pc games such as gta4 on my mbp inside bootcamp. Personally i dont mind loosing the DVD drive. I have a 500gb hdd as my internal optical drive occupier. 128gb ssd as main. I cant use ahci though so it blows.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

No no, the iMac has various Nvidea GForce GT---

the mini has the Intel hd4000

The iMac should do well with graphics, and the mini should be adequate for many consumers.



leo72793 said:


> Personally. I love the mac and i wonder how the Intel HD 4000 will perform. I still play pc games such as gta4 on my mbp inside bootcamp. Personally i dont mind loosing the DVD drive. I have a 500gb hdd as my internal optical drive occupier. 128gb ssd as main. I cant use ahci though so it blows.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

Pardon my typo. I do like the imac and its quaility. but the fallback for some people will be the DVD drive and heat vent location.


----------



## Chagwa (Apr 23, 2009)

I'm stunned that the entry level model comes with 8GB of Ram and a 1TB hd. :clap:

My only real disappointment is the requirement to buy a separate superdrive and lose a USB port in the process. I still buy a fair amount of cds that I rip in iTunes, so I'm split between getting the new model or getting one from the current generation while they're still available. Not an easy decision...


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

Chagwa said:


> I'm stunned that the entry level model comes with 8GB of Ram and a 1TB hd. :clap:
> 
> My only real disappointment is the requirement to buy a separate superdrive and lose a USB port in the process. I still buy a fair amount of cds that I rip in iTunes, so I'm split between getting the new model or getting one from the current generation while they're still available. Not an easy decision...


I lost a usb port to an external dvd drive and the other to my laptop cooling fan. but i purchased a simple usb port hub and i have a External 1TB a charger for my phone and my laptop fan plugged in also my dvd drive. and i have one other free port. 

So gaining 4 lets me have many devices along side a free extra port. 

but to get a 1TB and 8gb ram is quite nice from the base


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

fyrefly said:


> It looks like the holes at the bottom are part vents, part speakers, IMHO. This inside look during the keynote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks fyrefly, at least the CPU may get some questionable cooling vents at about 90 degrees from the source, but what about the HDD that's mounted above it, as well as general overall internal heat dissipation, and that's a lot to just rely on for the new iMac'c aluminium casing to dissipate IMO, but I'm no engineer.

But I do know I needed and wanted to add a compatible "Fan Control" pref pane to my and some other users older iMacs with top vents to keep things cooler and running at more reasonable temperatures than Apple's default settings.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

I do think they might have better fan control. it looks like fans by the bottom.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

IN my opinion. USB 3.0 is a must on any new computer I purchase, You can add lots of things externally but the lack of USB 3 would kill it for me, so getting a 2011 model would no be something I would do, since I own a 2008 iMac, I can chug along til next may just fine.
.... I ll need a firewire-TB adapter for my video camera, and an external DVD drive.
Oh well, they do give us 8GB Ram, and an improved screen ...


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

minnes said:


> IN my opinion. USB 3.0 is a must on any new computer I purchase, You can add lots of things externally but the lack of USB 3 would kill it for me, so getting a 2011 model would no be something I would do, since I own a 2008 iMac, I can chug along til next may just fine.
> .... I ll need a firewire-TB adapter for my video camera, and an external DVD drive.
> Oh well, they do give us 8GB Ram, and an improved screen ...


 The new models have 4 USB *3.0* ports. So I am confused.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> The new models have 4 USB *3.0* ports. So I am confused.


It's about the 2011 model.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

G-Mo said:


> It's about the 2011 model.


Ya but then they mention about chuggin along till next May. What happens next May? The new iMacs come out in November and December.


----------



## MacAddict (Jan 29, 2006)

Actually, after acquiring the new iPad with its Retina display, I was hoping for the next iMac to incorporate a Retina display. Is it impractical or is there another reason that we might possibly never see a Retina display on an iMac ? Too big maybe ? 

Oh yes, I can't believe that the rear of the iMac was called "Concave" and no correction was forthcoming. It's actually "Convex". The ...cave part is from where we get the expression "to cave in."


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

MacAddict said:


> Actually, after acquiring the new iPad with its Retina display, I was hoping for the next iMac to incorporate a Retina display. Is it impractical or is there another reason that we might possibly never see a Retina display on an iMac ? Too big maybe ?
> 
> Oh yes, I can't believe that the rear of the iMac was called "Concave" and no correction was forthcoming. It's actually "Convex". The ...cave part is from where we get the expression "to cave in."


Retina Display on the iMac is years away. Will require a 4K display or what LG is now referring to as Ultra HD (as far as what I have read about this). Cost would be huge and it is not something I expect to see until Ultra HD is ubiquitous. Frankly, with the new lamination process and if the individual calibration of displays is done properly, the new iMac should be glorious as is. Given the distance between the device and my eyes, I don't think Retina is needed. At least if I follow Apple's technical specs for Retina.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

plus the GPU power required to drive 5120x2880 pixels around at any reasonable frame rate would be astronomical.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The GTX 680MX should be able to handle it.


----------



## MacAddict (Jan 29, 2006)

 Dumpling;1227840 said:


> Retina Display on the iMac is years away. Will require a 4K display or what LG is now referring to as Ultra HD (as far as what I have read about this). Cost would be huge and it is not something I expect to see until Ultra HD is ubiquitous. Frankly, with the new lamination process and if the individual calibration of displays is done properly, the new iMac should be glorious as is. Given the distance between the device and my eyes, I don't think Retina is needed. At least if I follow Apple's technical specs for Retina.


I thought there had to be a confining reason for it. All is not lost, though I may not survive to witness it, for already SONY is trumpeting their 84" XBR Series 4K LED TV, which I never thought I would be around to see. I doubt if any TV broadcaster is capable of transmitting 4K, but in any case the price is an astonishing $25,000.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

I personally don't understand why people like 4k ultra hd. no one will ever afford it. nothing is produced in that resolution. and the chances of the iMac getting it are slim for now. the gpu would be extremely expensive and the screen cost would shoot it up thousands. but what can we do people would still buy it


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

MacAddict said:


> I thought there had to be a confining reason for it. All is not lost, though I may not survive to witness it, for already SONY is trumpeting their 84" XBR Series 4K LED TV, which I never thought I would be around to see. I doubt if any TV broadcaster is capable of transmitting 4K, but in any case the price is an astonishing $25,000.


These tv sets are not about watching cable television, it is about watching bluray discs or any other high quality format. Current cable HD is so compressed there is nothing HD about it. HD is now used as a marketing weasel word and all it means now is that the picture is 16x9 or some sort of widescreen format. Over The Air signal is so much better than anything you would get from sat or cable.



leo72793 said:


> I personally don't understand why people like 4k ultra hd. *no one will ever afford it.* nothing is produced in that resolution. and the chances of the iMac getting it are slim for now. the gpu would be extremely expensive and the screen cost would shoot it up thousands. but what can we do people would still buy it


Someone can always afford it. What you can and cannot afford is not what others can and cannot afford. The same way CD, DVD, Bluray, HD TV, and other tech came into existance, the price was out of most people range but there were those out there who purchased it. They weren't stupid they just were able to afford it. The early adopters are the ones who truly decide if something is going to make it in the market or not.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

Joker Eh said:


> These tv sets are not about watching cable television, it is about watching bluray discs or any other high quality format. Current cable HD is so compressed there is nothing HD about it. HD is now used as a marketing weasel word and all it means now is that the picture is 16x9 or some sort of widescreen format. Over The Air signal is so much better than anything you would get from sat or cable.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone can always afford it. What you can and cannot afford is not what others can and cannot afford. The same way CD, DVD, Bluray, HD TV, and other tech came into existance, the price was out of most people range but there were those out there who purchased it. They weren't stupid they just were able to afford it. The early adopters are the ones who truly decide if something is going to make it in the market or not.


Personally, when BR came out. the players were just as much as the ps3. so i went with that and now they are cheap as dvd players were 3 years ago. As for the ultra hd tv/displays. it would take a long time before it is affordable to the average consumer.


----------



## MacAddict (Jan 29, 2006)

Let's not forget that 4K represents somewhat less than a 50% increase in lines of resolution, both horizontally and vertical. So we progress from 1920 + 960 to 2880 and from 1080 + 540 to 1620 for combined total of 4500 (4K). I don't know how "broad" arrived at his 5120/2880 equation ( 8K). There are already 4K video cameras on the market, but the restraining factor - at the moment - is the capability for transmitting all those pixels for UHD TV. I have to agree OTA is the way to go, even today. 

But we digress. The topic is still the new Dec 2012 iMac. I'll keep my fingers crossed until I see the picture quality before I commit.


----------



##  Dumpling (May 28, 2010)

MacAddict said:


> Let's not forget that 4K represents somewhat less than a 50% increase in lines of resolution, both horizontally and vertical. So we progress from 1920 + 960 to 2880 and from 1080 + 540 to 1620 for combined total of 4500 (4K). I don't know how "broad" arrived at his 5120/2880 equation ( 8K). There are already 4K video cameras on the market, but the restraining factor - at the moment - is the capability for transmitting all those pixels for UHD TV. I have to agree OTA is the way to go, even today.
> 
> But we digress. The topic is still the new Dec 2012 iMac. I'll keep my fingers crossed until I see the picture quality before I commit.


Excellent points. Mass consumer adoption and the 'boxes' to deliver the content are as far away as the days when a plasma TV cost as much as an economy car. I am happy with the route that Apple is taking by improving the displays from a build point of view. The fact that they are touting individual calibration is a good thing, but with all their quality control concerns where displays have been concerned in recent years, I remain cynical until I see it. Hope it delivers on the goods.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MacAddict said:


> Oh yes, I can't believe that the rear of the iMac was called "Concave" and no correction was forthcoming. It's actually "Convex". The ...cave part is from where we get the expression "to cave in."


it's actually both. The concave part is where the internal components fit in.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

i-rui said:


> it's actually both. The concave part is where the internal components fit in.


Call it what ever you want I guess, but it still looks like a skinny figure with a bis bulging ass.


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

pm-r said:


> Call it what ever you want I guess, but it still looks like a skinny figure with a bis bulging ass.


I second this


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

 Dumpling;1227894 said:


> Excellent points. Mass consumer adoption and the 'boxes' to deliver the content are as far away as the days when a plasma TV cost as much as an economy car. I am happy with the route that Apple is taking by improving the displays from a build point of view. The fact that they are touting individual calibration is a good thing, but with all their quality control concerns where displays have been concerned in recent years, I remain cynical until I see it. Hope it delivers on the goods.


considering the retina 15" fiasco id be inclined to agree.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

MacAddict said:


> Let's not forget that 4K represents somewhat less than a 50% increase in lines of resolution, both horizontally and vertical. So we progress from 1920 + 960 to 2880 and from 1080 + 540 to 1620 for combined total of 4500 (4K). I don't know how "broad" arrived at his 5120/2880 equation ( 8K).


Those numbers (5120/2880) are a doubling of pixels from the current 2560x1440 iMac screen - which is how Apple has arrived at "retina" in the 15"/13" MBP and the "retina" iPad/iPhone.

So if the 27" iMac was to go "retina", it would likely need double the current pixels. That makes the 27" iMac an 8K display at full resolution, likely a VERY expensive panel to produce at this juncture. 

It also makes the 21" iMac a 3840x2160 display, at full resolution, and another likely hugely expensive panel.

But let's not forget that these machines would not really have that high of a resolution. They are pixel doubled, so they would still run at 1920x2160 and 2560x1440 respectively, but the elements would be pixel doubled.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

> * pm-r *
> Call it what ever you want I guess, *but it still looks like a skinny figure with a bis bulging ass.*





leo72793 said:


> I second this


Yeah kinda... but it is all the rage these days with JLo, Kim Kardashian et.al.

A big booty is what is sexy right now... at least as far as the media is concerned.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Yeah kinda... but it is all the rage these days with JLo, Kim Kardashian et.al.
> 
> A big booty is what is sexy right now... at least as far as the media is concerned.


If you call Kim Kardashian rear sexy I just call it fat. XX)


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

i-rui said:


> it's actually both. The concave part is where the internal components fit in.


Yup, and notice the concave part is where the internal components fit in and get connected.


----------



## wwj (May 21, 2003)

Joker Eh said:


> Current cable HD is so compressed there is nothing HD about it.... Over The Air signal is so much better than anything you would get from sat or cable.




And ... it's fabulously free!!!


----------



## MacAddict (Jan 29, 2006)

i-rui said:


> it's actually both. The concave part is where the internal components fit in.


OH come now. We're talking about the REAR cover not the innards.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> If you call Kim Kardashian rear sexy I just call it fat. XX)


Your hilari-ass! Looks like KIm can't even walk, note the high heels!


----------



## leo72793 (Sep 21, 2012)

JCCanuck said:


> Your hilari-ass! Looks like KIm can't even walk, note the high heels!


Im curious how she can even walk with that. *shudders*


----------

