Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Software > All Things Apple

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2013, 05:35 PM   #26
Steelbom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila View Post
It's the trend that disturbs me. There's no need for an iMac to be thin as it is and trade that for near zero serviceability. Now we see it in the retina MBP with parts glued and soldered together. It's like they looked at the MBA and though "ooh we gotta make everything else that thin now!". The MBA is fine since it's for a specific market but laptops and desktops for serious work you should always be able to upgrade the hard drive and memory.

I complain because I care. If people don't speak up we'll end up with all macbooks and iMacs as thin as a piece of paper with all parts glued with absolutely no way to upgrade except buying a new one.
I think the opposite: there's no reason for it to be as thick as it was. Ultimately it's not a user-serviceable system, and it never has been. Thinner looks nicer and takes up less space.

I would like if they were to bring back the user-replaceable RAM in the next 21.5 inch model though.
Steelbom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 11:32 AM   #27
Pia
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelbom View Post
I think the opposite: there's no reason for it to be as thick as it was. Ultimately it's not a user-serviceable system, and it never has been. Thinner looks nicer and takes up less space.
The new iMac doesn't take any less space. Actually it takes far more space and has much worse ergonomics, because it no longer supports VESA attachment and can't be mounted on a decent arm.

Whether it looks better is subjective. I don't think there is any difference. If they wanted to actually make it look better, they should have removed the lip and the logo.
Pia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 11:54 AM   #28
Eug
Lifer
 
Eug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelbom View Post
I think the opposite: there's no reason for it to be as thick as it was. Ultimately it's not a user-serviceable system, and it never has been. Thinner looks nicer and takes up less space.
Well, my white iMac G5 was user serviceable. The back came off, and you could as an end user swap several components.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pia View Post
The new iMac doesn't take any less space. Actually it takes far more space and has much worse ergonomics, because it no longer supports VESA attachment and can't be mounted on a decent arm.
Yep.

Quote:
Whether it looks better is subjective. I don't think there is any difference. If they wanted to actually make it look better, they should have removed the lip and the logo.
I don't think it looks any better either. Plus, for the 27", the pixel density remains quite high, which for older eyes like mine can be a problem: Two options - bend forward to read the smaller text, or else increase the sizing in apps like Safari, causing pix and stuff to become a bit blurry.
__________________

OS X: 27" iMac Core i7 870 | 13" MacBook Pro C2D 2.26 P8400 + SSD | 13" MacBook C2D 2.4 T8300 + SSD
iOS: iPad 2 | iPhone 5s
Windows: X3400 Athlon II X3 435 | 11.6" 1810TZ Pentium SU4100 + SSD | Revo R3610 Atom 330 + SSD
Android: Nexus 7 (2012)
Eug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 07:55 PM   #29
Steelbom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pia View Post
The new iMac doesn't take any less space.
Volume, I should say. It's also substantially lighter.
Quote:
Actually it takes far more space and has much worse ergonomics, because it no longer supports VESA attachment and can't be mounted on a decent arm.

Whether it looks better is subjective. I don't think there is any difference. If they wanted to actually make it look better, they should have removed the lip and the logo.
I don't see how it takes up more space, if anything it should take up less. If they remove the lip they have no where to put the speakers, or the fan vents.
Steelbom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 11:33 AM   #30
Pia
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelbom View Post
Volume, I should say. It's also substantially lighter.

I don't see how it takes up more space, if anything it should take up less.
A flexible arm mount on the edge of a desk or drilled through a desk can swivel to move the display anywhere on the desk surface or even outside it. My own setup is like that. A wall mount or wall-mounted arm would not even take the tiny bit of space at the edge of the desk that a desk mount needs for its attachment point.

The new and old iMac, when sitting on their crappy default legs, take equal space on the desk. If there's any difference in depth, it's totally imperceptible compared to what you can achieve by using a decent mount.
Quote:
If they remove the lip they have no where to put the speakers, or the fan vents.
If the lip wasn't there, the speakers and the fan vents would still be on the bottom edge. No difference.

The lip is a serious ergonomic fault because it prevents lowering the display to optimal position even if you use a good mount. Particularly a problem on the 27" iMac because its vertical center is so much higher than on the smaller model.
Pia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:20 PM   #31
sportage
Diamond Member
 
sportage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Im right behind you. BOO!
Posts: 4,267
Default

The late 2009 27" iMac I own. Took that apart to upgrade 1TB to 2TB. All went well but I had done a lot or youtube-ing researching before the attempted. And during the surgery process, I felt like I was some surgeon in the ER saving the Popes life.
One thing about iMac's, they really never become outdated.
I honestly have no issues, other than the hard drive space, to necessitate upgrading the entire machine. I now have lots of memory, and now all the drive space I need, and it does everything I toss at it flawlessly and fast.
Other than the idea of just something "new", I see no need to swap out my late 2009 27" iMac for the thinner and newer machine.
And that is the scary part having come from windows based machines of the past.
Where I was constantly upgrading this or that or the os itself.
It was like a merry-go-round. You upgrade the windows os, followed by upgrading the hardware to keep up. Then once again the os, followed by the hardware. And so on and so on. Round and round.

The new slimmer iMac has its place, sure.
And if I owned a smaller sized screen iMac machine, or was totally new to the world of apple desktops, I would certainly go with the new slim 27" machines no question about it.

But lesson learned, always spend the money up front and get the best machine available when it comes to apple.
Your spending the money anyhow. And yes they are pricy. But consider.... that iMac will last you a very long long long, long time. Unlike was the case with windows based machines.

If I were new at this and jumping into the world of apple iMac's a-new, I'd do whatever to get/order the best available.

Apple products are different. They are not built for the finicky. Unlike windows based machines, the apple iMac is not a "box" designed to be constantly user upgradable.
And that is just one of the so many reasons why I would never turn back to Microsoft for computing needs. Neeevvveeerrr!!!!!
sportage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 04:25 PM   #32
DaveStall
Golden Member
 
DaveStall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest, USA
Posts: 1,824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportage View Post
The late 2009 27" iMac I own. Took that apart to upgrade 1TB to 2TB. All went well but I had done a lot or youtube-ing researching before the attempted. And during the surgery process, I felt like I was some surgeon in the ER saving the Popes life.
One thing about iMac's, they really never become outdated.
I honestly have no issues, other than the hard drive space, to necessitate upgrading the entire machine. I now have lots of memory, and now all the drive space I need, and it does everything I toss at it flawlessly and fast.
Other than the idea of just something "new", I see no need to swap out my late 2009 27" iMac for the thinner and newer machine.
And that is the scary part having come from windows based machines of the past.
Where I was constantly upgrading this or that or the os itself.
It was like a merry-go-round. You upgrade the windows os, followed by upgrading the hardware to keep up. Then once again the os, followed by the hardware. And so on and so on. Round and round.

The new slimmer iMac has its place, sure.
And if I owned a smaller sized screen iMac machine, or was totally new to the world of apple desktops, I would certainly go with the new slim 27" machines no question about it.

But lesson learned, always spend the money up front and get the best machine available when it comes to apple.
Your spending the money anyhow. And yes they are pricy. But consider.... that iMac will last you a very long long long, long time. Unlike was the case with windows based machines.

If I were new at this and jumping into the world of apple iMac's a-new, I'd do whatever to get/order the best available.

Apple products are different. They are not built for the finicky. Unlike windows based machines, the apple iMac is not a "box" designed to be constantly user upgradable.
And that is just one of the so many reasons why I would never turn back to Microsoft for computing needs. Neeevvveeerrr!!!!!
You make some good points, but to be fair with the last couple revisions of Windows the only reason to upgrade the "box" is for gaming. I have been using the same rig for Vista, Windows 7, and now Windows 8 and have seen no reason from an OS perspective to upgrade. Maybe the lack of many AAA gaming titles for Mac is part of the reason I haven't felt the need to upgrade my Mac but I am always eyeing the next big thing in video cards for my Windows machine. I see the two as serving very different purposes which makes it hard to make a 1:1 comparison.
DaveStall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 06:20 PM   #33
Steelbom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pia View Post
A flexible arm mount on the edge of a desk or drilled through a desk can swivel to move the display anywhere on the desk surface or even outside it. My own setup is like that. A wall mount or wall-mounted arm would not even take the tiny bit of space at the edge of the desk that a desk mount needs for its attachment point.

The new and old iMac, when sitting on their crappy default legs, take equal space on the desk. If there's any difference in depth, it's totally imperceptible compared to what you can achieve by using a decent mount.If the lip wasn't there, the speakers and the fan vents would still be on the bottom edge. No difference.

The lip is a serious ergonomic fault because it prevents lowering the display to optimal position even if you use a good mount. Particularly a problem on the 27" iMac because its vertical center is so much higher than on the smaller model.
Ah I wasn't talking about it in terms of mounting it to the wall. I can understand how that can take up less space than having it on your desk.

I'm not sure it would be the same difference regarding having no lip. I'd have to look inside the iMac.
Steelbom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 06:06 PM   #34
Pia
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelbom View Post
Ah I wasn't talking about it in terms of mounting it to the wall. I can understand how that can take up less space than having it on your desk.
With desk mounting too. See:
http://www.tabletmod.com/Gallery.html
I have the same arm mount as in those pics (Ergotron MX). As you can see from the pictures, it takes practically no space on the desk. You can swivel the display (or iMac) entirely outside the desk if you want to.

Anyway, I think how much desk space the iMac takes is completely secondary to the problem of it being garbage ergonomically. Just being able to use a good regular foot with 4-axis adjustment, like the default feet on Dell Ultrasharps, improves things a ton. But that too would require the VESA attachment which the 2012 model iMac lost.
Pia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 05:31 PM   #35
Steelbom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pia View Post
With desk mounting too. See:
http://www.tabletmod.com/Gallery.html
I have the same arm mount as in those pics (Ergotron MX). As you can see from the pictures, it takes practically no space on the desk. You can swivel the display (or iMac) entirely outside the desk if you want to.

Anyway, I think how much desk space the iMac takes is completely secondary to the problem of it being garbage ergonomically. Just being able to use a good regular foot with 4-axis adjustment, like the default feet on Dell Ultrasharps, improves things a ton. But that too would require the VESA attachment which the 2012 model iMac lost.
Ah yeah nice, I see what you mean by desk mounting. Wasn't thinking of that.
Steelbom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.