What about iPhoto? That should have the same functionality as image capture.
Image capture/iPhoto are both much better solutions than just using Finder to browse the storage device. They both take you direct to the folder that contains the images, and give you previews before importing (iPhoto definitely can provide previews, it's been a long time since I used image capture so I'm not so sure about that)
You can't fit a 18x burner in an iMac with what we have available. In fact, burning a dual layer disc is so slow its almost useless. You can't fit a card reader in the case, so you're stuck with downloading all your pictures instead of picking and choosing. These make the iMac LESS functional, not more.
Honestly when I'm out in the general world with people, no one complains that they want 18x dual layer burners and card readers in their computer.
Quote:
Of course, you can add these devices through external ports, but that defeats the whole purpose of an all in one, doesn't it?
No, if Apple made the iMac a Swiss Army Knife of functionality. It would have to raise the price or take a hit in profit margins.
You can now however add a 750GB hard drive to the 24" iMac.
If you don't want a cheap mini PC, a reasonably priced mid-high range laptop, an AIO or a workstation then Apple don't do a computer for you. Yes, they have a hole in their range. The prices don't skyrocket, they just don't do the midrange desktop you're after.
We know all this already. I'm sure they do too.
The question is, how big a hole is it and can it be filled by marketing?
Personally, I think the hole is tiny but you have to convince people that having slots in a box you never upgrade is not something they actually want and that an iMac is the answer. IMHO it is but you've got to convince PC switchers that computing has moved on since the 90s.
You know what the problem here is?
A lot of people like to think they will fill the slots, upgrade the cards, etc.
But they won't.
But they like to think they will.
I've had this discussion with my PC using friends for years now. First it was when Apple "only" had 5 slots, as in my 950, when they had 8.
Then it went to my having 4, and them having 6.
Each time it came down to them having more slots than I did.
It's the same think here. Maybe one or two slots vs. none.
I certainly think there's a market for a mid tower, but not for all the right reasons.
I would like to see an upgradable graphics card for the iMac though.
But, I just don't think Apple is interested, and that's their right.
I'm sure they've thought about this, and done marketing to determine if it's worthwhile.
Transfer documents that usually run to 10-30MB while I am commuting and check emails, etc. How fast is Bluetooth for the data volume that I am looking at? I haven't explored this option.
Normal phones - about 20KB a second via Bluetooth 1.x. 2.0 is faster but I don't know of a phone with it. Some phones also support a modem via the USB cable.
You'd probably be home before you got your transfer at Bluetooth rates. 30MB would also cost me about £30 at my current data plan rate too. You must love to work even when you're not supposed to be!
I used to be just like you. I thought Apple could do no wrong, that they always had the perfect solution.
That's exactly not me. Apple IMHO did everything wrong up until they junked MacOS for MacOSX. I wouldn't touch a Mac up till OSX.
Before that I only used Amigas (Big box ones at that crammed with cards) and BeOS (on a dual celeron PC I built myself) as a desktop OS and worked with UNIX and Windows/DOS/OS2 commercially - I'm an Ex-PC and *NIX box programmer before escaping from PHBs to do my own thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
As I got older, I began to think for myself and several inconstancies popped up. What it comes down to is this, you think you are representative of all home computer users. As such anyone with a brain should want exactly what you want. If not, there must be some kind of outside influence effecting those who do not see the light and buy a Mac right?
Nope. As I've got older everything has moved on to the motherboard such that the need for addon cards has become entirely obsolete. If you look at most people's PCs now, they're completely free of cards. Over half the PCs sold last year had Intel Integrated graphics even so there's not even a graphics card in there.
And now more people buy laptops than desktops - no cards again.
It's got nowt to do with me being a deity like figure at deciding what users want and everything to do with what is actually happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
The all in one is not some giant leap forward in computer design, it is a separate path for a different kind of user. In fact, it's been around since the beginning. My first home computer was an all in one Performa 5200 all the way back in mid 1995. The iMac may be the computer of tomorrow, but it is hampered by current technology.
Only if it doesn't do everything you want is it hampered. My hypothesis is that since most people don't use card slots and never upgrade their computers then it's a fine computer for most users. If you've grown past the 'must fiddle inside my computer' phase then it's also a fine computer for pro work. As a web designer/programmer it's pretty much the perfect computer for me. If I was a gamer then I could see why it wouldn't be perfect but then if I was a gamer I'd be using a console or a PC, not a Mac. It'd be an exercise in futility for Apple to pander to the home-fiddler or gamer market as neither of them want Macs in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
The Notebook optical drive is significantly slower than desktop models. You can't fit a 18x burner in an iMac with what we have available. In fact, burning a dual layer disc is so slow its almost useless.
I've yet to meet anyone who is bothered that it's *only* an 8x DL drive. If it bothers you so much a £50 external drive is your fix. I've only a 4x in my Rev A G5. Doesn't even bother me. I burn DVDs maybe twice a month. Apparently I can upgrade it though. Someone does sell faster drives but at more cost than an external. Seemed patently daft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
You can't fit a card reader in the case, so you're stuck with downloading all your pictures instead of picking and choosing.
Do people still use card readers? I've not since the 90s. I just plug my camera in and it appears either in iPhoto or as a drive in Finder and I can pick them off from there just fine. It depends on the settings you've picked for what happens when you plug in a camera. In 10.5 with previews of the images in the icon view, that'll be quite nice too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
These make the iMac LESS functional, not more. Of course, you can add these devices through external ports, but that defeats the whole purpose of an all in one, doesn't it? The iMac is for those who want power and simplicity. That amounts to at most 5% of desktop buyers.
The other 95% want less power and complexity? The mind boggles.
You can say it's a copout that the 'fix' to your complaints is to add external drives or external card readers but I'd imagine the number of people that actually do that is small and of those that mind it's very small again.
My next upgrade was going to be a NAS but I'm eyeing up that 750GB drive for the 24" iMac so it looks like I won't need an external bit of kit at all.
Comments
Image capture/iPhoto are both much better solutions than just using Finder to browse the storage device. They both take you direct to the folder that contains the images, and give you previews before importing (iPhoto definitely can provide previews, it's been a long time since I used image capture so I'm not so sure about that)
You can't fit a 18x burner in an iMac with what we have available. In fact, burning a dual layer disc is so slow its almost useless. You can't fit a card reader in the case, so you're stuck with downloading all your pictures instead of picking and choosing. These make the iMac LESS functional, not more.
Honestly when I'm out in the general world with people, no one complains that they want 18x dual layer burners and card readers in their computer.
Of course, you can add these devices through external ports, but that defeats the whole purpose of an all in one, doesn't it?
No, if Apple made the iMac a Swiss Army Knife of functionality. It would have to raise the price or take a hit in profit margins.
You can now however add a 750GB hard drive to the 24" iMac.
What about iPhoto? That should have the same functionality as image capture.
iPhoto, in my case at least, does not allow picking individual photos.
In any case, I don't see what the big deal is. Image Capture is a great little app.
No.
If you don't want a cheap mini PC, a reasonably priced mid-high range laptop, an AIO or a workstation then Apple don't do a computer for you. Yes, they have a hole in their range. The prices don't skyrocket, they just don't do the midrange desktop you're after.
We know all this already. I'm sure they do too.
The question is, how big a hole is it and can it be filled by marketing?
Personally, I think the hole is tiny but you have to convince people that having slots in a box you never upgrade is not something they actually want and that an iMac is the answer. IMHO it is but you've got to convince PC switchers that computing has moved on since the 90s.
You know what the problem here is?
A lot of people like to think they will fill the slots, upgrade the cards, etc.
But they won't.
But they like to think they will.
I've had this discussion with my PC using friends for years now. First it was when Apple "only" had 5 slots, as in my 950, when they had 8.
Then it went to my having 4, and them having 6.
Each time it came down to them having more slots than I did.
It's the same think here. Maybe one or two slots vs. none.
I certainly think there's a market for a mid tower, but not for all the right reasons.
I would like to see an upgradable graphics card for the iMac though.
But, I just don't think Apple is interested, and that's their right.
I'm sure they've thought about this, and done marketing to determine if it's worthwhile.
Transfer documents that usually run to 10-30MB while I am commuting and check emails, etc. How fast is Bluetooth for the data volume that I am looking at? I haven't explored this option.
Normal phones - about 20KB a second via Bluetooth 1.x. 2.0 is faster but I don't know of a phone with it. Some phones also support a modem via the USB cable.
You'd probably be home before you got your transfer at Bluetooth rates. 30MB would also cost me about £30 at my current data plan rate too. You must love to work even when you're not supposed to be!
I used to be just like you. I thought Apple could do no wrong, that they always had the perfect solution.
That's exactly not me. Apple IMHO did everything wrong up until they junked MacOS for MacOSX. I wouldn't touch a Mac up till OSX.
Before that I only used Amigas (Big box ones at that crammed with cards) and BeOS (on a dual celeron PC I built myself) as a desktop OS and worked with UNIX and Windows/DOS/OS2 commercially - I'm an Ex-PC and *NIX box programmer before escaping from PHBs to do my own thing.
As I got older, I began to think for myself and several inconstancies popped up. What it comes down to is this, you think you are representative of all home computer users. As such anyone with a brain should want exactly what you want. If not, there must be some kind of outside influence effecting those who do not see the light and buy a Mac right?
Nope. As I've got older everything has moved on to the motherboard such that the need for addon cards has become entirely obsolete. If you look at most people's PCs now, they're completely free of cards. Over half the PCs sold last year had Intel Integrated graphics even so there's not even a graphics card in there.
And now more people buy laptops than desktops - no cards again.
It's got nowt to do with me being a deity like figure at deciding what users want and everything to do with what is actually happening.
The all in one is not some giant leap forward in computer design, it is a separate path for a different kind of user. In fact, it's been around since the beginning. My first home computer was an all in one Performa 5200 all the way back in mid 1995. The iMac may be the computer of tomorrow, but it is hampered by current technology.
Only if it doesn't do everything you want is it hampered. My hypothesis is that since most people don't use card slots and never upgrade their computers then it's a fine computer for most users. If you've grown past the 'must fiddle inside my computer' phase then it's also a fine computer for pro work. As a web designer/programmer it's pretty much the perfect computer for me. If I was a gamer then I could see why it wouldn't be perfect but then if I was a gamer I'd be using a console or a PC, not a Mac. It'd be an exercise in futility for Apple to pander to the home-fiddler or gamer market as neither of them want Macs in the first place.
The Notebook optical drive is significantly slower than desktop models. You can't fit a 18x burner in an iMac with what we have available. In fact, burning a dual layer disc is so slow its almost useless.
I've yet to meet anyone who is bothered that it's *only* an 8x DL drive. If it bothers you so much a £50 external drive is your fix. I've only a 4x in my Rev A G5. Doesn't even bother me. I burn DVDs maybe twice a month. Apparently I can upgrade it though. Someone does sell faster drives but at more cost than an external. Seemed patently daft.
You can't fit a card reader in the case, so you're stuck with downloading all your pictures instead of picking and choosing.
Do people still use card readers? I've not since the 90s. I just plug my camera in and it appears either in iPhoto or as a drive in Finder and I can pick them off from there just fine. It depends on the settings you've picked for what happens when you plug in a camera. In 10.5 with previews of the images in the icon view, that'll be quite nice too.
These make the iMac LESS functional, not more. Of course, you can add these devices through external ports, but that defeats the whole purpose of an all in one, doesn't it? The iMac is for those who want power and simplicity. That amounts to at most 5% of desktop buyers.
The other 95% want less power and complexity? The mind boggles.
You can say it's a copout that the 'fix' to your complaints is to add external drives or external card readers but I'd imagine the number of people that actually do that is small and of those that mind it's very small again.
My next upgrade was going to be a NAS but I'm eyeing up that 750GB drive for the 24" iMac so it looks like I won't need an external bit of kit at all.