Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

making iMac thinner haters

C

chinadian1

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 23, 2012
20
0
California
what's up with the haters on making the iMac thinner?

you don't carry your TV around. imagine if no-one tried to make TVs thinner...

i would argue that engineering things to be thinner and lighter is progress

lighter also means less materials are being used which is better for the environment ...

thoughts? comments?
 
It's not necessarily the thinness or move to that is annoying people, but more they sacrificed a lot of performance of a desktop to do it even downgrading to some extent.
 
Indeed. My previous 27" iMac is too bulky to carry, so I leave it on my desk at home and take my MacBook air instead, because there is a difference between desktops and laptops :rolleyes:
 
I don't even care that the optical drive is gone. My problem is the moving of the SD slot to the back. In my setup, that would be nearly impossible to get to. But I do love the thinness.
 
ffohwx said:
I don't even care that the optical drive is gone. My problem is the moving of the SD slot to the back. In my setup, that would be nearly impossible to get to. But I do love the thinness.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest... in your setup... to get a remote mounted USB CF adapter. In my setup... it will work fine... so I will use the one in back.

/Jim
 
MacAlien said:
It's not necessarily the thinness or move to that is annoying people, but more they sacrificed a lot of performance of a desktop to do it even downgrading to some extent.
Click to expand...

gotcha. so it's the tradeoff for the performance issue. i see that.

i guess because I am an average user, not a power user, the performance tradeoff for the thinness doesn't impact me as much.

i could see how pro users could be disappointed.
 
MacAlien said:
It's not necessarily the thinness or move to that is annoying people, but more they sacrificed a lot of performance of a desktop to do it even downgrading to some extent.
Click to expand...

What performace was sacrificed? Apart from the odd going, everything has been upgraded to the current equivalents from the previous generation.
 
and i have to admit, I was sorta hoping for i7s across the board even tho' i prolly don't need it ...

I've kept my current mac for about 4 years now and love it, but I'm just out of hard drive space since I bought a new HD video camera ...
 
I guess some day it will be so thin it will just be a 27" piece of paper you stick to the wall. At that point they can remove all functionality, and finally be at peace. Probably raise the price too. :D
 
jon9091 said:
I guess some day it will be so thin it will just be a 27" piece of paper you stick to the wall. At that point they can remove all functionality, and finally be at peace. Probably raise the price too. :D
Click to expand...

Lol. And we will all pay up the wazoo for it ...

whaddyagonnado? (shrug)
 
Imaginethe said:
What performace was sacrificed? Apart from the odd going, everything has been upgraded to the current equivalents from the previous generation.
Click to expand...
Thank you! It's basically what could be expected in a spec bump, except with a new design, so I don't think that there's an issue here.
 
chinadian1 said:
what's up with the haters on making the iMac thinner?

you don't carry your TV around. imagine if no-one tried to make TVs thinner...

i would argue that engineering things to be thinner and lighter is progress

lighter also means less materials are being used which is better for the environment ...

thoughts? comments?
Click to expand...

I don't think questioning the benefits of the "ultra thin design" necessarily makes iMac owners or would be buyers "haters".

I own a 2011 21.5 iMac and have questioned the benefit of it primarily because most people don't carry their iMacs to work or wish to show people how "thin" their desktop machines are. I think (and I don't pretend to speak for all iMac owners - only myself) thinner and lighter arguments are much more relevant to the iPad and iPhone as they are portable devices.
 
Ugh, so thin it took away the option for an Audio In:/ First the MBPr and now iMac, people use that u know. Also only an option for a 5400rpm HDD on the 21 inch model? Is that a heat and space thing, or to add distance between 21 and 27 inch specs?
 
metalgear1 said:
I don't think questioning the benefits of the "ultra thin design" necessarily makes iMac owners or would be buyers "haters".

I own a 2011 21.5 iMac and have questioned the benefit of it primarily because most people don't carry their iMacs to work or wish to show people how "thin" their desktop machines are. I think (and I don't pretend to speak for all iMac owners - only myself) thinner and lighter arguments are much more relevant to the iPad and iPhone as they are portable devices.
Click to expand...

noted on the word "haters." perhaps that was a poor choice of words. my bad.

i guess i like the design because of my OCD tendencies ... So even a little thinner seems nice to me especially since my desk is in a public part of the house...

----------
joeysarks said:
Ugh, so thin it took away the option for an Audio In:/ First the MBPr and now iMac, people use that u know. Also only an option for a 5400rpm HDD on the 21 inch model? Is that a heat and space thing, or to add distance between 21 and 27 inch specs?
Click to expand...

didn't know about the lack of an Audio In. I don't use it, but I could see how that sucks for amateur musicians or film makers ...
 
I like the design, but im gonna spend 10 minutes every time trying to find that damn SD card slot. As it is right now I have shot my card into the cd drive at least 3 times so I am glad that that is gone.
 
chinadian1 said:
noted on the word "haters." perhaps that was a poor choice of words. my bad.

i guess i like the design because of my OCD tendencies ... So even a little thinner seems nice to me especially since my desk is in a public part of the house...

----------



didn't know about the lack of an Audio In. I don't use it, but I could see how that sucks for amateur musicians or film makers ...
Click to expand...

Just another attachment I have to buy to record on USB is all. And this is just me but i've never liked the wedge thing in the computer world. Not a fan of the MBAs or the new iMacs. I'd rather have that squared off look like MBPs or older iMacs (or the old cinema displays) That's just purely a cosmetic preference though, looks sexy regardless:)
 
I think folks just didn't want the trade off that comes with thinness. I'm really happy with my 2011 iMac. But I use the optical drive from time to time. And I like that when I bought it it had a really good mobile graphics card. I want to buy Macs and I want as good a graphics card as I can get. This thin design is going to be a limiting factor there for the iMac line and graphics cards. While the Mac Pro line never gets refreshed and is super expensive.
 
Imaginethe said:
What performace was sacrificed? Apart from the odd going, everything has been upgraded to the current equivalents from the previous generation.
Click to expand...

You're right, no performance was sacrificed

What was sacrificed, however, was potential performance. Apple probably could've fit faster components in the iMac had they opted for the bulkier design. Probably run cooler as well
 
I can honestly say I don't miss optical drives at all, and am happy Apple tries to push people out of their comfort zone. Sometimes it's gotta be done to move technology forward. I don't think i've used a cd/dvd in at least a few years now, and am glad to see the wasted space, heat, and weight go:)
 
i havent poked around much, where was the ram upgrade slots? or are those gone?

This from their website throws me off
8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory
Configurable to 16GB.
8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory; four user-accessible SO-DIMM slots
Configurable to 16GB or 32GB.


so on the 21.5" the slots arent user accessible?
 
peeaanuut said:
i havent poked around much, where was the ram upgrade slots? or are those gone?
Click to expand...

The 21.5" has to be configured at the factory. The 27" is user upgradable just like the previous one but comes standard with two four gig dims.
 
peeaanuut said:
i havent poked around much, where was the ram upgrade slots? or are those gone?

This from their website throws me off
8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory
Configurable to 16GB.
8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory; four user-accessible SO-DIMM slots
Configurable to 16GB or 32GB.


so on the 21.5" the slots arent user accessible?
Click to expand...

Correct, Ithink they are soldered =[
 
lilcosco08 said:
You're right, no performance was sacrificed

What was sacrificed, however, was potential performance. Apple probably could've fit faster components in the iMac had they opted for the bulkier design. Probably run cooler as well
Click to expand...

Probably? Dude all in one and you are basing your opinion on 'possible' faster components on probably? It is an upgrade to previous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back