Apple 27-inch iMac With Intel's Haswell Inside Tested 241
MojoKid writes "Apple's late 2013 edition iMacs are largely unchanged in external form, though they're upgraded in function with a revamped foundation that now pairs Intel's Haswell 4th Generation Core processors with NVIDIA's GeForce 700 Series graphics. The Cupertino company also outfitted these latest models with faster flash storage options, including support for PCI-E based storage, and 802.11ac Wi-Fi technology, all wrapped in a 21.5-inch (1920x1080) or 27-inch IPS displays with a 2560x1440 resolution. As configured, the 27-inch iMac reviewed here bolted through benchmarks with relative ease and posted especially solid figures in gaming tests, including a 3DMark 11 score of 3,068 in Windows 7 (via Boot Camp). Running Cinebench 11.5 in Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks also helped showcase the CPU and GPU combination. Storage benchmarks weren't nearly as impressive though, for iMacs based on standard spinning media. For real IO throughput, it's advisable to go with Apple's Flash storage options."
First hand experience (Score:5, Informative)
I bought one - 27 inch, with all available upgrades except for the max memory. Memory is user replaceable, and it's cheaper to buy it elsewhere. Here are my impressions
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting insight into the mind of an Apple buyer there. I note you use the word "surprising" a lot, as do Apple themselves in their marketing. You also don't quantify things like the time machine restore being "fast" - fast in comparison to what, and with how many apps and how much data? What does noiseless mean, presumably not 0db?
What I'm getting at is your impression of the machine is based entirely on your expectation of it. I'm not saying it isn't nice hardware, it is, but that is also the very defi
Re:First hand experience (Score:4, Insightful)
Price not an Object? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Price up a PC based system including monitor with equivalent resolution, ssd caching, etc. Now find that spec in an all in one.
Moderation has modded down an 100% factual comment regarding Apple on Price. Ignoring that Apples PC continuing slump in sales because of this very fact. The bottom line is this iMac is a low resolution, small slow, and fast memory with the usual proprietary connection crap(Ironically lower specification than my old PC). The fact that it is non-upgradable as a justification is stupid; I personally plan throwing a high resolution 29" monitor or A Discrete graphics card or Another hard drive in...Depending on
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation has modded down an 100% factual comment regarding Apple on Price. Ignoring that Apples PC continuing slump in sales because of this very fact.
According to Apple's earnings release, Mac market share among PC sales has been increasing in 29 of the 30 last quarters. In worldwide computer sales, they are around number six in unit sales, about number two in revenue, and clear leader with nobody anywhere near in profits.
Show Me (Score:2)
According to Apple's earnings release, Mac market share among PC sales has been increasing in 29 of the 30 last quarters.
http://investor.apple.com/results.cfm [apple.com] These are Apple Earning Releases *Show Me* The only information is the "The Company sold 4.6 million Macs, compared to 4.9 million in the year-ago quarter." down 7% That is as I said *another drop in sales* The only increase has come from Chrome/Android/Linux.
The fact that you are going back to a Apple makes lots of money, for a shareholder like yourself that might make sense but its shitty for customers.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you are going back to a Apple makes lots of money, for a shareholder like yourself that might make sense but its shitty for customers.
If you want to ignore the fact that PC sales are slumping for all manufacturers, go ahead. Unfortunately here people have some common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to ignore the fact that PC sales are slumping for all manufacturers, go ahead. Unfortunately here people have some common sense.
And most people know that most of that slump is due to Apple selling iPads. So unlike everyone else, Apple isn't that sad about it. Because of iPad sales, Apple probably loses 500,000 Mac sales a quarter, while the PCs lose 10,000,000 PC sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Irony (Score:2)
iPad sales are only one reason. Other reasons are that (1) older PCs are good enough for most people and (2) people hate Win 8.
iPad sales are down http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q4fy13datasum.pdf [apple.com]
If Older PC's are competition, you compete. by price or specification, and fails in both
Win 8 is not available for Apple...Chrome/Android/Linux continue to grow.
Re: (Score:2)
If Older PC's are competition, you compete. by price or specification, and fails in both
Ignoring common sense and facts again. All PC manufacturers are slumping in computer sales. Yet they haven't been able to reverse the trend. By your definition, the PC manufacturers are failing harder than Apple as they don't have the tablet sales/revenue/profit that Apple has. Try again.
Win 8 is not available for Apple...Chrome/Android/Linux continue to grow.
Again failing to use common sense. Chrome/Android/Linux is not a PC manufacturer. On PCs Win 8 is basically the only OS available for most people. As for Chrome, when you start at 0%, you can only grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Win 8 is not available for Apple...Chrome/Android/Linux continue to grow.
If Macs shipped with Windows 8, I can guarantee that sales would drop very close to zero.
Slink in iMac and iPads (Score:2)
And most people know that most of that slump is due to Apple selling iPads.
Hilariously...and I do mean this Hilariously especially as you have quotes the Apples earnings. iPAD sales have dropped over the last few quarters with *cough* inventory shenanigans, and in the latest results http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q4fy13datasum.pdf [apple.com] show sales down sequentially and flat year on year. In a market *exploding*...here are IDC's figures http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24253413 [idc.com] to show how far Apple is falling behind the rest of the market with its market share *plummeting*
Re: (Score:2)
Failing to use common sense. PC sales are slipping badly [nbcnews.com].
Worldwide shipments of personal computers fell in the third quarter of the year, the sixth straight quarter of decline as cheaper tablet computers and smartphones cut into demand, according to market research firms IDC and Gartner. . . The top 3 PC sellers — Lenovo, HP and Dell — all grew shipments between zero and 3 percent during the quarter . . . Acer and Asus suffered steep declines.
It just shows you most people don't know.
It shows you people like you will twist facts whichever way they want. According to your own link, Apple is the #1 tablet maker by far and tablet sales have slowed for everyone. Yes Apple has dropped market share. For a long time they were the only ones making a compelling tablet that people wanted to buy. Now others are catching up. What isn't in your IDC numbers is how much profit Apple makes on their tablets. If it's anything like smartphone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you are going back to a Apple makes lots of money, for a shareholder like yourself that might make sense but its shitty for customers.
But the lack of profits is why PCs are shitty products for customers. PCs are sold by being $10 cheaper than the competitor, which is achieved by skimping on quality. The problem is that quality isn't visible, so anyone building a PC in Mac quality would go bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a job at some place better paying than McDonalds.
Macs are still pretty... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From the article summary:
Friction-stir welding is interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
It's always interesting to hear of novel (to me) industrial processes Apple uses to make its product. Case in point: the article mentions Apple has switch to friction-stir welding [caranddriver.com].
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Interesting)
It *is* pretty though. And that's what counts for many people... I'm currently sitting in front of three relatively cheap FullHD monitors hooked up to a monster PC with wired peripherals, a laptop, a pair of studio monitors, a small mixer, a mic preamp and a USB audio interface - lots of bang for my buck and it does a ton of shit that an iMac couldn't, but damn does it look cluttered. Some people just prefer a sleek all-in-one with brushed metal (no glossy fucking plastic like you'll find on many other all-in-ones) and wireless input devices...
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, but monitor quality is a huge difference. I have a cheaper 25**x 1440 display and a 27 inch mac display, and without the doubt, while the apple display cost about 300 dollars more, the quality of the is far superior (and the cheaper display is being driven by a much more powerful machine).
And if you work in a world where super high quality displays are in high demand, you pay up. there are other sellers of equivalent quality, but it turns out they price to within 5% of the apple display. I'm never certain where the talk of the apple tax comes from. For phones, mp3 players, monitors, and laptops I found them very competitively priced.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the cost of components on the apple store. Hard drives, memory. Official apple-endorsed upgrades are clearly overpriced.
Re: (Score:3)
agreed, but that is the exact same situation as any vendor. If I go to dell and try to buy a ram upgrade from them, it's super expensive. It's not a unique apple experience (at least for me). Anyways, I get my components from amazon for 1/4 the price and apple has never complained about non-apple sold parts in my computer when it goes in for work. So it hasn't caused me an issue yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Except dell will charge you about $200 to go from 8->32GB of ram versus 600 or so for a mac etc.They rape you a lot more when you don't buy the stock system. They also make it next to impossible for the normal person to upgrade anything other than ram on the iMac so you are stuck.
I agree whole hardly with the screen though. It is about time for a 4k screen I guess they are still too pricey but my 3 year old iMac was kicking a 2560X1440 screen when you'd have to drop 7-800 or so then for an equivalent res
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are still damn overpriced (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to get an iMac to get a Unixy OS.
Re: They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the best way to get a unix OS that can run commercial software. I need to use Lightroom and Photoshop. I prefer to use unix. I like a very high res screen. So the 27" iMac is perfect for my needs. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
If the iMac doubled up as a standard monitor (ie without having to be actually running OSX to function as an external display), then it could be worth it.. it seems a bit of a waste to me to throw out such a nice display when you're getting a new desktop machine - or to be running two machines when you only need one.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I have actually refused to exchange my good ol' 19 inch 1920*1440 CRT screen for a flat panel. Only since AMOLED desktop screens have arrived to the consumer market have I started looking out for an upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. They should have a mode where you can slave the iMac screen to use it as a second monitor. Might get people to upgrade a bit more frequently if they didn't have to thing oh crap about $600 of that price tag is the screen I already own. Also would be good to plug iPad and the like into the mac and go full screen (yeah I know they have an app store for the mac) so you could use it for little meetings and such. We used a 27" iMac for standups at my last job and it was plenty big enough for 5-6 people
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point, and one I had considered. I'd have preferred a separate screen, but the mini is underpowered and the pro is way over the top.
I figure I won't be upgrading any time soon anyway. Hardware improvements have tailed off, and even my old PC was good enough for most of my needs. I got the Mac in part because I wanted the screen and in part because I wanted to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. [apple.com]
Get yourself a Mini-DisplayPort cable and press a keyboard combination. Your 27" iMac just turned into a 27" Thunderbolt Cinema Display for another box that has DisplayPort output.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. [apple.com]
Get yourself a Mini-DisplayPort cable and press a keyboard combination. Your 27" iMac just turned into a 27" Thunderbolt Cinema Display for another box that has DisplayPort output.
Sometimes Apple fails to properly advertise some nice features, such as this. Target Display Mode actually makes me more likely to buy an iMac the next time I need to buy a computer. If it can work with my wife's ThinkPad and an Intel NUC running Linux, I'm sold.
I have used Target Disk Mode on a few Apple laptops in the past, which was also a very nice feature.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said "ie without having to be actually running OSX". It seems like an unnecessary waste to me to have to have the operating system running just to function as a display.
Re: (Score:2)
No, prices are NOT competitive.
It's not people who haven't looked who say the macs are expensive, it's people liek you who just assume they are not.
For any model of macbook, you can get something almost twice as powerful for the same price.
That's going off Newegg.
How do you explain that?
Re: They are still damn overpriced (Score:4, Informative)
For any model of macbook, you can get something almost twice as powerful for the same price.
Find me a laptop twice as powerful as my quad core 2.3 GHz i7. For any money. Find something twice as powerful as a MacBook Air, with comparable battery life. For any money.
Re: They are still damn overpriced (Score:4, Informative)
OS updates cost money with Windows? News to me.
An OS update is free with Windows, but an OS upgrade will cost you. On Mac, both kinds are free now.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was looking for a computer ~Feb 2009 the iMac 27" was a good value for me at the time. I knew I'd likely be moving across the continent soon so wanted something I could throw in a "suitcase" and count as one bag. I checked out Dells and HPs all in ones at the time and they were crap. I think the largest was 19" with a 1920X1080 screen. Slower graphics, slower ram. ~$1800. I paid 2500 got 8" more screen, a quad i7 (versus an i5 I think it was in the HP) 2560X1400 res, 2X the graphics performance and a
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy monitors with the same LCD panels that Apple uses for less than 1/3rd the price. The only difference is that the hardware driving the panel is very basic, not having any controls except for brightness. However, the panel is 10 bit, so you can do all the correction in software on your PC. Tests show that when calibrate they produce an image every bit as good as Apple or Dell monitors, and even with the cost of a professional calibration tool they are still a fraction of the price.
Apple is quite c
Re: (Score:2)
And what's wrong with buying something expensive because you have the money and you like it?
Re: (Score:3)
You know, bourgeoisie capitalism and all that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have Windows, you have to wear a proletariat cap and carry a card or something.
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Informative)
I've left my ikea days long behind. Nowadays, when I buy something I want it to be good AND beautiful in my house. Yes it costs more than generic products, but I am happy with my previous gen iMac. And when whiners think that it costs too much, I won't lose sleep over it. My life quality is worth something.
Similarly two years ago I bought my non techy parents a Macbook Pro. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions, what a change compared to their previous Windows on HP experience. Their life is better and I sacrifice less time. IT's worth something for me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a bigger issue 7-10 years ago when keeping a computer for longer than 3-4 years was, quite frankly, stupid. Build quality mattered less, and it was silly to pay extra for good looks because if you didn't replace your computer by year 3 and definitely by year 5, it was too slow to run any modern software. Heck, I occasionally run across a person using a computer from back then, and I implore them to upgrade because the extra electricity they burn in 2-3 years will be enough to pay for the new computer.
Now that even low-end CPUs are "fast enough" for most people, keeping a computer for 5-7 years is a real possibility. That means paying an extra $500 for good looks or better build quality is cheaper because it'll be amortized over 6 years instead of 3 years.
At least that's the viewpoint of the casual user. The hard core computer geek who insists on state of the art is probably still on a 3 year upgrade cycle. So for him, dropping an extra $500 for good looks or better build quality is still an extravagance.
5 years ago I bought my non-techy dad a Lenovo Thinkpad. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions. Anecdotes are a dime a dozen.
And incidentally, Apple doesn't make the Macbooks. They're made by Quanta [wikipedia.org] - they're the ODM (original design manufacturer) that Apple uses. Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks.
Quanta also makes most of HP's laptops.
That's the dirty little secret about the laptop industry - the vast majority of laptops aren't made by the brand they're sold under. So it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name. To figure out some sort of correlation, you have to know which ODM made which particular model.
Re: (Score:2)
And incidentally, Apple doesn't make the Macbooks. They're made by Quanta [wikipedia.org] - they're the ODM (original design manufacturer) that Apple uses. Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks.
Are you sure about that? So what you are saying is that Quanta designed the all aluminum chassis of the MacBook Pros and the thinness of the Air?
That's the dirty little secret about the laptop industry - the vast majority of laptops aren't made by the brand they're sold under. So it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name. To figure out some sort of correlation, you have to know which ODM made which particular model.
So there's not difference between laptops at all? If you open up every laptop, they all look alike? They all source the exact same parts? One manufacturer cannot request Quanta to use different parts. Looking at Dell you can tell that's not true. Their business laptops are better built than their consumer line and that's within a company.
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Insightful)
"Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks."
You may not be sure, but the rest of us are. Like all Macs the Macbook carries the typical "Designed in California by Apple" tag. For all the faults of Apple, having "generic/beige box" design is not one of them. Also, I disagree that it is "pointless" arguing build quality based on brand name. Different brands spec different quality components to the ODMs and the spec is really quite detailed. Obviously some problems and merits are inherit in each ODM and clearly have a large impact on the outcome, but the Brand clearly has a say in quality.
Re: (Score:2)
it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name
Unless Quanta are building them to a price determined by the brand being represented.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being wealthy must be nice. You can't smugly buy expensive products without it.
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, just say pc's. There is no need to expand it to pee-cees.
That as dumb as people who say USians.
Re: (Score:2)
If choice of words was purely out of "need", there would be nothing that was interesting to read, no personal expression, no literature. I don't think that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power vs POWER (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as of 2013, Apple computers are generally cheaper than other companie's equivalents.
I know that's why I got my MBA 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
However it's a bit hard to get an Apple laptop for £400, that's why I got my Dell.
Re: (Score:3)
However it's a bit hard to get an Apple laptop for £400, that's why I got my Dell.
Indeed. Apple competes well in the segments they are, but they don't cover every segment. Cheap laptops, servers, gaming machines are just three of the segments they just aren't targeting.
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's let that dominate the discussion.
There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.
They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.
Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.
The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.
The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.
Wow. Full of yourself much? You just called tens of millions of people retards for daring to buy a computer brand you don't approve of.
It is an oversimplification to simply state that Apple uses many of the same components as PCs. They do, but they also have a lot of custom engineering that goes into their products, good quality control, and their demonstrably lower incidence of returns and repairs puts the lie to your idea that there is no measureable difference between Macs and PCs just because they contain some of the same components. Apple has not been at the top of all the consumer satisfaction and quality surveys for the last decade merely because people like the company logo.
You are welcome to your own opinion about the relative worth of any particular brand of computers, but get your facts straight or you just make yourself look silly and hateful. Just because other people have different criteria for buying computers does not make them all idiots buying $100 burgers. Apple's machines are more like the $18 burger from a local restaurant with great ambiance versus a $8 burger from a national chain restaurant with fluorescent lighting and plastic bench seating. Priced higher, perhaps even overpriced, but it all depends on your criteria and what you're looking for. But pretending there is no value in paying a bit more for nice ambiance is idiocy. The burger and the dining experience are both part of the price.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that there really is no difference in quality from an Apple Macbook and say a Dell, or Lenovo, or even a high quality Asus.
There are plenty of imagined differences however.
A high quality PC laptop is the $8 burger. Apple is that same burger served on a distinctive plate with a huge markup for the privilege.
And sure, I have no problem with paying more for aesthetics. Just...not that much. It's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
The person said components. Apple uses the same memory as most manufacturers because these are standard parts. Intel is only one of two CPU makers so who is Apple going to use for their computers? Qualcomm? As for screen, the last I checked high res displays are not common on PCs so that if you want to ignore this fact go ahead. Then's the rest of the computer like the case, the MB, and all the other components. But feel to ignore all of that.
Their selling point is the brand and the software...and they are worth nothing to me...and their sales are dropping.
We get it. You don't like Apple. You don't see the value.
Re:They are still damn overpriced (Score:5, Informative)
Let's let that dominate the discussion.
There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.
They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.
Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.
The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.
The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.
Re: (Score:3)
I spend a lot of time at the computer. Well over 80 hours a week. So I did a lot of measurements with different configurations of HW/SW. And I found out that I spend at average two more hours a week doing non-productive stuff on PC/Win than on Mac/OSX. Those two hours a week are 150 hours over the amortized lifetime (3 years) of the computer. I don't know what is your hourly rate, but I cannot afford to use PC/Win even if they paid me $5000 to take it, I would not. It is just too expensive for me. So yeah,
Re: (Score:2)
Let's walk through building a similarly speced Hackintosh and set aside the build quality and all-in-one arguments for the moment.
(Massively cribbed from TonyMacx86 [tonymacx86.com].
Let's get as 3.2 GHz i5 for $200 (Core i5-4570).
We need a motherboard to plug it into. A Gigabyte for $142 will get us WiFi and some nice features (GA-Z87N).
8 gigs of RAM for $85 seems reasonable and compares to the target too. (CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9)
A Bitfenix Prodigy is a nice case for $90. Here, you may be able to go cheaper, but you can
Re: (Score:2)
You design an iMac with the exact same specs and tell me how much it costs. Nobody will deny that there are cheaper options but there is a cost to the design and materials they use. Keep in mind that their net profits last quarter were only 20%. Doesn't sound too crazy to me. Google's is 19.84, and Microsoft's net is over 28. I find it odd that those companies are never accused of ripping off consumers.
Re: (Score:3)
Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.
Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't post real world examples like that here. You'll only be described as an idiot/shill/computer illiterate caveman.
Smash (Score:2)
Funny how my WIFI card i bought last month with Linux support on the box breaks every kernel upgrade
Lets get this right your prepared to argue the massive costs of $2000 for an iMac...but can't buy a $20 USB dongle that works. Ironically I have range of dongles that don't work on Vista+. Wireless under Linux is now second to none. Would you like me to give you a list :)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1998 you spent two weeks to get it half working if there's actually a driver for your hardware -- or two months to write the damn driver yourself. These days you spend 2-3 days to find, install and config the latest kernel and drivers, because your 6 month old distro release (using a year old kernel) probably won't have the drivers for your newer hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit. Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.
In '98, it wasn't as much spending 2-3 days for display drivers as spending that (and more) time upfront researching and buying the right components. Of course, afterwards you spent far more than that tweaking the configuration, compiling your own kernels etc. to eek out as much of the performance as possible. It was both fun and educational :) That said, there is something to be said for "unwrap, plug in, turn on - done"-Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.
Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.
Cool! So you were using Windows in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.
Now it's only Atari TOS where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you've shown your ignorance. The word is fanboy. Fanboi is a modern derivative, not no more valid.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would mess up the packaging and probably introduce an unsightly bulge somewhere.
Apple Cheap (Score:2)
Are you one of those cheapskates ...
No its Apple that is the cheapskate.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't support vesa mount?
Why no USB on keyboard?
Alas, nice package but more needed to be done to impress me...
The previous version - this one only changes the internal hardware - offered a VESA mount, so this might be made available again. As for USB on the keyboard, you'll get that if you select the wired keyboard rather than the wireless one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Vesa Mount? (Score:2, Informative)
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac-vesa
Apple got that covered.
Hire Purchase. (Score:2)
I spend a lot of my life sitting in front of my computer. Even if I pay $500 more for a nicer-looking machine, every five years, I'm paying $2 a week for nicer working conditions. I spend more than that for coffee.
No they are paring for an inferior hardware, that is upgradable so won't last five years...applying a salesman's hire purchase sell won't work especially when the competitors are $200 tablets. I drink tea :)
Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast (Score:5, Insightful)
With crappy resolution considering it's a 27" display.
Amazing how this gets modded up as "insightful" when there isn't actually anyone selling a 27" display at higher resolution, at least not at a price exceeding the price of the complete iMac.
Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?"
Not just nowadays.
Democratic moderation, in all its forms, only furthers tribalism. It exists due to laziness and the desire to play to people's egos. It is rarely used as "intended".
Re: (Score:2)
Times have changed. Seiki, a brand with a somewhat dubious reputation, has released a 39 inch 4k display that sells for $699. You may quibble about build quality, color rendition, viewing angle and a 30 Hz refresh rate, but "4k for seven hundred" is a powerful meme.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
With crappy resolution considering it's a 27" display.
Bullshit. Find a 27" monitor with higher resolution and post a link.
Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast (Score:4, Informative)
It's more a piece of furniture than a functional system. Not much better than a tablet really since it's using a mobile graphics processor as well (GT775M). This isn't a powerhouse system but you're paying a premium for it, especially in the 27" model (MSRP $2000) for a system that's great for doing spreadsheets or word docs. You may as well spend your money on an HP 20" Rove for half the cost and you get it to go with a touchscreen.
That system that you recommend is a joke compared to the 21" iMac. It's a bit cheaper in price, and a lot cheaper in everything else. Comparing it to the 27" is plain ridiculous.
You say "it's not a powerhouse". One has 3.2 GHz quad core i5, the other a cheap 1.7 GHz dual core i3. Apple doesn't even put those into their cheapest laptops.
Re: (Score:2)
That system that you recommend is a joke compared to the 21" iMac. It's a bit cheaper in price, and a lot cheaper in everything else. Comparing it to the 27" is plain ridiculous.
But both are similar in at least one respect--they cannot play the games he wants to play, at the level he expects. If you're going to waste money on a PC that fails to meet the required specs, you might as well waste less money.
Re: (Score:2)
"One has 3.2 GHz quad core i5, the other a cheap 1.7 GHz dual core i3. Apple doesn't even put those into their cheapest laptops."
Umm, excuse me? The MacBook Air does include i3 processors.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much better than a tablet really since it's using a mobile graphics processor as well
How can the iMac possibly be as good as a tablet?. it's heavy. It's bulky. Battery life is abysmal/I€
Re: (Score:2)
In both instances, a consequence of designing computers around the video chipset. The iMac still uses a mobile video chipset.
Re: (Score:2)
iMacs are not mobile.