No 2018 iMac?!

[Zdigital2015]

Interesting. I did not know they'd have to change the motherboard for the new processor. Perhaps that's why we didn't see new models at the time of the MB Pro release.

The 27 inch regular iMac is the only Mac with upgradeable RAM I believe, or at least that is currently being sold by Apple. Would be a shame if they solder it on for the 2018 (and going forward) models.

Yes, the 8th- and 9th-Gen still use the LGA-1151 socket, but they are not backwards compatible with the LGA-1151 socket used by Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs, which were interchangeable with each other. Additionally, Kaby Lake (200-Series PCH) could still use the 100-Series PCH introduced alongside Skylake with just a BIOS update (my Gigabyte Z170 Ultra Gaming, for instance).

However, Coffee Lake (8th-, 9th-Gen) all require the use of the 300-Series (Z390, Z370, H370, Q370, B360, H310) PCH, which means Apple has to create a new motherboard. Also, Intel theroretically discontinued Alpine Ridge in late 2017/early 2018 in favor of Titan Ridge. Hopefully, this means Apple will pay some attention to the thermal management and introduce a slightly modified fan assembly while still allowing the user DRAM access. If they convert everything over to use the iMac Pro case, then we are out of luck.

I do not think they will solder it to the motherboard, but I do think the access door would be gone and quite possibly they might move to full size DDR4 DIMMs as the iMac Pro sports, albeit non-ECC.

 

[mreg376]

I see that possibility. Sort of a compromise. Still ends up being more expensive to change the RAM, because I don’t think you can bring your own RAM to Apple for service. Maybe to the authorized service provider...

Yes, even at a compromise it's not a great one. I would really be loath to allow anyone to break open my new iMac. And there's even some people complaining that Apple techs haven't been too good working on the innards of the iMac Pro. If that RAM door goes away there will be no comfy or inexpensive solution to upgrading from base RAM.

 

[alien3dx]

I see that possibility. Sort of a compromise. Still ends up being more expensive to change the RAM, because I don’t think you can bring your own RAM to Apple for service. Maybe to the authorized service provider...

i allready ask at my place if i can upgrade even not using my ram for 21 inchi 2017 model even ifixit said can. maybe after 4 year i willl ask again aasp

 

[Glockworkorange]

Yes, the 8th- and 9th-Gen still use the LGA-1151 socket, but they are not backwards compatible with the LGA-1151 socket used by Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs, which were interchangeable with each other. Additionally, Kaby Lake (200-Series PCH) could still use the 100-Series PCH introduced alongside Skylake with just a BIOS update (my Gigabyte Z170 Ultra Gaming, for instance).

However, Coffee Lake (8th-, 9th-Gen) all require the use of the 300-Series (Z390, Z370, H370, Q370, B360, H310) PCH, which means Apple has to create a new motherboard. Also, Intel theroretically discontinued Alpine Ridge in late 2017/early 2018 in favor of Titan Ridge. Hopefully, this means Apple will pay some attention to the thermal management and introduce a slightly modified fan assembly while still allowing the user DRAM access. If they convert everything over to use the iMac Pro case, then we are out of luck.

I do not think they will solder it to the motherboard, but I do think the access door would be gone and quite possibly they might move to full size DDR4 DIMMs as the iMac Pro sports, albeit non-ECC.

After reading some of the responses to my comments re: RAM soldering, I think it's more and more likely they seal that door but socket the RAM. That means payment for service to upgrade the RAM and probably exorbitant RAM prices, at least from Apple. If they seal that door, probably more cost effective to just buy all the RAM you need at the time of purchase. For my 2017 iMac, I had the luxury of sticking with 8 GB and then just buying another 16 from OWC.

 

[Release]

I'll never understand why Apple feels the need to take away the user-access ram or drive doors on any of their machines. Spending an extra few hundred dollars at the point of purchase for what they "might" need in the future is a big deal for some people. Enough to make some to look at less expensive PC's.

I get that a quite a few users will be perfectly fine with the base models, but since these are desktops, and peoples needs change throughout the years, upgrading an entire machine kinda pisses me off that Apple keeps doing this (as opposed to easily adding RAM or an SSD). Especially since they're now a trillion dollar company. Give us options. Build everything around the user needs and stop screwing the users because it's obvious to everyone except Apple that a lot of us are tired of the new machines getting more and more locked down.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I'll never understand why Apple feels the need to take away the user-access ram or drive doors on any of their machines. Spending an extra few hundred dollars at the point of purchase for what they "might" need in the future is a big deal for some people. Enough to make some to look at less expensive PC's.

I get that a quite a few users will be perfectly fine with the base models, but since these are desktops, and peoples needs change throughout the years, upgrading an entire machine kinda pisses me off that Apple keeps doing this (as opposed to easily adding RAM or an SSD). Especially since they're now a trillion dollar company. Give us options. Build everything around the user needs and stop screwing the users because it's obvious to everyone except Apple that a lot of us are tired of the new machines getting more and more locked down.

I agree but most of those ships have sailed. Let’s see what they do with the new MacPro

 

[Release]

I'm just worried that the Mac Pro is going to be out of the price range of most pro-sumer users.

 

[wardie]

I'm just worried that the Mac Pro is going to be out of the price range of most pro-sumer users.

I’m beginning to think that my dusty old 2008 MacPro3.1 cheese grater was a bargain for under £2k at the time for 2x quad Xeons...

 

[habeebhashim]

Apple's current Fusion Drives already use 24GB of PCIe (AHCI) based storage while working with the 1TB HDD and 128GB of PCIe (AHCI) based storage while working with the 2TB and 3TB HDDs. The only real moves I can see Apple making is to reinstate the 128GB of PCIe storage on the 1TB HDD tier, move the PCIe storage from AHCI to NVMe and also convert the Fusion drives to APFS in any updated iMacs, which would mean they are shipping them with macOS Mojave from the factory.

No disrespect to Intel, but I am not sure exactly what Optane would bring to the table that PCIe (NVMe) storage does not already with respect to Apple's Fusion Drives. Any further speed increases for Apple would be from moving to NVMe for the storage itself and moving the SSD Controller to the T2 chip. The fly in the ointment is that whole disk encryption without a performance penalty is not realistic using a spinning HDD and a small amount of flash storage, although Apple would have to be the final word on that.

I ordered a new iMac 21" 4K yesterday (3.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion and Radeon 560)

I really didn't want to order a desktop a year plus into its life and with another model (surely) imminent. But needed something for back-to-school and the current offer is still decent. I figured I'm currently using a 2014 Mac mini as the home PC so surely... a 2017 CPU with better GPU can't be that bad.

Btw, I remember reading somewhere in the specs that the 1TB Fusion drive now has 32GB SSD.

 

[EugW]

I ordered a new iMac 21" 4K yesterday (3.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion and Radeon 560)

I really didn't want to order a desktop a year plus into its life and with another model (surely) imminent. But needed something for back-to-school and the current offer is still decent. I figured I'm currently using a 2014 Mac mini as the home PC so surely... a 2017 CPU with better GPU can't be that bad.

Btw, I remember reading somewhere in the specs that the 1TB Fusion drive now has 32GB SSD.

Where are you?

In Canada and the US, the back to school promotion continues into late September.

Also, I never recommend the 1 TB Fusion model because it includes only 32 GB for its SSD. 32 GB may be more than before, but 32 GB is still bad.

 

[294307]

I ordered a new iMac 21" 4K yesterday (3.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion and Radeon 560)

I really didn't want to order a desktop a year plus into its life and with another model (surely) imminent. But needed something for back-to-school and the current offer is still decent. I figured I'm currently using a 2014 Mac mini as the home PC so surely... a 2017 CPU with better GPU can't be that bad.

Btw, I remember reading somewhere in the specs that the 1TB Fusion drive now has 32GB SSD.

You'll have to ignore those that don't recommend the 1 TB Fusion Drive without providing a valid reason why.

I also have an iMac with a 1 TB Fusion Drive (the 2017 model with a 32 GB SSD). One of the machines at work (which I have to use) is an older iMac with a 1 TB mechanical drive. I immediately noticed how much slower app launch times were, and how long it took the machine to wake from sleep. And this is when the only difference between these machines is the inclusion of a 32 GB SSD. I've had my iMac for over a year now and currently using 335 GB of storage. Someone told me on this forum that it would become slow by now. Why is it not slow yet? I must be doing something wrong!

The reality is that your most frequently used apps do not exceed the size of the SSD. The operating system moves all the apps you use most often onto it and reserves enough free space to make sure the iMac wakes from sleep quickly.

Now, the 2014 Mac mini has a 1 TB Fusion Drive option but because of how old the machine is, it actually comes with a larger 128 GB SSD. However, you know far well that these machines are so old and so slow that they are just not good value for money anymore. They are selling these machines at the same price as they were in 2014 with the same hardware. From synthetic benchmarks, even the 21.5-inch iMac with a 2.3 GHz dual-core i5 is faster than the highest-end Mac mini with a 3.0 Ghz dual-core i7. Obviously the type of storage you use can make a big difference to the perceived level of performance until you do something processor intensive.

 

[habeebhashim]

Where are you?

In Canada and the US, the back to school promotion continues into late September.

Also, I never recommend the 1 TB Fusion model because it includes only 32 GB for its SSD. 32 GB may be more than before, but 32 GB is still bad.

I live in Singapore... and it's possible this promotion will continue to Sept. Unfortunately, I have a need for a machine now so no choice.

I even considered a refurbished/second-hand 2015 iMac... but even those with mechanical HDDs are selling for the equivalent of US$750. I could have gotten one of those and upgraded to an SSD for about $100 more... but I figured an iMac with a CPU 3 generations newer, a vastly better GPU, Screen and warranty for $500 more was the better deal.
[doublepost=1534677277][/doublepost]

You'll have to ignore those that don't recommend the 1 TB Fusion Drives without providing a valid reason why.

I also have an iMac with a 1 TB Fusion Drive (the 2017 model with a 32 GB SSD). One of the machines at work (which I have to use) is an older iMac with a 1 TB mechanical drive. I immediately noticed how much slower app launch times were, and how long it took the machine to wake from sleep. And this is when the only difference between these machines is the inclusion of a 32 GB SSD. I've had my iMac for over a year now and currently using 335 GB of storage. Someone told me on this forum that it would become slow by now. Why is it not slow yet? I must be doing something wrong!

The reality is that your most frequently used apps do not exceed the size of the SSD. The operating system moves all the apps you use most often onto it and reserves enough free space to make sure the iMac wakes from sleep quickly.

Now, the 2014 Mac mini has a 1 TB Fusion Drive option but because of how old the machine is, it actually comes with a larger 128 GB SSD. However, you know far well that these machines are so old and so slow that they are just not good value for money anymore. They are selling these machines at the same price as they were in 2014 with the same hardware. From synthetic benchmarks, even the 21.5-inch iMac with a 2.3 GHz dual-core i5 is faster than the highest-end Mac mini with a 3.0 Ghz dual-core i7. Obviously the type of storage you use can make a big difference to the perceived level of performance until you do something processor intensive.

I agree with you... a faster I/O can only get you that far... sometimes a newer CPU/GPU can make a bigger difference.

Besides, my use case doesn't involve any huge apps. I've even stopped running Parallels or VirtualBox which would involve loading a 50GB Win 7 VM.

I think the 32GB buffer for the Fusion drive should be ok for my daughters limited school use.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I ordered a new iMac 21" 4K yesterday (3.4Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion and Radeon 560)

I really didn't want to order a desktop a year plus into its life and with another model (surely) imminent. But needed something for back-to-school and the current offer is still decent. I figured I'm currently using a 2014 Mac mini as the home PC so surely... a 2017 CPU with better GPU can't be that bad.

Btw, I remember reading somewhere in the specs that the 1TB Fusion drive now has 32GB SSD.

Sometimes you get the luxury of waiting, sometimes you do not - it is what it is.

That being said, the current 2017 iMac is still a very nice, very fast machine and should last for quite a while.

You are correct that the Flash Storage for the 1TB Fusion Drive is 32GB, that is my error. It was 24GB for the 2015, which Apple may have found was insufficient. There is a limit to how large the flash storage Apple should use for the Fusion Drive, but I definitely think 24GB or 32GB is insufficient with any size Fusion Drive. That is just my opinion, others may disagree. I get a little tired of Apple's penny pinching, which got them to a $1 Trillion market cap at the expense of customer good will, but I digress.

 

[jcmendes]

Still on TOP

 

[alien3dx]

Still on TOP

it all about video video.. where some of us like me rarely using it . cinebench and so on . Are should i make video just for it .. but a diff perceptive view.

 

[Jodeo]

I have a 2007 iMac AL - first of the Aluminum era. Let. That. Sink. In...

While the form factor of iMacs has been refined, the overall 'look' of the iMac has been the same for over a decade — until the iMac Pro debuted with black. Even so, not much changed, visually. A brand new iMac comes with a color scheme and overall look that is 11 years old - more than half the lifespan of the entire iMac line itself. It's time for some bold moves...

I think Apple should split the iMac line in two: iMac Express and the mid-range iMac (keeping iMac Pro where it is).

The iMac Express would return to a smaller footprint with sharp-looking polycarb enclosures (perhaps with some sort of translucent LED lighting tech so that you could delicately and evenly make your iMac most any fruit flavor you want). The original iMac case had some lovely sub-dermal textures to it, and it would be cool to recapture some sense of that depth and elegance. Reduce the screen configs to 18" and 22" widescreens and maybe even run off an A chip instead of Intel. Include an HDD and, instead of an SSD option, maybe a 'backpack' SSD notch so an external SSD could connect via USB3 and fit conveniently somewhere on the back, out of site, without afflicting the overall design (unlike, say, that white plastic dongle hanging off my $2,500 MacBook Pro). If they price pointed the base model below $1,000, it would be a hot, trendy machine that would attract new customers and those looking for a simpler, practical desktop. The lifecycle would be 3-4 years.

For mid-range iMac I propose they maintain the gist of the current form factor but with some fresh color concepts and, maybe, extra camera(s) and/or sensor(s) for VR. Here again, I'm more intrigued by great looks rather than materials used: If they crafted these out of a, say, a newer composite material that looked great, is light, environmentally friendly, supports the machine itself (eg. thermal regulation, noise, etc.) AND enhances upgradability (RAM, SSDs, graphics cards, SD slot), I'd be far more interested and excited! Watching Steve's keynote where the iMac was introduced reminded me of an Apple that also announced a laptop with hot-swappable bays. That kind of interactivity, while not needed as much now, reminded me of an Apple that loved cool ideas and made them happen to the betterment of their customers. Apple has used a variety of materials for the iPhone so it should not be a big deal to consider it. (I wonder if they could do a limited edition glass model iMac...) Given that Apple's cash cow is phones and services, they shouldn't be so afraid of letting consumers upgrade their Macs and keep them longer. The lifecycle here would be 4-7 years.

Further, they should reengineer the keyboard experience. It's not enough (or really, desirable) to slap a touch bar on the current keyboard (which they'll probably do anyway). I've yet to see an affordable third-party option (and one that's not Windows-centric) that I like. For one, I'd like better keys: They keep getting a lower profile and, by extension, have driven up error rates (cutting productivity and satisfaction). I like my 2007 keyboard fine, but the newer keys are thinner and harder to use. There have been attempts over 20+ years to add media and app keys to keyboards. I'd be interested in a swappable module to change/flip the numeric keypad with a touch screen that could be app/OS context aware. I'll add that I have always hated how the headphone jack went from the front to the back: Why not just have a headphone jack on the side or back of the keyboard? Well, that will never happen now - we're lucky to just get a headphone jack at all. Perhaps they could explore a combination of tactile keys and buttons with dynamic labels. And please, backlight the thing.

Finally, color. Aluminum gray is the New Beige: It's time for Apple to renew the excitement of their machines instead of wallowing in the dower blacks and drab grays that exclaim dullness with all the pop and verve of Eeyore. That they've continued this pattern since a year before Obama accepted the Democrat nomination (in '08) is telling.

It's time for Apple to step up. We're starting to feel different about you - and it's not a good feeling.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I'm just worried that the Mac Pro is going to be out of the price range of most pro-sumer users.

Same

The iMac Pro is already out of my price range. I can't imagine what the starting price of the MacPro is going to be, let alone the cost of the stand-alone 5K monitor.

 

[Hitrate]

Same

The iMac Pro is already out of my price range. I can't imagine what the starting price of the MacPro is going to be, let alone the cost of the stand-alone 5K monitor.

Ya that's why I'm thinking maybe just buy a 2013 Mac Pro now and be done with it, then in 5 years I can buy a used iMac Pro or get the new Mac Pro

 

[andrewhowe00]

A progress!

Late 2009

Today

Exterior design changes are not an indicator of progress. I don't see why Apple needs to change the location of its logo or the shape of the stand to make you feel like their products are improving. The same story goes for iPhones and tablets. I feel like people are expecting constant design changes like there isn't some orientation of buttons and peripherals that just works very well and doesn't need to be changed.

 

[gusping]

Exterior design changes are not an indicator of progress. I don't see why Apple needs to change the location of its logo or the shape of the stand to make you feel like their products are improving. The same story goes for iPhones and tablets. I feel like people are expecting constant design changes like there isn't some orientation of buttons and peripherals that just works very well and doesn't need to be changed.

Design changes for the sake of it are pointless, but the bezels on the iMac need to go. There are no monitors or AIO computers on the market with bezels as large. It looks so out of place in 2018.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

One of my issues with the iMac is how high it is above the desk. The display is about 6 inches above the surface of the desk. Compare this to my BenQ 4K monitor which can be adjusted to only be about 1 inch above the desk. Adjustable height would be nice. As would a backlit keyboard or FaceID. I don't support changing it for no reason, but there's some room for improvement.

 

[Hater]

You're not tied to the abysmal Apple keyboard, buy one on the several backlit options out there.

 

[iPadified]

A progress!

Late 2009

Today

Good design does not have a time stamp on them. There are furniture that was design soon 100 years ago and is still today considered modern. Some cloths are also timeless such as the trechncoat designed for officers in the trenches of WW I, but still possible to get from Burberry. If you think iMP is expensive look at the prices of cloth at Burberry...

 

[Icaras]

Good design does not have a time stamp on them. There are furniture that was design soon 100 years ago and is still today considered modern. Some cloths are also timeless such as the trechncoat designed for officers in the trenches of WW I, but still possible to get from Burberry. If you think iMP is expensive look at the prices of cloth at Burberry...

I still want thinner bezels.