2012 iMac Said to Carry Thinner Design, Alleged Internals Photo Surfaces

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Don't know why some of you still harp on about a retina display or SSD being included... Have you not learnt anything from the devices they currently exist in? This is expensive tech, and it won't be making its way into a 21.5" iMac for some time.

On the subject of retina, why does anyone believe it would actually make a difference worthy of the extra cost involved? At normal viewing distance, the 21.5" screen is adequate. Plus, to make any kind of 'difference' that would even be noticeable, the panel would have to break the 2K pixel barrier as in the R-MBP. And even if Apple were to do that, they would have to distribute new graphics in OS X to support the higher resolution.

If any display is going to be retina, it will of course be the Cinema Display. That then gives customers an incentive to purchase it, and Apple get more money.

The new iMac's are thinner because of a combination of the Optical Drive being dropped, and of course the new fixed-LCD design.

 

[flopticalcube]

Tell me one decent external DVD drive

Plextor or one of the better LG drives.

and Samsung doesn't make crappy products. FYI...

Sure wouldn't get that impression reading some of the iPhone 5 vs Galaxy 3 threads.

 

[57004]

Looks like a laptop hard drive. Which would allow for a much thinner body, but at the expense of a smaller drive capacity.

It also looks like the back part comes off (you can see the edge of it I think, and it would make sense if the screen is now laminated), which will make it a lot easier to replace it with an SSD! I for one applaud that.

 

[Anuba]

I dread to think what may happen if this logic is applied to the Mac Pro.

I don't think you need to worry about that. They once tried to squeeze their workstation-grade stuff into a small form factor enclosure. The Cube. It brought new meaning to the term 'megaflop'.

 

[mchoffa]

By the time Apple discontinued support for floppies the format had already become largely impractical. 1.44MB wasn't enough for much of anything anymore.

but judging by that article I linked to, it sure was a big deal, because every other PC still put floppy drives in their machines for another 5 years. I've only used my iMac's ODD 7 times in the past year, and 5 of those were finally transferring DVD home movies to my hard drive, which is now said and done. I think i'm probably like a lot of other people out there.

Before 2010 I needed it because clients would occasionally send things on disc to me. Now everything is sent via dropbox, etc, again, no more need for it. For the few that do need it, an external is perfect. Just like when Apple dropped the floppy drive and the few users that still needed one bought an external.

 

[57004]

On the subject of retina, why does anyone believe it would actually make a difference worthy of the extra cost involved? At normal viewing distance, the 21.5" screen is adequate. Plus, to make any kind of 'difference' that would even be noticeable, the panel would have to break the 2K pixel barrier as in the R-MBP. And even if Apple were to do that, they would have to distribute new graphics in OS X to support the higher resolution.

Agreed, it would have to be a 4k2k panel or slightly below however I don't agree that it won't be noticeable. I sit very close to my 22" display and I would totally notice the difference. Especially with a relatively small display such as 21.5".

And the new graphics support is already there, it would be the same as for the retina pro, just with a much larger desktop.

But I don't think a 4k2k panel is currently feasible yet either.

 

[kkent25]

I think I'm not in the demographic that Apple is aiming for these days. To me the concept of a thinner iMac is just plain stupid. Who cares what you don't see behind the screen? iMac backsides only look cool in Apple Stores.

I would prefer an iMac that has some real guts to it, more mechanical HDDs or SSDs as the customer prefers. Easily replaceable HDDs would really be great. "Oh my! There's a seam in the back of my iMac that I never look at!"

And how about some real, effective cooling. Full-size RAM slots would be nice too. I'm almost afraid to mention the option of a mat screen.

I just don't get why so many Apple users want average performing, effeminate, light-weight machines. Maybe Apple should have coined the term "Metro".

Sounds like you are the perfect candidate for a windows box. How an Apple machine "looks" has been in the company DNA since after the Apple 1 (disregarding of course the lost years Steve was gone). If you are a designer how something looks is important. If you are an accountant it doesn't.

 

[57004]

Hopefully with matte display option, even if more expensive. No matte option, no purchase. It is a deal breaker because it is a health and productivity issue. Search Google for MacMatte for more information.

Yeah this is the main reason why I have been buying Mac Mini's for many years now. In my room there is just no other place to put my screen than with the window behind me. Even with the matte screen I usally have the blinds down when I work.

Having said that, I think there is a lot to improve with the screens. The rMBP was already a step in the right direction, and if they include this rumoured 'invisible glass' they might have got me.

 

[zoffdino]

There are four primary sources of heat in a typical computer: the power supply, CPU, graphics card, and the HDD.

The iMac screen is LED (which generate less heat) and has large surface area so that its cooling is not a problem. CPU's heat can only be solved by Intel or by throttling the clock frequency. Ivy Bridge is a die shrink so some heat savings can be expected there. Graphics card is also a vendor problem. I think heat is a major factor in selecting which card gets into the iMac.

That leaves us with the only variable left: the HDD. SSD is much more silent, use much less power, generate so much less heat, and yet so much faster to boast. I can't see any reason Apple doesn't want to put it in their iMac.

Don't know why some of you still harp on about a retina display or SSD being included... Have you not learnt anything from the devices they currently exist in? This is expensive tech, and it won't be making its way into a 21.5" iMac for some time.

Agree on the Retina display. Even ignoring the cost, I don't think anybody can manufacture 21" or 27" Retina panels in sufficient volumes for now. SSD prices have come off dramatically this year, to the point that it's only slightly more expensive. The 13" MacBook Air, a laptop, can still afford a 128GB SSD at the same price point as the cheapest iMac. The Samsung 830 is available on Amazon @ $200 for 256GB. Apple can get it for half that price (may be even less). So a hundred bucks for a vastly superior tech? Sign me up.

 

[Eidorian]

Forget the disc drive for a minute. As others have pointed out, this also means going from a desktop style HDD to a laptop-style one. And there may need to be other compromises as well.

One would hope they would spot the money for a Seagate Momentus XT 2. It is still a step backwards in capacity but we are going through this bizarro world phase where local storage is being slashed in order to push "cloud" storage solutions.

 

[S.B.G]

Imagine the display of the 15" Retina MacBook Pro as a 21" or 27" iMac Display:

Image

That would be incredible to have an iMac that thin or somewhat close to it.

 

[LastMinuteMike]

Bittersweet

While I'm thrilled to finally hear some iMac news (what is taking them so long!?) I'm a bit put down by the news that they might make it thinner. Now I'm a design guy, I almost always choose form over function, but as everyone already has pointed out, this is a desktop computer! It doesn't need to be thin, it already looks beautiful. I believe Apple should focus on fitting a desktop GPU in the iMac instead.

And again, what the hell is taking them so long? It's very likely not Retina, and please don't tell me it's due to this new glued screen, it cannot make such a big difference and be so difficult that they end up releasing it after almost double the usual refresh-time?

 

[whitesand]

And given the compromises Apple seem to have been willing to make just to make the iPhone 5 thinner when nobody wanted that either, that scares me.

yeah the iphone 5 is thinner, lighter, and stronger.....There's not anything compromised as far as I'm concerned unless you just prefer heavier and less strength than the new unibody design provides.

 

[Anuba]

but judging by that article I linked to, it sure was a big deal, because every other PC still put floppy drives in their machines for another 5 years.

Yeah, but that's only because PC manufacturers are held hostage by large enterprises. Those enterprises spend a fortune on tech at some point in time and then they don't want to upgrade anything ever again, and if you make changes that would force them to upgrade, they threaten to take their billion dollar business elsewhere. The same guys who are still on Windows XP, which Microsoft is committed to supporting until 2014 at which time it'll be 13 years old. So you just keep putting those parallel ports on those laptops now, so we can keep using our dot matrix printers down in the warehouse. Capisc?
Back in my PC days I had this pro Dell laptop called Precision, it was 2006 and I once was on the phone with Dell's support and we chatted casually about stuff, so I asked him why my laptop is cluttered up with antiquated ports like 9- and 25-pin. He then gave me an example of a huge client that uses those laptops to program industrial robots via 9-pin serial because those were the interfaces that the robots shipped with a million years ago, and the robot park would have to last another million years. One part of me understands, the other part wants to send all enterprise customers to Guantanamo.

Apple doesn't have those hellspawn customers, fortunately. But there are some consumers who are allergic to change, too. If you look at torrent releases of movies you'll find plenty of them where movies have been split into "CD1" and "CD2". I once read a discussion thread where some people said stuff like "CD?? Are you from the 1950s??" and the uploader responded that his 'team' had once tried releasing movies as one file but got tons of complaints from people who could no longer burn them to CD (this was earlier this year ) so that they could watch them on their hardware DivX players. I mean FFS...

 

[stiligFox]

Lol, you're following that as well .

Yeah, I'm stoked for it! I'm actually really happy with the release time frame -- By the time November 2014 rolls around the iMacs should be plenty powerful (provided they don't nerf them at all) and I'll be in the market for a new one anyway!

 

[Anuba]

There are four primary sources of heat in a typical computer: the power supply, CPU, graphics card, and the HDD.

The iMac screen is LED (which generate less heat) and has large surface area so that its cooling is not a problem. CPU's heat can only be solved by Intel or by throttling the clock frequency. Ivy Bridge is a die shrink so some heat savings can be expected there. Graphics card is also a vendor problem. I think heat is a major factor in selecting which card gets into the iMac.

Dude, it's the GPU. And you can bet that as soon as a Retina iMac is released, the first idiot to unbox it will install Windows and some game with the richest graphics ever and see what framerate he gets when he plays it at full resolution on the Retina display. Then he'll go online and post endless rants about heat and fan noise (and his disappointment over laggy framerate).

 

[69650]

the report suggests that Apple may first update the 21.5-inch model with the new design, which is said to maintain the existing "chin" below the display even as the body is tweaked with a thinner profile.

Please god let them be wrong. I don't care how thin it is or what it's looks like from the back, all I want is for them to remove that fugly "chin" and make the border around the screen considerably smaller so that we get an edge to edge display. That would considerably shrink the overall dimensions so that they could put larger screens in virtually the same size frontage. That is all I'm interested in.

 

[flopticalcube]

Dude, it's the GPU. And you can bet that as soon as a Retina iMac is released, the first idiot to unbox it will install Windows and some game with the richest graphics ever and see what framerate he gets when he plays it at full resolution on the Retina display. Then he'll go online and post endless rants about heat and fan noise (and his disappointment over laggy framerate).

Absolutely sooo correct. It will be amusing to read.

 

[Anuba]

And again, what the hell is taking them so long? It's very likely not Retina, and please don't tell me it's due to this new glued screen, it cannot make such a big difference and be so difficult that they end up releasing it after almost double the usual refresh-time?

You want my conspiracy theory? I think they're waiting for Windows 8, due out October 26. Starting a couple of days before that, they will bombard the market and the media with new products to divert attention away from Win8. Hey look, all-new Macs in all shapes and sizes! iPad Mini! Yoo-hoo!"

 

[69650]

Dude, it's the GPU. And you can bet that as soon as a Retina iMac is released, the first idiot to unbox it will install Windows and some game with the richest graphics ever and see what framerate he gets when he plays it at full resolution on the Retina display. Then he'll go online and post endless rants about heat and fan noise (and his disappointment over laggy framerate).

The same problem would apply if running a high end game under OSX or Windows. It's not Windows causing the problem, it's Apple's insistence on using laptop grade components on a desktop machine to make it thinner. Personally I'd rather they made it thicker and bought more robust components. Mac gaming is finally on the up again.

----------

And again, what the hell is taking them so long? It's very likely not Retina, and please don't tell me it's due to this new glued screen, it cannot make such a big difference and be so difficult that they end up releasing it after almost double the usual refresh-time?

It states what is going wrong in the article. Steve used to have a deliberate policy of multiple suppliers so he could switch from one to the other if things starting going wrong. Tim changed that and centralised manufacturing in the hands of Foxconn. They then sub-contract the work if needs be. Problem with that is if Foxconn are having production problems it holds everything up which is why Steve didn't do it that way.

It's all about Tim Cook's obsession to minimise costs as much as possible so he can squeeze out every ounce of profit from customers, suppliers, contractors, etc. He probably figures the Mac fans will sit and grumble about the delay but go out and buy the product anyway so why should he care if it's delayed.

 

[Intarweb]

More expensive? Pass.

 

[El Salvador]

The hard drive, more than any other part in a modern computer, is likely to die within 2 years or so. So enjoy that new iMac with that ticking time bomb inside it as long as you can, lol.

You're sure about that, Sir?

 

[sofila]

I don't care about a thinner iMac.
I usually sit in front of mine.

 

[Anuba]

The same problem would apply if running a high end game under OSX or Windows. It's not Windows causing the problem, it's Apple's insistence on using laptop grade components on a desktop machine to make it thinner. Personally I'd rather they made it thicker and bought more robust components. Mac gaming is finally on the up again.

We were talking about the heat problem. It's not like laptop components generate more heat than their desktop-grade counterparts. If that were the case then Apple could've stuck with the G5 and put that nice chilly processor in the PowerBook... except, that would've incinerated the entire western hemisphere, 'cause that thing was HOT and required a wind tunnel for a chassis, that's how the cheese grater PowerMac/Mac Pro was born.

The iMac design is so many kinds of wrong for high end gaming, that changing the design to accommodate desktop-grade components is a dead end. It doesn't even have that beautiful, zen-like layout you normally find in Macs, it looks more like someone just threw everything in there and prayed that it would stick. You cannot get sufficient cooling in there, you just can't. You have to get the components out of there. A "Mac Midi" would do the trick, but Apple's interest in a headless consumer desktop is negative one trillion.

 

[GizmoDVD]

Huh? 7+ what now? With your sense of time, you must have housefly DNA.
The current iMac 16:9 21.5"/27" design is from 2010. It has an aluminum back and is thinner than the previous 16:10 iMac (20"/24"), also aluminum but with a black plastic back. That one came out in 2007, 5 years ago. 7+ years would place you in the white G5 iMac era. That thing was thick as a brick. If you're seriously suggesting that the design hasn't been updated since then, you need glasses that are much thicker than any iMac.

Anyway, with the optical drive gone, the side of the iMac needn't be flat because there's nothing left except that stupid SD card slot. I wouldn't cry if they ditched that one. So they could go with really thin edges... but then the iMac would be thinner than the Thunderbolt display. Not that it would be the first time... when the 2007 iMac came out they were still selling the 30" display which was way thicker than the iMac.

The design is pretty much the same dating back to the G5 iMac. It hasn't changed much at all. What we are apparently going to see is a major change. Much like the old flower pot G4 to G5. You can argue it's gotten "thinner" over the years, but the design remains nearly identical. OD drive on one side, sitting on the same, similar stand etc.