or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review roundup: New iMac display and redesigned chassis shine, audio a step back
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review roundup: New iMac display and redesigned chassis shine, audio a step back - Page 4

post #121 of 165
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....

 

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.


Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post
Can't you let someone express their opinion without resorting to the tiresome refrain of XXXX-gate and sophomoric sarcasm?

 

Can't they express actual opinions instead of mindless anti-Apple rhetoric?


Originally Posted by pinkunicorn View Post

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.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #122 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

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.

post #123 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

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. 

 

post #124 of 165

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.

post #125 of 165

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!

post #126 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

$2,574.00 for my 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz with 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB and 3TB Fusion Drive and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 with Magic Trackpad. Plus another $150 for 32GB RAM (4x8GB) from Newegg for a total of $2,724 before taxes. That should last me a couple years.

 

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.

post #127 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

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.

post #128 of 165

I'm just Joe Doe and I initailly decided to buy B&O A9 speaker and pair it with a 27" iMac (32 GB RAM, 3TB Fusion Drive,NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5) as a media center in my living room. Even the price seems to be just right.

post #129 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

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.

Yeah. If it didn't have easily accessible RAM I would have just opted for the Apple's $600 price for 32GB, but they did include the hatch so I'll just do it after market.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #130 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Thanks for posting the video.
2) I don't think that's unreasonable. As noted in a different thread I'll be paying $150 for 2x8GB Kingston RAM for my iMac.

I don't understand. The page we talked about showed Kingston 1600MHz DDR3 was $35 a stick. $150 should get you 32GB.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/1/12 at 8:16pm
post #131 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't understand. The page we talked about showed Kingston 1600MHz DDR3 was $35 a stick. $150 should get you 32GB.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #132 of 165

Huh, I didn't see that one. Is Apple using CL9 RAM?
post #133 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Huh, I didn't see that one. Is Apple using CL9 RAM?

I guess we won't know until we can feet more info on their RAM. They might use a lower CAS for certain configurations. For instance, a base model iMac gets CAS 11 (or worse) but the highend model with upgraded RAM gets CAS 9.

I'll see how how much info we can get from the iFixit breakdown. If not from them, perhaps Anandtech will figure it out when they (I presume) test the 27" model.

However, I will be going for the fastest RAM since it's a one time charge.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #134 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I guess we won't know until we can feet more info on their RAM. They might use a lower CAS for certain configurations. For instance, a base model iMac gets CAS 11 (or worse) but the highend model with upgraded RAM gets CAS 9.
I'll see how how much info we can get from the iFixit breakdown. If not from them, perhaps Anandtech will figure it out when they (I presume) test the 27" model.
However, I will be going for the fastest RAM since it's a one time charge.

I see they finally posted an image:



I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules to get 32GB.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/1/12 at 9:46pm
post #135 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I see they finally posted an image:

I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules.

I would agree.

I can't find any info on that module but I did come across another reason Apple would charge more: environmental concerns. I don't recall a single 3rd-party component vendor ever stating how green their product is and how they keep it that way.

Also, I would imagine Apple would use more reliable and better tested RAM because a DOA Mac could be a very costly mistake.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #136 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Perhaps they like the chin. I certainly like the chin. It does hose the one area that has the Apple logo which also houses a window for the IR and maybe a radio antenna. Not that the iconic look even needs a logo on the front but I think it works.
2) The chin allows for the glass (and now display) to rest upon the structure.
3) Making the back more curved allows for less material to be used in the structure while still getting the same rigidity and strength from a flatter back.
4) It looks more stunning to have thinner edges than to have thick edges without a chin. It's one thing to say that aesthetics aren't as important as performance but when the complaint is that "the chin is ugly" then it's no longer an argument about performance.
5) Let's remember this is an AIO. By design it's a feat of compromise. Engineering balance. Whether we like their goal and execution is moot. People seem to hate notebook for a long time after I adopted them as my primary machine, and yet they are more common than desktop PCs in the market. There are things I'd change about the iMac (there are things I'd change about nearly every product) but I still think it's the most remarkable iMac Apple has ever created and I look forward to jumping back into the desktop PC after 1.5 decades.

This typo made your post really funny. It sounds like the detail ruined it for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Here's a full teardown video:Looks like they've glued the screen on now. I was wondering if they'd hold the entire panel in with magnets. I suppose it's a screwless design but y'know a lot of problems in life can be solved with a good screw now and again.
The best place for the screws is at the base where you don't see them but with the chin they can't really do that. Now customers have little choice but to take the machine back to Apple for a hard drive failure or RAM upgrade. The RAM upgrade requires taking out the motherboard. I suppose that's one way of getting people to spend $200 on 16GB of RAM.
Obviously when the computer is working fine, this design is no big deal and for most customers this will be the case but for the few where it does go wrong, it's now a major problem. This is where a laptop + display is a far better setup because not only is the laptop more easily carted into the Apple Store, it can be opened very easily. Same with a Mini in fact.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Thanks for posting the video.
2) I don't think that's unreasonable. As noted in a different thread I'll be paying $150 for 2x8GB Kingston RAM for my iMac.
3) Yeah, people that are buying an iMac are even less likely to upgrade than those who have traditionally bought towers in the past. It's just not something most do.
4) Note that the 27" does have easy access to the RAM in the back. It's too bad that this wasn't an option on the 21.5" model (as well as having a 3.5" HDD) but it is what it is and those that are buying a desktop with a 1TB drive max should know this.
PS: I noticed that Apple doesn't advertise their Fusion Drive capacity as being the HDD+SSD capacity, but instead just the capacity of the largest drive. Not that it's too much more but 1TB+128GB is 1.08TB.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Some people will still call that technically upgradeable but it's difficult enough to be classed as not user-ugradeable IMO. The ifixit teardown says you'd have to peel off all the old glue right round the display before putting new glue back on to get it back together:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+EMC+2544+Teardown/11936/1
They might as well have soldered the RAM on if they were going to glue it shut. It only has two slots so it can't be upgraded beyond 16GB RAM.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

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.

post #137 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I see they finally posted an image:

I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules to get 32GB.

I know I'm quoting you twice but I don't want this detail lost. If you look at the first link, a PDF, you'll see that the stick is indeed CAS 11. It would appear that any Hynix RAM with a PB rating is CAS 11 so if we see other Hynix RAM in the 8GB sticks with a PB we can assume that it's also CAS 11 without looking it up.


edit: I was able to find 2 options for DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz 8GB RAM on Hynix site. They are both CAS 11, but they are also both 1.35V and "Lead-Free & Halogen-Free (RoHS Compliant)". I wonder how much more that costs?
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/1/12 at 10:26pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #138 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post

Can anyone who's already bought the new iMac advise if it comes with a USB stick with recovery OS/Software?

No Macs comes with external media with restore software on them. They have a recovery partition on the drive. You can also create your own recovery boot disc on a USB stick per a a utility you can DL from Apple's site.

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.

post #139 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

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 EFI on all Macs released since early 2011 will download the recovery partition from the Internet once upgraded to at least OS X Lion, if it can't find one on the disk. OS X versions prior to Lion had optical installation media included with the Macs they shipped with. While this screws people on slow connections and people with data caps, I guess it doesn't affect most of Apple's customers, otherwise they wouldn't have ditched the installation media. Apple used to sell the full version of OS X Lion in a USB stick, but they stopped doing it in Mountain Lion for some reason (probably lack of demand).
post #140 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

The reason the recovery partition is on the drive is cheeeeepness. Not intelligent design.

Imagine if you shipped a USB stick that contained ML with every Mac instead of using the Recovery Partition and EFI boot. Now consider that the USB stick is now lost. You'd then have to buy another USB stick with ML before you could install Mac OS X. At that point I think you'd be happy to have a solution for reinstalling the OS without having to buy a USB stick containing ML from Apple.

As Vaelian states it's a pain if you have a slow connection but you can always take it to an Apple Store or send it in if it's under warranty. If Apple will pay for the shipping and do the installation it seems to me that having to reinstall the OS is not something that warrants including a USB stick that contains ML in 20 million Macs per year.
Edited by SolipsismX - 12/2/12 at 7:41am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #141 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

Reduction to absurdity fallacy.
 

 

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a valid method of both formal and informal argument. If you're going to toss around words like "fallacy", you should at least try to know what you are talking about.

post #142 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No Macs comes with external media with restore software on them. They have a recovery partition on the drive. You can also create your own recovery boot disc on a USB stick per a a utility you can DL from Apple's site.

When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte, but I think that's just space taken by formatting information.
post #143 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte.

I think it's like 150MB. It's basically Disk Utility, a simple Safari and a couple other utilities. If you restart and hold down Option you should see the Recovery HD option. If that shows up then you can access it. Perhaps it will show the exact size of that logical drive.

The EFI boot is Option+R, I think. I don't quite recall but I'm sure Apple has an article on it.


edit: You can check via Terminal. It's 650MB. Also note that in Disk Utilitiy all that shows up for my logical drive listed under /disk2 (IOW, no listing of the separate drives under DU) as that is the Fusion Drive I setup using my 80GB SSD + 1TB HDD in my 13" MBP. It works great.
Code:
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

Edited by SolipsismX - 12/2/12 at 8:21am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #144 of 165
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte, but I think that's just space taken by formatting information.

 

Lion adds one whenever you install it (and Mountain Lion keeps it around, of course). It shows up holding Option at boot.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #145 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

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). 

post #146 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

Reduction to absurdity fallacy.

 

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a valid method of both formal and informal argument. If you're going to toss around words like "fallacy", you should at least try to know what you are talking about.

You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like, which actually happened in the case that I quoted, and I mentioned it in the same post... What exactly do you gain there?

Quote:
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 has long realized that this place is full of trolls. Personally, I only post here for entertainment; it's fun to laugh at the absurd excuses people come up with.
post #147 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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.

post #148 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post


You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like, which actually happened in the case that I quoted, and I mentioned it in the same post... What exactly do you gain there?

 

They aren't the same thing. By using terms correctly, the gain is that what you say isn't nonsense.

post #149 of 165

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.

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #150 of 165
Cool but I do think the build-in speakers are merely there for 'new mail notifications' and such. Anyone expecting to get some level of decent sound will descent, music-wise. (is that even English?)
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #151 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They aren't the same thing. By using terms correctly, the gain is that what you say isn't nonsense.

And this is another straw man argument fallacy. I never claimed that they were the same thing; my use of the term was perfectly correct; that reduction to absurdity was used as a fallacy; lastly you forgot to answer exactly what you gain by bringing up this subject.
post #152 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

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.

Sure, if we play by your rules and ignore the feature compromises... It is this kind of framing that makes your trolling pretty obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

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.

Those are incremental upgrades; hardware tends to get cheaper, not more expensive, over time. Apple not lowering their prices doesn't mean anything.
post #153 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post


And this is another straw man argument fallacy. I never claimed that they were the same thing; my use of the term was perfectly correct; that reduction to absurdity was used as a fallacy; lastly you forgot to answer exactly what you gain by bringing up this subject.

 

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,

 

Quote:
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like

 

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.

post #154 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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,

Newsflash: human language is imprecise, which is why everything is so strictly defined in legalese. I still don't see what you aim to achieve with this, though. Are you such a retard that you couldn't possibly understand what I was referring to and need 3 additional posts for clarification?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like

seems perfectly unintelligible in its original context unless we assume that, by 'it', you mean reductio ad absurdum.

Only if you ignore the fact that reduction to absurdity is most commonly used in straw man arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So either you were saying they are the same thing, or you were writing nonsense sentences.

I think I've already explained what I was saying, and it's not covered by your deduction. How about re-reading my posts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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.

That's because in your limited view of logic you are yet to realize that fallacies are not confined to the known (and named) patterns of informal logic, and not all cases where the known patterns apply are, in fact, fallacious. If reduction to absurdity is used as a form of informal logic (to attempt to disprove a statistical syllogism, for example, or to make a straw man argument, in the case of this thread), then it's a fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Most likely, though, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Most likely, though, you're trolling, because you are yet to state your actual point, or how bringing this up invalidates anything I said. It seems like the only reason why you keep on posting is to provoke me into an off-topic argument.
post #155 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

... Most likely, though, you're trolling, because you are yet to state your actual point, or how bringing this up invalidates anything I said. It seems like the only reason why you keep on posting is to provoke me into an off-topic argument.

 

I keep posting, because you keep writing nonsense like this:

 

Quote:
If reduction to absurdity is used as a form of informal logic [...] then it's a fallacy.

 

which is entirely false.

post #156 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I keep posting, because you keep writing nonsense like this:

I can understand your cognitive challenges, but that doesn't mean you should derail a thread. Why is it nonsense? What exactly are you trying to point out? Even if I was wrong, which I am not, what would you accomplish with that? Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, how would that invalidate the argument that you attacked? And if it didn't, then what's the point of attacking me if not for trolling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

which is entirely false.

Fair enough, then I want to see you prove it.
post #157 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post


I can understand your cognitive challenges, but that doesn't mean you should derail a thread. Why is it nonsense? What exactly are you trying to point out? Even if I was wrong, which I am not, what would you accomplish with that? Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, how would that invalidate the argument that you attacked? And if it didn't, then what's the point of attacking me if not for trolling?
Fair enough, then I want to see you prove it.

 

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.

post #158 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Derail a thread? By pointing out that you are writing nonsense? Derail it for you, perhaps, but, otherwise, I hardly think so.

So, how are you addressing the thread's subject? And what is it that I'm writing that you can not understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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.

First you'll have to prove that, especially after I have demonstrated otherwise. Secondly you are still yet to explain exactly what you achieve by pointing that out, since even if I was wrong, pointing that out wouldn't be invalidating the argument that you attacked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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.

That's special pleading, dude. You're effectively claiming that I'm ignorant in order to attempt to subvert the discussion. You actually DO have to prove things when you have burden of proof; claiming that I'm ignorant or failing to explain the relevance of any evidence you bring to the discussion is irrational.

EDIT

Elaborating on the special plead. The reason why bringing the evidence to the thread is twofold: 1 - so that the claimer's interpretation of that evidence can be scrutinized, and 2 - so that the validity of the evidence itself can be debated. By denying me these options, you are being irrational. For example: I mentioned earlier that fallacies were not confined to the set of most common patterns of informal logic, and your "proof" ignores that completely.

I'm just posting this so that people won't just assume that I'm being unreasonable when I am, in fact, pushing for a perfectly logical and reasonable debate where all the parties involved have a chance to debate the merits of each other's arguments without bullshit.
Edited by Vaelian - 12/3/12 at 7:32am
post #159 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post


That's special pleading, dude. You're effectively claiming that I'm ignorant in order to attempt to subvert the discussion. 

 

Actually, I'm claiming that you could make yourself not ignorant in less time than it took you to write your last post. I'm pleading with you to do so. But, here, I'll help you along since you apparently have an aversion to search engines:

 

Here's an explanation of reductio ad absurdumhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

 

Here's an article with a list of 208 fallacies, which you should note does not contain reductio ad absurdumhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

 

It's good reading for everyone, but I particularly recommend it to you. If you want more sources, do some simple searches and you'll find more than anyone has time to read. But, even consulting, say, the first page of results, you'll find that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, not a fallacy.

post #160 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, I'm claiming that you could make yourself not ignorant in less time than it took you to write your last post. I'm pleading with you to do so. But, here, I'll help you along since you apparently have an aversion to search engines:

Nope, you told me to educate myself, which implies that I'm ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Here's an explanation of reductio ad absurdumhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

I see nothing in there stating that it can not be a fallacy, so how does that prove your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Here's an article with a list of 208 fallacies, which you should note does not contain reductio ad absurdumhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Since when have all fallacies have to be confined to the set of common patterns in that list? It's kind of the third time I'm pointing this out, but you seem to keep ignoring it for some reason... At most with that list you can try to prove that something IS a fallacy, but you can not try to prove that something is NOT, which is your claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's good reading for everyone, but I particularly recommend it to you. If you want more sources, do some simple searches and you'll find more than anyone has time to read. But, even consulting, say, the first page of results, you'll find that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, not a fallacy.

No, actually what I want is actual proof of your claims, which none of the above is.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review roundup: New iMac display and redesigned chassis shine, audio a step back