Originally Posted by sflocal
The thinness also allows for:
A lighter product. Why should you care? Lighter means less fuel resources, and less costs to ship product from factory to your door.
Not necessarily. Yes, the new ones are lighter I will give you that. But since you seem to be arguing the Al-Gore-poits on this, lets bring up another issue. How aware are you of the manufacturing processes required to make the new machines? Do you have any idea of what effect those might have upon the environment? Maybe the result is a lighter piece of deliverable hardware, but the manufacturing processes are such that the total effect upon the environment is worse?
Mind you, I don't think they are, and in fact you are most likely correct that the thinness does result in a net positive effect when it comes to how nice these machines (and their manufacturing) plays with the environment.
A smaller package. Meaning more can be squeezed into a given space. One can ship more product in the same space. Again, less shipping, less fuel, less costs.
Less materials. Thinner means less metal. Less metal means less resources used.
Good points. Not ALWAYS true though. Thinner may mean less mechanical integrity and therefore require packaging which is more protective to reduce the possibility of various stresses being transferred to the chassis (and especially the glass) during shipping. Chances are you are correct, but you cant present these points as if they are objective facts.
In fact there is data that is starting to show that reducing the packaging TOO much can have detrimental effects overall. Sure, you save money and resources by having to transport less mass and smaller volumes. However there is always a non-zero probability of items being damaged during shipping, and when you shave off much off of the protection provided for shipping a piece of hardware, the failure rates goes up, and you end up with a net loss because the costs (and resource impact) of the increase in failures is greater than the savings due to the reduced packaging.
Or is it all supposed to be only about you??
Oh, get over it. I was expressing a learned OPINION about design trade-offs. These must always be made. My concerns boil down to whether or not such a focus upon aesthetics (even with the benefits you mentioned) is really worth all of the other aspects that have to be considered.
I push my iMac hard at times to get the heat up. Yes it gets hot. Then, afterwards it cools down. What's your point? Should Apple design their products in the assumption that it will be running at 100% full load the entire time? That's not realistic. They found a good balance I think.
The point is that any thermal stress does contribute to long-term reliability. Statistically you have to integrate the thermal stress over time to see the overall effects upon the components and therefore extrapolate that to determine the long-term effects that such stress has upon component reliability. There is no need to assume that you have 100% load 100% of the time, but trade-offs are always made in these areas.
Finally, please provide more insight on these supposed motherboard, hard drive, GPU failures that happen in iMacs, especially your implication that it is caused by this so-called heat issues that "Stresses everything out". This is a first to me.
I've purchased way too many iMacs to count for numerous clients and none of them have ever exhibited the kind of issues that you're describing. Obviously, system issues arise, but in my case all the iMacs I purchased have never failed at all. They are built like tanks.
Insight? Ok ...
Much of my career has been involved in design and production of high-relaibility components, systems, and platforms for various uses. The biggest use would be ... well, I would rather not get into detail, but let me just say that if you had REALLY good Superman-like vision, you could go outside and look up. Farther. No, not the planes. Look farther. Now farther. Ok, you may see one of the several hundred pieces of hardware that I have been responsible for. Oh, and their cost (cumulatively)? Well, that is greater than the GDP of all but the top 12-15 countries in the world.
I have managed situations where the smallest of failures had to be analyzed by teams of several dozen people (about half of which were PhDs), so .... uh ... I guess I know a bit about how stuff may... like ... break. LOL
And, lets see, I have used and repaired Macs since the original 128k Mac in 1984. I have also been responsible for entire IT departments and software development efforts that spanned everything from Macs, PC, Sun Workstations, various servers, many OS's, desktop systems, enterprise systems, embedded systems, etc. So maybe I have a bit of experience with these things.
No doubt you will retort with some troll-like response. And we shall all be entertained. Please, enlighten us. LOL
Nothing personal. Lighten up. I am having fun.
You made a lot of really good points, but to sink to the "it's all about you" line tends to invalidate them because it implies that your motivation is somewhat subjective and therefore calls all of your points into scrutiny. Don't do that. Just state your facts, your opinions and interpretation of facts, and your insights will be considered much more seriously.