The thing here is that the internals in the iMac are a mess. Truely disgusting especially when sitting side by side with the MBP internals. So yeah a bigger machine can help but what is really needed is a new approach. A clean layout of the components, and the PC board could dramatically impact user acceptance too.
Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea how the components are laid out internally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
I think the bulk of buyers simply aren't interested in taking the guts out of their computers. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see a user serviceable iMac, but I don't think it will be high on Apple's priority list unfortunately.
Agreed, except for the "unfortunately" bit. I would not want Macs to be physically like PeeCees. The MacBook Air has exactly the level of user-serviceability that I want: zero.
Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea* how the components are laid out internally.
*Or care, for that matter.
The internals are laid out to maximize cooling, not serviceability. Not great for the consumer when they want to upgrade the inside, but great for the consumer when it comes to having a cool machine (this equals longer component life).
Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea how the components are laid out internally.
Agreed, except for the "unfortunately" bit. I would not want Macs to be physically like PeeCees. The MacBook Air has exactly the level of user-serviceability that I want: zero.
I think at a minimum it should have at least the same user upgrade options that a laptop has (memory, and hard drive, and possibly optical drive as some laptops do). This is easily done in a lapotp, there should be no reason not to work towards that goal on an iMac.
I think at a minimum it should have at least the same user upgrade options that a laptop has (memory, and hard drive, and possibly optical drive as some laptops do). This is easily done in a lapotp, there should be no reason not to work towards that goal on an iMac.
To say they should work toward that goal I agree with as I?m all for accessibility, but if you are suggesting that because it?s easy to do on a Mac laptop now means that it should as easy on an iMac then I have to disagree with you. A notebook lays flat and very little pressure on the bottom panel screws when in use, while the iMac is suspended by a single articulating arm in the back. This means that more pressure is being applied to the back panel in certain areas than with Mac notebooks. Going back to the G5 iMac?s real panel entry would be nice for us, but from a cost perspective compared to the number of iMac consumers that ever actually venture into the components of their iMac it may be worthy of Apple?s attention. Maybe they found this to be a problem so they changed it or they found they could save a lot money buy using this less than friendly front panel access.
Yes, most people asking for a fully serviceable iMac are really objecting to the iMac's philosophy.
RAM and Hard Drive upgrades are the only necessity.
For the price point, I think Apple needs to do away with integrated graphics in the iMac entirely.
But the graphics card doesn't need to be accessible.
What is the iMac's philosophy? It seems to change quite often. Its gone from an affordable machine (at times even under $1000) to a one size fits all machine that tops out over two grand that replaces all but the most high end PowerMacs as well. Its gone upmarket in what it does but has lost features since this form factor debuted with G5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
To say they should work toward that goal I agree with as I’m all for accessibility, but if you are suggesting that because it’s easy to do on a Mac laptop now means that it should as easy on an iMac then I have to disagree with you. A notebook lays flat and very little pressure on the bottom panel screws when in use, while the iMac is suspended by a single articulating arm in the back. This means that more pressure is being applied to the back panel in certain areas than with Mac notebooks. Going back to the G5 iMac’s real panel entry would be nice for us, but from a cost perspective compared to the number of iMac consumers that ever actually venture into the components of their iMac it may be worthy of Apple’s attention. Maybe they found this to be a problem so they changed it or they found they could save a lot money buy using this less than friendly front panel access.
In other words since the majority of the newer Mac users are very low end and because Jobs and Ive hate towers, everybody with more than ordinary requirements much suffer. What a role reversal for the platform.
What is the iMac's philosophy? It seems to change quite often. Its gone from an affordable machine (at times even under $1000) to a one size fits all machine that tops out over two grand that replaces all but the most high end PowerMacs as well. Its gone upmarket in what it does but has lost features since this form factor debuted with G5.
In other words since the majority of the newer Mac users are very low end and because Jobs and Ive hate towers, everybody with more than ordinary requirements much suffer. What a role reversal for the platform.
People with requirements that exceed the normal usage will always have additional obstacles to face, but I think saying that they are suffering is an exaggeration. As much as I love my 13? MBP and iPhone I could rattle off hundreds of things that I wish Apple would change about the device to suit my specific needs and wants, but I don?t expect them to do so simply because I want them to. Some things I?ve written to Apple about because I feel it would benefit the majority o users.
Other things, like a double capacity battery that makes the phone millimeters thicker and several ounces heavier is something I don?t mind having but something that many iPhone users wouldn?t like and would likely hurt Apple?s sales and vision of a slim iPhone. MY solution was to buy the Mophie Juice Pack Air. I can keep it on while charging and syncing and get more than a full day or excessive internet use on 3G out of my iPhone. The only caveat is that Apple only licenses the male end of their 30-pin connector so a female mini-USB port is used on the Mophie. Those are just a bitch to connect. Another thing I?d like to have seen done away with years ago is the optical drive in notebooks. I haven?t used it in years, and while I am certain this will happen eventually I think the majority of people still need or want one at this point.
Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple?s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
This thread looks like something you'd see at Winsupersite.
C'mon people, shape up.
The desktop market is DYING. It's in the basement. You honestly think shoving quad cores and big GPUs into iMacs will change anything? You honestly think shoving big specs in the consumer's face will do anything? It's hard enough for the generic box-makers to sell them at lower prices.
Desktops have got to get smaller, thinner, and even more portable. The future is in form and design. The whole "tower" paradigm is getting old, and it shows.
Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).
For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price as well. You may say the average consumer doesn't need that speed... well the average consumer could probably get by with a Celeron or a G4, or even less, but once you've used a C2D, you would not go back to a Celeron. With some applications and general workflow (especially running VMs) I can't begin to tell you how much better an i7 is against a C2D... and BTW, the i5, is almost as good, no reason why that should not be in the iMac.
I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple should really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face, because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.
Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).
For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price!
I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple you really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.
Actually the Core 2 Duo (3.06 GHz) in the iMac stacks up decently against the CPU bench scores of a Quad Core Mac Pro. Given the huge price difference, the iMac is a good bang for the buck.
There comes a point where you get diminishing returns for the extra cash. The iMac seems to be in a good sweet spot between high cost and decent CPU performance.
Actually the Core 2 Duo (3.06 GHz) in the iMac stacks up decently against the CPU bench scores of a Quad Core Mac Pro. Given the huge price difference, the iMac is a good bang for the buck.
There comes a point where you get diminishing returns for the extra cash. The iMac seems to be in a good sweet spot between high cost and decent CPU performance.
I think you need to look beyond Speedmark and a 5 year old version of Photoshop, with all due respect. An i7 is around 3x faster than even an E8600 C2D (3.33ghz, which you cannot get in an iMac) for Video encoding (usually important to Pro users)
Again, this is pure CPU grunt... a decent GPU only makes the gap bigger and RAID HDs should be standard in any desktop. I think you're drinking the Cool Aid a little.
The only place where there is barely any performance gain is in gaming, not that Mac users should care about that. With Grand Central coming, the gap will only widen.
I think you need to look beyond Speedmark and a 5 year old version of Photoshop, with all due respect. An i7 is around 3x faster than even an E8600 C2D (3.33ghz, which you cannot get in an iMac) for Video encoding (usually important to Pro users)
Again, this is pure CPU grunt... a decent GPU only makes the gap bigger and RAID HDs should be standard in any desktop. I think you're drinking the Cool Aid a little.
The only place where there is barely any performance gain is in gaming, not that Mac users should care about that. With Grand Central coming, the gap will only widen.
You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price. The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price. I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price. The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price. I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
Well I read the page you sent me, which demonstrated the 3ghz D2 outperforming the 2.6ghz Quad, probably because the applications it used did not scale well, I didn't intend for you to infer any implication. And you're quite right, the C2D offers fine performance, in a 2007 kind of way, but many apps now are scaling in an almost linear fashion with more CPUs/Cores and I think that people who have used these, might find an iMac lacking in performance.
It's only Mac users who have to jump from $1,100 to $2,500 to do from 2 cores, to 4 cores... no one else. I think now is the time to introduce 4 cores to the iMac range.
You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price.
But it isn't and this should be clear to anybody spending a dew minutes on the net or in a local computer store. At this point, for a desk top, iMacs performance is crap. Further it isn't a platform for running SL to it's full potential. Buying an iMac right now is a poor choice if you expect to leverage any of the improvements to SL or the improved apps for SL.
Quote:
The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price.
I can't make sense of the above statement!! What does the Mac Pros price have to do with the iMacs performance? Nothing that I can see.
In any event thanks for your overbearing attitude and arrogance in defining what an individual user needs performance wise. What next, are you going to tell me what type of vehicle I need to drive or where I should drive that vehicle to?
Quote:
I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
Hey great for you, but have you considered that the rest of the world doesn't support your point of view. Frankly I just don't understand this regressive attitude, it is like saying my gas mileage I get on my truck is good enough when clearly it isn't. If the whole country had this attitude we would be in a world of hurt. Which is sort of like a bag of hurt, except there is a wider impact.
Yes, most people asking for a fully serviceable iMac are really objecting to the iMac's philosophy.
The iMac is pretty nifty and powerfully but I didn't hear about it becoming self aware and developing it's own philosophy.
Seriously what do you think Apples philosophy is with the iMac? Moreso why should we accept it without comment?
[/quote]
RAM and Hard Drive upgrades are the only necessity.
[/quote]
The arguement is wider than just upgrades, serviceability is a huge consideration also. In fact I suspect more iMacs get rejected for that reason in the corporate world than anything else.
Quote:
For the price point, I think Apple needs to do away with integrated graphics in the iMac entirely.
Actually Intel is screwing the GPU makers. So the world of integrated graphics may go away, at least in the sense that we use to know it. In the near future the common choices may be Intel integrated graphics or PCI-E connected cards. I suspect that Intel had a serious fear of the integrated chipset makers and decided to play dirty pool.
Quote:
But the graphics card doesn't need to be accessible.
Probably not but we have a whole new generation of GPUs coming. These will offer higher performance at a lower power point. More importantly they provide fine OpenCL support. For some people an upgradable GPU can be very important. In many ways it provides for a way to massively increase a codes performance in a way that could never happen with an upgradeable CPU.
Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple?s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
Apple should be remembering that they have to pay technicians to repair them and it costs Apple a lot less if it's a 1 labor unit job rather than a 2 labor unit job. A better layout would reduce basic labor costs and make it far less likely that something will get damaged in the process.
I worked in a service department a few years ago. We all hated the 12" Powerbook because they were a nightmare to work on. The technicians considered them punishment because jobs always took longer than Apple was willing to pay for. When something cuts into your pay check you get grumpy about it. I guarantee there were celebrations all over the world when the last AppleCare policy expired on that model.
I'm not saying the iMac is anywhere near that bad, but anything that's a royal pain to work on earns Apple no friends in the service department.
Or completely missing the point of the comment. The comment wasn't directed at the user community. Rather it reflects on the idea that if Apple can take the MBP from a mess to the fine example of engineering we have today then they can do the same for iMac.
Quote:
The internals are laid out to maximize cooling, not serviceability.
It doesn't matter what you think the layout is for as the two goals are not exclusive of each other. The new MBP pretty much proves this point.
Quote:
Not great for the consumer when they want to upgrade the inside, but great for the consumer when it comes to having a cool machine (this equals longer component life).
That is starting to sound like making excuses. Really it does.
Whoever said the iMac is a good performer for most customers is right, but people don't just buy what they need today, they buy something that will last them for a number of years.
Let's say an iMac will last 5 years before it's too slow for the original purchaser.
So when would a desktop Core i7 based Mac reach the same point of obsolescence? I think it's pretty fair to say 5 years after Apple introduces an iMac with equivalent performance since iMacs last 5 years.
So the question is when will the iMac equal today's desktop? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013?
Using the current design philosophy and the improvements made in the last few years I'd say it'll be 2012 when the iMac matches today's desktop.
So while an iMac lasts 5 years, the desktop would last the three years from now until 2012 and then 5 more for a total of 8 years.
That's impressive value for consumers, but terrible for Apple. They used to make long lasting computers and it nearly drove them into bankruptcy.
Apple collectively and Steve Jobs personally hates people who hang onto old equipment even when it's still useable. The new Apple is structured around rapid replacement and upgrade. If you can't or won't replace your Mac every 3-4 years and your iPod/iPhone every 2 years, then they really don't want you as a customer.
"While new hardware should come as no surprise, AppleInsider has previously heard word of new iMacs and MacBooks. Last month rumors surfaced that the new Imacs would have compelling new features, one of which was said to have long been on Mac users' wish lists, and another that would appeal to the semi-professional audio/video crowd."
...So when would a desktop Core i7 based Mac reach the same point of obsolescence? I think it's pretty fair to say 5 years after Apple introduces an iMac with equivalent performance since iMacs last 5 years...
You could have a Core i7 iMac launched tomorrow which supports up to 8GB and that can last a good 5 years... Except... The hard disk will start to be too slow (you would need to be able to put in an SSD) by the 3rd year. If it is a 9400 GPU then by the 2nd year OpenCL / games/ CoreImage-driven stuff will start to get bogged down.
It's tough to say which will play a greater role... CPU? Graphics? RAM? Hard Disk speed? ... as a computer gets older and new apps/ operating systems come out over the next 3 to 5 years.
But it isn't and this should be clear to anybody spending a dew minutes on the net or in a local computer store. At this point, for a desk top, iMacs performance is crap. Further it isn't a platform for running SL to it's full potential. Buying an iMac right now is a poor choice if you expect to leverage any of the improvements to SL or the improved apps for SL.
I can't make sense of the above statement!! What does the Mac Pros price have to do with the iMacs performance? Nothing that I can see.
In any event thanks for your overbearing attitude and arrogance in defining what an individual user needs performance wise. What next, are you going to tell me what type of vehicle I need to drive or where I should drive that vehicle to?
Hey great for you, but have you considered that the rest of the world doesn't support your point of view. Frankly I just don't understand this regressive attitude, it is like saying my gas mileage I get on my truck is good enough when clearly it isn't. If the whole country had this attitude we would be in a world of hurt. Which is sort of like a bag of hurt, except there is a wider impact.
Dave
Overbearing attitude and arrogance? Can you point me to the post that particular post? I never claimed to represent 'the rest of the word'. This is a forum, where people are allowed to express their own opinions and ideas. Kind of the point, no? Try to relax a little and grow up. Personal attacks gain you nothing and frankly make you look your trolling. Your comments are unnecessarily inflammatory and acidic.
People with requirements that exceed the normal usage will always have additional obstacles to face, but I think saying that they are suffering is an exaggeration. As much as I love my 13” MBP and iPhone I could rattle off hundreds of things that I wish Apple would change about the device to suit my specific needs and wants, but I don’t expect them to do so simply because I want them to. Some things I’ve written to Apple about because I feel it would benefit the majority o users.
Other things, like a double capacity battery that makes the phone millimeters thicker and several ounces heavier is something I don’t mind having but something that many iPhone users wouldn’t like and would likely hurt Apple’s sales and vision of a slim iPhone. MY solution was to buy the Mophie Juice Pack Air. I can keep it on while charging and syncing and get more than a full day or excessive internet use on 3G out of my iPhone. The only caveat is that Apple only licenses the male end of their 30-pin connector so a female mini-USB port is used on the Mophie. Those are just a bitch to connect. Another thing I’d like to have seen done away with years ago is the optical drive in notebooks. I haven’t used it in years, and while I am certain this will happen eventually I think the majority of people still need or want one at this point.
Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple’s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
The iPhone didn't move up market to replace the low end Macbook like the iMac did with the PowerMac. The first couple versions are excellent for what they are, great consumer machines. However, the game changes after that $1799 model and you're dealing with a set of users with different requirements. If you're going to make it the only option, you can't push a low to median end machine on high end users. Either the higher end iMac need to suit the higher end users that have been herded to them (easy access, two more DIMM slots, twin hard drives, quad core CPUs) or Apple needs an affordable PowerMac (Mac Pro) again.
As for the optical drive, you are in the minority. If people bought a Macbook and found out you couldn't install software or import a CD or watch a DVD, they might not buy another one. You'd have to either pay $100 to lug another thing around or be completely reliant on Apple. They might just decide that Win7 is good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Apple should be remembering that they have to pay technicians to repair them and it costs Apple a lot less if it's a 1 labor unit job rather than a 2 labor unit job. A better layout would reduce basic labor costs and make it far less likely that something will get damaged in the process.
I worked in a service department a few years ago. We all hated the 12" Powerbook because they were a nightmare to work on. The technicians considered them punishment because jobs always took longer than Apple was willing to pay for. When something cuts into your pay check you get grumpy about it. I guarantee there were celebrations all over the world when the last AppleCare policy expired on that model.
I'm not saying the iMac is anywhere near that bad, but anything that's a royal pain to work on earns Apple no friends in the service department.
When I had my hard drive replaced a couple of weeks ago, they pretty much admitted that while they had the part in store, mine would be on the back burner because iMac maintenance was so time consuming.
Comments
The thing here is that the internals in the iMac are a mess. Truely disgusting especially when sitting side by side with the MBP internals. So yeah a bigger machine can help but what is really needed is a new approach. A clean layout of the components, and the PC board could dramatically impact user acceptance too.
Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea how the components are laid out internally.
I think the bulk of buyers simply aren't interested in taking the guts out of their computers. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see a user serviceable iMac, but I don't think it will be high on Apple's priority list unfortunately.
Agreed, except for the "unfortunately" bit. I would not want Macs to be physically like PeeCees. The MacBook Air has exactly the level of user-serviceability that I want: zero.
Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea* how the components are laid out internally.
*Or care, for that matter.
The internals are laid out to maximize cooling, not serviceability. Not great for the consumer when they want to upgrade the inside, but great for the consumer when it comes to having a cool machine (this equals longer component life).
Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea how the components are laid out internally.
Agreed, except for the "unfortunately" bit. I would not want Macs to be physically like PeeCees. The MacBook Air has exactly the level of user-serviceability that I want: zero.
I think at a minimum it should have at least the same user upgrade options that a laptop has (memory, and hard drive, and possibly optical drive as some laptops do). This is easily done in a lapotp, there should be no reason not to work towards that goal on an iMac.
I think at a minimum it should have at least the same user upgrade options that a laptop has (memory, and hard drive, and possibly optical drive as some laptops do). This is easily done in a lapotp, there should be no reason not to work towards that goal on an iMac.
To say they should work toward that goal I agree with as I?m all for accessibility, but if you are suggesting that because it?s easy to do on a Mac laptop now means that it should as easy on an iMac then I have to disagree with you. A notebook lays flat and very little pressure on the bottom panel screws when in use, while the iMac is suspended by a single articulating arm in the back. This means that more pressure is being applied to the back panel in certain areas than with Mac notebooks. Going back to the G5 iMac?s real panel entry would be nice for us, but from a cost perspective compared to the number of iMac consumers that ever actually venture into the components of their iMac it may be worthy of Apple?s attention. Maybe they found this to be a problem so they changed it or they found they could save a lot money buy using this less than friendly front panel access.
Yes, most people asking for a fully serviceable iMac are really objecting to the iMac's philosophy.
RAM and Hard Drive upgrades are the only necessity.
For the price point, I think Apple needs to do away with integrated graphics in the iMac entirely.
But the graphics card doesn't need to be accessible.
What is the iMac's philosophy? It seems to change quite often. Its gone from an affordable machine (at times even under $1000) to a one size fits all machine that tops out over two grand that replaces all but the most high end PowerMacs as well. Its gone upmarket in what it does but has lost features since this form factor debuted with G5.
To say they should work toward that goal I agree with as I’m all for accessibility, but if you are suggesting that because it’s easy to do on a Mac laptop now means that it should as easy on an iMac then I have to disagree with you. A notebook lays flat and very little pressure on the bottom panel screws when in use, while the iMac is suspended by a single articulating arm in the back. This means that more pressure is being applied to the back panel in certain areas than with Mac notebooks. Going back to the G5 iMac’s real panel entry would be nice for us, but from a cost perspective compared to the number of iMac consumers that ever actually venture into the components of their iMac it may be worthy of Apple’s attention. Maybe they found this to be a problem so they changed it or they found they could save a lot money buy using this less than friendly front panel access.
In other words since the majority of the newer Mac users are very low end and because Jobs and Ive hate towers, everybody with more than ordinary requirements much suffer. What a role reversal for the platform.
What is the iMac's philosophy? It seems to change quite often. Its gone from an affordable machine (at times even under $1000) to a one size fits all machine that tops out over two grand that replaces all but the most high end PowerMacs as well. Its gone upmarket in what it does but has lost features since this form factor debuted with G5.
In other words since the majority of the newer Mac users are very low end and because Jobs and Ive hate towers, everybody with more than ordinary requirements much suffer. What a role reversal for the platform.
People with requirements that exceed the normal usage will always have additional obstacles to face, but I think saying that they are suffering is an exaggeration. As much as I love my 13? MBP and iPhone I could rattle off hundreds of things that I wish Apple would change about the device to suit my specific needs and wants, but I don?t expect them to do so simply because I want them to. Some things I?ve written to Apple about because I feel it would benefit the majority o users.
Other things, like a double capacity battery that makes the phone millimeters thicker and several ounces heavier is something I don?t mind having but something that many iPhone users wouldn?t like and would likely hurt Apple?s sales and vision of a slim iPhone. MY solution was to buy the Mophie Juice Pack Air. I can keep it on while charging and syncing and get more than a full day or excessive internet use on 3G out of my iPhone. The only caveat is that Apple only licenses the male end of their 30-pin connector so a female mini-USB port is used on the Mophie. Those are just a bitch to connect. Another thing I?d like to have seen done away with years ago is the optical drive in notebooks. I haven?t used it in years, and while I am certain this will happen eventually I think the majority of people still need or want one at this point.
Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple?s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
Agreed.
This thread looks like something you'd see at Winsupersite.
C'mon people, shape up.
The desktop market is DYING. It's in the basement. You honestly think shoving quad cores and big GPUs into iMacs will change anything? You honestly think shoving big specs in the consumer's face will do anything? It's hard enough for the generic box-makers to sell them at lower prices.
Desktops have got to get smaller, thinner, and even more portable. The future is in form and design. The whole "tower" paradigm is getting old, and it shows.
Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).
For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price as well. You may say the average consumer doesn't need that speed... well the average consumer could probably get by with a Celeron or a G4, or even less, but once you've used a C2D, you would not go back to a Celeron. With some applications and general workflow (especially running VMs) I can't begin to tell you how much better an i7 is against a C2D... and BTW, the i5, is almost as good, no reason why that should not be in the iMac.
I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple should really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face, because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.
Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).
For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price!
I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple you really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.
Actually the Core 2 Duo (3.06 GHz) in the iMac stacks up decently against the CPU bench scores of a Quad Core Mac Pro. Given the huge price difference, the iMac is a good bang for the buck.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1395...acpro2009.html (scroll to the bottom to see the benchmark scores)
There comes a point where you get diminishing returns for the extra cash. The iMac seems to be in a good sweet spot between high cost and decent CPU performance.
Actually the Core 2 Duo (3.06 GHz) in the iMac stacks up decently against the CPU bench scores of a Quad Core Mac Pro. Given the huge price difference, the iMac is a good bang for the buck.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1395...acpro2009.html (scroll to the bottom to see the benchmark scores)
There comes a point where you get diminishing returns for the extra cash. The iMac seems to be in a good sweet spot between high cost and decent CPU performance.
I think you need to look beyond Speedmark and a 5 year old version of Photoshop, with all due respect. An i7 is around 3x faster than even an E8600 C2D (3.33ghz, which you cannot get in an iMac) for Video encoding (usually important to Pro users)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4
And twice to three times as fast on Cinebench, and 4 - 5 times faster on POV Ray - even the Quad Core scales almost 100%
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4
Again, this is pure CPU grunt... a decent GPU only makes the gap bigger and RAID HDs should be standard in any desktop. I think you're drinking the Cool Aid a little.
The only place where there is barely any performance gain is in gaming, not that Mac users should care about that. With Grand Central coming, the gap will only widen.
I think you need to look beyond Speedmark and a 5 year old version of Photoshop, with all due respect. An i7 is around 3x faster than even an E8600 C2D (3.33ghz, which you cannot get in an iMac) for Video encoding (usually important to Pro users)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4
And twice to three times as fast on Cinebench, and 4 - 5 times faster on POV Ray - even the Quad Core scales almost 100%
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4
Again, this is pure CPU grunt... a decent GPU only makes the gap bigger and RAID HDs should be standard in any desktop. I think you're drinking the Cool Aid a little.
The only place where there is barely any performance gain is in gaming, not that Mac users should care about that. With Grand Central coming, the gap will only widen.
You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price. The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price. I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price. The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price. I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
Well I read the page you sent me, which demonstrated the 3ghz D2 outperforming the 2.6ghz Quad, probably because the applications it used did not scale well, I didn't intend for you to infer any implication. And you're quite right, the C2D offers fine performance, in a 2007 kind of way, but many apps now are scaling in an almost linear fashion with more CPUs/Cores and I think that people who have used these, might find an iMac lacking in performance.
It's only Mac users who have to jump from $1,100 to $2,500 to do from 2 cores, to 4 cores... no one else. I think now is the time to introduce 4 cores to the iMac range.
You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price.
But it isn't and this should be clear to anybody spending a dew minutes on the net or in a local computer store. At this point, for a desk top, iMacs performance is crap. Further it isn't a platform for running SL to it's full potential. Buying an iMac right now is a poor choice if you expect to leverage any of the improvements to SL or the improved apps for SL.
The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price.
I can't make sense of the above statement!! What does the Mac Pros price have to do with the iMacs performance? Nothing that I can see.
In any event thanks for your overbearing attitude and arrogance in defining what an individual user needs performance wise. What next, are you going to tell me what type of vehicle I need to drive or where I should drive that vehicle to?
I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
Hey great for you, but have you considered that the rest of the world doesn't support your point of view. Frankly I just don't understand this regressive attitude, it is like saying my gas mileage I get on my truck is good enough when clearly it isn't. If the whole country had this attitude we would be in a world of hurt. Which is sort of like a bag of hurt, except there is a wider impact.
Dave
Yes, most people asking for a fully serviceable iMac are really objecting to the iMac's philosophy.
The iMac is pretty nifty and powerfully but I didn't hear about it becoming self aware and developing it's own philosophy.
Seriously what do you think Apples philosophy is with the iMac? Moreso why should we accept it without comment?
[/quote]
RAM and Hard Drive upgrades are the only necessity.
[/quote]
The arguement is wider than just upgrades, serviceability is a huge consideration also. In fact I suspect more iMacs get rejected for that reason in the corporate world than anything else.
For the price point, I think Apple needs to do away with integrated graphics in the iMac entirely.
Actually Intel is screwing the GPU makers. So the world of integrated graphics may go away, at least in the sense that we use to know it. In the near future the common choices may be Intel integrated graphics or PCI-E connected cards. I suspect that Intel had a serious fear of the integrated chipset makers and decided to play dirty pool.
But the graphics card doesn't need to be accessible.
Probably not but we have a whole new generation of GPUs coming. These will offer higher performance at a lower power point. More importantly they provide fine OpenCL support. For some people an upgradable GPU can be very important. In many ways it provides for a way to massively increase a codes performance in a way that could never happen with an upgradeable CPU.
Dave
Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple?s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
Apple should be remembering that they have to pay technicians to repair them and it costs Apple a lot less if it's a 1 labor unit job rather than a 2 labor unit job. A better layout would reduce basic labor costs and make it far less likely that something will get damaged in the process.
I worked in a service department a few years ago. We all hated the 12" Powerbook because they were a nightmare to work on. The technicians considered them punishment because jobs always took longer than Apple was willing to pay for. When something cuts into your pay check you get grumpy about it. I guarantee there were celebrations all over the world when the last AppleCare policy expired on that model.
I'm not saying the iMac is anywhere near that bad, but anything that's a royal pain to work on earns Apple no friends in the service department.
*Or care, for that matter.
Or completely missing the point of the comment. The comment wasn't directed at the user community. Rather it reflects on the idea that if Apple can take the MBP from a mess to the fine example of engineering we have today then they can do the same for iMac.
The internals are laid out to maximize cooling, not serviceability.
It doesn't matter what you think the layout is for as the two goals are not exclusive of each other. The new MBP pretty much proves this point.
Not great for the consumer when they want to upgrade the inside, but great for the consumer when it comes to having a cool machine (this equals longer component life).
That is starting to sound like making excuses. Really it does.
Dave
Let's say an iMac will last 5 years before it's too slow for the original purchaser.
So when would a desktop Core i7 based Mac reach the same point of obsolescence? I think it's pretty fair to say 5 years after Apple introduces an iMac with equivalent performance since iMacs last 5 years.
So the question is when will the iMac equal today's desktop? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013?
Using the current design philosophy and the improvements made in the last few years I'd say it'll be 2012 when the iMac matches today's desktop.
So while an iMac lasts 5 years, the desktop would last the three years from now until 2012 and then 5 more for a total of 8 years.
That's impressive value for consumers, but terrible for Apple. They used to make long lasting computers and it nearly drove them into bankruptcy.
Apple collectively and Steve Jobs personally hates people who hang onto old equipment even when it's still useable. The new Apple is structured around rapid replacement and upgrade. If you can't or won't replace your Mac every 3-4 years and your iPod/iPhone every 2 years, then they really don't want you as a customer.
MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!!
...So when would a desktop Core i7 based Mac reach the same point of obsolescence? I think it's pretty fair to say 5 years after Apple introduces an iMac with equivalent performance since iMacs last 5 years...
You could have a Core i7 iMac launched tomorrow which supports up to 8GB and that can last a good 5 years... Except... The hard disk will start to be too slow (you would need to be able to put in an SSD) by the 3rd year. If it is a 9400 GPU then by the 2nd year OpenCL / games/ CoreImage-driven stuff will start to get bogged down.
It's tough to say which will play a greater role... CPU? Graphics? RAM? Hard Disk speed? ... as a computer gets older and new apps/ operating systems come out over the next 3 to 5 years.
But it isn't and this should be clear to anybody spending a dew minutes on the net or in a local computer store. At this point, for a desk top, iMacs performance is crap. Further it isn't a platform for running SL to it's full potential. Buying an iMac right now is a poor choice if you expect to leverage any of the improvements to SL or the improved apps for SL.
I can't make sense of the above statement!! What does the Mac Pros price have to do with the iMacs performance? Nothing that I can see.
In any event thanks for your overbearing attitude and arrogance in defining what an individual user needs performance wise. What next, are you going to tell me what type of vehicle I need to drive or where I should drive that vehicle to?
Hey great for you, but have you considered that the rest of the world doesn't support your point of view. Frankly I just don't understand this regressive attitude, it is like saying my gas mileage I get on my truck is good enough when clearly it isn't. If the whole country had this attitude we would be in a world of hurt. Which is sort of like a bag of hurt, except there is a wider impact.
Dave
Overbearing attitude and arrogance? Can you point me to the post that particular post? I never claimed to represent 'the rest of the word'. This is a forum, where people are allowed to express their own opinions and ideas. Kind of the point, no? Try to relax a little and grow up. Personal attacks gain you nothing and frankly make you look your trolling. Your comments are unnecessarily inflammatory and acidic.
People with requirements that exceed the normal usage will always have additional obstacles to face, but I think saying that they are suffering is an exaggeration. As much as I love my 13” MBP and iPhone I could rattle off hundreds of things that I wish Apple would change about the device to suit my specific needs and wants, but I don’t expect them to do so simply because I want them to. Some things I’ve written to Apple about because I feel it would benefit the majority o users.
Other things, like a double capacity battery that makes the phone millimeters thicker and several ounces heavier is something I don’t mind having but something that many iPhone users wouldn’t like and would likely hurt Apple’s sales and vision of a slim iPhone. MY solution was to buy the Mophie Juice Pack Air. I can keep it on while charging and syncing and get more than a full day or excessive internet use on 3G out of my iPhone. The only caveat is that Apple only licenses the male end of their 30-pin connector so a female mini-USB port is used on the Mophie. Those are just a bitch to connect. Another thing I’d like to have seen done away with years ago is the optical drive in notebooks. I haven’t used it in years, and while I am certain this will happen eventually I think the majority of people still need or want one at this point.
Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple’s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
The iPhone didn't move up market to replace the low end Macbook like the iMac did with the PowerMac. The first couple versions are excellent for what they are, great consumer machines. However, the game changes after that $1799 model and you're dealing with a set of users with different requirements. If you're going to make it the only option, you can't push a low to median end machine on high end users. Either the higher end iMac need to suit the higher end users that have been herded to them (easy access, two more DIMM slots, twin hard drives, quad core CPUs) or Apple needs an affordable PowerMac (Mac Pro) again.
As for the optical drive, you are in the minority. If people bought a Macbook and found out you couldn't install software or import a CD or watch a DVD, they might not buy another one. You'd have to either pay $100 to lug another thing around or be completely reliant on Apple. They might just decide that Win7 is good enough.
Apple should be remembering that they have to pay technicians to repair them and it costs Apple a lot less if it's a 1 labor unit job rather than a 2 labor unit job. A better layout would reduce basic labor costs and make it far less likely that something will get damaged in the process.
I worked in a service department a few years ago. We all hated the 12" Powerbook because they were a nightmare to work on. The technicians considered them punishment because jobs always took longer than Apple was willing to pay for. When something cuts into your pay check you get grumpy about it. I guarantee there were celebrations all over the world when the last AppleCare policy expired on that model.
I'm not saying the iMac is anywhere near that bad, but anything that's a royal pain to work on earns Apple no friends in the service department.
When I had my hard drive replaced a couple of weeks ago, they pretty much admitted that while they had the part in store, mine would be on the back burner because iMac maintenance was so time consuming.