Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #61073 > unrolled thread

new iMac

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-18 07:33 -0700
    Re: new iMac Steve <gratefuldead@xs4all.nl> - 2014-06-18 17:20 +0200
      Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-18 08:31 -0700
        Re: new iMac gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-06-18 08:43 -0700
          Re: new iMac Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-18 16:54 +0100
        Re: new iMac Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-18 16:54 +0100
          Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-18 09:03 -0700
            Re: new iMac Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-18 18:10 +0100
            Re: new iMac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-18 14:49 -0400
            Re: new iMac Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-19 05:20 +0200
        Re: new iMac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-18 14:44 -0400
        Re: new iMac Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-19 05:15 +0200
          Re: new iMac Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-19 16:04 +1200
          Re: new iMac dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-06-19 16:29 +1200
            Re: new iMac JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-19 12:40 -0400
              Re: new iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-19 17:07 +0000
          Re: new iMac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-06-18 22:35 -0700
      Re: new iMac Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-19 05:02 +0200
        Re: new iMac dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-06-19 16:29 +1200
          Re: new iMac Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-19 10:47 +0200
            Re: new iMac dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-06-20 12:04 +1200
              Re: new iMac Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-20 13:46 +1200
          Re: new iMac dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-06-20 20:59 +1200
            Re: new iMac Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-21 10:46 +1200
    Re: new iMac Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-06-18 11:38 -0400
      Re: new iMac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-18 15:23 -0400
    Re: new iMac Darrin "Doc" O'Leary  <droleary@2q2014.subsume.com> - 2014-06-18 16:42 +0000
      Re: new iMac Kaltsas, Alexander <macdude22@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-18 12:07 -0500
      Re: new iMac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-18 19:41 +0000
        Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-18 18:24 -0400
          Re: new iMac Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-18 23:30 +0100
          Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-18 15:52 -0700
          Re: new iMac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-19 01:17 +0000
            Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-19 12:57 -0400
              Re: new iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-19 17:09 +0000
                Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-20 15:46 -0400
                  Re: new iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 20:17 +0000
                    Re: new iMac Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-20 22:30 +0100
                    Re: new iMac George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-20 16:43 -0500
                      Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-20 15:27 -0700
                        Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-20 18:43 -0400
                          Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-20 17:05 -0700
                            Re: new iMac George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-20 19:49 -0500
                              Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-20 18:29 -0700
                              Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 13:10 -0400
                    Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-20 18:42 -0400
                      Re: new iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 22:55 +0000
                      Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-20 17:07 -0700
                        Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 13:07 -0400
                          Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-21 14:22 -0700
                    Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 13:08 -0400
                  Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-20 14:35 -0700
                    Re: new iMac George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-20 16:44 -0500
                    Re: new iMac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-20 22:23 +0000
                      Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 13:12 -0400
                  Re: new iMac George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-20 16:42 -0500
                    Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-20 15:24 -0700
                      Re: new iMac George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-20 19:42 -0500
    Re: new iMac Kaltsas, Alexander <macdude22@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-18 11:16 -0500
      Re: new iMac JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-18 13:38 -0400
        Re: new iMac Kaltsas, Alexander <macdude22@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-18 12:59 -0500
      Re: new iMac Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-19 09:32 +1200
        Re: new iMac "Mr. Jo Jo" <josephjohns@gmail.com> - 2014-06-18 18:16 -0400
    Re: new iMac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-18 19:39 +0000
      Re: new iMac Kaltsas, Alexander <macdude22@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-18 15:06 -0500
      Re: new iMac Darrin "Doc" O'Leary  <droleary@2q2014.subsume.com> - 2014-06-18 21:56 +0000
      Re: new iMac Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-08-11 16:19 -0400
    Re: new iMac Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-06-18 21:19 -0500
      Re: new iMac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-19 03:06 +0000
        Re: new iMac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-19 18:04 +0000
      Re: new iMac Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-19 16:08 +1200
    Re: new iMac "Mr. Strat" <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> - 2014-06-19 06:22 -0700
      Re: new iMac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-19 07:12 -0700
        Re: new iMac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 11:46 -0400
        Re: new iMac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-19 18:08 +0000
          Re: new iMac dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-06-20 12:04 +1200
    Re: new iMac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-21 07:31 -0400
      Re: new iMac JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-21 15:16 -0400
        Re: new iMac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-21 17:59 -0400
      Re: new iMac Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-08-11 16:40 -0400
        Re: new iMac Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-08-12 18:52 +1200

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#61093

I'd rather just get a refurb nicer machine to save $200 bucks.

On 2014-06-18 17:38:52 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 14-06-18 12:16, Kaltsas wrote:
> 
>> down as one of those. Apple has made too many compromises to hit a
>> specific price point.
> 
> Apple could have gone two ways:
> 
> Take current model and reduce specs until costs are low enough to offer
> it at $1099.
> 
> OR
> 
> Design a low end Mac, and then price it.
> 
> 
> I suspect the later. They started off with low end specs and then set a
> price for it. Price happens to be way too high for those specs, but this
> is no surprise from Apple.
> 
> 
> That new iMac should be in the $800 price range.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61096

In article <53a1bb59$1$47987$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, Kaltsas, Alexander
<macdude22@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-18 14:33:33 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:
> > 
> > There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> > bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> > 
> > New            Former
> > $1099          $1299
> > 
> > 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> > dual-core      quad-core
> > i5             i5
> > 
> > 500GB          1TB
> > hard drive     hard drive
> > 
> > Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> > Graphics 5000  Graphics
> 
> Low End Mac used to list specific Mac models as Road Apples when apple 
> made compromising decisions. I think this new low cost iMac will go 
> down as one of those. Apple has made too many compromises to hit a 
> specific price point. If you absolutely needed to get in an iMac at 
> this price point it's workable but for less money you can get a similar 
> value in Mac Mini or for slightly more money you get a considerable 
> more value in iMac.

The rumour is that it's aimed at "emerging markets" where it may be
more popular. It may also do well in schools. 

Apple probably made it available for everyopne to stop the whiners
complaining that they couldn't get get one (as has happened with
previous education-only models) ... and yet the whiners are now
complaining that they don't want one. Apple simply can't win with these
fools.   :-\

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61099

"Your Name"  wrote in message 
news:190620140932517852%YourName@YourISP.com...

In article <53a1bb59$1$47987$862e30e2@ngroups.net>, Kaltsas, Alexander
<macdude22@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-18 14:33:33 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:
> >
> > There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the 
> > former
> > bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> >
> > New            Former
> > $1099          $1299
> >
> > 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> > dual-core      quad-core
> > i5             i5
> >
> > 500GB          1TB
> > hard drive     hard drive
> >
> > Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> > Graphics 5000  Graphics
>
> Low End Mac used to list specific Mac models as Road Apples when 
> apple
> made compromising decisions. I think this new low cost iMac will go
> down as one of those. Apple has made too many compromises to hit a
> specific price point. If you absolutely needed to get in an iMac at
> this price point it's workable but for less money you can get a 
> similar
> value in Mac Mini or for slightly more money you get a considerable
> more value in iMac.

>The rumour is that it's aimed at "emerging markets" where it may be
>more popular. It may also do well in schools.

>Apple probably made it available for everyopne to stop the whiners
>complaining that they couldn't get get one (as has happened with
>previous education-only models) ... and yet the whiners are now
>complaining that they don't want one. Apple simply can't win with 
>these
>fools.   :-\

You tell em, sport. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61090

In message <180620140733336542%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).

> New            Former
> $1099          $1299

> 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> dual-core      quad-core
> i5             i5

> 500GB          1TB
> hard drive     hard drive

> Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> Graphics 5000  Graphics

It's a shame they couldn't drop that price to $999.

*I* wouldn't buy it, but a lot of people would.

-- 
Don't just *do* something: *sit* there!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61094

Psychologically, $999 seems like a better price (though it really 
should be $899 based on the specs).
Maybe they don't want people to identify the iMac as having a $999 
baseline. This really seems like a token effort.

On 2014-06-18 19:39:24 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <180620140733336542%michelle@michelle.org>
>   Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
>> bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> 
>> New            Former
>> $1099          $1299
> 
>> 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
>> dual-core      quad-core
>> i5             i5
> 
>> 500GB          1TB
>> hard drive     hard drive
> 
>> Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
>> Graphics 5000  Graphics
> 
> It's a shame they couldn't drop that price to $999.
> 
> *I* wouldn't buy it, but a lot of people would.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61098

For your reference, records indicate that 
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> It's a shame they couldn't drop that price to $999.

$999 is the price of their 27” Thunderbolt display, and you’ll only see
a $100 difference between a similarly configured 21.5” and 27” iMac.  So,
in essence, they’ve put the price of the non-display parts at $200.  I
doubt they could drop that by $100, and some of us would be happy if they
put out a Mac mini that added $100 to it.

-- 
dn ƃuᴉʞool ǝɹɐ sƃuᴉɥʇ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63157

In article <slrnlq3qnd.bd2.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Don't just *do* something: *sit* there!

As Mr. Siddhartha said.

-- 
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61105

Wow, the specs are so inferior that it's not remotely worth the $200 
savings.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61106

On 2014-06-19, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Wow, the specs are so inferior that it's not remotely worth the $200 
> savings.

It's probably not worth the savings to most of Apple's customers. I have
to wonder, however, if the lower price point will still make it
attractive to some, particularly to those with a limited budget who can
afford the entry price and don't mind having the performance of the
MacBook Air in a desktop machine. And perhaps Apple is aware of other
segments that might like it. It may sell well. Time will tell.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61140

In message <c0f2e5F6u4rU2@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-19, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> Wow, the specs are so inferior that it's not remotely worth the $200 
>> savings.

> It's probably not worth the savings to most of Apple's customers. I have
> to wonder, however, if the lower price point will still make it
> attractive to some, particularly to those with a limited budget who can
> afford the entry price and don't mind having the performance of the
> MacBook Air in a desktop machine. And perhaps Apple is aware of other
> segments that might like it. It may sell well. Time will tell.

 agree with all of this, but I think it would do much better at $999. I
 know Apple has the margins they could cut that machine a little
 thinner.

 *I* wouldn't buy it, not even at $699, but that's me.

-- 
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved
of it." - Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61111

In article <slrnlq4i4k.18al.timmcn@sugaree.local>, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> Wow, the specs are so inferior that it's not remotely worth the $200 
> savings.

Depends entirely on your needs. For example, a $200 saving per computer
for a school means they could basically get a "free" computer for
almost every five they buy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61118

In article <180620140733336542%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> 
> New            Former
> $1099          $1299
> 
> 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> dual-core      quad-core
> i5             i5
> 
> 500GB          1TB
> hard drive     hard drive
> 
> Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> Graphics 5000  Graphics

New and crippled

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61119

In article <190620140622168896%mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com>, Mr. Strat
<mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <180620140733336542%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> > bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> > 
> > New            Former
> > $1099          $1299
> > 
> > 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> > dual-core      quad-core
> > i5             i5
> > 
> > 500GB          1TB
> > hard drive     hard drive
> > 
> > Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> > Graphics 5000  Graphics
> 
> New and crippled

Furthermore, the RAM is soldered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61127

In article <190620140712133788%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > New and crippled
> 
> Furthermore, the RAM is soldered.

so are the other parts.

most people don't upgrade their ram (or anything else) and certainly
not in the segment that imac is targeting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61141

In message <190620140712133788%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <190620140622168896%mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com>, Mr. Strat
> <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

>> In article <180620140733336542%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
>> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
>> > bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
>> > 
>> > New            Former
>> > $1099          $1299
>> > 
>> > 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
>> > dual-core      quad-core
>> > i5             i5
>> > 
>> > 500GB          1TB
>> > hard drive     hard drive
>> > 
>> > Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
>> > Graphics 5000  Graphics
>> 
>> New and crippled

> Furthermore, the RAM is soldered.

I wonder if this machine indicates there will not be a refresh of the
other iMacs any time soon. I need to buy an iMac in the next few months
and I was sort of thinking there might be a refresh/speed bump in
August, but now I am thinking that's not going to happen.

OTOH, it doesn't matter if this machine is the best top-of-the-line model.

-- 
I am by nature made for my own good, not my own evil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61157

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <190620140712133788%michelle@michelle.org> 
>   Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <190620140622168896%mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com>, Mr. Strat
> > <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> In article <180620140733336542%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> >> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> >> > bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> >> > 
> >> > New            Former
> >> > $1099          $1299
> >> > 
> >> > 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> >> > dual-core      quad-core
> >> > i5             i5
> >> > 
> >> > 500GB          1TB
> >> > hard drive     hard drive
> >> > 
> >> > Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> >> > Graphics 5000  Graphics
> >> 
> >> New and crippled
> 
> > Furthermore, the RAM is soldered.
> 
> I wonder if this machine indicates there will not be a refresh of the
> other iMacs any time soon.

An interesting point on that: rumour sites leaked that there was
evidence in the first developer seed of 10.9.4 (and in Yosemite) of new
iMac model identifiers - I remember mention of three new identifiers
which started with "iMac15".

The current generation of iMacs has model identifiers "iMac14,1"
(21.5-inch) and "iMac14,2" (27-inch). The new entry level model is
"iMac14,4". (Where did model 3 go?)

The new model identifiers imply that Apple is at least testing or
preparing for a new generation of iMacs, and the changes will be more
than just a CPU speed bump in the same Haswell family (as that can be
done without changing the model identifier).

It doesn't tell us very much about what feature changes they might have.
A model identifier change could be required by something as minor as
updating the chipset to Intel series 9 (which supports Haswell and
Broadwell). If these iMacs are released this year and continue to use
desktop-class processors, they would still be Haswell (Broadwell desktop
processors aren't likely to be available until next year). If Apple
switched to using laptop-class processors (like the MacBook Pros) they
might be available before the end of the year with Broadwell.

A more reasonable set of changes (all parts of which should already be
available) would be slightly faster Haswell desktop processors, GPU
updates in some models, the Intel 9 series chipset, and Thunderbolt 2.

Then there are wishes like a retina display. Assuming Apple can get the
display panels, that should already be feasible for a 21.5" iMac
(3840x2160, which is a standard 4K resolution). The 27" iMac is more of
a challenge, as 5120x2880 is more pixels than can be pushed through
DisplayPort 1.2. DisplayPort 1.3 can cope but I don't know how far it is
away from being available, plus new GPUs might be needed. (External
interfaces will still be a problem, as Thunderbolt 2 isn't fast enough
to carry DisplayPort 1.3.)

The Yosemite leak mentioned evidence of resolution scaling support for
iMacs, which implies a retina display.

This leads me to the theory that Apple is intending to release or at
least preview iMacs with retina displays, which will probably require
Yosemite, so an announcement at the Yosemite release event would be the
sensible time. Perhaps October?

If the non-retina models are also updated around that time they will
probably be a minor speed bump from the current models along the lines I
suggested above. I expect the new entry-level model would stay as it is.

> I need to buy an iMac in the next few months and I was sort of thinking
> there might be a refresh/speed bump in August, but now I am thinking
> that's not going to happen.

The presence of the new model identifiers in the 10.9.4 developer seed
is a curious point. I took that as a sign the new models might be
relased as soon as August (estimated point 10.9.4 will be ready).

Apple usually does an internal-only build to add support for new models,
which developers never get to see, so the presence of new iMac model
identifiers in the 10.9.4 developer seed may have been a mistake.

It would be odd timing to release a new entry level model now and update
the other models as soon as August, so I'm now thinking the other models
won't get updated until later in the year - September or October is
possible, and would be about a year after the current models were
introduced.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61304

On 2014.06.18, 10:33 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
>
> New            Former
> $1099          $1299
>
> 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> dual-core      quad-core
> i5             i5
>
> 500GB          1TB
> hard drive     hard drive
>
> Intel HD       Intel Iris Pro
> Graphics 5000  Graphics

I believe, from the MBA that I just got, that the 1.4 Dual Core in this 
new iMac is hyper threaded - so the performance will be a bit better 
than one would assume from the clocks.  Generally, HT delivers about 30% 
more performance than a non HT core.

But still ... for $200 ...

-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61337

One area where the new iMac may find some market is large deployments as
smart terminals.

Porter Airlines for instance uses iMacs as check in terminals for their
agents at its own airport. You don't need fancy computers for that and
rthe low end iMac would be fine. (and probably as the iMacs Porter
provides in its lounge for internet access).

There people care less about system performance than they do about
software reliability and software maintenance (where OS-X has an edge
over Windows).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61349

On 2014.06.21, 15:16 , JF Mezei wrote:
> One area where the new iMac may find some market is large deployments as
> smart terminals.
>
> Porter Airlines for instance uses iMacs as check in terminals for their
> agents at its own airport. You don't need fancy computers for that and
> rthe low end iMac would be fine. (and probably as the iMacs Porter
> provides in its lounge for internet access).
>
> There people care less about system performance than they do about
> software reliability and software maintenance (where OS-X has an edge
> over Windows).

Thin clients would probably be even better.


-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#63159

In article <15ydnVeebZG28DjOnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.06.18, 10:33 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > There's a new, lower-cost iMac; here's a comparison with the former
> > bottom-end iMac (which is still available as the middle iMac).
> >
> > New            Former
> > $1099          $1299
> >
> > 1.4GHz         2.7GHz
> > dual-core      quad-core
> > i5             i5
> >
> > 500GB          1TB
> > hard drive     hard drive
> >
  
> 
> I believe, from the MBA that I just got, that the 1.4 Dual Core in this 
> new iMac is hyper threaded - so the performance will be a bit better 
> than one would assume from the clocks.  Generally, HT delivers about 30% 
> more performance than a non HT core.
> 
> But still ... for $200 ...

Priced so _people_ won't buy it very often, but made so it can be 
discounted to schools. Apple got flack in the past for not selling the 
educational models to the public. Zo put the machine out at an 
unattractive price. The problem here is avoiding bait and switch 
prosecution.

-- 
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web