"Fat" or Slim iMac? Which do you prefer?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by alex.marton, Sep 14, 2015.

  1. alex.marton macrumors 6502

    alex.marton

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Location:
    My House
    #1
    Hi all,

    This might sound really stupid (and obvious), but which one do you prefer? The slim model, or the "fat" one with the optical drive?

    To be honest, I really like both.

    Thanks, Alex
     
  2. colodane macrumors 6502a

    colodane

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    I would be all in favor of a thicker iMac without the tapered edges and with easy user access to the interior. And user installable RAM on all models.
     
  3. MistrSynistr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    #3
    I have a slim model 2013 iMac currently and I do love the design, I just wish as colodane said, easier access to the internals.
     
  4. martinm0 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    #4
    I believe the slim is better simply due to the anti-reflective coating on the screen. I had both, plus a 27" Apple Display and the glass and reflection off those are pretty rough.

    But to be truthful, when you look at any of them dead on, you can't tell it's slim or fat until you try to stuff a DVD in the side slot... By those standards, I'm fine with fattening them up more so we can tear them apart easier. :D
     
  5. OLDCODGER macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lucky Country
    #5
    Fat enough to make an AIO an actual AIO.
     
  6. Liffey macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    #6
    Makes literally no difference since I don't look at it sideways.
     
  7. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #7
    The thin one is much better. Runs cooler due to a far superior internal arrangement. It's so minimal compared to the old one inside.

    The 21.5 inch should have a RAM slot though.

    "All in one" is subjective. Some people wouldn't consider it all in one unless it had a floppy drive.
     
  8. OLDCODGER macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lucky Country
    #8
    Well, yeah, floppy drive storage device has been replaced by newer tech, but what has replaced hard copies and viewing media?
     
  9. redheeler, Sep 14, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2015

    redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #9
    Or a Blu-Ray drive, for that matter. I should really get a nice external one, to assist in ripping all my disks to HDD for easy access :)

    On second thought, I'd really like a built-in iPhone dock. That would make it an actual AIO.
     
  10. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #10
    Yes I was beyond ecstatic when Apple decided to make their iMac models look like iPads on steroids. We only had to give up a few things on some models like access to RAM, ease of drive replacement (for techies) and better heat dispersion.

    Kidding aside, for regular usage, I would prefer a slightly thicker iMac since it is not mobile for the most part and allow us to add in RAM (21" model), access to either the main drive or a way to add by slot/cartridge a 2nd 2.5 inch drive (maybe on the back) and get us back in the game for a forward thinking computer.
     
  11. OLDCODGER macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lucky Country
    #11
    Not really. A phone has nothing to do with the performance of a computer - it merely has the capability to interact with it. After all, would one insist upon having a trailer attached to a new car, in order to make the car complete?
     
  12. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #12
    It just so happens my iMac can perform fine without an optical drive to interact with and read data from as well. But it all comes down to personal preference, what makes "an actual AIO".

    Also, I would argue the iPhone dock wouldn't count as the full trailer, rather the capability to hook one up if I ever need to.
     
  13. OLDCODGER macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lucky Country
    #13
    I guess I should have made myself more clear (a common error). Interacting with is not the same as being a component of. For example, the cloud can interact, yet is not a component - merely a separate convenience for some.
     
  14. uller6 macrumors member

    uller6

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    #14
    I have both - a 2011 21.5" at home and a 2012 21.5" at work. The thick one has much better upgradability, which I think will lead to a longer lifetime. That said, I've taken apart the 2012 to replace the HDD with an SSD and to upgrade the RAM, and it was a lot more difficult to teardown. From a daily use perspective however they're pretty much identical from a daily use perspective. I my backup drives are USB 2, so not much of a difference there anyway.
     
  15. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #15
    You seem to have missed my point. The iPhone dock - not the phone itself - is the component. It merely makes it possible for the interaction to take place, just like the built-in AirPort hardware which can allow interaction with the cloud, or an optical drive which allows interaction with optical disks.
     
  16. OLDCODGER macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    Lucky Country
    #16
    If you consider your phone to be an integral part of your computer, then I suppose you would see it as being similar to DVD input. I don't - a phone is a phone, able to function on its own, whereas a DVD cannot.
     
  17. garirry macrumors 68000

    garirry

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Location:
    Canada is my city
    #17
    I'm the only techie who seems to prefer the slim iMac. The fat one is really well, fat. It takes too much space and looks really huge honestly. The display is also too far behind the glass. I haven't used the slim version that much, so I can't tell about heat and stuff. Upgradability has ALWAYS been a pain for iMacs, except maybe the iMac G5, including both fat and slim models. My only complaint is the lack of RAM door on the 21.5" iMac. No, seriously, WTF? The 2.5" drive doesn't bother me that much, as it will hopefully push people into getting normal SSDs.
     
  18. tyche macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    #18
    In 5 years, I may have used the optical drive twice but I do like the SD card on the side. If the slim had a usb & sd reader on the side I'd like the thin more.
     
  19. firedept macrumors 603

    firedept

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere!
    #20
    I prefer the slim design as it runs much cooler than the fat design ever did. But as others have stated, I would prefer to have easier access to the internals.
     
  20. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #21
    How does the "fat" one take up too much space? The base and the width across the screen somewhat determines the footprint on a desk. Are you saying adding 1/4 to 1/2 inch depth to the screen ruins your day?
     
  21. garirry macrumors 68000

    garirry

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Location:
    Canada is my city
    #22
    It's difficult to explain. The iMac has pretty big bezels, let's be honest. When the base is very thin, it doesn't feel fat IMO. When the base is quite thick, it gives me the illusion that the whole computer is bigger and fatter. It's complicated and psychological.
     
  22. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #23
    Fair enough response thanks. I certainly wont argue that Apple could do something in between to meet your needs (aesthetics) and those opting for matters more related to DIY and functionality. Consider if the front looked the same as the slim but the depth was just slightly deeper. - This is doable with today's technology and manufacturing capabilities.

    On a side note, its rather funny how "slim" they made the iMac and now people are having cables and external devices all around it taking up space. Same can be said for the ever so small 2013 Mac Pro.

    For me -

    1) ability to add more RAM
    2) ability to add (not necessarily replace) drive.
    3) exploit real estate on back of iMac for say - snap on/in 2.5 drive or even a slot load DVD/BR.
    4) more 3rd party TB units that sit under the base to plug in devices rather than on the screen itself.
     
  23. kazmac macrumors 601

    kazmac

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Location:
    in a Shaw Brothers wu xia
    #24
    Well my "fat" 2010 21.5" iMac is pretty slim actually. I am not a tinkerer, but I can understand why some folks want upgradable internals inside their machines.

    All I care about is if it works and lasts me for several years.
     
  24. 2006iMac macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    #25
    my favorite is the design from 2007 to the mid 2009 models. its so beautiful!!
     

Share This Page