Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?
Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.
And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?
Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?
Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?
What do you think this means?:
"Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand. I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed. Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility. Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone. And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it. There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.
You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs. That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs. If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?
Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all. The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like. If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.
I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, Apple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
Its pretty obvious by recent designs that Ive is bored, fat, lazy, and not motivated.
We need new leadership that is exicted, hungry, and willing to take risks.
Few examples of design that is below the Apple standard:
1. Same iPhone shell for 3 years. Unacceptable. Even cheap POS China companies come out with yearly shell changes.
2. Mouse.
3. Pencil
4. Battery case
5. Smartkey board, non flush design
6. Camera bump & ugly antenna lines
These may seem like nitpicking. Small details. But that was what made Apple great. The details.
Yes he certainly seems over rated. Makes me appreciate how good Jobs was for design when I look at something MEH like the 6, 6S, and 7 designs. Not nearly as good as iPhone 4 thru iPhone 5S.
And they are certainly killing their computer line. TouchBar is way overrated.
I'm willing to bet you certainly don't own a TB MBP, and probably haven't even used one.
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
This guy is definitely a troll. One look at his very negative post scoring ratio and post history confirms it.
[oh look -- the trolls are getting mad and down-voting me. No worries, my count will maintain a positive ratio over time, unlike trolls and their dramatic negative ratios]
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
No.
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?
Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.
And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?
Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?
Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?
What do you think this means?:
"Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand. I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed. Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility. Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone. And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it. There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.
You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs. That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs. If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?
Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all. The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like. If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.
I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, Apple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical. The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC. I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor. I have changed the hard drive on one of them. It was no big deal. Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful. No special dust kit needed or used.
Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be. Who flipping cares? Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.
As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs. I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals. I don't know why they discarded that design. Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or something else. The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature. That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design. Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?
Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.
And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?
Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?
Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?
What do you think this means?:
"Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand. I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed. Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility. Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone. And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it. There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.
You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs. That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs. If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?
Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all. The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like. If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.
I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, Apple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical. The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC. I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor. I have changed the hard drive on one of them. It was no big deal. Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful. No special dust kit needed or used.
Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be. Who flipping cares? Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.
As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs. I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals. I don't know why they discarded that design. Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else. The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature. That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design. Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues.
Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.
There is great design, good design, regular design, poor design and hideous design.
ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.
Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
No.
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
"Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds looking at the back of an iMac."
Walking into an office and seeing the back of an iMac on the desk, yeah, a few seconds if that is all you need to get a warm feeling that you're likely in the right place, or the right kind of place. How is that feeling transmitted?
I'd say that the designers spent a lot of time on that curve, bulge and finish, enough to give it an aura of erotic power. The first iPad had the same curve on the back, which I, for one, spent an inordinate amount of time admiring and running my hand over. For some reason, obvious perhaps, I associate the allure of those curves almost uniquely with the French actress Jeanne Moreau, whose images are very worth googling.
I realize that some people are completely immune to this sort of techno-eroticism, and don't see it at all, while others like me go out of their way to associate with rewarding objects. Many, like most Apple customers, just know they love their machines or devices for some unexpressible reason.
I've spent many "foolish" minutes in my life admiring curvy backsides.
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
No.
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
I realize that some people are completely immune to this sort of techno-eroticism, and don't see it at all, while others like me go out of their way to associate with rewarding objects. Many, like most Apple customers, just know they love their machines or devices for some unexpressible reason.
I've spent many "foolish" minutes in my life admiring curvy backsides.
Yeah, I call those people "PC guys" -- they see specs, and don't get curves.
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
No.
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
"Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds looking at the back of an iMac."
Walking into an office and seeing the back of an iMac on the desk, yeah, a few seconds if that is all you need to get a warm feeling that you're likely in the right place, or the right kind of place. How is that feeling transmitted?
I'd say that the designers spent a lot of time on that curve, bulge and finish, enough to give it an aura of erotic power. The first iPad had the same curve on the back, which I, for one, spent an inordinate amount of time admiring and running my hand over. For some reason, obvious perhaps, I associate the allure of those curves almost uniquely with the French actress Jeanne Moreau, whose images are very worth googling.
I realize that some people are completely immune to this sort of techno-eroticism, and don't see it at all, while others like me go out of their way to associate with rewarding objects. Many, like most Apple customers, just know they love their machines or devices for some unexpressible reason.
I've spent many "foolish" minutes in my life admiring curvy backsides.
I know what you are saying but don't see anything in the rear of the flat iMacs. On the other hand, the CRT iMacs certainly got the curves right on the backside.
Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?
Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.
And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?
Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?
Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?
What do you think this means?:
"Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand. I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed. Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility. Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone. And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it. There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.
You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs. That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs. If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?
Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all. The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like. If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.
I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, Apple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical. The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC. I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor. I have changed the hard drive on one of them. It was no big deal. Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful. No special dust kit needed or used.
Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be. Who flipping cares? Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.
As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs. I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals. I don't know why they discarded that design. Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else. The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature. That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design. Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues.
Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.
There is great design, good design, regular design, poor design and hideous design.
ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.
Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.
How did you reach your 10% by the way?
Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?
AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac.
Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops. They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops. Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts. You can tack on tablets if you like.
Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops. It isn't going to start any time soon.
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
No.
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
I realize that some people are completely immune to this sort of techno-eroticism, and don't see it at all, while others like me go out of their way to associate with rewarding objects. Many, like most Apple customers, just know they love their machines or devices for some unexpressible reason.
I've spent many "foolish" minutes in my life admiring curvy backsides.
Yeah, I call those people "PC guys" -- they see specs, and don't get curves.
I'm not sure if left-brained people see well in 3D. In avon's last reply to me above, he says he doesn't see the curve on "the the rear of the flat iMacs." Check me out on this, since I have a slightly earlier model — don't they still have that ungodly delicious bulge on the back?
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
So, what you are confirming is that you've hated the iMac design language for the last 8 years but you are still a customer. Slow learner or Troll?
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
No.
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
I realize that some people are completely immune to this sort of techno-eroticism, and don't see it at all, while others like me go out of their way to associate with rewarding objects. Many, like most Apple customers, just know they love their machines or devices for some unexpressible reason.
I've spent many "foolish" minutes in my life admiring curvy backsides.
Yeah, I call those people "PC guys" -- they see specs, and don't get curves.
I'm not sure if left-brained people see well in 3D. In avon's last reply to me above, he says he doesn't see the curve on "the the rear of the flat iMacs." Check me out on this, since I have a slightly earlier model — don't they still have that ungodly delicious bulge on the back?
There are curves and there are curves. I wasn't referring to the physical curve but the 'sexy' curve. Not that an iMac has ever turned me on! LOL.
Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?
Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.
And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?
Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?
Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?
What do you think this means?:
"Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand. I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed. Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility. Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone. And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it. There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.
You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs. That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs. If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?
Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all. The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like. If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.
I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical. The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC. I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor. I have changed the hard drive on one of them. It was no big deal. Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful. No special dust kit needed or used.
Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be. Who flipping cares? Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.
As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs. I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals. I don't know why they discarded that design. Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else. The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature. That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design. Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues.
Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.
There is great design, good design, regular design, poor design and hideous design.
ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.
Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.
How did you reach your 10% by the way?
Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?
AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac.
Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops. They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops. Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts. You can tack on tablets if you like.
Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops. It isn't going to start any time soon.
Take a hike troll.
You answered your own question.
When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.
After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.
Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.
There is your answer.
But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.
The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.
First in the price. They are simply overpriced.
Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.
Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.
Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I thought the fans took the heat off the heatsink not blew air at it. Is my understanding wrong?
Plehase enlighten me to which design choices I fail to understand. Changing iMac hard drives by removing the screen assembly?
Yes, plenty of things were 'fixed' then 'unfixed'. Front ports for example. The entire Mac Pro for example. But anyway, at least you tacitly admit they got things wrong but they were great enough change or fix what they got wrong.
And where did I say Apple was at it best before Flower Power?
Is my argument that Apple isn't perfect in EVERYTHING it has ever done?
Your point is exactly? That you don't like people criticising Apple and giving examples?
What do you think this means?:
"Lots of great design but lots of trash design too"
Yes, not having an easily accessible panel on the iMac to change the hard drive is a design choice you fail to understand. I expect that fewer than 10% of iMacs ever have their hard drives changed. Therefore it makes perfect sense to not prioritize hard drive accessibility. Likewise, you obviously don't get that Apple eschewed microSD in iPhones (etc) intentionally because having an OS without a visible file system was part of the genius of the original iPhone. And yes having the fingerprint sensor on the front of the phone is a great place to put it. There are plenty of things that Apple has done that can be considered design "mistakes" in retrospect (because no one's perfect); but most of your examples are the opposite of mistakes.
You said "That is a nice summary of recent disasters. I agree that design at Apple is past it's best." and then immediately described a bunch of bad designs from a long time ago including the Cube and the silly dalmation and flower power iMacs. That suggests that you believe that "Apple's best" predated those designs. If that wasn't your point, when was the Apple design heyday?
Frankly I don't know what point you were trying to make over all. The post was a disorganized bullet list of random things you didn't like. If your thesis was the "Apple design is past its best" you didn't provide coherent evidence to back that up since many of the things you listed were from 5, 10, or 15 years ago.
My point is that vomiting up a disorganized list of unrelated things, many of which have nothing to do with design) isn't very persuasive.
I will run with your logic for a while but it won't be far until I fall flat on my face.
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, eApple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
I expect my 10% number is pretty close, but it's not critical. The point is that "can swap out a hard drive in less than 5 minutes" makes it onto the valued feature list of a computer in a server farm, but not a consumer PC. I've owned 3 different iMac in the current big-slab-on-a-stand form factor. I have changed the hard drive on one of them. It was no big deal. Took maybe 30 minutes because I was slow and careful. No special dust kit needed or used.
Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be. Who flipping cares? Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.
As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs. I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals. I don't know why they discarded that design. Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or ysomething else. The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature. That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design. Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
The analogy is flawed. It's not one minor issue. The hard disk is just one of a collection of issues.
Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.
There is great design, good design, regular design, poor design and hideous design.
ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.
Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.
How did you reach your 10% by the way?
Well then if you don't like the design tradeoff why did you buy an AIO?
AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac.
Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops. They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops. Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts. You can tack on tablets if you like.
Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops. It isn't going to start any time soon.
Take a hike troll.
You answered your own question.
When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.
After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.
Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.
There is your answer.
But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.
The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.
First in the price. They are simply overpriced.
Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.
Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.
Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.
It's a pure and simple con.
No, you haven't provided an answer to why you stay with a company that has "conned" you for 8 years and hasn't made a machine for you since 2004 and the PowerMac G4 MDD.
As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc. You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.
The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle. If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.
You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".
Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.
Comments
You suspect that less than 10% of iMac owners ever changed their drives? It is clearly a figure that is based on nothing tangible, otherwise you would supported the number with something. I could throw a completely different number into the air with equal reason but it's your opinion it's clearly as valid as mine.
Let's take the late 2009 27" iMac as an example. Apple sold plenty of those. The thermal design was poor. They slow cook themselves and if you BTO'd an i7 the heat problems got worse. over time, the hidden vents get blocked by dust and your slow cooker heats up even more. Now, this machine is full of sensors (I think they were the first models to have heat sensors on the hard drives). I find it to be bad design that with so many sensors, OSX never informs the user to check and clean vents when sensor readings rise without good reason. OSX in those days offered no advice to users. Of course, if temps get too high for a sustained period, the machine will shut down hard but the damage would have already started. Even simple web browsing could lead to the fans going into overdrive.
In summary we have two basic problems. Poor thermal design and poor self protection (with no assistance for the user).
Now take a ride around the internet and try to gauge how many graphics cards in those Macs have failed - very probably due to thermal issues. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action over this. Then try to gauge how many of the cards were repairable by reflowing them. It seems that more than a few users were able to breathe new life into the cards by reflowing them. This points to possibly insufficient solder points on the cards.
You can imagine how those Seagate or WD platter drives strained in that environment. Heat and drives do not mix well but although those drives could report their temperatures and have the fans ramped up, once again, the user was left uninformed of any extreme situations. If you investigate a little you will find that general consensus is that Apple uses heat tolerances on hard drives that tend to be high. Most advice us to set iMac fan speeds a little higher than what Apple recommends.
Why doesn't Apple itself do it? Noise, is the general answer to that question. Apple doesn't want you to hear the fans blasting away on its systems. Even if your machine is slow cioking itself to death. At the end of the day, if the machine survives the Apple Care period, it has served it's purpose. So when you hear the fans ramping up on those systems for no apparent reason, things are probably not at all comfortable on the inside.
If you have a reason to push an iMac i7 to the limit (Handbrake job for example) simply prey or take control of fan speeds yourself.
The all in one design brings solutions to some problems but the solution in itself brings new problems that have never been adequately resolved.
Of course one of those problems is accessibility.
Would you say that more people changed RAM than Hard Disks? I wouldn't say so but Apple provided user access to the RAM all the same.
So imagine you need to change the disk. It doesn't matter why (failing, failed, increased capacity). It doesn't even matter how many users do it. The point is you will probably need access at some point. ALL drives fail and many do in the lifetime of the computer. That's why my figure on how many have had to change iMac drives is much higher than 10%. From a design perspective you have a few options and easiest is by far, would be removing the back plate. So the question is, why did they design access via the screen assembly? Nobody even looks at the back of an iMac.
We'd have to run our man Jony over the coals to get a real answer but I fear the reason was that Apple detests screws. It's simple as that. That's ironic when you consider that when it has no option but to use them, it decides on the less common types and often changes their lengths without any real justification.
The result is that we have to go in the 'hard way'. Just having to remove that screen assembly involves disconnecting delicate cables and physically putting the panel and glass front plate somewhere it won't get damaged or collect dust.
Yes, dust! Aware or the dust problem, Apple went to the lengths of creating their own dust removal kit to be used when you reassemble the screen to ensure that nothing gets trapped under the glass. I kid you not. The last time I gad one changed under warranty (yes, the WD failed). The swap took 20 mins but cleaning the glass, more than twice as long. The guy was an expert as he had swapped out infinite iMac drives. Yes, he cursed the design too.
As for a design choice, I'd say that's bad. Terribly bad.
Oh, and people look at the back panel of iMacs all the time. Any door facing desk with an iMac on it shows the back panel to anyone walking into the room
Wasn't the idea of making Jony Ive Chief Design Officer, so he could be MORE involved in design instead of management?
>:x
[oh look -- the trolls are getting mad and down-voting me. No worries, my count will maintain a positive ratio over time, unlike trolls and their dramatic negative ratios]
What does it matter if I like, love or hate the iMac? I am giving my opinion and supporting it with facts, many first hand. So that makes me an Apple hater and a troll? Ok. Splendid.
Only a fool would spend more than a few seconds 'looking' at the back of an iMac. People 'see' it, they don't look at it. It's passed by.
And you obviously didn't read the instructions of the iMac. Probably because it's an optional purchase for 199 dollars (small edition) called iFeng Shui. It contains 450 glossy photos of iMacs and how to place them. None show any ghastly cables hanging out of the rear (except on some occasions when you will see the Ive endorsed power cable emerging gracefully from the backplate).They put all the ports on the back so people wouldn't have to see those horrid cables dangling in all directions!
Your criticism is like complaining about the a new model of Lexus because changing the air filter is not as easy as it could be. Who flipping cares? Now tell me that putting gas in the car is a pain in the butt and I'll listen, because that's something people do with some frequency.
As some of us have been trying to point out, design in about tradeoffs. I'm sure they considered a design that would have given ready access to the hard drive and other internals. I don't know why they discarded that design. Could be cooling considerings, aesthetics, manufacturing difficulty, or something else. The point is, they willingly sacrificed some trivial nice-to-have feature. That doesn't make it a bad design; that is the very nature of design. Determine what's most important about the product and deliver that, sacrificing whatever else gets in the way.
Of course there are trade-offs but on the Desktop they get harder to justify. You said there must have been some reason for not giving rear access to the hard drive assembly but cannot actually give one. I suggested one and regretfully wasn't joking.
There is great design, good design, regular design, poor design and hideous design.
ALL chinned iMacs are thermally challenged - by design. That is why they often include laptop class components. If my desktop machine needs laptop components because I made it too thin to accommodate desktop components, something went wrong - because it's a desktop.
Yes, someone saw the trade-offs and deliberately chose thinness over less thinness and there lies the problem.
How did you reach your 10% by the way?
Walking into an office and seeing the back of an iMac on the desk, yeah, a few seconds if that is all you need to get a warm feeling that you're likely in the right place, or the right kind of place. How is that feeling transmitted?
I'd say that the designers spent a lot of time on that curve, bulge and finish, enough to give it an aura of erotic power. The first iPad had the same curve on the back, which I, for one, spent an inordinate amount of time admiring and running my hand over. For some reason, obvious perhaps, I associate the allure of those curves almost uniquely with the French actress Jeanne Moreau, whose images are very worth googling.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jeanne+moreau&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBtJf88b_QAhVLwmMKHXyFA0gQ_AUIBygB&biw=1024&bih=649&dpr=2
I realize that some people are completely immune to this sort of techno-eroticism, and don't see it at all, while others like me go out of their way to associate with rewarding objects. Many, like most Apple customers, just know they love their machines or devices for some unexpressible reason.
I've spent many "foolish" minutes in my life admiring curvy backsides.
AIO desktops are designed for thinness whether it's the Surface Studio or an iMac.
Apple doesn't make any traditional desktops. They make SFF computers, AIO computers, Workstations and laptops. Three of those share common design considerations and use mobile parts. The other packs workstations parts. You can tack on tablets if you like.
Apple has not made a machine for you since Jobs returned to Apple and killed all the normal desktops. It isn't going to start any time soon.
Take a hike troll.
When I got the 27"' iMac (2009) I thought Apple wouldn't dump such shitty thermal management on us especially as they were offering i7s and the MacBook Air (released the year before) was overheating under light stress. It was only after purchase that people started to run into problems. Well, actually that is not true at all. That model came out-of -the-box with serious panel issues. The internet was alive with a number of deal breaking panel issues. Not subjective issues either but in your face issues and Apple didn't say a word and they took an absolute pounding online because of that too. Things have changed now. If the same product had been released now, Schiller would be giving daily interviews and promising information.
After that came a couple of MBPs and an Air as a secondary computer.
Why did I get an AIO? Well, as you state, Apple wasn't making regular desktops (stupid decision as they would be top sellers) and a 27" laptop hasn't happened yet, and at the time, just the LG panel alone would have set me back 1,400 euros so, as a Mac user since the Mac II, I went for the iMac.
There is your answer.
But you still haven't answered why a 27" desktop machine is using mobile parts (often low end). And I'm the troll. Not that I give a damn of course.
The iMac is compromised because they want it to be thin. That's it. During 99% of its working life you will never be aware of that thinness. Not visually or even in a practical manner, but during every second of use you will be paying the price of that compromise.
First in the price. They are simply overpriced.
Second in the level of components. You are not getting the power you could.
Third in thermal design. These machines have poor thermal design.
Fourth, age. But an iMac now you are wading into Apple's new future without USB-C but with all those ports that many here call 'legacy'. What? On a brand new machine. Not only that but when the line was released the components were already iffy. Now you will be going into 2017 with a seriously outdated machine that you want to cover you for the next few years.
It's a pure and simple con.
As far as you "points" go those have always been the characteristic of the AIO: more expensive, lower power, etc. You shouldn't have bought one in 2009 and you still shouldn't buy one now and if you were a normal person you would just move on.
The next iMac will come with USB-C and the current model is listed as "don't buy" on the websites that track refresh cycle. If as a consumer you don't do any due diligence on a $2000+ purchase then you still get a very nice machine at a less than optimal price.
You are a troll because Apple has been doing business the same way for a decade, the way AIOs are designed is well known and you still troll the forum with comments like the iMac is "a pure and simple con".
Some Mac forum somewhere banned you for trolling and now you haunt AI.