Did anyone think that the pervious iMac was too fat?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by rossip, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. rossip, Oct 23, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012

    rossip macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #1
    Seriously?

    Today we got an iMac that is absurdly thin, but's got a 5400 RPM Hard drive, no user serviceable ram, a gpu with only 512 mb ram, and no optical drive. Who asked for this?




    lol, pervious should be previous, but you all knew that
     
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #2
    I thought the old G5 iMac was fine. At least it was more user-serviceable. I suspect, however, that most don't care and they want the Apple status symbol.
     
  3. karpich1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    #3
    What's strange, is months ago there WERE a BUNCH of posters saying they'd like the iMac thinner (not sarcastically) and was one of the reasons they gave why they thought they should remove the ODD

    Of course, myself and others replied with "It's a DESKTOP, why does it need to be THINNER?"

    I guess Apple's mind-set is closer to that of those posters than people like myself.


    I'm not disappointed though, I was planning on getting a beefy 27" with upgraded GPU... praying that the option was either the 680M or 7970M. So I'm not disappointed.

    But now... the 27's aren't out until December. AND I don't know how comfortable I'll be with getting a Revision-A product that they decided to both shrink AND stick a high-end mobile GPU inside.
     
  4. The Phazer macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    I'm sure there were a few crazy people, but nobody with any common sense.

    At least it doesn't seem to have ruined the 27 inch as badly as the 21.5.
     
  5. rossip thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #5
    Yeah, I suppose the 21.5" model is more disappointing then the 27" one.
     
  6. wessew macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    #6
    Your information is not correct: 1) there are four user serviceable DIMM slots on the back, 2) GPU is up to 1 Gb, 2) the hard drive for the 27" model is 7200 rpm. About the only spec you got right was the absence of the optical drive which Apple has already started deleting from shipping Macs. The choice is always there to upgrade or not. I am sure Apple will sell all they can make of this model in the first year.
     
  7. bungiefan89 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    #7
    I move my 2011 27" iMac around quite a bit, and I won't lie, it is a little on the hefty side. The bulk, you can't change: it's a 27" screen.

    I suppose that 9 pounds lighter will be nice but... the current computer is NOT too thick. It's actually quite slender, I think. :)
     
  8. bpeeps macrumors 68020

    bpeeps

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    #8
    Yeah, multiple people. If I cared enough, I'd dredge up some of the posts.
     
  9. Crazy Badger macrumors 65816

    Crazy Badger

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Location:
    Scotland
    #9
    To be fair, my desk is starting to bow with the weight of my 2011 iMac :rolleyes:
     
  10. ixodes macrumors 601

    ixodes

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Location:
    Pacific Coast, USA
    #10
    Apple is a company that loves attention. Vanity plays a significant part in their decisions. Apples obsession with "thin" is legendary. It's not a matter of wanting it. Apple just delivers it.
     
  11. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #11
    Anyone who's had to carry these sumb****ches

    If you like the 5400 RPM drive you have SSD or Fusion Drive options
    Why would a consumer need to service the RAM. Genius Bar for that and it doesn't cost anything under warranty.

    Optical drive - Mac App Store or $79 superdrive.

    GPU with "only" 512MB of RAM hahahahah


    It's easy to come up with a laundry list of complaints. That's what mediocre humans do.
     
  12. ball4lyfe macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    #12
    It seems that you have no idea what "no user serviceable ram" means. :rolleyes:
     
  13. rossip thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #13
    lol, what is your desk made out of, cardboard?!

    ----------

    Obviously I was talking about the 21.5" model, thanks
     
  14. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #14
    Users, by and large, have enough RAM today. The typical iMac user is going to be fine with 8GB of RAM. If they want more in their 21.5 them buy the 16GB model.

    It's easy to come up with obstacles. That's why most most people are decidedly average. Too busy building walls and obstacles.
     
  15. george-brooks macrumors 6502a

    george-brooks

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    #15
    I've been echoing this all day! The iMac didn't need to be thinner at all.
     
  16. fruitpunch.ben macrumors 6502a

    fruitpunch.ben

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Location:
    Surrey, BC
    #16
    I move my iMac around fairly often, since I use it for a TV and its fricken hard. The weight plus the sheer size of the thing makes it difficult.
    Plus I never use the optical drive (I actually ripped it out my current iMac to put an SSD in its place).
    So I am happy that the new one is so much thinner and lighter.
    Having said that, I understand that not too many people use their iMac as a TV. Plus I plan to get the 27" which has a 7200rpm HDD, user serviceable RAM and I have used an optical drive twice in the past 3 years - to rip my son's Berentstain Bears dvd to my iPad.

    Again, I understand not everyone is the same as me. But Apple isn't stupid. They know that an absurdly thin iMac will sell more, because it looks so amazing in the store. They don't make it thin just because, but also because that will sell more computers
     
  17. btbrossard macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #17
    The 27" model will fit nicely in my backpack now...
     
  18. bembol macrumors 65816

    bembol

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #18
    As I said, it's a desktop.

    No, I had to issues with the previous iMac. I am surprised they eliminated the Super Drive and cost still went up. :(
     
  19. Ak907Freerider macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    #19
    Thin isnt a big deal for me

    I have my iMac against the wall so being thin is something I would never notice. Now I could see if it were out in the open it would look amazing. Yet I would miss the DVD drive on my 2011 iMac. I do a lot of video editing and trade video with friends with DVD since loaning out externals or thumb drives can get expensive if lost. Plus when Im done with rough edits of video it is easy to burn a copy and let friends preview on DVD. The only reason I even consider the new iMac is the usb 3.0 and the flash storage. I have the 3.4 ghz processor now which is what the new 2012 top of the line has with the BTO models. So wouldnt be gaining a lot there. All in all I question if I didnt even have this 2011 model now and was in the market for a new iMac if the 2012 would fit my needs. Yes loading files booting up etc would be fast, yet my 2011 is fast also. Upgrading the ram on a 2011 with at least 16 gb of ram and you will be amazed how good it flys along. With the prices of the 2011 refurbs falling it is a great option. But if you must have new thin sexy iMac then go for the 2012. Just remember it isnt always about looks you use your computer for function.

    Also anyone else notice the 2012 models can come with 32 gb of ram, think this answers the question of if a iMac can run 32 gb of ram. Considering it is same iOS as 2011 models with a lot of the same specs. I have 20 gb in mine and runs perfect. So now looking at another 16 gb of ram for mine.
     
  20. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #20
    so did the standard RAM to 8GB.
     
  21. TallManNY macrumors 601

    TallManNY

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #21
    All good stuff but you should be a few years from upgrading if you have a 2011 iMac. Assuming you don't upgrade until 2014, will you need a DVD drive by then? You will presumably have 50 Mbps download and 10 mbps upload on Internet by then as will your tech savvy buddies. Also nearly unlimited hard drive storage. So will you be burning disks or just emailing the files? I don't think the drive will be sorely missed by many. But I also think that folks will buy external drives that they keep in a drawer for occasional use.
     
  22. MacWanter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    #22
    27" iMac has 4 Ram slots for editing :D double the previous ones, but none for 21.5" :mad:
     
  23. applefiend95 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    #23
    is it just me or does the new imac look something a display glues onto a laptop? i mean if you were to look at it from the side.... apple just made the edges curve to conceal that factor.... however, the product does look elegant and its a thumbs up to apple for that but i fear there is going to be a heat problem. and also i dont know if i can wait till december for the 27".
     
  24. ball4lyfe macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    #24
    You're just not getting it, obviously. It's not about extra options being available to add on for more money (and please don't tell me Apple's memory price is fair) but if there still is basic accessibility for the very near future upgrade, which seems to have just been taken away. Heck, even the new MacMinis still have their RAM accessible by the users. :rolleyes:
     
  25. Dirtyharry50 macrumors 68000

    Dirtyharry50

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    #25
    The new one is thin? Really? Have you guys checked this bad boy's beer belly out in profile view? There is a serious gut back there. It's best to not go there and just stick with the frontal view in this case. I realize that does not always apply but this time I think it does ;-)
     

Share This Page