Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:21 AM   #1
drlipo
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Why I canceled my order for a 2012 iMac?

I canceled my order for a 2012 iMac 27" because I concluded that, for me, this model is a huge step backwards from my December 2009 iMac 27". The less reflective screen is a definite plus. HOWEVER, the ridiculously thin screen edge required HUGE compromises: 1) SD card slot moved to a difficult to access location on the back 2) elimination of an optical drive. One has the option of purchasing an external optical drive for $70, but in addition to the cost that takes up desktop space and uses up one of the four USB ports 3) whereas the original announcement of the new iMac touted it as having even better sounding audio than the previous iMac, which I was very skeptical about, the early reviews of the new iMac confirm my worst fears -- the bass response is zero, resulting in a tinny sound! 4) while the Fusion drive is a great feature, it is way overpriced for its storage capacity at $250.

I believe the perfect upgrade to the iMac would have been to simply make the screen less reflective and have a more fairly priced Fusion drive, plus the processor and graphic card improvements. The thickness of the box should have stayed the same (already PLENTY thin), thus allowing the SC card reader to remain conveniently on the side, the optical drive to remain and, most importantly, the audio quality should have at lease been maintained, if not improved.

The thin edge of the display and weight reduction are meaningless for a desktop machine. The edge thickness will only be noticed by looking at the computer from the side, but never noticed when actually viewing the screen. Ironically, the ultra thin screen edge required the iMac to bulge out to the rear and the new model may actually be even thicker than the previous model. The lighter weight is not important for a desktop machine. This is not a portable unit! Mine has never been moved from my desktop in three years!

One of the things I love most about my older iMac is the superb audio quality. There is NO WAY I would upgrade to a new model with significantly reduced audio quality, to say nothing about the absent optical drive and hard to reach SC card slot.

When Apple addresses all of these issues, only then will I purchase a new model. Or, I may choose to go back to one of the great new PC's.
drlipo is offline   13 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:32 AM   #2
CaptMike
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Thinking more and more about purchasing a early 2012 model
CaptMike is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:51 AM   #3
Chihawk725
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
How much is the upgrade in screen worth to you ? IMO a couple hundred, but let's say for you it's only 40 bucks. Go spend 40 on a pair of desktop speakers and voila better screen better speakers than your 2009 iMac and you can even place those speakers to the sides of the new iMac that have been slimmed down so it won't add any more space to your desk. You can now reorder your iMac... except we all know your just trolling and never really ordered one. Also if your holding out for a new iMac with an optical drive, you might as well ask for a floppy and some USB 1.1 lol
Chihawk725 is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 12:54 AM   #4
dontpannic
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Orpington, Kent, UK
You'd have to be silly to come to the conclusion that the 2012 iMac is a huge step backwards from the 2009. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

No optical drive... Who uses discs any more? You don't have to keep the external drive connected all the time. SD slot on the back not on the side? Seriously? It's a two second process to memorise where the SD slot is and work out how to put it in while reaching round the back.

Last edited by dejo; Dec 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM. Reason: Quoted post deleted.
dontpannic is offline   25 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:12 AM   #5
peeaanuut
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southern California
Send a message via AIM to peeaanuut
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpannic View Post
You'd have to be silly to come to the conclusion that the 2012 iMac is a huge step backwards from the 2009. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

No optical drive... Who uses discs any more? You don't have to keep the external drive connected all the time. SD slot on the back not on the side? Seriously? It's a two second process to memorize where the SD slot is and work out how to put it in while reaching round the back.
to go one step further, I think you have to be silly to have seen all the specs, had plenty of time to mull them over, THEN decide to cancel the order.

Last edited by dejo; Dec 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Quoted post edited.
peeaanuut is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:15 AM   #6
Thunderbird
macrumors 6502a
 
Thunderbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpannic View Post
No optical drive... Who uses discs any more?
Lots of people. Just because you don't doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpannic View Post
You don't have to keep the external drive connected all the time.
That isn't the point. You have to go out and buy one (you didn't for previous iMac), then you have to haul it out and plug it in every time you use it, then unplug it and put it away when you're done. In the meantime it still takes up desk space and a USB port when in use (something a built-in drive doesn't). In other words, a step backward from previous iMac.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpannic View Post
SD slot on the back not on the side? Seriously? It's a two second process to memorise where the SD slot is and work out how to put it in while reaching round the back.
Then you'd agree he's right, from the perspective of the previous iMac, that represents a step back from the convenience of having the SD slot on the side.
Thunderbird is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:25 AM   #7
tears2040
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpannic View Post
You'd have to be silly to come to the conclusion that the 2012 iMac is a huge step backwards from the 2009. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

No optical drive... Who uses discs any more? You don't have to keep the external drive connected all the time. SD slot on the back not on the side? Seriously? It's a two second process to memorise where the SD slot is and work out how to put it in while reaching round the back.
I would say every Cd burned for audio reference as well as dvd I burn for clients + dvd rentals such as redbox which are well alive, I would say many people use optical disc drives.....

I mean you think downloading .mp3 is the same as a pro audio disc sound? Same with blu ray.....

Last edited by dejo; Dec 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM. Reason: Quoted post edited.
tears2040 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:33 AM   #8
Chihawk725
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Why bother creating this thread?

Just curious. Why do these threads keep popping up? Every day there is a new "why I do not like the new Imac" but none of them bring anything new to the discussion (you wish they had optical drives and do not care for the new form factor? wow what a new and interesting point ! ) these complaints are 100% personal preference based, I personally see every one of the negatives this thread creator made as positives. I thought this site was for rumors and interesting discussion, not personal rants.
Chihawk725 is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:38 AM   #9
drlipo
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by peeaanuut View Post
to go one step further, I think you have to be silly to have seen all the specs, had plenty of time to mull them over, THEN decide to cancel the order.
Where were the specs posted that the audio quality on the newest iMac is seriously reduced? In fact, Apple claimed that it was improved and only a published review revealed the truth.

Let me restate my point in order to try to quash all the misplaced flaming I have received.

ALL of the improvements in the newest iMac -- upgraded processor and graphics card, reduced screen reflection, and Fusion drive -- could have been created by Apple at a much lower cost to them by simply keeping the thickness of the device identical to that on the previous model. No one would have grumbled that it was too thick.

That approach would have allowed for the option of an optical drive, conveniently located SD card slot and, most importantly, a great audio response without having to purchase an external speaker system.

Let the flamers try to dispute my last paragraph!
drlipo is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:41 AM   #10
GrooveOn
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
First time poster also raises my suspicions!
GrooveOn is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:50 AM   #11
MissVader92
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
That isn't the point. You have to go out and buy one (you didn't for previous iMac), then you have to haul it out and plug it in every time you use it, then unplug it and put it away when you're done. In the meantime it still takes up desk space and a USB port when in use (something a built-in drive doesn't). In other words, a step backward from previous.
What I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about the optical drive ... Yes people still use CDs.. I use CDs and I just bought the SuperDrive for my imac and it delivered before my imac so I got a chance to check it out .. First off the SuperDrive's cost is ridiculous but it's very light and well thin... It would hardly take up any desk space and I don't see there being any problem dragging it out of the desk draw i mean c'mon it's no more the pulling out your phone out of your pocket and hooking up to the computer to charge or sync. Next the whole USB Problem,when was the last time u had all 4 USBs being occupied at one time ...
MissVader92 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:51 AM   #12
Switchback666
macrumors 65816
 
Switchback666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Caribbean
Have to agree op, the slim/thin design its over the top for a desktop or AIO the early model was perfect and would keep the price more easy on the eye plus no sacrifice of optical drive and ports placement.
__________________
What is The B.D.S Movement ? Check it out !
FREEDOM, JUSTICE & EQUALITY !
Switchback666 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 01:59 AM   #13
drlipo
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Switchback666 View Post
Have to agree op, the slim/thin design its over the top for a desktop or AIO the early model was perfect and would keep the price more easy on the eye plus no sacrifice of optical drive and ports placement.
Indeed, what is the PRACTICAL value in a super slim display EDGE only, with a bulge in the back creating an overall greater thickness than the previous model?

I see negatives but zero positives in this new "thinner at all costs" philosophy.
drlipo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:00 AM   #14
tears2040
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
My question honestly though is why does the base model cost more now? Also why would they take away the ability for you to upgrade your Ram easily?


Honestly what is Apple really doing here?
tears2040 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:02 AM   #15
Chihawk725
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
ALL of the improvements in the newest iMac -- upgraded processor and graphics card, reduced screen reflection, and Fusion drive -- could have been created by Apple at a much lower cost to them by simply keeping the thickness of the device identical to that on the previous model.
So all of these individual improvements could have been done cheaper in a larger device?? Please explain to me how using the new technology (plasma deposition for glare and direct lamination for overall screen quality) which are innovations that in themselves create a smaller form factor, could have been done at a "much lower cost" if the device had been larger?? -refuted
Chihawk725 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:09 AM   #16
drlipo
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chihawk725 View Post
So all of these individual improvements could have been done cheaper in a larger device?? Please explain to me how using the new technology (plasma deposition for glare and direct lamination for overall screen quality) which are innovations that in themselves create a smaller form factor, could have been done at a "much lower cost" if the device had been larger?? -refuted
If Apple had not incurred the costs of designing and manufacturing the new super thin edge display with the rounded back, and simply used the older "box" or a slight modification of it, they OBVIOUSLY would have saved money.
drlipo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:10 AM   #17
Switchback666
macrumors 65816
 
Switchback666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Caribbean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chihawk725 View Post
So all of these individual improvements could have been done cheaper in a larger device?? Please explain to me how using the new technology (plasma deposition for glare and direct lamination for overall screen quality) which are innovations that in themselves create a smaller form factor, could have been done at a "much lower cost" if the device had been larger?? -refuted
lol mate that alone wouldnt bump the price so high, anyway i think what the few us say is that keeping they "old" style would have been better optical drive still, same ports placement, maybe better cooling system? (Just 1 fan in these rev.) and def. easy to upgrade yourself.
__________________
What is The B.D.S Movement ? Check it out !
FREEDOM, JUSTICE & EQUALITY !
Switchback666 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:38 AM   #18
leman
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Ok, I'll bite ^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
I canceled my order for a 2012 iMac 27" because I concluded that, for me, this model is a huge step backwards from my December 2009 iMac 27"
With all due respect, this statement is a bit ridiculous. The 2012 iMac will eat the 2009 iMac for breakfast and then have some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
1) SD card slot moved to a difficult to access location on the back
Fair enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
2) elimination of an optical drive.
Also fair enough. Nevertheless, optical drives are legacy media and most of people out there just don't use any. I surely haven't touched an optical disk in over two years. My point is that complaining about the lack of ODD is like complaining about the lack of a tape media - both have their uses, but nowadays these are rather niche.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
3) whereas the original announcement of the new iMac touted it as having even better sounding audio than the previous iMac, which I was very skeptical about, the early reviews of the new iMac confirm my worst fears -- the bass response is zero, resulting in a tinny sound
I hardly see how this is an issue. iMacs never had great sound so external speakers are pretty much required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
4) while the Fusion drive is a great feature, it is way overpriced for its storage capacity at $250.
It is not overpriced, simple because there is nothing else on the consumer market you can compare it too. $250 for a 1TB storage with everyday speeds of a fast SSD? What's overpriced about that? They probably could have sold it for $150 as well (average price of a 128Gb SSD), but Apple tax and all that...
leman is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:45 AM   #19
smoking monkey
macrumors 6502a
 
smoking monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post

HOWEVER, the ridiculously thin screen edge required HUGE compromises:
1) SD card slot moved to a difficult to access location on the back
2) elimination of an optical drive. One has the option of purchasing an external optical drive for $70, but in addition to the cost that takes up desktop space and uses up one of the four USB ports
3) reviews of the new iMac confirm my worst fears -- the bass response is zero, resulting in a tinny sound!
4) while the Fusion drive is a great feature, it is way overpriced for its storage capacity at $250.

5)The thin edge of the display and weight reduction are meaningless for a desktop machine.

When Apple addresses all of these issues, only then will I purchase a new model. Or, I may choose to go back to one of the great new PC's.
1. For many this simply isn't an issue. For you it is. Most people are now using their mobile phones as their main camera. For prosumers, it's a bit more of a burden, but for the majority, it isn't. And hey, it's lighter, easier to turn now! Easy to get to that SD card slot!!!

2. No. Don't push mistruths. One doesn't just have the option of purchasing a 70 DOLLAR APPLE external, one has the option of purchasing ANY external. I have an external and an internal for my 2008 and guess which on I use all the time? Hint, it's not the internal. They are prone to failure and also create a lot of heat. It was always going to happen and I'm actually glad they did it.

3. This is troubling. The sound not being as good is a poor effort if true. I'd like to see a few more reviews though.

4. Apple overcharges for everything. Right or wrong it's not surprising. In Japan it will cost me 20,000yen for the Fusion upgrade on the 27. That's acceptable in my books. It's not just an SSD remember. there is software involved.

5. No the thinness and weight reduction is not meaningless. Another mistruth. It's more eco friendly. Smaller footprint. Less weight for shipping. Easier to move if needed. And it pushes technology forward. Why did TVs get thinner? It's the natural evolution of technology. I applaud Apple for this choice.

I always find it amusing when the threats to go back to PCs come out. It's like anybody cares. Go back, if that's what you want to do. Chose what is best for your needs. IF the iMac isn't meeting your PARTICULAR needs, then don't buy one. And you haven't. You voted with your wallet. Well done.
__________________
G3 450 B&W, K-Lime iBook G3/466SE, PB G4 867(Ti), G4 800 DP(QS), PB G4 1.5 17 (Al), iPT 1G, 08 24 iMac, MBP 09 17, iP3Gs, iPad1&2, iP4s, '12 27 iMac, iP5s, rMBP(H) 15", Air.
smoking monkey is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:45 AM   #20
leman
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by tears2040 View Post
I mean you think downloading .mp3 is the same as a pro audio disc sound? Same with blu ray.....
We are not talking about blu ray. And yes, digital sound is better quality than the audio CD. Not necessarily MP3 (which suffer artefacts from the compression rate), but there are other audio formats out there as well. The 256kbps AAC files as offered via iTunes are better quality than an audio CD in every regard.
leman is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 02:50 AM   #21
Switchback666
macrumors 65816
 
Switchback666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Caribbean
Quote:
Originally Posted by leman View Post
We are not talking about blu ray. And yes, digital sound is better quality than the audio CD. Not necessarily MP3 (which suffer artefacts from the compression rate), but there are other audio formats out there as well. The 256kbps AAC files as offered via iTunes are better quality than an audio CD in every regard.
Wtf ? Are you serious ?
__________________
What is The B.D.S Movement ? Check it out !
FREEDOM, JUSTICE & EQUALITY !
Switchback666 is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 03:01 AM   #22
experimenthouse
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by leman View Post
We are not talking about blu ray. And yes, digital sound is better quality than the audio CD. Not necessarily MP3 (which suffer artefacts from the compression rate), but there are other audio formats out there as well. The 256kbps AAC files as offered via iTunes are better quality than an audio CD in every regard.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
experimenthouse is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 03:02 AM   #23
Uplift
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
If sound is important to you, and i'm assuming it is since you mentioned it a couple of times.. why are you using the built in speakers AT ALL? The speakers are basic and suck on all iMacs (compared to proper sound). They are OK for light video or a bit of background music, but that's it..

I haven't tested the new iMac speakers but if they are comparable to the new Macbook Pro speakers then they should be a definite improvement... i love my rMBP speakers, but i would still never use them for anything other than background music or youtube videos.

I agree about the whole 'thinner and lighter' debate.. there is just no need. they could have drastically improved the design without trying to make it thin and light as possible, it's a desktop and not needed. desktops need optical drives and they need upgradability. They had their priorities all wrong here, that being said.. everyones well aware of apples direction, the machine is powerful, beautiful and will run OSX great.. so you need to work out whats important to you.
Uplift is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 03:07 AM   #24
leman
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Switchback666 View Post
Wtf ? Are you serious ?
Lossy compression is always a compromise of course. The audio CDs are lower bitrate but they are lossless. But for the practical matters of listening to music, it hardly matters. And digital media are much flexible as far handling, storage and playback goes. This is why I consider than superior in every way. If you consider yourself an audiophile, there is also music to download in lossless digital formats.

BTW, make an experiment. Let people listen to the same track on CD and on 256kbit AAC, using highest quality audio playback hardware you can get. Do it as a proper 2x2 design. You will be surprised.

Edit: to clarify, I am wrong (see below). I will leave this post here as another monument to my stupidity

Last edited by leman; Dec 3, 2012 at 05:45 AM.
leman is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 03:07 AM   #25
cyclotron451
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by drlipo View Post
snip...One of the things I love most about my older iMac is the superb audio quality. There is NO WAY I would upgrade to a new model with significantly reduced audio quality, to say nothing about the absent optical drive and hard to reach SC card slot....
Well buy a top of the range 2012 Mini or a Lappy with the 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display or 27" Apple Cinema Display. I can confirm that the 27" ACD still has great sound. Of course - we're expecting a refresh of teh displays perhaps concurrent with the new late 2013 anorexic MacPro, and maybe the new late 2013 anorexic 27" or 30" display (singular) will have weedy sound. In that case buy a Bose 7.1 roomful of speakers or better still a Laney VC-30 Valve tube amplifier

Last edited by cyclotron451; Dec 3, 2012 at 03:08 AM. Reason: brought the dates back to THIS century!
cyclotron451 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
has anyone changed their mind and canceled their iMac order WhiteIphone5 iMac 27 Feb 22, 2013 07:28 PM
Canceled MacMall Order, Reordered with Apple schhflap iMac 1 Jan 12, 2013 12:44 PM
My 27" iMac BTO order has be canceled pukingpixels iMac 11 Jan 10, 2013 03:51 PM
Dang Sprint. Sent me phone after I canceled order zman98 iPhone 1 Sep 25, 2012 06:02 PM
ATT canceled my order!! Preorder Fiasco! Rinku666 iPhone 0 Sep 14, 2012 02:31 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC