From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Timeline of the product Apple iMac[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)


What does "Mac purchasing experience" mean? Can someone think of something to replace this managment speak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split the models section off into a different article? worthawholebean talkcontribs 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 talkcontribs 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 talkcontribs 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"[edit]

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

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

There should be an original bondi iMac image[edit]

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 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[edit]

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. 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. 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Power consumption[edit]

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

Jonathan Ive[edit]

Does the article mention him?

Should it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 03:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


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[edit]

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

Replace main photo[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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. (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. (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I found this... I think we can use this (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"


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 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


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 (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 (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 (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. -- (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[edit]

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


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 (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[edit]

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! (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Metric conversions et al.[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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

No mention of designer?[edit]

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)[edit]

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. (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

LED backlighting[edit]

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 (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. (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation 13[edit]

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. (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline Generation[edit]

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

Merge updates section into history section[edit]

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. (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 iMac?[edit]

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[edit]

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)