TOTAL failures of Macs are around 10% according to the survey that someone published. That includes software problems, power supplies, video, RAM, CPU, GPU, and hard disk (or SSD). The number of failures due to RAM is only a fraction of those - perhaps 1% of all Macs sold. So a slight increase in RAM problems does not make the model junk. People who want upgradeable RAM are willing to accept that in exchange for the ability to swap RAM. But not all users want that - particularly those buying entry level computers.
It also does not mean that there's zero difference.
Of course there's a nonzero difference. By your own admission, however, the difference in failure rate is vanishingly small -- surely the Apple-bashing media would have picked up on the story if 27 inch iMacs had a noticeably higher incidence of RAM failure. Do you still stand by the following claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As just one example, soldered RAM is harder to fix, but it fails far, far, far less often than memory sticks that are inserted into a slot. Personally, I'd rather have a system that's designed not to fail than one that fails frequently, but is easier to fix.
I will go out on a limb and claim that customers won't notice the difference between a 1% and 1.2% rate of memory failure within the first five years of use; both rates are quite low. However, if you give them the choice of having socketed RAM that fails 1.2% of the time but can often be fixed by replacing an inexpensive RAM module, vs soldered RAM that fails 1% of the time, but always costs hundreds of dollars to fix (or whatever is the cost of an entire mobo, cpu, gpu, and all the RAM chips), I think there's no question of which option they would prefer.
What an uncharacteristically and pitifully, lame argument.
I'm disappointed in you tallest.
Wait, that was his argument. “Thousand dollar computers won’t sell well because we’re in a recession”. So I posted that Apple had proven him wrong by selling ever more thousand PLUS dollar computers during every quarter of the recession.
It’s an appeal to literacy or an appeal to please just look up Apple’s past quarterly reports, if anything.
There we have it. The world can stop buying iMacs. jfanning says that 100% of them have failed.
And PC support businesses had better close up shop today. jfanning says that PCs don't fail.
/s
Why do you have to be such a dick about everything.
You asked a question, I answered it, even said based on my own experience, get over yourself.
This forum is also a place for relaxation, making fun of competitors, interact with fellow Apple troopers who share the same passion and knowledge where we hope to not only learn something from a technical corner, but also to have your mindset look at things differently, thanks to the wealth of posts, links, thumbs-up comments, replies and possibly most of all, sharing your 'Apple-soul' in ways we might not have thought of as a possibility.
I for one like to replace my own ram and would like to add a larger aftermarket hard drive. I've done both on my late 2007 iMac. I LOVE to have a newer machine because frankly, this one has grown slower with all the pics and movies I edit. But, I've been a little reluctant because of the repairability of the new machines and the high cost of the Mac Pros that have been released. So count me as one who cares.
But, I’ve been a little reluctant because of the repairability of the new machines…
It’s no harder to get into than any other iMac, and once you’re in there you can do both of those things. Shouldn’t be a concern for someone who has already braved their iMac’s internals.
…and the high cost of the Mac Pros…
Which hasn’t been announced, unless you’re talking about the past ones for some reason, in which case an external hard drive is cheaper than a Mac Pro.
No, but can you please change the grammar of this sentence so it makes sense
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
… Are you trying to tell a native English speaker how to write his own language? Really? No. You’re completely wrong. Just freaking drop it. It was sad that this was your only rebuttal to the post; it’s beyond sad that you’re keeping this up. That you’re unaccustomed to seeing sentences written correctly isn’t my problem. I don’t end sentences with prepositions wherever possible.
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
Sorry but TS is correct. The clause in question is properly formed, and the meaning is clear.
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
Sorry but TS is correct. The clause in question is properly formed, and the meaning is clear.
Careful now, we don't want the jit to hit the fan.
Read this thread where the discussion turns to the English language, intertwined with nit-picking.
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
Sorry but TS is correct. The clause in question is properly formed, and the meaning is clear.
Careful now, we don't want the jit to hit the fan.
Read this thread where the discussion turns to the English language, intertwined with nit-picking.
Ah - interesting. How did you know to go looking in that thread? Anyway - his objection there was also incorrect, although not for the specific reasons given. It's a pretty common tactic, in the absence of a reasonable argument, simply to attempt to derail the issue under discussion.
I remembered a phrase from that thread, and, unlike my luck with Google, any Google search, I instantly found it. Turns out this search button does actually work on this site. It's incredibly useful.
Comments
OK, so you don't get math. Or logic.
TOTAL failures of Macs are around 10% according to the survey that someone published. That includes software problems, power supplies, video, RAM, CPU, GPU, and hard disk (or SSD). The number of failures due to RAM is only a fraction of those - perhaps 1% of all Macs sold. So a slight increase in RAM problems does not make the model junk. People who want upgradeable RAM are willing to accept that in exchange for the ability to swap RAM. But not all users want that - particularly those buying entry level computers.
It also does not mean that there's zero difference.
Of course there's a nonzero difference. By your own admission, however, the difference in failure rate is vanishingly small -- surely the Apple-bashing media would have picked up on the story if 27 inch iMacs had a noticeably higher incidence of RAM failure. Do you still stand by the following claim?
As just one example, soldered RAM is harder to fix, but it fails far, far, far less often than memory sticks that are inserted into a slot. Personally, I'd rather have a system that's designed not to fail than one that fails frequently, but is easier to fix.
What an uncharacteristically and pitifully, lame argument.
I'm disappointed in you tallest.
Wait, that was his argument. “Thousand dollar computers won’t sell well because we’re in a recession”. So I posted that Apple had proven him wrong by selling ever more thousand PLUS dollar computers during every quarter of the recession.
It’s an appeal to literacy or an appeal to please just look up Apple’s past quarterly reports, if anything.
Why do you have to be such a dick about everything.
You asked a question, I answered it, even said based on my own experience, get over yourself.
And the link to this survey is where?
Can you repost that last bit in english? What are they, your PC's or ones your've "been forced to work."
This forum is also a place for relaxation, making fun of competitors, interact with fellow Apple troopers who share the same passion and knowledge where we hope to not only learn something from a technical corner, but also to have your mindset look at things differently, thanks to the wealth of posts, links, thumbs-up comments, replies and possibly most of all, sharing your 'Apple-soul' in ways we might not have thought of as a possibility.
It is in English. What, you want it in Esperanto?
Given the topic, i.e. being able to get inside a Mac, how many of the Macs that failed had you 'tinkered ' with? I'm just curious.
It’s no harder to get into than any other iMac, and once you’re in there you can do both of those things. Shouldn’t be a concern for someone who has already braved their iMac’s internals.
Which hasn’t been announced, unless you’re talking about the past ones for some reason, in which case an external hard drive is cheaper than a Mac Pro.
None, they were under warranty
No, but can you please change the grammar of this sentence so it makes sense
Thanks
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
… Are you trying to tell a native English speaker how to write his own language? Really? No. You’re completely wrong. Just freaking drop it. It was sad that this was your only rebuttal to the post; it’s beyond sad that you’re keeping this up. That you’re unaccustomed to seeing sentences written correctly isn’t my problem. I don’t end sentences with prepositions wherever possible.
Yeah, see, that’s already proper English. It makes sense and is correct. If English isn’t your first language, I can rewrite it more conversationally, but know that any changes made will make it less correct.
Actually no, it doesn't make sense, you need another word, either before or after the word "work" for it to make sense.
Sorry but TS is correct. The clause in question is properly formed, and the meaning is clear.
Careful now, we don't want the jit to hit the fan.
Read this thread where the discussion turns to the English language, intertwined with nit-picking.
Ah - interesting. How did you know to go looking in that thread? Anyway - his objection there was also incorrect, although not for the specific reasons given. It's a pretty common tactic, in the absence of a reasonable argument, simply to attempt to derail the issue under discussion.
I remembered a phrase from that thread, and, unlike my luck with Google, any Google search, I instantly found it. Turns out this search button does actually work on this site. It's incredibly useful.