[coRecorder]

This is exactly right. There is a good article on OWC's blog on their web site ( macsales.com) covering this. It is a total deal breaker for me. It's one thing to make it difficult to get into a machine it totally another to force us to buy hard drives from Apple. Not only that, none of the drives that Apple is offering takes advantage of the new 6 gb bus they have put in these new machines. I was thinking that one of these were going to be exactly what I wanted but now i'll be waiting for the new towers or the top Mac book pros. Ugh!

[bigpics]

lawrance, on 13 May 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

Biallystock, on 13 May 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

The new iMacs are looking like seriously competitive workstations, but Apple has to spoil what should be win-win with things like the difficult internal access and the deliberately incompatible Hard Drive connections.

Drives are the one thing that almost certainly will go wrong in the life of the Mac. Users need to get angry and take this up with Apple, because it is adding risk and unnecessary cost to the machine.

First off, ALL all-in-one computers have difficult access. If this is an issue, get a Mac Pro. Secondly... I have no idea what you're referring to with incompatible hard drives... I've personally replaced many hard drives in all shapes and sizes of Macs and I've never seen an "incompatible" hard drive in my life. Care to explain?

As one or two others have noted, Apple changed the HDD connectors from standard ATA 4 pin to a new 7 pin proprietary connector(gee, that's an un-Apple-like development ) which currently won't plug into any third-party drives. There are other aspects to this 'tho, e.g., the drives may contain specialized Apple firmware (having to do with temperature control and more) Much more info here:

This was done without a lot of fanfare, IMHO and btw. If Apple doesn't supply the spec to all vendors and companies like OWC don't have good options, this is an annoyance to say the least and limits shopping around for replacements to Apple itself. Especially given that HDD's are a mature tech actually starting on a steep decline as SSD becomes cheaper and better. Did they really need this "innovation" at this state of the art? Or as otherwise noted....

Biallystock, on 13 May 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

Users will effectively be forced to have something as simple as a drive replacement done by Apple's very expensive and slow service agents.

********

donatello, on 13 May 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

It's quite amazing that an iMac is almost as powerful as a Mac Pro

It's also amazing that the iPad has the computing power of an early Cray Supercomputer..... ..(Granted the Cray used virtually all of its resources for data processing - not all the functions of modern OS's, processing graphics, sound, managing mice, interfacing with the internet, running huge programs with complex UI's, etc. But even so... ...we live in amazing times. Remember there are posters here (like me) who were already born when the first digital electronic computer was built. These are still early digital days. We're just scratching the surface.

PS: Some might also say that the Pro has not been receiving as much upgrade love as the iMacs for the last few years now. Which is both a little frustrating and puzzling. If 1) the Pro makes money, 2) Apple's committed to it and 3) Apple's sitting on a huge and growing pile of cash, unless the engineering talent simply isn't available, why isn't Apple pushing it ahead technologically as hard as it can with new iterations?? Does it even have Thunderbolt yet?? There has to be explanation somewhere in that mix. But it's clearly not the highest priority even in Apple's higher end computer lines, let alone its new toys.

But, while articles like this are valuable, here's an idea I've never seen pursued on any Mac site: Benchmarking some Hackintoshes, which I understand are now fairly readily available, i.e., you can get one without that much rolling your own to do anymore if you're not so inclined or skilled.

I'd like to see MacWorld do this test more to find out how well Mac hardware actually works on its own turf - running OS X - compared to hacked Win machines rather than to make people consider one per se. It would be another data point on the actual value equation of Apple's computers - as complete hardware/software systems - and legitimate for that reason.

Do any of you agree with me? Or have an objection? I'd really like to know how others feel.

[erix]

Anim8rSam, on 13 May 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

Speed is great, but I have an i7-related question.

It's time for a new Mac at our house, but our family has had some heat issues with past iMacs (my son testifies to a hot spot near the top left when playing his graphics-intensive games), which led to real crashing and glitches (my own diagnosis).

I love the quiet of iMacs, with their careful/minimized use of fans, but I'm worried that an i7 would generate extra HEAT and thus cause problems and noise. Apple's engineers must have done something to address this issue -- is there a way to get reassurance about this...?

yeah, i know exactly what you mean! a lot of people have this problem, also with macbooks. i do not know why apple doesn't address this problem. you can seriously prolong the lifetime of your apple if you turn up the fan speeds. that you can do with the great software "IMAC FAN CONTROL" which is FREE and works perfect. just google to download. also available for macbooks!

take care! best, seb

[kriri]

I don't like Apples proprietary hard drive business either, but, isn't Thunderbolt fast enough to just have your system on the internal drive (SSD?) and expand capacity on the bus?

[Kees]

lawrance, on 13 May 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

Biallystock, on 13 May 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

The new iMacs are looking like seriously competitive workstations, but Apple has to spoil what should be win-win with things like the difficult internal access and the deliberately incompatible Hard Drive connections.

Drives are the one thing that almost certainly will go wrong in the life of the Mac. Users need to get angry and take this up with Apple, because it is adding risk and unnecessary cost to the machine.

First off, ALL all-in-one computers have difficult access. If this is an issue, get a Mac Pro. Secondly... I have no idea what you're referring to with incompatible hard drives... I've personally replaced many hard drives in all shapes and sizes of Macs and I've never seen an "incompatible" hard drive in my life. Care to explain?

The new iMacs use a non-default 7pin connector that no standard harddrive can connect too. Surely adapters will surface soon enough, but this serves no other purpose than to frustrate replacing the harddrive oneself. I'm a big Apple fan, but this sort of stuff is unacceptable, really.

[RiversideGuy]

If one is interested in high end video or audio work, the best option seems to be to get a 27" iMac with a SSD. THEN, wait for a 4 drive external enclosure where one can mount 6G/s drives and go through Thunderbolt.

It's the larger, causal user base that is seriously negatively impacted by having to go back to the iMac maker to replace a bad drive... I even tried to find out at the store what it would cost for a replacement drive for these iMacs and found nothing (except a 1T drive kit for a Mac Pro priced at 300 bucks... when I JUST added 3 more 1T drives to my Pro for about 80 bucks each... oh, these were the exact same models as the OEM drive).

[PowerPC]

On the one hand, getting the 2.8GHz processor on the 21.5-inch iMac could extend its life, and having coaxed five years out of my iMac G5 with the fastest processor offered then, I'd like to repeat that. But on the other, the faster processor could cause the fans to spin out of control, and it could use up more electricity, too.

That is the dilemma I'm working out in my head before choosing a new iMac.

[trip1ex]

Kees, on 14 May 2011 - 05:19 AM, said:

lawrance, on 13 May 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

Biallystock, on 13 May 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

The new iMacs are looking like seriously competitive workstations, but Apple has to spoil what should be win-win with things like the difficult internal access and the deliberately incompatible Hard Drive connections.

Drives are the one thing that almost certainly will go wrong in the life of the Mac. Users need to get angry and take this up with Apple, because it is adding risk and unnecessary cost to the machine.

First off, ALL all-in-one computers have difficult access. If this is an issue, get a Mac Pro. Secondly... I have no idea what you're referring to with incompatible hard drives... I've personally replaced many hard drives in all shapes and sizes of Macs and I've never seen an "incompatible" hard drive in my life. Care to explain?

The new iMacs use a non-default 7pin connector that no standard harddrive can connect too. Surely adapters will surface soon enough, but this serves no other purpose than to frustrate replacing the harddrive oneself. I'm a big Apple fan, but this sort of stuff is unacceptable, really.

Or maybe instead of trying to frustrate the tiny number of folks who open up their iMacs they did it to get more accurate temperature control?

Dam Apple if they try to better engineer their all-in-one computers.

Perhaps this is a new standard from hard drive manufacturers. Maybe the hard drives Apple are using have built-in thermal sensors?

I replaced my iMac hard drive before. The sensor was loosely mounted next to the hard drive. If you're replacing the hard drive then there is a good chance this sensor will come off and be remounted in a less accurate position or ignored. I imagine it is a weakness in the assembly line as well as an extra step that now has been eliminated.

Maybe this will ensure less hard drive failures in the future including those that are upgraded by end users in the future.

This post has been edited by trip1ex: 14 May 2011 - 12:43 PM

[NightshadesMac]

Syriac, on 13 May 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

mretondo, on 13 May 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

mancusofamily, on 13 May 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

My question is whether or not the new BTO i7 models are worth the extra cost if you're editing video. I do more of that and if they'll render video quicker I'm ready to buy.

The same goes with me. I'd really like to know the diff using the new FCP X which takes advantage of all the cores you have. I know that FCP X isn't out yet but that's the comparison I'm waiting for. I'll buy a new 27' iMac once I know if the $200 is really worth it.

I would say NO.
Yes there is some speed gain but in the real world they are negligible.
There is of-course a bigger difference going from a 2009 and older iMac to these, but not that much from going from an i5 to i7.
I would advise to spend those 200 upgrading your RAM from 4GB to 16GB. (and buy a bigger HD as they are not easily upgradeable)
The speed difference on a Mac running 4GB vs. 16GB RAM for video production yields you much more bang for your money.

Jack

I would have to concur with a NO answer but that depends on from which Mac model you are upgrading. If you're coming from a Core Duo series, probably worth it. If you're coming from an i series chip much less so and I'd say only if it were an i3 chipset.

I also agree that the money is much better spent on HD and RAM upgrades if you're not coming from a much older model. Personally, I would go first with an HD upgrade since that would be the most difficult and/or costly to do later on. RAM upgrades are dead simple but Apple RAM tends to be expensive. You can find much better deals on RAM online such as through Crucial or OWC.

[NightshadesMac]

DanaLea73, on 13 May 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

I like the BTO options not because they'll do something great for me right out of the box, but because I imagine I'll have the same iMac for YEARS, and down the road that extra oomph will mean a lot more then it does right now. Could get an extra year out of an i7 (verus the i5) before having to upgrade.

I'll really like one of the new ones, but my 2008 model is still performing quite well, so I can hold off a few more years I'm sure.

I tend to agree with this philosophy(?). I don't really run much software that is processor intensive but I always try and get the most powerful Mac that I can. My last and current Mac was, at the time, the most powerful iMac one could get and it still does quite well for my needs. It is an Intel Core Duo 2.0 GHz, 20" model from right after the changeover to Intel chips. Besides having had to replace the HD last year and a faulty HD connector cable this year my iMac has done great and still suits.

I would love love to have a new BTO core i7 27" model but when I ask myself if I REALLY need that much power or even a new computer for that matter I end up deciding that I don't. Eventually of course the time will come but for now the only upgrade I am considering is actually adding a Mac. I find myself wanting and needing a laptop more and more and a MB Air is what I'd likely go with but I have no plans for that until next year. I actually can't wait to see what is available when that time comes around considering what is being offered now. It's a great time to be an Apple fan if you ask me.

[owmyheadhurts]

Referring to the bit about Handbrake being fast on the new 27" 3.4GHz i7:
I bought that machine a few days ago and wanted to see how fast it could do a TV episode using Handbrake.
It took about 15 minutes just to SCAN the DVD and another 11 minutes to complete a 1/2 hr episode.
On my Mac Pro 2.26GHz Nehalem 8-core it took about 25 SECONDS to scan and 4.5 minutes to complete.
I'm finding out that the incredibly long scanning time of the disk has to do with the RipLock on the drives of this new iMac. I don't rip DVD's often but it is kind of a bummer knowing that you have this fast processor but are excessively limited by the optical drive.
Sure, there are external drives but I'm not THAT interested.
Just an FYI for potential buyers of these new iMacs.

[lin2log]

mancusofamily, on 13 May 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

My question is whether or not the new BTO i7 models are worth the extra cost if you're editing video. I do more of that and if they'll render video quicker I'm ready to buy.

HUH??! Which part of "THEY BE FASTER" and which of the countless bar-charts did you not get exactly??

Duuuuh....

Whereby it's still up to the individual app HOW MUCH faster. FCP X will definitely SCREAM on one of these.

This post has been edited by lin2log: 14 May 2011 - 11:25 PM

[Biallystock]

bigpics, on 13 May 2011 - 11:00 PM, said:

…Benchmarking some Hackintoshes,[/b] which I understand are now fairly readily available, i.e., you can get one without that much rolling your own to do anymore if you're not so inclined or skilled.

I'd like to see MacWorld do this test more to find out how well Mac hardware actually works on its own turf - running OS X - compared to hacked Win machines rather than to make people consider one per se. It would be another data point on the actual value equation of Apple's computers - as complete hardware/software systems - and legitimate for that reason.

Do any of you agree with me? Or have an objection? I'd really like to know how others feel.

I can't offer to benchmark a Hackintosh but I can offer a price/value comparison:

I have specced up a PC equivalent to the iMac 27" i5 RRP $1999 (10% disc: $1799):

It was based on the cheapest matching Newegg combo kit I could find.

Total along with Dell Ultrasharp U2711 Monitor is $2,034.12

Plus 1 year parts replacement add $102.89 Total $2,137.01*

NOTES:

• 1. Windows 7 Pro 64 bit, closest match to Mac OSX 10.6, provides backup software, local networking without router, diagnostics, multi-language support. Unlike OSX, Win 7 Pro 32 and 64 bit are separate installations.
  
• 2. USB hub is to match Mac keyboard hub and is to compensate for PC USB ports being used by Camera and Bluetooth.
  
• 3. The optional Apple $19 Remote has no PC equivalent, so I left it off. The same with the Apple Magic Trackpad which is a mouse alternative or + mouse for $69.
  
• 4. There is no effective equivalent to the Apple 12 months warranty other than the lesser Service Net Replacement Extended Warranty. Effectively Apples warranty is a Parts & Labor, the Newegg is parts only.
  
• 5. *Newegg has a 30 days replacement policy, to approximately match Apple's 1 year parts and labor warranty, I added the Newegg 1 year Service Net Replacement Extended Warranty which is parts only.
  
• 6. Newegg 2 year Service Net Replacement Extended Warranty is $169.89
  
• 7. AppleCare Protection Plan 3 year worldwide with full phone support on any computer issues is $169.
  
• 8. Whilst I could match basic hardware internals I could not get the same quality for finish, externals or integration. The keyboard, mouse, camera, microphone, USB hub, Bluetooth dongle etc were in some cases simply the cheapest or, where that looked pretty bad, the next but cheapest. To get the low price combo I settled for the cheap basic case included, which probably is not quiet.
  
• 9. There are no Thunderbolt ports on the PC. There are no USB 3.0 ports on the Mac. USB 3.0 can be connected to the Mac via an extra cost (prob $25) Thunderbolt adaptor which is not yet available.
  
• 10. There is no equivalent of the OSX software suite, but the Combo kit did include Anti-Virus software.
  
• 11. The PC price includes delivery but does not include assembly, testing or full warranty or phone support.
  
• 12. The Mac price is delivered, complete, boot-up out of the box with I year parts and labor warranty and 90 days phone support on all computer issues.

[Biallystock]

trip1ex, on 14 May 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

Kees, on 14 May 2011 - 05:19 AM, said:

lawrance, on 13 May 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

Biallystock, on 13 May 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

The new iMacs are looking like seriously competitive workstations, but Apple has to spoil what should be win-win with things like the difficult internal access and the deliberately incompatible Hard Drive connections.

Drives are the one thing that almost certainly will go wrong in the life of the Mac. Users need to get angry and take this up with Apple, because it is adding risk and unnecessary cost to the machine.

First off, ALL all-in-one computers have difficult access. If this is an issue, get a Mac Pro. Secondly... I have no idea what you're referring to with incompatible hard drives... I've personally replaced many hard drives in all shapes and sizes of Macs and I've never seen an "incompatible" hard drive in my life. Care to explain?

The new iMacs use a non-default 7pin connector that no standard harddrive can connect too. Surely adapters will surface soon enough, but this serves no other purpose than to frustrate replacing the harddrive oneself. I'm a big Apple fan, but this sort of stuff is unacceptable, really.

Or maybe instead of trying to frustrate the tiny number of folks who open up their iMacs they did it to get more accurate temperature control?

Dam Apple if they try to better engineer their all-in-one computers.

Perhaps this is a new standard from hard drive manufacturers. Maybe the hard drives Apple are using have built-in thermal sensors?

I replaced my iMac hard drive before. The sensor was loosely mounted next to the hard drive. If you're replacing the hard drive then there is a good chance this sensor will come off and be remounted in a less accurate position or ignored. I imagine it is a weakness in the assembly line as well as an extra step that now has been eliminated.

Maybe this will ensure less hard drive failures in the future including those that are upgraded by end users in the future.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Then again maybe not.

One thing is certain. Replacement Apple hard drives (I had two done under AppleCare recently) are almost 4x retail prices, not even including labor. This will make them even more expensive.

I strongly advise getting AppleCare and getting rid of your iMac before it runs out.

This post has been edited by Biallystock: 15 May 2011 - 10:47 AM