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
I wouldn't have a problem with the SD slot being in the back. There's a wall behind my work desk too. Unless you're using the iMac at distance greater than arm's length, then I'd imagine there'd be a problem. But in all other scenarios, just reach your arm behind the screen and plug it in?
Now imagine how much cooler this new mac could be if Apple had decided to keep the same case size and used 40% fewer components. I'm not sure how much more surface area the old iMac design had, but that's that much more surface area to dissipate heat. You can get more ports in better locations, better cooling, and the only thing you are giving up is an appearance of thinness when viewed from the side.
And unless you're saying that the old iMac design was butt ugly, I fail to see your point. You're picking the thinness of the edge of the screen as the main selling point, and completely ignoring the functional compromises that were made.
I tried to argue that one possible outcome was a system that is harder to cool. While Apple engineers should be praised for coming up with a better cooling system, it's also an objective fact that if you had more space to work with, you could make the iMac run even cooler, or put in a faster video card, more drives, or maybe ports that are in logical locations.
Take a look at apple's web site today (clip attached). Thinness IS the main selling point.
/Jim
I have the 2012 iMac with the thicker (pre-2012) Thunderbolt display right next to it. Comparatively... it is butt-ugly. More accurately... it appears to be a dated design. The new thin styling forces attention to the design... making you take notice. I fully admit it is an optical illusion... but it is effective and is a great move by Apple to keep the perception of high quality and high design at the forefront.
One more point. I never thought the old iMac had a "dated design" until I saw the new 2012 iMac. Instantly... our older iMacs and ATDs looked old in comparison.
/Jim
Attachments
Last edited:
You're right but its not necessarily a good thing. I personally honestly don't like it. I thought the previous iMac was much better looking. As I said before, it was my dream desktop and I saved enough to buy the top of the line maxed out. Once I saw it I was crushed. Of course it's all subjective and everyone has their own opinion which is valid. Unfortunately I don't think I'll ever own one. I'll have to see what happens 3 or 4 years from now. Maybe something will change my mind in the future, but today I'm extremely disappointed as I was the day they introduced it.
I think both of them are pretty much awesome. They both have advantages and disadvantages. The new one has a better display, the old one has a ticker display, easy to clean. The new one don't have the optical drive, the old one have both the optical and the SD, which make it really beautiful. The new one is thin, the old one is thick. And also, the old one has been upgraded 3 times, in 2009, 2010 and 2011. So does it make sense that apple introduce a new design every 2 or 3 years?
Neither... try it yourself. Hold an SD card and at about the height of the aluminum/glass intersection reach around the back. The 2nd opening from the right is the SD slot. I simply slip the corner of the SD card into the slot and then just let the rest of the card sort of find its way into the slot. MUCH easier than when it was on the side, where it was too easy to get it confused with the ODD slot.
Actually I'd say it's not an optical illusion, the new case is 40% less volume than the previous model. It's damn a efficient design. Who wouldn't kill for 40% better of anything?
No, the fact that it is a computer is a main selling point. If they were selling something thin, they would be selling sheets of graphene. And things that a computer should have include easier access to things like USB post and SD cards, not harder access to ports.
Which goes right back to my point: That a computer isn't a fashion accessory that has to be as thin as physically possible, and in their desire to make an anorexic computer, they sacrificed usability.
You are impossible. If you can't look at that ad... and see their main selling points you are either thick (which I doubt)... or you are intentionally being difficult. You've wasted enough of our time already.
You don't like the design... I get that. Don't buy it. Many others here claim that it is an improved design... and that it does not sacrifice usability (some feel that it enhances it). There are lots of other great computers for you to buy. Have at it.
/Jim
Ok your posts are showing a bit of lack of knowledge here.
No. The case material itself does hardly any of the work to dissipate heat as you imply. Most of the heat transfer is in the conduction from heat source to the heat sink and then conduction to the air. Using the old case wouldn't improve cooling at all. In fact, you see evidence the old case didn't do much of the heat transfer work because it had the vents on top.... it took advantage of convection just the same as the new case. This doesn't rely on surface area. But most of the heat transfer is through the heat sink system.
Not to mention, the engineers spent all that time making the components more efficient just to put it in the old case? Whats the point in that?
So says you, but knowing how the early and late 2012 iMacs differed, I chose the late model with no loss of usability.
OK the main reason for being for a Mac is efficient design. That's what sells it. If people didn't want computers that looked great, they wouldn't be buying Macs, you'd see everyone with Dells. And guess what tries to look like an iMac....
Attachments
I could've sworn I said the exact same thing, only I was nice about it.
Uh no, that's you. I've been on Mac for 15 years and while the "pretty" comes with the territory that has never been a selling point for me. It's always been about the Mac OS. I hate Windows, period and I'm not alone. In fact you're in the minority if you are one of those that buy Macs just because they look good.
Don't think so. I'm not talking what sold you, I'm talking what sells. Most people buying computers couldn't tell Windows from Amiga OS or if the underpinnings were CP/M or Unix. Ask grandma in the Apple store or the young hipster standing next to her. What sells to them first and foremost is the way it looks, feels, and then eventually how friendly the OS is. Granted, yes all those aspects must be perfect for the product to be truly successful.
I was sold on OS X, but I know the real reason is because the latest iMac is f___ smooth. I also remind myself OS X is superior in case I start drooling over the design.
I'm quite angry that they chose a damn 5400 rpm HDD on their "next gen" 21.5" iMac. They should have come standard with a fusion drive. Also the displays should have gotten a resolution bump. Nothing in retina territory, but at least a decent pixel bump option like they did with the non-retina 15" pro model. Other than that, this machine is a masterpiece.
What you also should be angry about is that Apple didn't include several SSD-only options, with an affordable 256gb model as standard as well as 512gb and 768gb. Fusion is nice for some people, but if you would like use Bootcamp not so great. Just look at what Apple could do with the rMBP design when they finally ditched the hard drive.
Uh, no.
You're seriously going to propose that most computer users out there (which is now, in 2013, the vast majority of the US population, at least) can't tell the difference between Windows and OS X? I have never, ever heard anyone say that. That stretches the bounds of credulity. In fact, in any conversation I've had with anyone that broached the topic of converting to Apple, the first topic that always comes up is switching to OS X, because of its reputation of "it just works", but also expressing some anxiety about having to learn a new OS. They have never stated a desire to switch to a Mac just because the hardware looks good.
----------
Hear, hear, to both of you. I was appalled that Apple didn't even include the Fusion Drive on the base 21.5" iMac when it was first released, and I'm not surprised they started including it. But the no-SSD option, nor user-replaceable RAM, is what pushed me toward the 2010 iMac (with my own SSD surgery) I've got now.
Personally, I think the Fusion Drive should be standard on the base model, with options for a pure SSD, or a larger HD portion of the Fusion Drive.
I bought it knowing full well what it was, where everything was going to be, etc. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's definitely the best All-in-one out on the market.
Get Pro, or buy a PC that has the features and looks, etc., that you want.
Get Pro, or buy a PC that has the features and looks, etc., that you want.
I'm actually a little surprised to see this post now. I did all my complaining when the iMac was announced and stayed with my 2010. I'm waiting to find the right deal on a 2011 refurb or used so I can get Thunderbolt.
I was already annoyed with the lack of upgradability on the prior version so this version was just plain stupid to me. BTW, how hard would it have been to offer an esata port?
Also, the cost for the higher end GPU models is just a bit too much. For most functions the 2010 or 2011 iMacs are more than powerful enough to do what you need.
It's good to see many people are happy with these systems but Apple could have sold a lot more had they worked harder to increase flexibility.
Cheers,
I was already annoyed with the lack of upgradability on the prior version so this version was just plain stupid to me. BTW, how hard would it have been to offer an esata port?
Also, the cost for the higher end GPU models is just a bit too much. For most functions the 2010 or 2011 iMacs are more than powerful enough to do what you need.
It's good to see many people are happy with these systems but Apple could have sold a lot more had they worked harder to increase flexibility.
Cheers,
The only genuine cause for annoyance is no ssd plus big hdd option. It's either a 768 ssd only with no hdd OR a 128ssd fused. I am certain a 512 ssd with a 3tb hdd unfused would be a popular bto. Even moreso with the new glued on screen.
I agree with you. There is absolutely no reason to not offer such options.
Cheers,
I agree with this as well. Additional SSD options would have been better. For me... the FD option was too anemic for my uses, so I went for the 768GB SSD option. It would have been nice to have everything internal... at least until SSDs get large enough to handle my full needs (probably 2TB). I'll expect that within 2-3 years when I replace my 2012 iMac.
In my case, I already had an 8 TB Pegasus Thunderbolt array... so for me, capacity was a smaller concern than for most people... but I do agree that a moderately sized SSD + large HDD option would be very popular.
/Jim