The Logitech solar-powered Mac keyboard would partially help there. It's not as nice as the Apple aluminum keyboard, but it has several BT buttons for switching between devices.
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.
"new" iMacs
- Thread starter calaverasgrande
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Logitech solar-powered Mac keyboard would partially help there. It's not as nice as the Apple aluminum keyboard, but it has several BT buttons for switching between devices.
The tradeoff is not port location vs thickness. It's port location vs getting rid of ports and onto better tech.
Anti-glare screen, vastly improved SSD options (768GB & FD), improved GFX, MUCH cooler operation, better camera, etc.
/Jim
But none of those upgrades necessitate a thinner iMac. In fact, you could argue that cooler operation would necessitate a thicker enclosure.
Irrespective... it does run cooler.
The ultra-thin design is stunning. Of course it is an optical illusion... but design and style sets Apple apart from the fray. They were able to accomplish this with no significant loss in functionality (despite my personal opinion that the marginally valuable ODD was removed a tad prematurely).
Anyone taking the time to complain about reaching behind the machine to plug in a SD card has zero credibility in my opinion. Give me a break. If it is that big of hardship, plug in an external card reader and get on with your life.
/Jim
That's what I'm contesting though. They did remove things from the new iMac, such as easy of access of the SD card, and an ODD, and the counter is that it's thinner. IMO, that's a very bad tradeoff because you end up losing functionality - no matter how little - in exchange for something that brings no value at all.
You can argue that it looks better from the side, but that's the only way it looks better. You can't even say it can fit in tighter areas, as the back still has a bulge.
We should probably just agree to disagree.
The iMac's ports have always been on the back. Making it really thin hasn't changed that. The "fat" iMac also has the ports on the back.
You are consistently refusing to acknowledge value of design.
When I was in college (quite a while ago)... there was this guy who came to school every day wearing the same butt-ugly off-beat shirt. Even wearing that shirt once was enough to prove he had no taste... but wearing it every day made everyone wonder if he was a health hazard. Finally one day... someone said "Frank... do you ever wash that shirt?". His reply: I was at the store and they had them on sale for $0.50... so I bought the whole rack... great deal!!!.
Frank certainly did not value design or style... nor did he have any. Unlike SJ (who also wore the same thing every day)... good ole Frank didn't set new styles either... he was just an odd-ball. Today he also probably makes $200K/year less than his peers.
My point is that style matters. The new design is fantastic. Style (in the general sense) gives Apple something to sell that resonates strongly with their target audience, differentiates their products... and is an integral part of Apple's wealth.
BTW... regarding functionality. Search MR and see how many times people have inadvertently put their SD into the ODD slot of pre-2012 iMacs. This is the type of thing that people "do". It is also part of overall usability of a machine. From that narrow perspective... removal of the ODD, and moving the SD card to the back is a design improvement.
/Jim
removal of Ram door on 21" is inexcusable, not taking the opportunity to add a door for a laptop size, user replaceable hard disk on either of the new iMacs also just profiteering on apples part.
Hard disks fail, SSDs also fail, these parts should be user replaceable,
sometimes i feel buying apple is like buying a car with a full tank of fuel, only to be told i cant add my own fuel later, i need to buy a new car.
Thankfully PCs now have thunderbolt output, so im going to hackintosh, get a LOOONG thunderbolt cable, stick the noisy ass PC at the far end of my home office and use my 2011 iMac as a display.
Hard disks fail, SSDs also fail, these parts should be user replaceable,
sometimes i feel buying apple is like buying a car with a full tank of fuel, only to be told i cant add my own fuel later, i need to buy a new car.
Thankfully PCs now have thunderbolt output, so im going to hackintosh, get a LOOONG thunderbolt cable, stick the noisy ass PC at the far end of my home office and use my 2011 iMac as a display.
....and you are consistently refusing to acknowledge the tradeoff between design and usability.
Take the poster's advice and agree to disagree. We all know we're arguing over subjectives.
Not everything. jaded monkey tried to argue that being thinner was detrimental to cooling, when it's an objective fact that the 2012 iMac runs much cooler than the previous one.
I think at that point it's safe to assume that he;s just grasping at straws for something to criticise the iMac for.
Totally disagree. The new iMac is great. I doubt a slightly thicker iMac would be able to fit a GTX680, GTX690 or Geforce Titan. As it is now it has a high-end CPU, the best mobile graphics card available and a great screen...oh yeah, and that new, brilliant design. What more can you ask for?
I don't think anyone has argued that there hasn't been a trade off, however small. The issue is over the part that you left off: " in exchange for something that brings no value at all."
If design and aesthetics bring no value, then why do all us bother to make our yards look nice, plant flowers, have different colored and styled cars, etc., etc.? The OP doesn't like the trade off, I get that, but what I don't get and don't agree with is that design has no value.
I would like to know too. Too bad my 2012 iMac has such a thin edge... I would have loved to velcro that beauty to the side... so I could have have all those good looking ports facing forward within easy reach.
/Jim
Last edited:
Image
I would like to know too. Too bad my 2012 iMac has such a thin edge... I would have loved to velcro that beauty the side... so I could have have all those good looking ports facing forward within easy reach.
/Jim
Upside down on the stand would work well I think. On the back wall.
A thicker enclosure would cause the IMac to run cooler?
No. The thinner enclosure, which is 40% less volume, has fewer components inside. It generates way less heat, uses 40% less power and provides more function. To me, that's a design win.
That's function over form.
That one was the Orico version but I like the ViewHD version better because it comes with white cables instead of black.
ViewHD USB 3.0 6-Port Hub with Card Reader.
Last edited by a moderator:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Looks like it wouldn't even be upside down.
The power and input connectors would be at the top, behind the iMac screen, and the labels on the ports would be right side up and readable. Need the dimensions to verify that it might fit with clearance under the screen.
Looks like it wouldn't even be upside down.
The power and input connectors would be at the top, behind the iMac screen, and the labels on the ports would be right side up and readable. Need the dimensions to verify that it might fit with clearance under the screen.
I agree......temping.
Honestly, the SD card slot on the back is easier to find and plug into than the slot on the side of my 2009 27".
As others have mentioned, it was way too easy to pop the SD card into the SuperDrive slot on the pre-2012 machines because, from the front, you had no easy way of telling exactly where the SD card slot was, front to back or top to bottom. On the 2012, it's exactly in line with the other ports, so you just reach around the right side, feel your fingers bump the first USB plug, and pop the SD card into the slot next to it. You wouldn't think that it would be easier, but in actual practice, it's no contest - the new SD slot is much easier to find and use than the old.
Beyond that, a thinner, lighter machine has benefits that have nothing to do with what happens when the machine is on your desk. A thinner, lighter iMac requires less packaging and padding, costs less to ship, and uses substantially less material. It's a much more efficient form, apart from any functional gains (such as the anti-glare screen, lower temperatures, less noise, etc).
My 2012 21.5" maintains my record for each Mac I buy being better than the last, and my 2009 27" i7 was a beast (in too many ways). The 2.9GHz i5 is as fast or faster than the 2009 i7 for everything I throw at it, while using less power, being completely silent, and having a better screen.
As others have mentioned, it was way too easy to pop the SD card into the SuperDrive slot on the pre-2012 machines because, from the front, you had no easy way of telling exactly where the SD card slot was, front to back or top to bottom. On the 2012, it's exactly in line with the other ports, so you just reach around the right side, feel your fingers bump the first USB plug, and pop the SD card into the slot next to it. You wouldn't think that it would be easier, but in actual practice, it's no contest - the new SD slot is much easier to find and use than the old.
Beyond that, a thinner, lighter machine has benefits that have nothing to do with what happens when the machine is on your desk. A thinner, lighter iMac requires less packaging and padding, costs less to ship, and uses substantially less material. It's a much more efficient form, apart from any functional gains (such as the anti-glare screen, lower temperatures, less noise, etc).
My 2012 21.5" maintains my record for each Mac I buy being better than the last, and my 2009 27" i7 was a beast (in too many ways). The 2.9GHz i5 is as fast or faster than the 2009 i7 for everything I throw at it, while using less power, being completely silent, and having a better screen.