Hey Apple! While you're on this upgrade sprint, I wish out of the blue, an iPhone SE 2 is also announced.
Apple updates its iMac line
191–200 of 480 posts
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#192I'm still running a 2012 iMac with fusion drive and it still feels slicker to me than a high spec Windows machine.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made the mistake of buying an iMac last year with a fusion drive. I assumed that since it was an Apple product it would have relatively good performance. It is unbelievably slow and negates the high performance characteristics of the rest of the system. I have tremendous buyer's remorse and rarely use the machine. Whenever I do use it, the feeling I get is "how could Apple do this to its brand?". The machine cost o…
That's quite the opposite of my experience where only very cold data is not SSD-level performance. Do you have anything like anti-virus software which might be interfering with the HSM mechanism?
In my experience most of what I end up needing ends up cold. Even XCode builds take forever on it due to the slow storage.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a thunderbolt drive caddy and boot from external Thunderbolt disk. Refreshed an old iMac this wayz
I pulled the screen off and installed an SSD. Easy to do
Any links to a tutorial on how to do this? I'd love to do that but also don't want to crack the screen in the process.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something sounds wrong. I have an older 21.5 with the first generation 1 TB fusion and it is not at all slow.
First generation 1TB fusion drives had 128GB of SSD storage. 2017 and 2019 1TB fusion drives have 32GB of SSD storage [1], which is basically just enough for the OS and a couple of apps if you are lucky. People are not exaggerating when they say Apple hardware are regressing, not progressing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Drive
That explains it. I hadn't actually used one before purchasing it but had used the previous generation model a few times.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
A $3k desktop for which you need to buy an external drive. At some point slavishness to the Apple brand must have a breaking point. Not wanting to start a fanboy war but I am a big believer in the right tool for the right job at the right price. For $3k I could build a monster PC with a stunning screen.
If you’re buying a “$3000” iMac you’re not buying one with a fusion drive....
I maxed out the CPU and got a lot of RAM, I assumed the drive would have enough cache that I wouldn't notice the spindle aspect.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#197Bought my iMac 7 years ago with 8GB as the default memory option and a 1TB fusion drive. And here we are, nearly a decade later. Still 8 GB in the newest models. Still 1 TB fusion drives. GPUs haven't even seemed to take a jump over last year's models.
True. The only thing to replace 7yr old iMac is iMac Pro. I splurged, got myself one and expect to get another 7 yrs from it.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#198Maybe the best feature: > 8GB (two 4GB) of 2666MHz DDR4 memory; four SO-DIMM slots, user accessible
I haven't needed to touch my memory in forever; why is this still apparently weighed so heavily? Or is that one of those things where you try to go around the Apple tax of more memory by installing your own?
RAM is currently my only major limitation on a computer.
Being able to upgrade it down the line (or immediately because only small sizes are offered) is ideal.
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of folks use an iMac as the primary family machine - email, homework, some Netflix, kids' basic games. 8 GB is entirely sufficient for that. Hell, four probably is. If you're doing Photoshop plus a half dozen VMs, you buy it with more RAM.
Chrome + Slack alone took up ~3 GB of RAM on my 4 GB machine and forced me to upgrade.
So what did you replace Chrome and Slack with…?
Re: Apple updates its iMac line
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, I would want at least a Vega 64 for that amount of money (Or even a Radeon VII!). But then Apple has to think about cooling inside the small chassis, so they might not have a choice. (They managed to fix a Vega 64X in the iMac Pro, but the Pro lineup has different thermal management than the normal one)
It seems crazy to me that Apple compromised the cooling solution of their desktop machine to save 5mm of thickness. Does anyone outside of Apple's marketing department care about the thickness of their desktop machine as long as it is below an inch or two?
We're not the target audience. For programmers, developers etc, Apple has the Mac Pro.