The only data that didn't get ported up in the move from vBulletin were our logs of use. So if it happened before Huddler took over, there's no record of who, what, when, where, or why.
But if you think there's an old… friend… back again, assemble some evidence and present it to a mod in a PM. We'd be happy to check it out.
Can't they express actual opinions instead of mindless anti-Apple rhetoric?
It doesn't cycle when the iPhone or iPad get launched...
1) Sure it did. They came out at the same time, therefore it cycled to them.
2) Why would it? In the past, nothing else had come out at the same time. No sense in a product still showing up on the front page months after launch.
I am so tired of hearing this particular "complaint," and most of your assumptions just seem wrong to me. The point of the thin-ness is that the iMac is widely deployed as a desktop (as are most all in one computer designs).
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
It also means that for the folks who need to deploy several hundred of the things in a lab environment that it's just that much easier carrying them around. It means that you can move it around on your desk much easier, and turn it so as to show something to someone else. The new iMac is a sealed, light, thin, all-in-one desktop that can be rapidly deployed and setup, which is basically exactly what the market is wanting.
As someone who sees hundreds and hundreds of Mac devices in my day job, all the stuff you say about the latest models being prone to heat problems also seems totally wrong to me. The failure rate of iMacs due to heat or any other cause, has in my experience gone far *down* from where it was previously, not up.
Finally the fact that you think it significant how hot it gets at the top just shows you to be an amateur. The aluminium gets warm because that's part of the cooling design. A computer getting warm or even hot doesn't mean that there is something "wrong." It doesn't mean that it's a bad design, or that it's likely to fail. It just means that electrical resistance causes heat, and that heat rises (duh).
In my experience, iMacs never get "too hot to touch" or anything even close. They also only get warm (notice I used the correct "warm" word instead of implying disaster by using "hot"), at the top edge which is basically WHERE PEOPLE RARELY EVER TOUCH THEM (which is kinda the point).
Apple never bullet-points lower shipping costs. They talk about how SEXY the new, incredibly-thin iMac is! Steve Jobs once pointed out that a true artist that created a cabinet would make sure the back piece was as beautiful and flawless as any of the visible pieces. Yes, no one will see the back, but the artist knows it's there.
And that sums up Apple's motivation. They desire to create incredibly beautiful and functional devices that appeal to the masses. Thinness is just one highly-appreciated metric.
By the way, I wouldn't just go buy Bose speakers. New kit is on the market that looks and sounds equally wonderful. But I have a Bose surround sound for my TV and it sounds wonderful. Bose pisses off audiophiles for some reason, but my ears aren't that anal that I notice the differences they so passionately scream about. For what it's worth, I'd probably go with Harman Kardon or M-Audio.
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.
LOL.
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.
For what it's worth, the guy complaining about the race to thin resulting in worse sounding speakers, he's probably right. But I can't imagine executives at Apple sitting around the table arguing for a fatter iMac to accommodate better speakers.
Now on the iPad....that argument makes more sense. I think the sound output of the current iPads is the minimum of what Apple should accept. If they can keep the same performance and go thinner, fine. But I wouldn't race to thin over the speaker performance because sound output on that thing is far more critical than a desktop computer.
can't even tell you the last time i used an optical drive. even the best imac speakers have been ok at best. there are excellent speakers out there that take up little desk space and produce very good sound. eliminating little used features, think floppy disk, makes room for far better tech. on the inside!
Great configuration. Congratulations, and enjoy!
While I'm positive about the changes the new generation of iMacs brings overall, I'll be interested to hear what users like you report about the process of installing RAM in their new Macs. You'll to need to remove both the screen and the logic board to get the job done.
While I'm positive about the changes the new generation of iMacs brings overall, I'll be interested to hear what users like you report about the process of installing RAM in their new Macs. You'll to need to remove both the screen and the logic board to get the job done.
Correction: the 27" model has a 'flap' in the rear for access to the RAM modules. A pushbutton in the power socket well pops it open.
Owners of the 21.5" model aren't so fortunate. They get to begin the process by removing an LCD screen that is glued down.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
This typo made your post really funny. It sounds like the detail ruined it for you.
That was funny. They seem to have set their pricing earlier in the year as they did with the rMBP at WWDC. At that time 16GB was around $100 and falling from newegg. It has continued to drop off a cliff in pricing. On the second bolded portion, I thought the last one was unnecessarily difficult to service too. If someone is considering a 21.5" with fusion or ram upgrades, I'll probably suggest waiting for refurbished availability and buying the base 27". It shouldn't be much different going that route and doing your own upgrades. Having seen the 21.5" breakdown, it looks like junk. Hard drives are unreliable by their nature, so not being able to remedy such a problem makes it a non starter for me. There's also the possibility of higher service costs now that they're glued together, much like we've seen with battery replacements on each redesign of the macbook pro. The rMBP pushed it to $200. It was initially about half of that prior to the unibody, I think the original macbook pro had a slightly less expensive battery than my old G4, but I can't remember.
I'm guessing Kingston HyperX? That stuff is always expensive. Crucial is around $80. The access on the 27" actually looks quite good. It appears easier to service than the last generation.
The use of glue was kind of funny. I'm not sure why they went that route. I wouldn't want to touch this one. Not being able to replace a dead drive is basically the one thing I won't tolerate in a computer. Phones are an exception to this. it was never an option there. To be fair I wasn't interested in buying one of these anyway at the moment. This generation I'm mainly interested in what they've done with the display in case others ask.
I am so tired of hearing this particular "complaint," and most of your assumptions just seem wrong to me. The point of the thin-ness is that the iMac is widely deployed as a desktop (as are most all in one computer designs).
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
This isn't entirely accurate as you don't know how they're manufacturing the item. With the notebooks shells are carved from blocks of aluminum. Repairs can involve replacing an entire top case. Now I'm sure they do recycle or reuse the cut away portions in those machines, but recycling aluminum takes a lot of energy. The same can be stated for glass, which has to be melted down. I'm just saying it's not always as simple as you stated it.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
What's the point of a recovery partition on the drive that has just failed ? The drive is the most likely point of failure.
The reason the recovery partition is on the drive is cheeeeepness. Not intelligent design.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
MBP:~ me$ diskutil list
/dev/disk0
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *80.0 GB disk0
1: EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1
2: Apple_CoreStorage 79.2 GB disk0s2
3: Apple_Boot Recovery HD 650.0 MB disk0s3
/dev/disk1
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk1
1: EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1
2: Apple_CoreStorage 999.9 GB disk1s2
3: Apple_Boot Boot OS X 134.2 MB disk1s3
/dev/disk2
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: Apple_HFS ML *1.1 TB disk2
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
Lion adds one whenever you install it (and Mountain Lion keeps it around, of course). It shows up holding Option at boot.
Points 2 to 4 depend far more on design and process than on thinness and weight. But, as you have repeated before, you know shit about manufacturing ;-)
I know I can always rely on you to throw in some random personal insult.
You've shown yourself to be that kind of person many times now.
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
You would think--or at least hope--that at some point those who appear to disfavor the new design will realize that the only possible reason for offering arguments against reduced weight and thickness is irrational bias. Probably caused by inertia (resistance to change), it's an emotional thing with no tenable reasoning underlying it.
When for about the same price (check them!) you can buy a model of the current generation with a 3TB Fusion drive and USB 3 ports that will outperform a refurbished model from the previous generation with a 256GB SSD by around 10%, there really is nothing to complain about. Though a (very) small minority may have legitimate objections, most of the griping you see constitutes sweating small stuff in the face of more important issues.
They aren't the same thing. By using terms correctly, the gain is that what you say isn't nonsense.
As a follow-up to my previous assertion that too big of speakers in the iMac would cause excess vibration for other components, check out the rubber sleeve around the hard drive.
Admittedly your use of language is so imprecise, with that, Humpty Dumpty, "'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.," quality to it that it's hard to know exactly what you are saying, but, this,
seems perfectly unintelligible in its original context unless we assume that, by 'it', you mean reductio ad absurdum. So either you were saying they are the same thing, or you were writing nonsense sentences. And again, I'll point out to you that reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, and since you seem to, above, deny that you believe it's the same as the straw man fallacy (which would be correct), although appearing to say the opposite elsewhere (incorrect), ... well, it all just seems to be nonsense, unless you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, otherwise known as double speak.
Most likely, though, you just don't know what you are talking about.
I keep posting, because you keep writing nonsense like this:
which is entirely false.
Derail a thread? By pointing out that you are writing nonsense? Derail it for you, perhaps, but, otherwise, I hardly think so.
The point is, quite simply, and as already stated, to inform that reductio ad absurdum is not in any way a fallacy but an entirely valid method of argument.
As for proving it, you can very easily educate yourself with a search for "logical fallacies" or "reductio ad absurdum", and a little reading. Your time would be much better spent on that than insisting that you are right when you are not.
