Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac redesign? [Merged]
- Thread starter SashaDanielle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great job on the write up and those bezels are extremely sexy. But the cube base is an awkward blocky monolith beneath the computer that doesn’t take any inspiration from the iMacs that came before it. Looks like a cheap Mac Pro imitation and not the next iMac design.
Great job on the write up and those bezels are extremely sexy. But the cube base is an awkward blocky monolith beneath the computer that doesn’t take any inspiration from the iMacs that came before it. Looks like a cheap Mac Pro imitation and not the next iMac design.
I did say it was about the format rather than the looks. I'd put it together from the looks of current/upcoming Macs because when I've mentioned wanting the G4 format in the past, people were commenting on the looks as if I was looking for a return to the exact styling of that model, saying it was dated.
A new iMac is likely to have the styling inspired by the current Mac range instead of past iMacs. The base is based on the Mac Pro without legs and handles, with the shape inspired by the inner layer of the Power Mac G4 cube. I went with that option so I could show the potential for better cooling.
I understand why you styled it the way you did. But history has shown us the iMac has never taken its design cues from the Mac Pro. And because of the cost of the Mac Pro, I doubt it will take on its design from that. The Apple Cinema Display first was made to match the G4 and G5 Mac Pros and then was styled after the Macbook all-aluminum models. The ACD then became the Thunderbolt Display in 2011 and that took it's design inspiration from the current crop of iMacs.
The Mac Pro body itself has never even come close to having the same design as an iMac. So why would the next iMac take on the cheese grater style? They don't need the cheese grater to help with cooling as they've already delivered better cooling on the iMac Pro. It serves no practical purpose. Machining the new Mac Pro case is NOT cheap and there's simply no need to write that expense into the cost of the iMac since the main function of the case is cooling.
Again, I went with the design to show points, not to say it should look exactly like that.
They have improved the cooling on the iMac Pro, but it can be improved as it can throttle (e.g. https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/29/video-does-the-imac-pro-get-too-hot-when-under-load) and the ability to add RAM has been removed, not surprising when the ducting is so extensive. Are they going to add the cost of the cooling solution to the non-Pro iMac?
I disagree. The iMac is the only Mac without T2 chips and lacks, along with the mini (and the iMP), of BT5.
Comet Lake S chips will allow a better management of TB3, Wifi 6 and BT5, therefore opening to a redesign of the iMac to accommodate new antennas and I/O architecture. Moreover, I would expect an update in the screen brightness and gamut, plus (hopefully) the addition of Dolby ATMOS compatible speakers (maybe aided by a new T3 chip).
We may see a new model between January and March 2020, imho. Very likely with AMD new Navi GPUs (5700, 5700 XT and perhaps a 5600/5800 option).
[doublepost=1567196844][/doublepost]Apple could use the XDR design on the iMP to differentiate and support a better cooling solution for the upcoming Cascade Lake X chips, due in December.
We might see a contextual presentation of new iMacs along with iMPs... since iMPs need to wait for a new AMD Navi cards that should arrive in January.
Last edited:
I would leave the design as it is, maybe make it little bit thicker for better cooling. Internal design should be copied from iMP including the option to not upgrade RAM anymore (because of cooling solution). And add space grey option. Also, they should add Face ID camera and T2 chip as well.
Now for the configuration part, I will write only about 27-inch version.
Base tier: i5 4C/4T - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD - Low tier AMD GPU with 4 GB VRAM
Mid tier: i5 6C/6T (upgradable to i7 6C/12T) - 16 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD - mid tier AMD GPU with 6 GB VRAM (option to upgrade to top tier AMD GPU with 8 GB VRAM)
Top tier: i7 6C/12T (upgradable to i9 8C/16T) - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - top tier AMD GPU with 8 GB VRAM (upgradable to Vega 48 equiv. with 8 GB VRAM and Vega 64 equiv. with 12 GB VRAM).
RAM expandable to 64 GB, SSD expandable to 4 TB.
2 TB 4, 2 USB-C, 4 USB 3.0, SD card reader with UHS-II support, 1 Gbit Ethernet (optional upgrade to 10 Gbit).
Wireless numeric keyboard included for all 27-inch models.
Now for the configuration part, I will write only about 27-inch version.
Base tier: i5 4C/4T - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD - Low tier AMD GPU with 4 GB VRAM
Mid tier: i5 6C/6T (upgradable to i7 6C/12T) - 16 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD - mid tier AMD GPU with 6 GB VRAM (option to upgrade to top tier AMD GPU with 8 GB VRAM)
Top tier: i7 6C/12T (upgradable to i9 8C/16T) - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - top tier AMD GPU with 8 GB VRAM (upgradable to Vega 48 equiv. with 8 GB VRAM and Vega 64 equiv. with 12 GB VRAM).
RAM expandable to 64 GB, SSD expandable to 4 TB.
2 TB 4, 2 USB-C, 4 USB 3.0, SD card reader with UHS-II support, 1 Gbit Ethernet (optional upgrade to 10 Gbit).
Wireless numeric keyboard included for all 27-inch models.
I wouldn't mind it being a lot thicker if it improved the cooling and still allowed RAM upgrades. I'm not interested in FaceID as my iMac camera is almost always covered up, and don't plan on changing that.
I agree about having SSD as standard, and would like to see a numeric keyboard, but would like the option to wire it when desired, especially as it would be more secure for the other thing I'd like on the keyboard: TouchID.
I doubt they would be going back to wired option so Face ID seems more realistic than Touch ID.
I think that the next iMac should look like these https://www.google.com/search?biw=1324&bih=852&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNQExoxRszdkRystYmMFpDgDhN4epw:1567891070106&sa=1&ei=fh50XcGWBo3ctQXp3ZvgDQ&q=imac+g3&oq=imac+g3&gs_l=img.3...0.0..29709...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz-img.TGq0B-PKbVE&ved=0ahUKEwjBzZ6y0b_kAhUNbq0KHenuBtwQ4dUDCAY&uact=5 that will be a nice buy.
Whatever Apple does with Macs, I hope for much improved thermals, more RAM and SSD for base models. Also better Bluetooth, that would be helpful.
Yes, it would be nice NOT to deal with Face ID and still be able to update the RAM on 27" models.
Yes, it would be nice NOT to deal with Face ID and still be able to update the RAM on 27" models.
I do hope to see a redesigned iMac/iMacPro by the end of this year. Maybe with a 30" Super Retina XDR display?
The iMac G4 was always my favorite Apple product design. It does solve the eye level problem that none of its successors' designs have been able to due.
I am sure that Apple would never do it, but I would love to see new retro-mac models with modern HW.
Maybe an updated iMac G4 with an aluminum shell and a 27" display.
I would buy it.
I have a 17" iMac G4, it works perfectly fine, but I was thinking of doing a hackintosh project and attempt to put modern internals in it. But... The idea of hacking up a perfectly working iMac G4 makes me a little sad. Plus it would probably be a very time consuming challenge.
With Tim Cook running things, I think the reality is going to be the most boring design ever devised for a computer.
Probably welded shut. Like a giant iPad or something stupid like that.
“No vent holes”.
Probably welded shut. Like a giant iPad or something stupid like that.
“No vent holes”.
It certainly doesn't need to be any thinner. Just reduce the bezels and size, or keep the footprint and increase the display sizes. 21" to 24" 27" to 32"
Guys, I can’t understand why so many people want a larger display? Is 27" really not enough? And why does everyone say exactly 32"? With display size the computer just has to be put further away from the user, and not every table will allow this.
Drawing parallels with the new Pro display, do not forget that it is designed for many use cases, up to and including installation on the wall. In any case, the professional space of music and film studios is very different from the space at home or in the office.
Drawing parallels with the new Pro display, do not forget that it is designed for many use cases, up to and including installation on the wall. In any case, the professional space of music and film studios is very different from the space at home or in the office.
The computer does not have to be put further back, it just fills a wider portion of the view.
My main reasons for wanting a larger screen is less zooming and scrolling in art packages and games engines, less scrolling in code editors and websites, etc. Basically, the more content I can fit on screen, the less I have to keep moving the view to see other parts of the content. It improves the workflow.
Not everyone is saying 32", but the main reason for saying that size is it being the common next size up for monitors. Many 4K monitors are either 27"/28" or 32", with barely any in-between. I suggested 30" which is no longer a common size, but used to be the biggest monitor Apple made.
There are also differences between the ways in which the extra space is created. Some want to have two things open side-by-side, so want an ultra wide screen such as 21:9 ratio. Other want more height for more space in a single application, so would prefer the 16:10 ratio of MacBook Pros, or even the 4:3 ratio of an iPad. Personally I want more height. I can add extra monitors if I want to view two items (I already do that with an external 27" monitor, in portrait orientation, alongside my 27" iMac). Also, extra height increases the screen space without increasing the footprint on a desk, an issue you mentioned.
Apple needs to get back to making it "user" upgradeable. Love having the capability of adding my own ram or swapping out an SSD/M.2. Back to the days where it was affordable tech and easily upgraded....
I cannot completely agree with you for the reason that there are norms of the distance at which the user should be from the screen, depending on the diagonal. If you have a huge monitor close to you, it hurts your eyesight. The height of the monitor can also affect the angle of the user's head. An incorrect angle can lead to spinal problems. For this reason, I personally use the iMac stand.
For many years I worked for 27" and now temporarily for an secondary 21.5" (sold expensively my 27" in the hope that a major update will appear in this spring, but 2019 iMacs do not suit me).
After half a year 27" seems very large in comparsion with 21.5" and I could not use 32" because it's too big for me. While 21.5" is still not enough for me.
As for the rest as a whole, I agree: of course, it’s convenient to operate with data or the same video editing on a large screen. With games, only a moot point, because an increase in the diagonal will lead to an increase in resolution. Somewhere, the performance of video cards will cry loudly, which will cause additional load ...
I cannot completely agree with you for the reason that there are norms of the distance at which the user should be from the screen, depending on the diagonal. If you have a huge monitor close to you, it hurts your eyesight. The height of the monitor can also affect the angle of the user's head. An incorrect angle can lead to spinal problems. For this reason, I personally use the iMac stand.
For many years I worked for 27" and now temporarily for an secondary 21.5" (sold expensively my 27" in the hope that a major update will appear in this spring, but 2019 iMacs do not suit me).
After half a year 27" seems very large in comparsion with 21.5" and I could not use 32" because it's too big for me. While 21.5" is still not enough for me.
As for the rest as a whole, I agree: of course, it’s convenient to operate with data or the same video editing on a large screen. With games, only a moot point, because an increase in the diagonal will lead to an increase in resolution. Somewhere, the performance of video cards will cry loudly, which will cause additional load ...
Why would a bigger screen hurt my eyes at the same distance? I am still focusing at the same distance. It is filling a greater proportion of my vision, but I am careful about lighting my work area carefully so that the screen and surrounding area are similar brightness.
I agree about the height, that is why I think the iMac needs height-adjustment. The G4 was the only generation to do so. I have got a height adjustable table to partially make up for it. The desk is low as I can go, but the iMac is still too high (the top of a monitor should be at eye level).
Yes, large screens can be a problem for games as it requires more performance, although I was talking about games engines, i.e. making games, not playing them. That is one of the things I need screen space for the most.
For one, Apple is already releasing a 32” display later this year in the form of the XDR display, so it’s the next logical step for the iMac Pro. Secondly, it has the same exact PPI as the 4K and 5K iMac/iMac Pro displays so mathematically speaking, 32” gives you 6K at the same exact PPI. The pattern is this: 4K at 21.5” - 5K at 27” - 6K at 32” = 218 PPI.
I also believe the 32” size will be reserved for the iMac Pro only. Each Pro product with a display that Apple sells is now offered in two sizes, except for of course....the iMac Pro.
Last edited: