I totally agree. What is this obsession with thinness? What's the point? The user sits in front of the computer! What does it matter if it's 1/4", 1/2", or 1" thick?
I think that compromising features just to get it thinner is not a good idea. Plus, I have never been a big fan of the thermal design of the last generation of iMacs. Those iMacs seem to have a higher failure rate than that of past machines. I know a number of people that have internal hard drive failures, plus motherboards seem to go bad more than usual. The graphics chip freaks out and stops working properly. These types of failures are often due to long-term thermal stress.
Did you ever push one of those iMac hard for a while and then feel how HOT the exhaust air is across the top? That just stresses everything out.
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).
There's no double standard anywhere, I'm talking about two distinct products with two completely different functions. Laptops compromise their peripherals for portability and a built-in UPS. Desktops, however, do not have the portability constraint, so they should not make such compromises, especially when they don't have to. A desktop does NOT need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac, it does NOT need to have its optical drive removed for space, it does NOT need to have communication ports removed, and it does NOT need to sound worse than the average TV.
This strikes me as a combination of gross exaggeration, (sound "worse than the average TV), and backwards logic (you say that the ODD was removed so it could be thin, but I say it's thin because the ODD was removed). Additionally, all of the other changes, like the "laptop" hard drive on the 21.5" model, and the removal of Firewire, and the "sealed" design have logical reasons behind them that don't have anything to do with the thin-ness.
It seems to me that you are just assuming the thin-ness is the driver behind these design choices when in fact you have no real evidence of this and there are many other explanations to the contrary. I think you are just selling a variation on the "Apple does form over function" argument here. An argument that has been discredited over and over again.
Laptops compromise their peripherals for portability and a built-in UPS. Desktops, however, do not have the portability constraint, so they should not make such compromises, especially when they don't have to. A desktop does NOT need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac, it does NOT need to have its optical drive removed for space, it does NOT need to have communication ports removed, and it does NOT need to sound worse than the average TV.
First, has it ever occurred to you that Apple didn't remove things in order to make the iMac thinner ("compromise"), but instead, found that after removing legacy features, the iMac could be made thinner?
If we never removed ports, features, and peripherals, you'd still have Apple Desktop Bus, NuBus slots, 3.5" floppy disks, 25-pin SCSI ports, serial ports, and even a phone jack for a modem.
Just because you do not need to remove something does not mean you shouldn't.
Second, the performance targets you made up for a desktop are completely arbitrary. You say a desktop does not need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac? You just drew the line in the sand at the 2011 design? What about the 2001 iMac? Does a desktop need to be thinner than that? It does not need to sound worse than the average TV? How is that the appropriate benchmark? The average TV is designed to be viewed across a room, not sitting at arms length in front of you. Isn't it more appropriate to compare the iMac's sound quality against that of other desktop computers with built-in speakers?
That's a dangerous slippery slope position. The existence of bad advice should not preclude the invitation to offer advice. If it did, Apple would not have so many "Send Feedback" options throughout their apps and website.
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.
This point often gets lost. Everything is a compromise.
Apple has elected to eliminate some of the customer serviceable parts on their products (even going so far as to not have swappable batteries in the iPhone, of course).
While the customer loses some convenience, there is a benefit as well. The ability to swap batteries, RAM, hard disks, etc requires the system to use additional space and have additional reinforcements. The product is more sturdy the way Apple is doing it. More reliable. Smaller. Lighter. Less expensive. It allows them to make a much more environmentally benign product that will last longer without problems - and keep the cost manageable.
If someone wants a big clunky computer where every component can be swapped by the user, they can build their own. Or buy a cheap Dell box. But that's not a feature that Apple's target audience values very much, so why not eliminate it - and obtain all the benefits listed above?
[quote]1) So your argument is now that it's not required by some law you've invented so Apple shouldn't do it even if it's what the average iMac customer wants?[/quote]
Straw man argument fallacy. Also, my argument never changed, I merely stated that there was no double standard anywhere by demonstrating that I was, in fact, comparing completely different products.
[quote]2) There was room in the previous iMac for a 3.5" and 5.25" floppy drive. Does that mean Apple should have included it? They also could have put a hundreds of USB ports in the back. Can you guess why they didn't?[/quote]
Reduction to absurdity fallacy.
[quote]3) Bottom line is that you feel slighted by the changes as if Apple is required to design its products around your specific needs. My interpretation of for-profit companies is that focusing on single user's obsolescing wishes does not a successful business model make. I found that I didn't use my ODD as of many years ago and felt the inclusion in my 13" MBP — taking up 25% of the internal space — was a waste but I didn't complain that Apple had stopped innovating, I found a solution with OptiBay.[/quote]
This thread is about desktops, not laptops, so moot point.
[quote]Wow... So, because you have a DVD player in your living room, and you continue to want to put DVD's into that machine ......... This suddenly makes using Optical Drives in an iMac less obsolete (because apparently the two are somehow related)?[/quote]
Maybe I want to record something to listen / watch on my living room, such as stuff from iTunes... Maybe I actually use optical media because of how cheap, disposable, and universal it is... Whatever the case, just because YOU don't find optical media useful, doesn't mean it NEEDS to be removed. It's an all-in-one, after all; if we're going to have to buy multiple devices to go use it, then where's the "all" part of the all-in-one?
[quote]This strikes me as a combination of gross exaggeration, (sound "worse than the average TV), and backwards logic (you say that the ODD was removed so it could be thin, but I say it's thin because the ODD was removed). Additionally, all of the other changes, like the "laptop" hard drive on the 21.5" model, and the removal of Firewire, and the "sealed" design have logical reasons behind them that don't have anything to do with the thin-ness.[/quote]
How is it gross exaggeration? The mid-2011 iMac already sounds like your average TV, and that has bass response, so assuming this one sounds worse (otherwise the reviewers wouldn't waste time pointing it out), what makes what I said an exaggeration of any kind?
What exactly do you gain with the removal of the optical drive? What exactly do you gain with the removal of the Firewire and line-in ports? If you're going to answer "a thinner all-in-one", then you'll be validating my point of view, so think carefully...
[quote]First, has it ever occurred to you that Apple didn't remove things in order to make the iMac thinner ("compromise"), but instead, found that after removing legacy features, the iMac could be made thinner?[/quote]
Yes, but then how can you explain the compromise in audio quality?
[quote]If we never removed ports, features, and peripherals, you'd still have Apple Desktop Bus, NuBus slots, 3.5" floppy disks, 25-pin SCSI ports, serial ports, and even a phone jack for a modem.[/quote]
And how exactly would that be a bad thing? I had a 3.5" floppy drive on my desktop all the way until I gave it away in 2011. I seldom used it, but it didn't hurt to be there, either, so I fail to understand your point.
[quote]If we never removed ports, features, and peripherals, you'd still have Apple Desktop Bus, NuBus slots, 3.5" floppy disks, 25-pin SCSI ports, serial ports, and even a phone jack for a modem.[/quote]
And why should you?
[quote]Second, the performance targets you made up for a desktop are completely arbitrary.[/quote]
No, they are not. They are based on the performance of existing products of the same kind.
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
I think those are beneficial side-effects, maybe not the primary intent. What really sells a product is impressing a prospective buyer, and a very thin design helps with that.
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Second, the performance targets you made up for a desktop are completely arbitrary. You say a desktop does not need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac? You just drew the line in the sand at the 2011 design? What about the 2001 iMac? Does a desktop need to be thinner than that? It does not need to sound worse than the average TV? How is that the appropriate benchmark? The average TV is designed to be viewed across a room, not sitting at arms length in front of you. Isn't it more appropriate to compare the iMac's sound quality against that of other desktop computers with built-in speakers?</p>
The TV market seems to be going to thinner even though the diminishing returns of practical benefit have already happened years ago. The market likes thinner because the profile looks nicer, never mind the stand or even the wall mount. I don't think the typical consumer cares about reduced material use, but that is a benefit too. While someone sitting *at* the computer won't see the thinness at the time of sitting, those passing or standing near the unit will.
I'm sure the sound quality is pretty good for internal pieces. External speakers have always been the way to improve on it. Adding more resonant volume inside the iMac is a less than ideal solution to improve sound.
Best AIO on the market, and has been for several years now.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not an AIO without an optical drive. They still are highly practical for many (not all) people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoJimu
Decent-sounding speakers need depth. Looks like form wins out over function this time.
With Apple, every time and I think that's one of their weaknesses. It's great to own beautifully designed products of any type, but these are products that are primarily used for their functionality. I know that Apple has often dropped old technology to push ahead with new technology and I've generally supported that. But as per the above, I think dropping the optical drive is a big mistake. Reducing the audio quality is a big mistake. When it comes down to it, what difference does it make how thick the screen is on a desktop, especially if that means losing functionality? How often do you look at that computer from the side? If I have to buy an external speaker system, then it's not an AIO anymore, is it? If I also have to buy an optical drive either because I want to transfer a CD to iTunes or (gasp!) I want to watch a DVD, now I've got at least three extra boxes on my desk and in spite of the beautiful Mac, my desk doesn't look so nice anymore. And why do I think that the dropping of the optical drive was not just about form, but also about Apple forcing people to only buy content from iTunes?
So I spend from $1300 to $2000 for the stock configurations, I have to add another $1300 if I want the flash drive, I've lost the optical drive, the sound apparently sucks and as an end-user, I can't easily replace memory or the hard drive myself? And this is supposed to be progress? All so the display can look fantastic when viewed from the side?
I've been an Apple customer since 1980, but I'm growing increasingly frustrated with Apple these days for a variety of reasons. Luckily for Apple, there's not much of an alternative. Apple's got lots of other issues besides Maps.
1) So your argument is now that it's not required by some law you've invented so Apple shouldn't do it even if it's what the average iMac customer wants?
2) There was room in the previous iMac for a 3.5" and 5.25" floppy drive. Does that mean Apple should have included it? They also could have put a hundreds of USB ports in the back. Can you guess why they didn't?
3) Bottom line is that you feel slighted by the changes as if Apple is required to design its products around your specific needs. My interpretation of for-profit companies is that focusing on single user's obsolescing wishes does not a successful business model make. I found that I didn't use my ODD as of many years ago and felt the inclusion in my 13" MBP — taking up 25% of the internal space — was a waste but I didn't complain that Apple had stopped innovating, I found a solution with OptiBay.
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....
You're probably right.
It's hard to imagine how a reasonable person can argue that making a product thinner has no intrinsic value and use examples of watching obsolete DVD quality video on your 2560x1440 iMac is something Apple should bend over backwards to cater in 2012.
Had they soldered the RAM to the board or something like that, I could understand the immediate frustration, but as far as I can tell this new enclosure is just as functional and even more powerful than it's predecessor -- hardly a step backward in my opinion.
The panel now appears to be glued to the chassis which on the 21" makes the RAM non-upgradeable.
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....
I got banned and unbanned. Not sure what you intend to accomplish by pointing that out, though.
It's hard to imagine how a reasonable person can argue that making a product thinner has no intrinsic value and use examples of watching obsolete DVD quality video on your 2560x1440 iMac is something Apple should bend over backwards to cater in 2012.
My posts must be giving you a lot of trouble, if you have to create such a straw man to make me look unreasonable...
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.
The panel now appears to be glued to the chassis which on the 21" makes the RAM non-upgradeable.
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:
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.
1) It is too bad they didn't go with magnets for this model.
2) At least this does give the option to have some shop replace the RAM for you which is not an option if it's soldered. (edit: The more involved part seems to be how much effort is needed to get to the RAM once you get inside the machine. Still, someone who has experience with this could do probably do it in under a half hour.)
3) Right now 16GB is the max because 8GB sticks are the max but I wouldn't be surprised if we see 12 or 16GB sticks within a year and these iMacs automatically handling them.
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 ;-)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by David291
I totally agree. What is this obsession with thinness? What's the point? The user sits in front of the computer! What does it matter if it's 1/4", 1/2", or 1" thick?
I think that compromising features just to get it thinner is not a good idea. Plus, I have never been a big fan of the thermal design of the last generation of iMacs. Those iMacs seem to have a higher failure rate than that of past machines. I know a number of people that have internal hard drive failures, plus motherboards seem to go bad more than usual. The graphics chip freaks out and stops working properly. These types of failures are often due to long-term thermal stress.
Did you ever push one of those iMac hard for a while and then feel how HOT the exhaust air is across the top? That just stresses everything out.
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
There's no double standard anywhere, I'm talking about two distinct products with two completely different functions. Laptops compromise their peripherals for portability and a built-in UPS. Desktops, however, do not have the portability constraint, so they should not make such compromises, especially when they don't have to. A desktop does NOT need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac, it does NOT need to have its optical drive removed for space, it does NOT need to have communication ports removed, and it does NOT need to sound worse than the average TV.
This strikes me as a combination of gross exaggeration, (sound "worse than the average TV), and backwards logic (you say that the ODD was removed so it could be thin, but I say it's thin because the ODD was removed). Additionally, all of the other changes, like the "laptop" hard drive on the 21.5" model, and the removal of Firewire, and the "sealed" design have logical reasons behind them that don't have anything to do with the thin-ness.
It seems to me that you are just assuming the thin-ness is the driver behind these design choices when in fact you have no real evidence of this and there are many other explanations to the contrary. I think you are just selling a variation on the "Apple does form over function" argument here. An argument that has been discredited over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Laptops compromise their peripherals for portability and a built-in UPS. Desktops, however, do not have the portability constraint, so they should not make such compromises, especially when they don't have to. A desktop does NOT need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac, it does NOT need to have its optical drive removed for space, it does NOT need to have communication ports removed, and it does NOT need to sound worse than the average TV.
First, has it ever occurred to you that Apple didn't remove things in order to make the iMac thinner ("compromise"), but instead, found that after removing legacy features, the iMac could be made thinner?
If we never removed ports, features, and peripherals, you'd still have Apple Desktop Bus, NuBus slots, 3.5" floppy disks, 25-pin SCSI ports, serial ports, and even a phone jack for a modem.
Just because you do not need to remove something does not mean you shouldn't.
Second, the performance targets you made up for a desktop are completely arbitrary. You say a desktop does not need to be thinner than a 2011 iMac? You just drew the line in the sand at the 2011 design? What about the 2001 iMac? Does a desktop need to be thinner than that? It does not need to sound worse than the average TV? How is that the appropriate benchmark? The average TV is designed to be viewed across a room, not sitting at arms length in front of you. Isn't it more appropriate to compare the iMac's sound quality against that of other desktop computers with built-in speakers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
That's a dangerous slippery slope position. The existence of bad advice should not preclude the invitation to offer advice. If it did, Apple would not have so many "Send Feedback" options throughout their apps and website.
Is that your polite way of saying "STFU"?
This point often gets lost. Everything is a compromise.
Apple has elected to eliminate some of the customer serviceable parts on their products (even going so far as to not have swappable batteries in the iPhone, of course).
While the customer loses some convenience, there is a benefit as well. The ability to swap batteries, RAM, hard disks, etc requires the system to use additional space and have additional reinforcements. The product is more sturdy the way Apple is doing it. More reliable. Smaller. Lighter. Less expensive. It allows them to make a much more environmentally benign product that will last longer without problems - and keep the cost manageable.
If someone wants a big clunky computer where every component can be swapped by the user, they can build their own. Or buy a cheap Dell box. But that's not a feature that Apple's target audience values very much, so why not eliminate it - and obtain all the benefits listed above?
Straw man argument fallacy. Also, my argument never changed, I merely stated that there was no double standard anywhere by demonstrating that I was, in fact, comparing completely different products.
[quote]2) There was room in the previous iMac for a 3.5" and 5.25" floppy drive. Does that mean Apple should have included it? They also could have put a hundreds of USB ports in the back. Can you guess why they didn't?[/quote]
Reduction to absurdity fallacy.
[quote]3) Bottom line is that you feel slighted by the changes as if Apple is required to design its products around your specific needs. My interpretation of for-profit companies is that focusing on single user's obsolescing wishes does not a successful business model make. I found that I didn't use my ODD as of many years ago and felt the inclusion in my 13" MBP — taking up 25% of the internal space — was a waste but I didn't complain that Apple had stopped innovating, I found a solution with OptiBay.[/quote]
This thread is about desktops, not laptops, so moot point.
[quote]Wow... So, because you have a DVD player in your living room, and you continue to want to put DVD's into that machine ......... This suddenly makes using Optical Drives in an iMac less obsolete (because apparently the two are somehow related)?[/quote]
Maybe I want to record something to listen / watch on my living room, such as stuff from iTunes... Maybe I actually use optical media because of how cheap, disposable, and universal it is... Whatever the case, just because YOU don't find optical media useful, doesn't mean it NEEDS to be removed. It's an all-in-one, after all; if we're going to have to buy multiple devices to go use it, then where's the "all" part of the all-in-one?
[quote]This strikes me as a combination of gross exaggeration, (sound "worse than the average TV), and backwards logic (you say that the ODD was removed so it could be thin, but I say it's thin because the ODD was removed). Additionally, all of the other changes, like the "laptop" hard drive on the 21.5" model, and the removal of Firewire, and the "sealed" design have logical reasons behind them that don't have anything to do with the thin-ness.[/quote]
How is it gross exaggeration? The mid-2011 iMac already sounds like your average TV, and that has bass response, so assuming this one sounds worse (otherwise the reviewers wouldn't waste time pointing it out), what makes what I said an exaggeration of any kind?
What exactly do you gain with the removal of the optical drive? What exactly do you gain with the removal of the Firewire and line-in ports? If you're going to answer "a thinner all-in-one", then you'll be validating my point of view, so think carefully...
[quote]First, has it ever occurred to you that Apple didn't remove things in order to make the iMac thinner ("compromise"), but instead, found that after removing legacy features, the iMac could be made thinner?[/quote]
Yes, but then how can you explain the compromise in audio quality?
[quote]If we never removed ports, features, and peripherals, you'd still have Apple Desktop Bus, NuBus slots, 3.5" floppy disks, 25-pin SCSI ports, serial ports, and even a phone jack for a modem.[/quote]
And how exactly would that be a bad thing? I had a 3.5" floppy drive on my desktop all the way until I gave it away in 2011. I seldom used it, but it didn't hurt to be there, either, so I fail to understand your point.
[quote]If we never removed ports, features, and peripherals, you'd still have Apple Desktop Bus, NuBus slots, 3.5" floppy disks, 25-pin SCSI ports, serial ports, and even a phone jack for a modem.[/quote]
And why should you?
[quote]Second, the performance targets you made up for a desktop are completely arbitrary.[/quote]
No, they are not. They are based on the performance of existing products of the same kind.
I think those are beneficial side-effects, maybe not the primary intent. What really sells a product is impressing a prospective buyer, and a very thin design helps with that.
The TV market seems to be going to thinner even though the diminishing returns of practical benefit have already happened years ago. The market likes thinner because the profile looks nicer, never mind the stand or even the wall mount. I don't think the typical consumer cares about reduced material use, but that is a benefit too. While someone sitting *at* the computer won't see the thinness at the time of sitting, those passing or standing near the unit will.
I'm sure the sound quality is pretty good for internal pieces. External speakers have always been the way to improve on it. Adding more resonant volume inside the iMac is a less than ideal solution to improve sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Best AIO on the market, and has been for several years now.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not an AIO without an optical drive. They still are highly practical for many (not all) people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoJimu
Decent-sounding speakers need depth. Looks like form wins out over function this time.
With Apple, every time and I think that's one of their weaknesses. It's great to own beautifully designed products of any type, but these are products that are primarily used for their functionality. I know that Apple has often dropped old technology to push ahead with new technology and I've generally supported that. But as per the above, I think dropping the optical drive is a big mistake. Reducing the audio quality is a big mistake. When it comes down to it, what difference does it make how thick the screen is on a desktop, especially if that means losing functionality? How often do you look at that computer from the side? If I have to buy an external speaker system, then it's not an AIO anymore, is it? If I also have to buy an optical drive either because I want to transfer a CD to iTunes or (gasp!) I want to watch a DVD, now I've got at least three extra boxes on my desk and in spite of the beautiful Mac, my desk doesn't look so nice anymore. And why do I think that the dropping of the optical drive was not just about form, but also about Apple forcing people to only buy content from iTunes?
So I spend from $1300 to $2000 for the stock configurations, I have to add another $1300 if I want the flash drive, I've lost the optical drive, the sound apparently sucks and as an end-user, I can't easily replace memory or the hard drive myself? And this is supposed to be progress? All so the display can look fantastic when viewed from the side?
I've been an Apple customer since 1980, but I'm growing increasingly frustrated with Apple these days for a variety of reasons. Luckily for Apple, there's not much of an alternative. Apple's got lots of other issues besides Maps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) So your argument is now that it's not required by some law you've invented so Apple shouldn't do it even if it's what the average iMac customer wants?
2) There was room in the previous iMac for a 3.5" and 5.25" floppy drive. Does that mean Apple should have included it? They also could have put a hundreds of USB ports in the back. Can you guess why they didn't?
3) Bottom line is that you feel slighted by the changes as if Apple is required to design its products around your specific needs. My interpretation of for-profit companies is that focusing on single user's obsolescing wishes does not a successful business model make. I found that I didn't use my ODD as of many years ago and felt the inclusion in my 13" MBP — taking up 25% of the internal space — was a waste but I didn't complain that Apple had stopped innovating, I found a solution with OptiBay.
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....
You're probably right.
It's hard to imagine how a reasonable person can argue that making a product thinner has no intrinsic value and use examples of watching obsolete DVD quality video on your 2560x1440 iMac is something Apple should bend over backwards to cater in 2012.
I got banned and unbanned. Not sure what you intend to accomplish by pointing that out, though.
My posts must be giving you a lot of trouble, if you have to create such a straw man to make me look unreasonable...
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.
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.
Watch a video where OWC uses a guitar pick (and no heat gun) to dismount the screen:
http://blog.macsales.com/15932-what-does-it-take-to-upgrade-a-2012-imac-21-5
1) It is too bad they didn't go with magnets for this model.
2) At least this does give the option to have some shop replace the RAM for you which is not an option if it's soldered. (edit: The more involved part seems to be how much effort is needed to get to the RAM once you get inside the machine. Still, someone who has experience with this could do probably do it in under a half hour.)
3) Right now 16GB is the max because 8GB sticks are the max but I wouldn't be surprised if we see 12 or 16GB sticks within a year and these iMacs automatically handling them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
There we go. "Bass response-gate" is now in business on the forums. After all, wasn't the whole point of the iMac to be room-filling speakers?
Can't you let someone express their opinion without resorting to the tiresome refrain of XXXX-gate and sophomoric sarcasm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
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 ;-)