Imac 2012

culvers · 25 Mar 2012 at 18:20

i'd be happy with ssd that doesnt cost the earth, and a processor/ram/graphics card bump

kristmace · 26 Mar 2012 at 10:44

I can't see sweeping changes. Apples pricing and margins are very fine and with the upgrade to Ivy Bridge being the main change, no a lot else will be different.

8GB ram and SSD as standard are the obvious ones for me given how much prices have dropped over the last 12 months.

Roughneck · 28 Mar 2012 at 19:39

id like to see a mobile version of the nvidia 680 in it

MagicBoy · 28 Mar 2012 at 19:40

Well you won't.

Izi · 28 Mar 2012 at 20:02

Somnambulist said:
Retina display.

High resolution.

MagicBoy · 28 Mar 2012 at 20:03

Case made from Cheese.

Alpherah · 28 Mar 2012 at 20:05

New Ivy Bridge CPU's announced for late April release - There's a whole range of 4 core/8 thread options which are likely to be put into a new iMac.

Roughneck · 28 Mar 2012 at 20:19

Alpherah said:
New Ivy Bridge CPU's announced for late April release - There's a whole range of 4 core/8 thread options which are likely to be put into a new iMac.

with a mobile 680?

sbi5ar · 29 Mar 2012 at 09:53

Unfortunately i really can't see it having USB 3, it's sad to say but I think they'll **** up by not putting it in

Combat squirrel · 29 Mar 2012 at 10:40

They will include USB 3 when the chipset supports it by default, I.e: they wont have a choice as it will be built into the intel chipset.

ubersonic · 29 Mar 2012 at 12:06

nolimit said:
Apart from the obivious CPU/GPU upgrade I would like to see inclusion of USB 3.0, HDMI port, SSD as standard and slave 1TB HDD instead of the Super Drive.

USB 3.0 is standard on Ivy bridge so Apple can't really not include it (would be harder work to not have it). HDMI can be achieved atm via a thunderbolt adapter as can VGA/DVI so no need for a dedicated port. You can already get them with SSD+1TB HDD and the Super drive its just an optional extra as it will be in the 2012 iMac as Apple don't see SSD's as a necessity (prob because the ones they use are so slow anyway).

Oh and the 2011 iMacs have a matt screen, they just have a glossy sheet of glass in front of it, a lot of customers have simply removed it (held on by magnets) which looks a bit ugly but gives you a matt screen.

crinkleshoes · 29 Mar 2012 at 12:30

dannyjo22 said:
All seriousness why would you even need a retina display on something like a 27 inch screen? I currently use a 24 inch dell and from my viewing position the letters are clear and crisp. From 3 feet back what exactly would you gain with a retina screen?

It's not like a tablet where you are zooming in often.

OMG... it's the ipad 3 thread all over again.

Why would you NOT want a higher resolution screen for crying out loud?

Zooming in has nothing to do with the resolution of the screen... that's to do with the source content.

Ignorant technophobe numpty...

"andy" · 29 Mar 2012 at 12:33

plus the type of people who buy a very top spec imac which id assume would have the retina display are usually media types who are working on HUGE res stuff anyway ?

nolimit · 1 Apr 2012 at 09:00

ubersonic said:
USB 3.0 is standard on Ivy bridge so Apple can't really not include it (would be harder work to not have it). HDMI can be achieved atm via a thunderbolt adapter as can VGA/DVI so no need for a dedicated port. You can already get them with SSD+1TB HDD and the Super drive its just an optional extra as it will be in the 2012 iMac as Apple don't see SSD's as a necessity (prob because the ones they use are so slow anyway).

Oh and the 2011 iMacs have a matt screen, they just have a glossy sheet of glass in front of it, a lot of customers have simply removed it (held on by magnets) which looks a bit ugly but gives you a matt screen.

Perfect!

Fr0dders · 7 Apr 2012 at 03:37

crinkleshoes said:
OMG... it's the ipad 3 thread all over again.

Why would you NOT want a higher resolution screen for crying out loud?

Zooming in has nothing to do with the resolution of the screen... that's to do with the source content.

Ignorant technophobe numpty...

you do realise that a "retina" display on a 27inch imac, would have to be something like 4600 x 2800 which is much higher than even the rumoured new Quad HD displays.

I very much doubt we'll see a retina display 27 " imac this decade tbh. The size of the quad HD screens are in the region of 56 inches. To have that sort of resolution in a 27 " screen would be absolutely insane.

dannyjo22 · 7 Apr 2012 at 07:18

crinkleshoes said:
Why would you NOT want a higher resolution screen for crying out loud?...

What I said if you read what I said instead of mouthing off was I don't see what I would gain in a massive resolution bump from my viewing distances.

You could have re-educated me as to why I would see all these extra pixels from 3 feet or more away but instead you resorted to an agressive attack.

I personally don't work on anything that needs those resolutions and from MY viewing distances I wouldn't see any clearer webpages. As someone looking to get an imac it's not an area of upgrade I would be that fussed about. I'd rather have SSD as standard, it would give me more than an increased screen res personally.