Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

27-inch iMac gets a major update

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 611 posts

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#441

Post by gowld »

ogre_codes wrote: post #434
cactus2093 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iMac Pro is starting to seem pretty redundant even with this slight spec boost. If you upgrade the new 27" iMac to the same specs, you can get a faster machine than the base model $4999 iMac pro for $900 less - it's a faster clock speed 10-core processor, better performing GPU with Radeon 5700 XT 16GB (as opposed to Vega 64 8GB), and same 32GB RAM and 10Gb ethernet and 1TB SSD for that price. The iMac pro has eve…

Particularly when you consider they didn't even add the anti-glare display upgrade to the iMac Pro. It seems likely the iMac Pro will go its entire life with only this one small processor bump before it's retired.

They probably decided having a iMac Pro was pointless when it could just be the upgraded iMac.

It made sense for a little while before the iMac screens were upgraded to 5k.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#442

Post by paulpan »

skohan wrote: post #256
paulpan wrote: post #202

This essentially confirms Apple's strategy to just refresh existing models/chassis without redesigns going forward; the new Apple chips will be used exclusively for redesigned/relaunches like the Macbook. Smart move since it increases the appeal of the Apple-powered Mac devices. The pricing difference will also help, as based on the expensive base configurations (RAM, SSD as others have pointed out here), it will mak…

Is there credible evidence the new devices will actually be cheaper? It hasn’t been the trend with Apple product launches

Only rumors so far but it would make logical sense from a supply chain perspective - there's no separate supplier for silicon/chips.

https://www.techradar.com/in/news/the-next-macbook-may-be-ap...

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#443

Post by EricE »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #350
smnrchrds wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So before the lower-end one had 64GB? No, the lower end ones came with "Fusion Drive", that was 32-128 GB of SSD merged with a 1TB HDD presented as a single disk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Drive

The audacity they had selling spinning drives for personal computing in 2020.

Meh - my Mom's iMac has the 2TB fusion drive and it works surprisingly well. When I dual boot it into bootcamp with Windows you can tell the SSD caching is not there; it's pretty obvious. Sticking a 32GB SSD (formatted NTFS) and dedicating it to readyboost helps a bit, but it's still no where near as effective as fusion under Mac OS. Obviously being pure SSD would be better, but when she got it almost five years ago that much SSD - even third party - would have been cost prohibitive and it's still pretty expensive to get 2TB as all SSD.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#444

Post by gowld »

tjoff wrote: post #329
hellofunk wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect the vast majority of people who pay for the upgrades are businesses or consultants where the Apple upgrade price is fairly negligible compared to cost of their professional time. Yes exactly. The premium on my time has been gradually edging out in my priorities. I'd rather pay a little extra to have something already there than spend the same amount in my own time instead. It's a fair tradeoff. "But there…

One example, just so you know how much you are being ripped off... Yes, this is actually a trivial amount of time even if you do it once a decade. Last time I checked buying 32 GB of ram for the imac was about $175, apple took $850 to upgrade from the base 8 GB to 32 GB... Replacing them wouldn't take many minutes. (Or - you could buy 64 GB for $350 (something apple didn't even offer, I guess the uint32 would overflo…

Upgrading RAM is much easier than upgrading storage, since storage is stateful and backups are never quite right.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#445

Post by beervirus »

thelittlenag wrote: post #111

Shipping with 8GB memory by default just seems absurd. Also, having only 2 Thunderbolt 3 ports seems a little light as well. I would hope to have had 4 ports at least.

Also, the three standard configurations (i.e., the ones you'll be able to walk into an Apple store and pick up, rather than ordering a different configuration online) max out at a 512 GB SSD. It's just bizarrely small.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#446

Post by tjoff »

gowld wrote: post #444
tjoff wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One example, just so you know how much you are being ripped off... Yes, this is actually a trivial amount of time even if you do it once a decade. Last time I checked buying 32 GB of ram for the imac was about $175, apple took $850 to upgrade from the base 8 GB to 32 GB... Replacing them wouldn't take many minutes. (Or - you could buy 64 GB for $350 (something apple didn't even offer, I guess the uint32 would overflo…

Upgrading RAM is much easier than upgrading storage, since storage is stateful and backups are never quite right.

That doesn't apply on a new machine.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#447

Post by EricE »

Dahoon wrote: post #345
spideymans wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple sells an iPad for $349, and their new iPhone SE, with their most powerful SOC, is just $399.

"just"

"just"? Pretty ridiculous snark since you can't by an Android device at any price that's faster.

"just" indeed...

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#448

Post by naravara »

Veedrac wrote: post #121
naravara wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It just feels wrong to buy anything new from Apple with "Intel Inside" - when they're clearly going to dump it soon, I'd be very surprised if Apple Silicon is going to be competitive against the Xeons in their highest end machines any time soon, so they'll be bound to supporting Intel at the OS level for the foreseeable future. They've basically said as much. I suspect you should be able to get about 5 years, at lea…

I don't think it'll be close to that long. Rumours are that they'll release an 8+4 core this year, which is enough for everything bar the top-end iMac Pro and Mac Pros, and I'm sure they can get out a 16+N core by 2021 or early 2022. That would be as fast as any Intel CPU on those models. And heck, the margins on those models are so large (they sell a $3000 Xeon W for $7000) that they could comfortably push past yiel…

Good point. I still think 5 years is a realistic time-horizon for how long before they start phasing Intel stuff out, but that could just be like that Bill Gates quote about how people tend to way overestimate how much progress will be made a year from now and way underestimate how much things will change 10 years from now.

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#449

Post by beervirus »

kstrauser wrote: post #436
dopamean wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant who shells out the extra 1k and is ok with that.

My boss. I mean, we don't have unlimited cash to throw away, but let's say I'm going to keep a new Mac for 4 years (which is a lot less time than I'll probably actually have it, but we'll round down). I work about 2,000 hours a year, or about 8,000 hours over the time I'll own it. That $1,000 amortizes out to be about $0.13 per hour, which is a rounding error compared to salary, benefits, air conditioning at the offi…

But the RAM is trivial to upgrade. Why not just do it yourself for half the price?

Re: 27-inch iMac gets a major update

#450

Post by EricE »

rsynnott wrote: post #346
look_lookatme wrote: post #70

I wish I could use it as an external display. I would buy one as my personal machine and then use the display during the day with my MBP for work. Would be nice in this new world of remote work.

Always found it irritating that they never brought back target display mode. It was forgivable on the first retina iMac, as there was then no widespread connectivity for 5K screens (iirc that Mac internally used overclocked DP1.2 or something), but once Thunderbolt 3 was available there was really no excuse. Though maybe I should be thanking them; I'd almost certainly have bought one if target display mode was availa…

Blame it on Intel. Apple had to go to a custom display controller to get the 5K to work.

With Apple Silicon I suspect we will see the return of target display mode. I can't wait!

Post reply on HN