It would've been a better upgrade if the thickness wasn't slashed. At least that's what I'm gathering from your post, seeing as it was so incoherent I hadn't a clue what I read.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
making iMac thinner haters
- Thread starter chinadian1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would've been a better upgrade if the thickness wasn't slashed. At least that's what I'm gathering from your post, seeing as it was so incoherent I hadn't a clue what I read.
What exact faster components could they have fit?
They have top of the line processors, top of the line graphics card configurable in the 27" model, plus user upgradeable RAM slots, 7200rpm HDD and configurable SSD.
People on these forums keep saying vague things like "Oh they could have made it faster if it was thicker", but they're talking out of their ass. Give me solid examples of things they could have made faster (not that they could have included, like the optical drive, because we all know that is not a design decision but a purposeful move away from optical discs by Apple across the board).
The iMac uses desktop processors, desktop HDDs (in the 27" version) and laptop graphics (but there was no way they could have fit the cooling for a high end desktop graphics card even in the old model. I have it and it already runs hot enough!)
I'll probably get a suped-up 27" w/ 680MX
My only concern: is heat. I realize the tear-drop is thicker in the middle, but you're still putting in a large / hot GPU in less volume.
Yes, I realize that Ivy is noticably cooler per clock-cycle than Sandy, but I doubt it reduces it by enough to compensate for a lot less area for cooling and air circulation AND the massive 680MX
My only concern: is heat. I realize the tear-drop is thicker in the middle, but you're still putting in a large / hot GPU in less volume.
Yes, I realize that Ivy is noticably cooler per clock-cycle than Sandy, but I doubt it reduces it by enough to compensate for a lot less area for cooling and air circulation AND the massive 680MX
Not to mention the carbon footprint goes down as Apple can pack more computers into a plane/truck/ship
Another thing I left out was serviceability. When everything is soldered to save a few inches of thickness, it makes repair difficult
Just glad I picked up a 2011 i7 as I was going to wait till the new iMac came out. I was hoping for the latest i7 chips (maybe dual) as standard and SSD boot with the option of 3TB 11,000rpm HD. I do a lot of video editing and even though I have the 2011 2.4Ghz i7 is is way slower than my PC I just sold that was 3 years old (Over clocked i7 with RAID0 etc).
My point is the only option I have now if I want to get mega performance is to go with the ridiculously over priced Mac Pro and also have to shell out for the 27" display.
I was hoping the new iMac would at least have more grunt and multi task processor options, I cant see why they have gone for a thin design? Its way harder to cool and you kill the common component upgrade factor.
I sit in front of my iMac, I don't sit at the side of it....
It will be interesting to see what they've done with the anti reflective screen.
My point is the only option I have now if I want to get mega performance is to go with the ridiculously over priced Mac Pro and also have to shell out for the 27" display.
I was hoping the new iMac would at least have more grunt and multi task processor options, I cant see why they have gone for a thin design? Its way harder to cool and you kill the common component upgrade factor.
I sit in front of my iMac, I don't sit at the side of it....
It will be interesting to see what they've done with the anti reflective screen.
Last edited:
It's been a long time since "serviceability" was a feature of any iMac.
And if you think that is any sort of priority at Apple, I got a bridge I can sell you
If the base model was $999 and a single slab locked down without upgradability, I'd understand. At the price offered, I'm appalled. iPad has convinced Apple that much of the market can live without self-customization, and it is probably true.
I agree with this totally.
There is also an issue of value. I have purchased 3 Macs in the last 2 year, so clearly I like them. They never been attractive because of there price vs performance/feature ratio however, the ratio is clearly getting worse. Being charged more money for less is not appealing. I'm starting to feel like Apple is thinking that it's customers will tolerate anything. Thats my personal opinion.
EDIT:
Thinness is nice but the system still takes up the same amount of space due to the base. I'm sure that the engineering and manufacturing required to make it thin are why it costs $100 more even though they save money without the optical drive. I would have preferred slightly less thin and a better GPU and CPU.
Thin cannot be the answer to all problems.
Last edited:
It at least wasn't soldered. You're telling me you were never able to upgrade RAM in a 21.5 iMac? What's the point of having soldered components in a desktop computer anyways?
It's just the next step, after making the HD and everything else inaccessible for years. Besides no one has yet confirmed that its soldered, just not accessible outside the case.
I'm not defending Apple here. I'm just explaining their priorities. I replaced the RAM and the DVD drive in my current iMac, which was really hard to do and in the process I broke a sensor.
But what I am arguing is that Apple does not care about people like me and you. We are a very small part of the population. I'm willing to bet 99% of the computer-buying population never replaces even the RAM on their computer after they buy it. Apple knows this, so they build a machine to sell these people. This is the way they operate, and have been for a long long time now. That strategy is not going to change, and it is completely clear for everyone to see. That is why it boggles my mind that everytime Apple goes a step further, people on this forum go ape. Are you blind? It happened last time when they used a proprietary cable for the HDD, now when they lock down the RAM. I'd be willing to bet if they could make the 27" iMac smaller and lighter by removing the RAM access on that they'd do it in a heartbeat.
There's a simple solution if you don't like this business model, and it's not come here and complain on a forum. Buy from a different company.
Like the looks and spec bumps, but not for me. Have 2 iMacs, both a 20" & 27" that I will be sticking with for now. The one thing that killed it for me is the loss of the optical drive. Which I use occasionally, but do realize I can just buy an external. Also makes me feel like I have to buy all my apps from Apple even though I know I can buy directly from software sites. Still like it but it made my decision easier on my next machine which will be a Mac Pro. Therefore I can build on it for years to come. Now I just have to wait on the next generation Pro. Not complaining just have to go a different route now.
There's a difference between complaining and discussing the reasoning behind the change.
Not to mention the carbon footprint goes down as Apple can pack more computers into a plane/truck/ship
Sorry - totally the opposite. As they make the computers less expandable/upgradable, they increase the rate at which people replace the entire computer which is really bad for the environment.
I agree but when you have the highest profit margins in the industry and the most blind fans (as this forum shows)... well, it makes good business sense.
It's not as much about what was lost, but what was prevented in the limitations of the case size.
My new Panasonic plasma TV is indeed very thin. But, compared to my old TV, it also has better resolution, connects to the internet for iPlayer etc., has an SD card slot, 4 HDMIs etc. etc.
The fact that it's thinner means nothing to me. The improvement in picture quality and features is much more important.
Unless I'm wrong, the new iMac has lost features (the CDROM) in pursuit of thinness.
Couldn't agree more the 2012 iMac is a 2011 model with thinner sides, slower HDD same 512MB of video ram and non upgradable Ram. On 21.5" at least
Then you have the rMBP 13" £1449 and all you get is 128G Storage. Jesus, I for one will not be mugged by Apple, When they come out with a computer with better specs than previous years and a proper redesign in terms of looking different from the front i'll purchase.
Its funny how Phil kept on saying its thin on the "edges" as that was the main reason to buy the iMac.
he specifically said edges because if he didnt, there would be 100 news articles and at least 500 threads on this site alone about how Apple is a liar and this never would have happened under Steve's watch.
But I do agree, im keeping my 2011 21.5" imac with upgradable ram, there is no reason to upgrade this go around.
But I do agree, im keeping my 2011 21.5" imac with upgradable ram, there is no reason to upgrade this go around.