Talk:iMac

Timeline of the product Apple iMac

Hi all, i'd like to upload this image in the history section.

This image shows the time evolution of the iMac since 1998, comparing it with the original Macintosh 128K (1984). The focus is the change of the physical characteristics of the product over the years

--GiuliaPiccoliTrapletti (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

G5 Problems

Does anyone have statistics on what percent of G5s have failed out of warranty? Has any research been done on a possible software method that might be causing a transistor to short. The failure of so many systems appears to be linked to bad capacitors, but what if it is software driven? Many failed systems appear to have good capacitors? What financial effect has this had on apple's revenues? Has it been negative, or are their profits up from the sale of replacement systems? Given the scale of this general failure, I believe information should be gathered and formatted for this article. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2009‎ (UTC)

Something specific to the G5 iMac would best belong on the iMac G5 page, but, at this point, it's been a while since Apple switched to Intel, so I suspect relatively few people care enough to gather and format that information; those who do care should probably be the ones to do the work. Guy Harris (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

March 2009 Update

If people could add information from the new model that would be grate. New model came out March 3, 2009. Jerzyboy455 —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Anyone think there should be a section just for the 2009 model? Also what about an official picture of the current iMac with the keyboard and all? --Jerzyboy455 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

consumer machine?

While this was really obvious with older generations of the iMac, I do think it has evolved into a machine that is can be used and actually is used for very professional work. IMacs are supported machines for all Apple pro applications (like Final Cut Studio) and at least the 24 inch modell even is a recommended platform for all of them. IMacs are very common today in professional visual work and they are often used as development workstations.

iMac G3 used to be an entry level machine, but this position is now filled by MacMini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.209.92 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 October 2008‎ (UTC)

Yes, but is that because it's been repositioned by Apple, or is it mainly because the needs of many professionals haven't expanded as fast as the performance of "consumer" machines, so that the iMac is now "good enough" for many professionals (and thus Apple might have "repositioned" it in the sense that they aren't devoting as much energy to the Mac Pro as they have in the past)? Guy Harris (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

imac

What does "Mac purchasing experience" mean? Can someone think of something to replace this managment speak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.242.210 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 July 2007‎ (UTC

As that phrase is no longer in the iMac page, somebody apparently did. Guy Harris (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Split off models section?

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split the models section off into a different article? worthawholebean _talk^contribs 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure entirely how to do it but this is the most bloated article I have seen. I was thinking maybe one for the G3, the G4, the G5 and the intels? I tagged the article as a whole. It wouldn't hurt to have a separate history article for the iMac as well, it has just outgrown the article.TrevorLSciAct 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't think it's that bloated. I think the models section should be split off but it isn't quite that bad in my opinion... worthawholebean _talk^contribs 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe we don't need a separate history iMac article, but each model should get it's own page. I mean, just because it has the same name it didn't get it's own page with the intel switch, witch could have saved it. And each major revision (minus the slot loading one) has been basically a complete redesign of the computer. They just all happen the share the iconic name "iMac" TrevorLSciAct 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All 4 chip'ed models should get seperate articles. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking, Have the iMac Article with the intro and the pop-culture section here--But Move off the History section and the Model section into 3 articles: iMac G3, iMac G4 and intel iMac. Whatdya think? TrevorLSciAct 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I decided to created a sort of trial article by simply copying some of the history and some of the models at iMac G3 I left this article unchanged because i haven't created the G4 or intel articles and this is only a try-out. But feel free to improve the iMac G3 so we can work out the kinks before going all the way. TrevorLSciAct 18:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Just did the iMac G4 as wellTrevorLSciAct 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• And the iMac G5 and Intel iMac I think that the G3 article is good but all the rest need tweaking before I take out stuff from this article. I would appreciate any help. I changed the Apple Products template. I can't Figure out how to change the timeline. That is very important before the article is changed. TrevorLSciAct 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've decided that this article cannot be too long any longer. I'm going to take out some of the things I've moved to separate articles now. Hopefully the timeline will be updated soon--but I just don't know how. And I'm sure that it will only be a few day before the new articles are spectacular, this gives them room to grow.TrevorLSciAct 16:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to have at least a small history section in the main article. I may write that in the morning. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 04:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, the most important thing here is room to grow, since the iMac will most likely be around for a while. And now more info gan be given for each model.TrevorLSciAct 11:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Inproper pluralization "iMacs"

Apple has a Style Guide that address that issue for the author.

AppleStyleGuide2006 (pdf) RonEJ 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There should be an original bondi iMac image

The original Bondi Blue iMac is what most people think of when you say "iMac". Currently, only the latest model is shown. I think the article should also show an image of the original iMac, at least in the history section?

-- ToastyKen 09:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree 58.185.104.72 02:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added images of the G3 and G4 immediately after the infobox. If someone would like to put them in the history section; feel free to.--HereToHelp 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OS info

I came to find out what OS ran on the original G3. It's not here. Nor is any OS info. That must be important for an Apple computer. It can only be one, but which revision. 82.15.46.131 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The original iMac came with OS 8, later iMacs with OS 9 and I'm not sure if late versions of the G3 came with OS X installed, but they defiantly did not boot to it by default. I don't have any sources so I will have to look for them before i add it to the article.TrevorLSciAct 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The original iMac came with Mac OS 8.1 to be precise. You can check Apple Support (they have the specs) if you want a source. 85.225.115.8 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Power consumption

Please include average power consumption (watts) in computer articles.-69.87.199.199 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Ive

Does the article mention him?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jonathan_Ive

Should it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.91.121 (talk • contribs) 19:51 UTC, 11 June 2007.

I think this article definately should talk about him. I remember reading an article around the time of the iMac's introduction that said that when Steve came back to Apple that he noticed that Ives was largely ignored at Apple. But Steve realized his potential and promoted him. Sorry I have no idea where the article was. -- Suso (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In Jobs' biography, Ive is mentioned often and is very important in the design of the iMac in 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jindeera (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

eMachines

This article and Notable litigation of Apple Inc. each direct the reader to the other about the eOne lawsuit. Romperomperompe 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be fixed. The most information I can find already written is at eOne, but that itself is a stub. I don't really specialize in creating new content, more in maintaining, organizing, and improving what's already there. If you want to take it upon yourself to research and write new text, go ahead. It should probably be added to the litigation article, not iMac.--HereToHelp 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the Legal action section to the iMac G3 article, where the examples are relevant. Agree with HereToHelp that new text about the eOne lawsuit should probably be added to the litigation article, or the eOne article. -GnuTurbo 04:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the contradiction is cured by now have the further information link only go in one direction, from the legal action section now in the iMac G3 article to the notable litigation article. More info is in the litigation article. Still it would be nice to flesh out the example some more. The eOne article seems to avoid mentioning, at least directly, the lawsuit outcome. -GnuTurbo 21:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

page layout

The page layout seems to need some improvement. If only I knew how ... User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Replace main photo

I have listed the reasons that the main photo for this article is bad and needs replacement here: Image_talk:Imac_2007.png. Althepal 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Claims of Apple's influence over USB popularity overblown

As I recalled, when iMac G3 was initially released, virtually no one (including Apple) makes removable USB storage devices for the computer. Worse yet, there is no CD burner or SCSI ports in iMac, so the only way to restore data from old devices is use the Ethernet port to connect to another computer! How can Apple assert the kind of influence over USB as the article claimed, when Apple couldn't even launch its own USB products at the time of iMac's release, or for that matter, didn't work with 3rd parties to make more USB peripherals before launching iMac?[1]

There is also the issue of market share. Back in the G3 days (in fact, most of the Power Macs' lifespans), Apple's market share isn't that great to begin with. It is more plausible to say that USB became a popular interface for third party peripheral makers because USB support was perfected in Windows 98, making it easier for the peripheral makers to make USB hardware run properly in Windows, rather than because iMac's sole dependence on USB peripherals. Besides, what does translucent colored plastic has ANYTHING to do with USB popularity? Jacob Poon 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I pre-ordered an original iMac G3 when it first became available for order. I ordered it along with an Epson USB printer, an Epson USB scanner, and an iOmega Superdrive (as they called it), all with matching Bondi Blue translucent accents. Apple was careful to line up a set of peripherals to coincide with the release of the iMac. I don't recall whether I got a hub or not at that time. USB hardware was currently available on some PC motherboards, but no peripherals were available, and general Windows and Linux support was also non-existent. Microsoft added USB support to Windows 95 prior to Win98 coming out as one of the Win95 OEM SR2 releases (in August of '97). So it was possible to get USB with Win95, but you had to have a more recent version along with hardware that had USB on it. Which still didn't do you any good without the peripherals.68.104.176.42 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is completely overblown and the source of this information is a mac advocate site which makes it highly suspect... especially when it reads like an advertisement and an history of how iMac's became such a popular machine. The site's slogan is "long live macs". This is technically an encyclopedia so citing information that may potentially be biased should be avoided. The market share of IBM compatible computers at the time and today is much larger than apple computers. Like Jake said, why would anyone push for making USB peripherals for iMacs especially when it commanded such a feeble portion of the entire market share.

I agree... despite the fact that windows 98 was a horrible OS, it was very popular and most hardware manufacturers created peripherals to run on Win98 first... MacOS second. 67.60.130.89 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

However, I would counter that the author's assertion that many USB peripherals were branded to be marketed along side the iMac does speak to the influence. Perhaps the claim just needs some careful rewording. helmling

It also needs a different source. The only source it uses for the section has too much of a Mac-advocate atmosphere. If someone can find a different neutral source that tells the same or similar story then we can keep it.... otherwise we should toss it. Thus far I haven't found any article that mentions this on a non-mac related website.

Also despite the fact that many USB peripherals were branded just for imac use, an overwhelming number of non-imac USB devices were sold, so I'm not sure how that really pushed for the USB standard, and technological maturity of USB we see today. 67.60.130.89 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-spec7.html I found this... I think we can use this 67.60.130.89 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good source. I am going to remove the neutrality tag and add it. Xaaomba (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

the key there isn't the presence of USB ports, but the LACK of legacy ports. Win98 PCs still had serial and parallel ports and most people just used those and typically didn't even know what a USB port was for - i was told it was everything from an ethernet connector to "a security port"

History

A history section should be added noting the importance of the iMac as the first major product introduction since the return of Steve Jobs and how it parallels the introduction of the original Macintosh 128K, the design style of which is its iconic legacy that the iMac mimics to this day. If no one objects I'm gonna do it. A link on the original Macintosh page will be added as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodwynlane (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The iMac is very successful. Due to how it was never criticized ever, ever. It only had a couple drawbacks. The end. Hurkendurr. Neutral article is neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.39.245 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know of other criticisms and can provide sources, why not add them to the article? Original research will be deleted, but criticism from reliable sources is welcome. Fletcher (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing is that there's loads of critisism, like lack of io-ports, the formfactor and lack of powerful hardware. The problem is that it's a computer so finding "reliable sources" is not possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.181.23.69 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people might not mind the lack of I/O ports, might actually like the form factor, and might find the hardware powerful enough. And, no, the fact that it's a computer doesn't mean that finding reliable sources is impossible; for example, if many reviews of some particular version of the iMac, when it came out, complained about some particular characteristic, that would be appropriate for inclusion in a Criticism section. Guy Harris (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't edit or help wikipedia anymore. If you want overtly biased articles, that's your business. I just felt like ridiculing such absurd favoritism. Ha ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.39.245 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the criticism section has been expanded. The articles don't improve unless someone, you know, improves them. --Fletcher (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been around Wikipedia. I know what would happen if someone listed some actual criticism of a Mac. I don't care for the drama, the crying, and the wikiality. Wikipedia is a failed project and this article is a good example of why. And this is coming from someone whose first computer was a Mac. Not that that matters, or anything. --68.185.166.126 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume by "actual" criticism you mean some whiny one-sided rant, because if you add something useful that meets WP:NPOV and WP:RS we can indeed include it in the article. Fletcher (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New 2009 models

New models released today at 9AM PST.

Updates: -Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i5/i7 (27" model only)

-Up to 16GB DDR3 PC1066

-Up to 2TB SATA storage

-NVIDIA 9400M or ATI HD4670 graphics

-21.5": 1920x1080 screen resolution, 27": 2560x1440 screen resolution

-16:9 Aspect Ratio

-SD card slot

Touchscreen?

Why does the iMac link to to touch screen PCs? as far as I know, the iMac doesn't have a touch screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.255.96 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It links to another all-in-one, touchscreen or not. Airplaneman ^talk 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gap in the time line

Shouldn't there be a gap in the timeline representing the time that iMacs were unavailable due to a logistical glitch in Apple's planning? This was in the summer of 2004, where the supplies of iMac G4 dried up and the iMac G5 wasn't even announced. Apple even admitted the screw up.[2][3] -- Henriok (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought the gap was odd when I was putting the dates from Every Mac into the timeline's markup, I totally forgot about that production screwup. Interesting! 72.235.213.232 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Metric conversions et al.

Is it not appropriate (required?) that the imperial units given in the infobox be converted to metric units?

Is it true that the mat-finish screen has been phased out, and that it is now possible to purchase only the "glossy" screen? If so, any reason why? This might be stated somewhere ...

The problems experienced with the new 27 incher are many more than the article states.

Tony (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception Section

I don't understand why the (negative) reception section needs more expansion. Why is the reception section of Apple articles negative? This is (in my opinion, clearly) not consistent with the typical user experience with Apple products. Emuroms (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Nice time line graph. You guys totally rock. Rogerdpack (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of designer?

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

Updated lead paragraph to include the designer Jonathan Ive whose industrial design projects created the modern Apple look.Twobells (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized the article and deleted all mention of the designer, fixed.Twobells (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

someone vandalised again, added new cite and fixed.Twobells (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalised yet again, fixed. Twobells (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Found the vandal it is Acps110 who is vandalising without debate. Twobells (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge with iMac (Intel-based)

The iMac (Intel-based) page contains a better collection of technical specifications than the iMac page. The iMac page contains more narrative (non-table) content, but is predominantly about the PowerPC iMac. It does not appear that there is currently sufficient content to merit two discreet pages. So I think it makes sense to merge iMac (Intel-based) into the iMac page. Another alternative would be to transfer the Intel-Based iMac content to the iMac (Intel-based) page, rename the iMac page to iMac (PowerPC-based), and have iMac redirect to iMac (Intel-based). Elangsto (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the articles in a while, but as an initial response your plan seems reasonable. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the article's coverage is about proportionate to each model's lifespan, and compares similarly to other “overview” articles like iPod or Mac OS. The Intel iMac article does seem a tad long, however, and a split (similar to that between the three PPC iMac articles) may be useful. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree -- this was the first page I came across when searching for iMacs, but the iMac Intel page is far more detailed and current, yet is not apparent that that page exists at all from this page. This page might even be subordinate to that page logically and usefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova87a (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the article NOT be split, and be re-merged with the Intel-based iMac version page.

The vast majority of people will not know or perceive obviously that there are links to the detailed separate pages. Many people may not even know about the history of iMac generations to know to follow through to the other links, especially if they are not visually prominent. Most people will look for the information on this page, and fail to find the content they are looking for unless it is very clearly called out visually as needing to follow a link. Providing some preview of the full information here (specifically, the spec tables) could visually guide people to know that more is available, if a separate but additional page is desired. As it is, this iMac page lacks the detailed tables people may be looking for, and unless you know to look at the Intel page, you will leave without finding the info desired.

The master page for a major product line should contain as much information as possible, and if needed to be split, only be done so in addition to the info on the main page, with prominent visual linking so the reader knows there is more detail.

Supernova87a (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)supernova87a

LED backlighting

When was LED backlighting introduced? As far as I can tell, it was introduced with unibody model (late 2009), but previous edit of this page suggests the first generation of aluminium models (introduced in 2007) were LED-backlit. Can we confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.182.222 (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Every Mac indicates the introduction of LED backlights coincided with the switch from 16:10 to 16:9 aspect ratios in late 2009. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation 13 themacuser.org

I don't have the patience to go through the history, but it appears that citation #13 is a shock site and not a legitimate reference. Somebody should figure out what the correct link was. 75.203.130.92 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline Generation

Apparently the timeline is not being generated correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.76.71.126 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge updates section into history section

This section is open to the accumulation of minutia about small updates made to the latest model, yet is inevitably incomplete, cutting off after the two or three paragraphs still fresh in the public's attention span. Since these sort of update summaries are best in a complete list, and the history section is a tad on the skimpy side, I feel a merger would be best. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 iMac?

Anyone got a better idea than "The New iMac"? Technically, that was the G4's name. Gapless? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

NOT GOOD

This wiki page is not as helpful as the macmini page. Needs to have exhaustive details. What are the model numbers, order numbers and other arcane details? What machines allow memory and drives to be upgraded? Etc. The mac mini page is very helpful for repair shops and people buying and selling the old minis. This page for iMacs is not up to standards. I do appreciate the history of the iMac name. Jfgrcar (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jfgrcar: They were all helpfully obliterated by the unilateral action of WikiRedactor here. With no explanation, no discussion, and no compensation elsewhere. There needs to be something done about it. Although Wikipedia is not a guide or a manual, the technical specifications do serve to identify, and establish the notability of, these subjects. And there must be uniformity amongst articles. Especially given Apple's virtually nonexistent names. I might ask Codename Lisa or someone else for feedback as to whether that should be reverted. And in the future, WikiRedactor, unilateralism and unexplainedness is destructively unencyclopedic. "Unilaterally reshaping whatever I see before me into whatever I feel like at the moment" does not mean "cleanup", and "cleanup" is not an explanation. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of date

A note as of June 2019: the timeline and table of models is quite out of date. There is a 2017 version that does not appear on here. In addition, echoing comment above, this table is pretty deficient in model numbers, processor specs, graphics card specs compared to the Macbook Pro and other Apple hardware pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova87a (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

iMac

The iMac is a low-cost version of Apple Computer's Macintosh . The iMac was designed to attract people who have never owned a personal computer and also to win back former Mac users who have moved to personal computer . Released in mid-August, 1998, the initial version of the iMac featured a sleekly-molded designer-colored translucent case with a built-in 15-inch display, a fast 233 MHz processor, and the Mac OS operating system . Traditionally, somewhat higher in price than Intel-based PCs, a low-priced Mac symbolized Apple's determination to compete in and increase its share of the personal computer market. The iMac's designers have omitted a floppy disk drive with the idea that few users will miss it. Apple is advertising the iMac as easy to set up and ideal for simple applications and surfing the Web (the "i" in its name is said to stand for "Internet"). Sales have exceeded expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.244.45 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• IMac vector.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cold man frank (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)imac salesCold man frank (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

>the iMac g3 sold 6000000 million sales being one of the best selling computers

Imac early 2008 and Big Sur patched support

Hey guys, i've recently aquired an imac early 2008 model and played a bit with it. Upgraded it to patched catalina with no problems, then tried to update to Big Sur patched as it was classified on this article as possible (with no graphic acceleration and no wifi). Long story short: i've spend hours trying to do it and can't get it to work yet (though i didn't try all solutions yet so it might still be possible).

The most popular big sur patcher is this one: https://github.com/barrykn/big-sur-micropatcher and it says that it currently does not support penryn cpu imacs, which is the processor of the early 2008 imac (as listed here https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-2-duo-2.4-20-inch-aluminum-early-2008-penryn-specs.html ): "Currently not supported by this patcher, but future support may be possible: Macs which have a Penryn CPU but which do not officially support High Sierra: These include pre-2008 iMacs with upgraded CPUs, as well as all 2008 and most 2009 Mac models (any 2009 models not listed above). All of these require "legacy USB" support, just like (for instance) 2010 white MacBooks. Once support for those MacBooks is improved in a future patcher release, perhaps support for some of these Macs will be worth revisiting."

https://github.com/jacklukem/BigSurfixes/releases/ might be the right solution to get it working but i have yet to test it.

I've looked at the history of the article and the Big sur support for 2008 imac model was done on November 2020 by 100.15.252.246 (so anonymous user) without giving any source.

So to avoid other people like me to potentially waste their time trying to do an update that is potentially not possible, i've edited the cell of the 2008 imac model with big sur to "UNCONFIRMED" and inviting people to come talk about it here.

If anyone else know for sure what's the right patcher to use for the 2008 imac model for running big sur please provide the information here, i couldn't find anyone using this imac model showing a successful big sur running on the internet yet.

I will make more tests with other solutions and report my findings here later!

1. edit 04-25-2021: https://github.com/jacklukem/BigSurfixes/releases/ does not work with imac 2008 model. I'm trying this one instead now: https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/START.html#how-do-i-get-started

1. edit 04-27-2021: https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/START.html#how-do-i-get-started works! I successfully installed big sur 11.3 latest version on my 2008 imac with it. Updating the article page with these informations :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrogenik (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Graphics acceleration for Mojave & Catalina on 2010 (27) & iMac working?

Is graphics acceleration for Mojave & Catalina working for the Mid 2010 iMac (27) & Mid 2011 iMac? It only says patch, so does that mean we can freely install Mojave & Catalina on these without using a supported graphics card?

• I have a 2011 iMac, and I want to upgrade it from High Sierra to Catalina to stay up-to-date, but I'm scared that it'll mess up my computer.

iMac 2013 - Big Sur compatibility.

I noticed that in the "Supported macOS releases" there is a green check for iMac 2013 and Big Sur.

But both the Apple site, and other pages in Wikipedia show that only the 2014 can run Big Sur.

Here's one of the Apple links: Identify your iMac model - Apple Support

And the text of the page:

iMac (27-inch, Late 2013) Model Identifier: iMac14,2 Part Number: ME086xx/A, ME088xx/A Latest compatible operating system: macOS Catalina 10.15.7 Tech Specs: iMac (27-inch, Late 2013) User Guide: iMac (27-inch, Late 2013)

iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013) Model Identifier: iMac14,1 Part Number: ME086xx/A, ME087xx/A Latest compatible operating system: macOS Catalina 10.15.7 Tech Specs: iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013) User Guide: iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013)

Also, if you look at the entry for the 2014, because Big Sur is the current version, it makes no mention of "latest", since that CPU can run the current version.

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion came to a clear consensus not to merge. Thanks to all participants for their arguments. Closing as proposer (per WP:MERGECLOSE), since I've been convinced by other participants that my proposal would not have been an improvement. DFlhb (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

---

iMac (Apple silicon) should be merged into iMac. The iMac will likely remain on Apple Silicon for at least a decade, and it makes far more sense to simply have an article for the current lineup, and split articles for older eras of the lineup after each transition. If Apple ever transitions from Apple silicon to something new, then splitting off the Apple silicon era into its own article will make sense. Until then, zero point. There is nothing that could be said in that article that doesn't belong in the main article. We should merge & redirect. DFlhb (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Uncertain decision - Apple silicon version of the iMac seems pretty new, so there is merit to merging into the article but then split after a few years. However, after a bit of analysis, I feel that merging would just lose information about spec stuff about iMac Apple Silicon computers. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Specs are currently in a table on iMac (Apple silicon). Those tables can be collapsed by default if needed (MOS:COLLAPSE), so I don't see a need to remove any tables if a merge is done to the main article. Besides, a list of current and recent models (i.e. Apple silicon models) is relevant to the main article. DFlhb (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The M1 iMac is a separate model while iMac is a series of AIO PCs. This model is clearly notable enough to warrant its own model, as it has significant coverage and has a major redesign.Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not every separate model deserves its own article. My concerns are that it's highly WP:REDUNDANT. I support iMac (Intel-based) being split off, but currently, the Apple silicon iMac is the iMac, and it makes no sense to split them when they're the same thing. When reliable sources cover iMac (the product family), they're really referring to particular models rather than the abstract concept of an iMac. The WP:MERGEREASONS of overlap, semi-duplicate, and context clearly apply here IMO, and we only need to meet one of these criteria, not three, for a merge to be warranted. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. If the iMac G3, G4 and G5 have their own pages, than why should the M1 iMac be any different. If anything, it is more deserving of its own page due to the major architectural differences between the M1 and an Intel CPU. (Compare to the differences between the G3 and the G5 CPUs) Computerfan0 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Already, I think its better to Merge iMac (Intel-based) to here. iMac (Intel-based) is only one section so its make sense to add that section here. Lililolol (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Opps sorry I meant iMac (Apple silicon) not iMac (Intel-based). Lililolol (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The iMac page should remain a broad scope of that product line. iMac (Silicon based) should stay and grow with information to the specifics of this era of it. Zjsmetana (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I like the idea of the iMac page containing a historical record of all types of iMac's not just the current flavor of iMac. Will.octagon.gibson (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Proposer: I withdraw my proposal, as I have come to agree with the other responders. I'll close it as consensus not to merge, despite having been involved, since the consensus is quite clear, and is now unanimous (apart from one non-committal comment). DFlhb (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rework into a list?

I've started revamping the history section, but I've been looking at this article for a while and I'm left with the thought that it might be better as a list? The model stuff is basically a list already, and the history section is some background and then some very broad-level stuff about each generation, which doesn't take up a ton of prose. The influence and reception stuff doesn't feel like a good fit for writing, as the reception varies wildly across all the models and the influence of each individual model is asymmetrical. I've also never really need any major sources discussing that content at a broad, aggregated level. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)