I didn't know the 27" models had socketed CPUs. My first 27" was the 2009 model with the i7. Nice machine. Never had any issues with it. I should have upgraded it to an SSD or a fusion drive in the DVD, but instead, sold it. I shouldn't have.
Looks like I'll be buying one now. Tired of waiting for 5120x2880 displays which may never come.
Removing the logic board from the iMac, iFixit found that the 21.5-inch model features an empty PCIe SSD slot, which means that it could very well be expanded if a user chose to do so. The 27-inch model also features this empty slot.
The empty SSD slot would be for the build to order Fusion drive.
I just priced one configuration that I would like: $3,497.00
These guys make so much noise to sell 10 different sizes of one screwdrivers and 200+ Ads on each & every page on their site! That's what they do.
It just reminds of bunch of little kids get together and unscrew whatever they can get their hands on!
Look Ma, what we did with our new toys!
I completely disagree. Not everything has to be replaceable, but access to memory and drives should be easy. Without it, there's a built-in obsolescence to these machines, which IMO, is unethical (although it does increase Apple's revenues to some extent). It's like having a car where you can't change the oil yourself or easily replace tires.
My old G4 tower was obviously easy to replace items. I upgraded memory, switched out the CD drive for a DVD-R and upgraded the storage twice. As a result, I was able to use that machine for seven years. I only got rid of it because it couldn't really handle video editing.
My late 2008 Mac Book Pro is also pretty terrific in this regard. Both the battery and the hard drive are accessible from the bottom cover and I've changed both. I've switched out the hard drive twice and am now using the equivalent of a fusion drive. Memory is accessible as well.
Why do we have to take steps backwards in the name of "thinness" on a desktop machine where how thin it is hardly matters anyway? I love Apple's approach to industrial design, but it should never take precedence over practicality and usability. And Apple should not be forcing its customers to buy a new machine simply because their existing machines can't be upgraded. You can't tell me that with Apple's design expertise, they couldn't have found a way to design the current laptops so that one still had access to replaceable memory and drives and that's even more true for the iMac.
I've been with Apple computers since the advent of the Apple II, but this really pisses me off -- enough so that my next computer might actually not be a Mac, even though I completely despise Windows.
Furthermore, Apple machines are not as reliable as they used to be so they do need to be repaired (although I personally haven't any problems other than a bad DVD-R drive in my MacBook Pro). My son-in-law works as a MacTech for a company that is all Mac and he constantly has to repair/replace components of these machines. While all this work keeps him employed, he feels that the last well-built Macs were the G4 towers.
I put it in my sig, but the thing is they are using a new "Huddler" moderation system that isn't under their control at all.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?!
The bad part is that once you are banned, you can log in, but you can't see your PM's and therefore you don't have any idea why you were banned or how long it's going to last.
Change your settings to receive e-mail when you get a new PM; there you’ll see the content of the most recent one. Now just to have it be an assured thing that PMs get sent when you get a ban…
It also seems like it can be gamed, in that the whiners who complain about every little perceived slight now have the upper hand and fairness has nothing to do with it.
If it exists, I see very much it being gamed. With as easy as it is to make an account here (I won’t publicly state just how easy), one member of the Anti-Apple Brigade could probably easily take out a fair portion of users here.
I've been with Apple computers since the advent of the Apple II, but this really pisses me off -- enough so that my next computer might actually not be a Mac, even though I completely despise Windows.
Furthermore, Apple machines are not as reliable as they used to be so they do need to be repaired (although I personally haven't any problems other than a bad DVD-R drive in my MacBook Pro). My son-in-law works as a MacTech for a company that is all Mac and he constantly has to repair/replace components of these machines. While all this work keeps him employed, he feels that the last well-built Macs were the G4 towers.
The reliability is better than ever on newer Macs. The old G4s were well known for having quite a few issues. I think you are just being nostalgic. The newer machines are very reliable. One reason is that all the internal components are so much better these days.
I completely disagree. Not everything has to be replaceable, but access to memory and drives should be easy. Without it, there's a built-in obsolescence to these machines, which IMO, is unethical (although it does increase Apple's revenues to some extent). It's like having a car where you can't change the oil yourself or easily replace tires.
Nonsense. Very few people actually upgrade their computers. If you really want to, you still can.
They're making the computers better for everyone in exchange for a slightly greater difficulty for the tiny percentage who want to upgrade. You may not agree with that choice, but it's not unethical.
There are still thousands of other computers you can buy if upgradeability is your prime consideration.
I've been with Apple computers since the advent of the Apple II, but this really pisses me off -- enough so that my next computer might actually not be a Mac, even though I completely despise Windows.
Furthermore, Apple machines are not as reliable as they used to be so they do need to be repaired (although I personally haven't any problems other than a bad DVD-R drive in my MacBook Pro). My son-in-law works as a MacTech for a company that is all Mac and he constantly has to repair/replace components of these machines. While all this work keeps him employed, he feels that the last well-built Macs were the G4 towers.
The reliability is better than ever on newer Macs. The old G4s were well known for having quite a few issues. I think you are just being nostalgic. The newer machines are very reliable. One reason is that all the internal components are so much better these days.
That's definitely my experience, based on many years and many devices. Reliability seems to be significantly improved.
Sad to say, Apple's employees make too much money to understand the lives of most Americans. For them an iMac is a throwaway. For them, you and I with our need to budget money, to fix and to upgrade, don't exist.
I've got an old iMac I'd like to give to a nephew, but I hate to do so with a DVD stuck in the drive and getting it out is a big hassle. It's why I replaced it with a Mac mini and regard most people who buy iMacs as fools asking for trouble. A repairability of 2 out of 10 is dreadful.
And then there are all the silly environmental groups, hung up over whether the plastic or aluminum in Apple products are easy to recycle. Who cares? The plastic in an iPhone is less than than in milk bottles that are tossed away by the billions. Repairability is what matters. An iMac that's in use for six years has half the impact of one that has to be discarded after three.
Sad to say, Apple's employees make too much money to understand the lives of most Americans. For them an iMac is a throwaway. For them, you and I with our need to budget money, to fix and to upgrade, don't exist.
Really? I doubt that.
I've got an old iMac I'd like to give to a nephew, but I hate to do so with a DVD stuck in the drive and getting it out is a big hassle.
Ooh, tweezers. Hassle…
…most people who buy iMacs as fools asking for trouble. A repairability of 2 out of 10 is dreadful.
Sad to say, Apple's employees make too much money to understand the lives of most Americans. For them an iMac is a throwaway. For them, you and I with our need to budget money, to fix and to upgrade, don't exist.
I've got an old iMac I'd like to give to a nephew, but I hate to do so with a DVD stuck in the drive and getting it out is a big hassle. It's why I replaced it with a Mac mini and regard most people who buy iMacs as fools asking for trouble. A repairability of 2 out of 10 is dreadful.
And then there are all the silly environmental groups, hung up over whether the plastic or aluminum in Apple products are easy to recycle. Who cares? The plastic in an iPhone is less than than in milk bottles that are tossed away by the billions. Repairability is what matters. An iMac that's in use for six years has half the impact of one that has to be discarded after three.
An iMac that lasts for 6 years without repair has less impact than a computer that breaks down constantly due to 'repairable' construction.
Let's start with a simple question:
1. What percentage of iMacs break down vs what percentage of PCs? (Hint: the numbers are published and Macs have far greater reliability).
Now, a followup:
2. When a computer breaks, what percentage of iMacs are thrown out instead of repairing them and what percentage of PCs are thrown out instead of repairing them? (Hint: with their greater longevity and resale value, it's far more likely that the PC will be discarded).
I feel like I should address this because it crops up a few times but it ends up being a discussion in itself. It may be difficult but try to stick to the topic after reading this.
I think if you complain about someone they receive points, and eventually get banned and it's all automatic.
Bans can be given out manually but no longer are except for people who have been banned before and for spam. Manual bans mean that someone is banned because a mod decided it and it doesn't work best that way because there's no record of what a user did wrong and can't be justified to someone else that might check it later. Infractions are tied to comments so that there is a record of breaking the rules, which is almost always insulting another member because it's the most consistent rule to judge a post by. The infractions that lead to the bans are not automatic and given manually but it's pretty much never the case that a single infraction leads to the first ban and there are many temporary bans used after this to give people a chance to correct their posting style. If someone complains about another member and it doesn't hold up under the posting guidelines, no infractions are given.
The Huddler system doesn't seem to be very clear on what has happened when a ban is issued unfortunately but as mentioned, this is something only the Huddler team can change. Long term members don't have to be concerned about being trivially banned for no reason. It will always be temporary bans first and the list of infractions should show in the user profiles.
The old vBulletin system could be gamed more easily because it didn't flag multiple accounts. Anyone want to take a guess at who owns this secondary account:
The last sentence is particularly ironic. This kind of thing results in a permanent ban for both accounts but I will wait until this is read before implementing it.
the whiners who complain about every little perceived slight now have the upper hand and fairness has nothing to do with it.
Making a one-word post calling someone a jerk because you misunderstood the post is not a little perceived slight but an explicit breaking of the rules.
But seriously, I expect this post to be removed because they probably don't want anyone to know these things.
The system should be transparent enough for people to feel assured that they won't be banned without reason but not so transparent that people can purposely game the system as mentioned earlier.
If you don't insult other members of the forum or sign up multiple accounts, you won't get any infractions or bans.
With as easy as it is to make an account here (I won’t publicly state just how easy), one member of the Anti-Apple Brigade could probably easily take out a fair portion of users here.
It doesn't work like that. If for example a new Apple user signs up and doesn't like the new iOS 7, they don't deserve to be insulted after making one post. It's not always clear what the new user intends to do so typically posts are just deleted but it's not right to throw around insults as and when people decide it's appropriate because it encourages other members to do the same whenever they feel like it and then people see it as unfair if someone gets away with it and not others. No one should feel like they have the freedom to insult other members. Some people have an odd way of looking at this and a member has said in the past that they should be able to call someone an idiot if they are acting like an idiot. It should be obvious that if this was to be the case then it would quite quickly lead to an abusive discussion because how people react to what a person says varies from one person to another so it's inconsistent to apply rules that way.
If people don't like what another member says, use the ignore list. If a post is inappropriate, flag it and it'll be dealt with. It won't always be dealt with how people expect because people should feel like they have the freedom to express themselves. The intent of moderating is to keep the discussion civil, not to stifle it. Sometimes stifling certain comments is the only way to keep it civil but too much of that is not good for active discussions.
I have one of the old white 17" iMacs and had to replace its HD. Some years ago it had a warrantee repair, and I don’t think even trained techies are too good at disassembly judging by what I found. The RF shielding around the edge was damaged (only so it looked untidy) and 1 of the 4 hard-to-reach recessed screws that was missing.
On the plus side, the iFixit instructions were pretty useful, with only minor details (possibly production mods) wrong.
I wouldn’t risk taking apart a relatively new Mac, but if it’s a few years old and you want to save money, it isn’t that hard.
Some of us like keeping our old stuff rather than junking it whenever there’s a new toy. I for one would prefer it if Apple put more effort into making their boxes easier to open and repair. Not that they are alone in this: Microsoft’s slab (whatever) also gets low scores (1 out of 10 at iFixit for the “Pro”). That’s Microsoft for you: better than Apple at what you don’t want.
An iMac that lasts for 6 years without repair has less impact than a computer that breaks down constantly due to 'repairable' construction.
Let's start with a simple question:
1. What percentage of iMacs break down vs what percentage of PCs? (Hint: the numbers are published and Macs have far greater reliability).
Now, a followup:
2. When a computer breaks, what percentage of iMacs are thrown out instead of repairing them and what percentage of PCs are thrown out instead of repairing them? (Hint: with their greater longevity and resale value, it's far more likely that the PC will be discarded).
According to these numbers (<span style="line-height:1.4em;">http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020964/apple-and-lenovo-desktop-pcs-tops-in-satisfaction.html)</span>
, the difference in hardware reliability between desktop Macs and the top PC desktops isn't all that much. Hard drives crashes are the most frequent failure mode, and Apple's desktops still come standard with spinning hard drives.
The difference isn't all that much? Some of those brands have twice as many problems as Macs - and even the average is at least 50% higher.
Furthermore, you're ignoring several issues:
1. Much of the problem with repairs is the inconvenience factor - loss of data, having to take the computer out of service, drive to the repair facility, etc. A third lower incidence of problems is huge.
2. Even for the ones who have to have it repaired, a large fraction of those repairs will be warranty repairs - in which case repairability is irrelevant.
3. Even for non-warranty repairs, most people take their computer in for repair rather than fixing it themselves, anyway. Again, repairability is a non-issue (except for possibly a slightly higher cost for the Macs, although I don't know if even that's the case).
In the end, repairability matters only for the 10% of users who have a problem and of that 10%, only the very small fraction who would fix the computer themselves if it were more accessible, but choose not to because it's difficult on the Mac. That is undoubtedly less than 10% of the people who have problems (i.e., well under 1% of total customers). So, you have 10% of customers with a problem with Macs vs 15% with PCs - a reduction of 33% - in exchange for 1% of potential users who might be slightly inconvenienced. That sounds like a good tradeoff.
Oh, and btw, EVEN THAT overestimates the extent of the 'problem'. Those numbers include laptops and desktops. The Mac Pro is more accessible than most comparable PCs. The Mac laptops are roughly equivalent to comparable PCs. So the number of people who are affected by the iMac's 'inaccessibility' is miniscule.
Wow. You see Mac users getting this defensive a lot on PC forums, but rarely on AI.
iFixit isn't completely wrong. In the current economic climate, buying a $1000. computer and then not being able to supplement the RAM a couple years later is terribly shortsighted.
As for the hard drive situation, we've had this conversation about the iMac ad nauseum. I would say, that those of you who do "real work" on your iMacs should remember that last year's hard drive recall caused some of us to lose access to our work machines for more than six days.
Any professional losing a work machine for six days is losing a significant chunk of income. Sometimes enough income to almost buy the machine. Anyone who has owned a G4 or G5 and has swapped out the hard drive and been back up and running in under three hours will find that situation insane, because it is.
The iMac is inherently a compromise machine, albeit a pretty one.
Lots of pros are praying the entry-level Mac Pro comes in at a somewhat reasonable price.
Comments
I didn't know the 27" models had socketed CPUs. My first 27" was the 2009 model with the i7. Nice machine. Never had any issues with it. I should have upgraded it to an SSD or a fusion drive in the DVD, but instead, sold it. I shouldn't have.
Looks like I'll be buying one now. Tired of waiting for 5120x2880 displays which may never come.
(Crap. I didn't mean to start a new thread.)
iFixit just cares about selling tools and parts as a non-authorized Apple Repair service. The lest they can sell you, the lower the score.
contribute to a repairability "sore?"
Quote:
Removing the logic board from the iMac, iFixit found that the 21.5-inch model features an empty PCIe SSD slot, which means that it could very well be expanded if a user chose to do so. The 27-inch model also features this empty slot.
The empty SSD slot would be for the build to order Fusion drive.
I just priced one configuration that I would like: $3,497.00
BRAVO! BRAVO!
Well Said!
These guys make so much noise to sell 10 different sizes of one screwdrivers and 200+ Ads on each & every page on their site! That's what they do.
It just reminds of bunch of little kids get together and unscrew whatever they can get their hands on!
Look Ma, what we did with our new toys!
I completely disagree. Not everything has to be replaceable, but access to memory and drives should be easy. Without it, there's a built-in obsolescence to these machines, which IMO, is unethical (although it does increase Apple's revenues to some extent). It's like having a car where you can't change the oil yourself or easily replace tires.
My old G4 tower was obviously easy to replace items. I upgraded memory, switched out the CD drive for a DVD-R and upgraded the storage twice. As a result, I was able to use that machine for seven years. I only got rid of it because it couldn't really handle video editing.
My late 2008 Mac Book Pro is also pretty terrific in this regard. Both the battery and the hard drive are accessible from the bottom cover and I've changed both. I've switched out the hard drive twice and am now using the equivalent of a fusion drive. Memory is accessible as well.
Why do we have to take steps backwards in the name of "thinness" on a desktop machine where how thin it is hardly matters anyway? I love Apple's approach to industrial design, but it should never take precedence over practicality and usability. And Apple should not be forcing its customers to buy a new machine simply because their existing machines can't be upgraded. You can't tell me that with Apple's design expertise, they couldn't have found a way to design the current laptops so that one still had access to replaceable memory and drives and that's even more true for the iMac.
I've been with Apple computers since the advent of the Apple II, but this really pisses me off -- enough so that my next computer might actually not be a Mac, even though I completely despise Windows.
Furthermore, Apple machines are not as reliable as they used to be so they do need to be repaired (although I personally haven't any problems other than a bad DVD-R drive in my MacBook Pro). My son-in-law works as a MacTech for a company that is all Mac and he constantly has to repair/replace components of these machines. While all this work keeps him employed, he feels that the last well-built Macs were the G4 towers.
I put it in my sig, but the thing is they are using a new "Huddler" moderation system that isn't under their control at all.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?!
The bad part is that once you are banned, you can log in, but you can't see your PM's and therefore you don't have any idea why you were banned or how long it's going to last.
Change your settings to receive e-mail when you get a new PM; there you’ll see the content of the most recent one. Now just to have it be an assured thing that PMs get sent when you get a ban…
It also seems like it can be gamed, in that the whiners who complain about every little perceived slight now have the upper hand and fairness has nothing to do with it.
If it exists, I see very much it being gamed. With as easy as it is to make an account here (I won’t publicly state just how easy), one member of the Anti-Apple Brigade could probably easily take out a fair portion of users here.
I've been with Apple computers since the advent of the Apple II, but this really pisses me off -- enough so that my next computer might actually not be a Mac, even though I completely despise Windows.
Furthermore, Apple machines are not as reliable as they used to be so they do need to be repaired (although I personally haven't any problems other than a bad DVD-R drive in my MacBook Pro). My son-in-law works as a MacTech for a company that is all Mac and he constantly has to repair/replace components of these machines. While all this work keeps him employed, he feels that the last well-built Macs were the G4 towers.
The reliability is better than ever on newer Macs. The old G4s were well known for having quite a few issues. I think you are just being nostalgic. The newer machines are very reliable. One reason is that all the internal components are so much better these days.
Nonsense. Very few people actually upgrade their computers. If you really want to, you still can.
They're making the computers better for everyone in exchange for a slightly greater difficulty for the tiny percentage who want to upgrade. You may not agree with that choice, but it's not unethical.
There are still thousands of other computers you can buy if upgradeability is your prime consideration.
That's definitely my experience, based on many years and many devices. Reliability seems to be significantly improved.
I've got an old iMac I'd like to give to a nephew, but I hate to do so with a DVD stuck in the drive and getting it out is a big hassle. It's why I replaced it with a Mac mini and regard most people who buy iMacs as fools asking for trouble. A repairability of 2 out of 10 is dreadful.
And then there are all the silly environmental groups, hung up over whether the plastic or aluminum in Apple products are easy to recycle. Who cares? The plastic in an iPhone is less than than in milk bottles that are tossed away by the billions. Repairability is what matters. An iMac that's in use for six years has half the impact of one that has to be discarded after three.
Really? I doubt that.
Ooh, tweezers. Hassle…
Come on, man.
An iMac that lasts for 6 years without repair has less impact than a computer that breaks down constantly due to 'repairable' construction.
Let's start with a simple question:
1. What percentage of iMacs break down vs what percentage of PCs? (Hint: the numbers are published and Macs have far greater reliability).
Now, a followup:
2. When a computer breaks, what percentage of iMacs are thrown out instead of repairing them and what percentage of PCs are thrown out instead of repairing them? (Hint: with their greater longevity and resale value, it's far more likely that the PC will be discarded).
Bans can be given out manually but no longer are except for people who have been banned before and for spam. Manual bans mean that someone is banned because a mod decided it and it doesn't work best that way because there's no record of what a user did wrong and can't be justified to someone else that might check it later. Infractions are tied to comments so that there is a record of breaking the rules, which is almost always insulting another member because it's the most consistent rule to judge a post by. The infractions that lead to the bans are not automatic and given manually but it's pretty much never the case that a single infraction leads to the first ban and there are many temporary bans used after this to give people a chance to correct their posting style. If someone complains about another member and it doesn't hold up under the posting guidelines, no infractions are given.
The Huddler system doesn't seem to be very clear on what has happened when a ban is issued unfortunately but as mentioned, this is something only the Huddler team can change. Long term members don't have to be concerned about being trivially banned for no reason. It will always be temporary bans first and the list of infractions should show in the user profiles.
The old vBulletin system could be gamed more easily because it didn't flag multiple accounts. Anyone want to take a guess at who owns this secondary account:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/107997/opera-submits-iphone-browser-to-apple-for-app-store-review/80#post_1596259
The last sentence is particularly ironic. This kind of thing results in a permanent ban for both accounts but I will wait until this is read before implementing it.
Making a one-word post calling someone a jerk because you misunderstood the post is not a little perceived slight but an explicit breaking of the rules.
The system should be transparent enough for people to feel assured that they won't be banned without reason but not so transparent that people can purposely game the system as mentioned earlier.
If you don't insult other members of the forum or sign up multiple accounts, you won't get any infractions or bans.
It doesn't work like that. If for example a new Apple user signs up and doesn't like the new iOS 7, they don't deserve to be insulted after making one post. It's not always clear what the new user intends to do so typically posts are just deleted but it's not right to throw around insults as and when people decide it's appropriate because it encourages other members to do the same whenever they feel like it and then people see it as unfair if someone gets away with it and not others. No one should feel like they have the freedom to insult other members. Some people have an odd way of looking at this and a member has said in the past that they should be able to call someone an idiot if they are acting like an idiot. It should be obvious that if this was to be the case then it would quite quickly lead to an abusive discussion because how people react to what a person says varies from one person to another so it's inconsistent to apply rules that way.
If people don't like what another member says, use the ignore list. If a post is inappropriate, flag it and it'll be dealt with. It won't always be dealt with how people expect because people should feel like they have the freedom to express themselves. The intent of moderating is to keep the discussion civil, not to stifle it. Sometimes stifling certain comments is the only way to keep it civil but too much of that is not good for active discussions.
I have one of the old white 17" iMacs and had to replace its HD. Some years ago it had a warrantee repair, and I don’t think even trained techies are too good at disassembly judging by what I found. The RF shielding around the edge was damaged (only so it looked untidy) and 1 of the 4 hard-to-reach recessed screws that was missing.
On the plus side, the iFixit instructions were pretty useful, with only minor details (possibly production mods) wrong.
I wouldn’t risk taking apart a relatively new Mac, but if it’s a few years old and you want to save money, it isn’t that hard.
Some of us like keeping our old stuff rather than junking it whenever there’s a new toy. I for one would prefer it if Apple put more effort into making their boxes easier to open and repair. Not that they are alone in this: Microsoft’s slab (whatever) also gets low scores (1 out of 10 at iFixit for the “Pro”). That’s Microsoft for you: better than Apple at what you don’t want.
An iMac that lasts for 6 years without repair has less impact than a computer that breaks down constantly due to 'repairable' construction.
Let's start with a simple question:
1. What percentage of iMacs break down vs what percentage of PCs? (Hint: the numbers are published and Macs have far greater reliability).
Now, a followup:
2. When a computer breaks, what percentage of iMacs are thrown out instead of repairing them and what percentage of PCs are thrown out instead of repairing them? (Hint: with their greater longevity and resale value, it's far more likely that the PC will be discarded).
According to these numbers (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020964/apple-and-lenovo-desktop-pcs-tops-in-satisfaction.html), the difference in hardware reliability between desktop Macs and the top PC desktops isn't all that much. Hard drives crashes are the most frequent failure mode, and Apple's desktops still come standard with spinning hard drives.
The difference isn't all that much? Some of those brands have twice as many problems as Macs - and even the average is at least 50% higher.
Furthermore, you're ignoring several issues:
1. Much of the problem with repairs is the inconvenience factor - loss of data, having to take the computer out of service, drive to the repair facility, etc. A third lower incidence of problems is huge.
2. Even for the ones who have to have it repaired, a large fraction of those repairs will be warranty repairs - in which case repairability is irrelevant.
3. Even for non-warranty repairs, most people take their computer in for repair rather than fixing it themselves, anyway. Again, repairability is a non-issue (except for possibly a slightly higher cost for the Macs, although I don't know if even that's the case).
In the end, repairability matters only for the 10% of users who have a problem and of that 10%, only the very small fraction who would fix the computer themselves if it were more accessible, but choose not to because it's difficult on the Mac. That is undoubtedly less than 10% of the people who have problems (i.e., well under 1% of total customers). So, you have 10% of customers with a problem with Macs vs 15% with PCs - a reduction of 33% - in exchange for 1% of potential users who might be slightly inconvenienced. That sounds like a good tradeoff.
Oh, and btw, EVEN THAT overestimates the extent of the 'problem'. Those numbers include laptops and desktops. The Mac Pro is more accessible than most comparable PCs. The Mac laptops are roughly equivalent to comparable PCs. So the number of people who are affected by the iMac's 'inaccessibility' is miniscule.
Wow. You see Mac users getting this defensive a lot on PC forums, but rarely on AI.
iFixit isn't completely wrong. In the current economic climate, buying a $1000. computer and then not being able to supplement the RAM a couple years later is terribly shortsighted.
As for the hard drive situation, we've had this conversation about the iMac ad nauseum. I would say, that those of you who do "real work" on your iMacs should remember that last year's hard drive recall caused some of us to lose access to our work machines for more than six days.
Any professional losing a work machine for six days is losing a significant chunk of income. Sometimes enough income to almost buy the machine. Anyone who has owned a G4 or G5 and has swapped out the hard drive and been back up and running in under three hours will find that situation insane, because it is.
The iMac is inherently a compromise machine, albeit a pretty one.
Lots of pros are praying the entry-level Mac Pro comes in at a somewhat reasonable price.
In the current economic climate, buying a $1000. computer and then not being able to supplement the RAM a couple years later is terribly shortsighted.
Why did Apple post record numbers every single quarter during the recession, then?
Negating your point above…
Why did Apple post record numbers every single quarter during the recession, then?
Because too many people don't think for the long (or even medium) term when making economic decisions.
Why do you think the entire Western world is currently embroiled in a debt crisis?
Negating your point above…
Yeah, I caught that. But in fairness, buying an Pro machine without Thunderbolt or USB3 hasn't been a terribly smart decision either.
So a lot of people bought 27-inchers when they really needed a competitive Pro model.