Yes it was speculation, not necessarily only my speculation, It isn't like I can quote a source that is an internal memo.
An internal memo is not the only way to get a source. I don't care whose speculation it is, it's important to make that clear and not present it as if it were a known fact.
Quote:
That Negligible portion of the market you speak of is not that negligible, there were 6 versions of the Profile, Sony made as many all-in-one models as there were imacs.
The number of models doesn't make it negligible, it's the actual number of units sold. Another reason the number of models wouldn't be a good comparison because the number of models of towers is considerably higher as well.
[QUOTE=JeffDM;1150287]An internal memo is not the only way to get a source. I don't care whose speculation it is, it's important to make that clear and not present it as if it were a known fact.
Along with a MacWorld interview with the imac G5 designer.
Apple touted the fact they made it user serviceable. Then suddenly changed their mind in the VERY NEXT REVISION. Why would that be? No model before that model was user servicable and no model since has been. I wonder what the variable is.
By the way, I never presented it as a fact, someone asked me that since I work on them, what do I think the reason is they took the user servicability away was. I gave the information I had based on what I saw personally and by what my parts supplier (Apple) told me, I can't say that was the official policy.
Roehl's explanation is a good one, and very likely is the reason Apple went crazy locking up the iMac internals.
However, Apple could just as easily make only the hard disk and RAM compartments accessible, instead of having users take off the entire back of the machine. This is how it's done with the Apple portables, and I haven't heard of Mac users damaging their MacBooks internals because they went messing with the insides of the machine.
Roehl's explanation is a good one, and very likely is the reason Apple went crazy locking up the iMac internals.
However, Apple could just as easily make only the hard disk and RAM compartments accessible, instead of having users take off the entire back of the machine. This is how it's done with the Apple portables, and I haven't heard of Mac users damaging their MacBooks internals because they went messing with the insides of the machine.
Yeah with the advent of SATA drives plug and play is easy, (I am still frustrated at what it takes to replace a hard disk on the MacBook Pro, I wonder if they did this with the imac because the way the stand works on the iMac is largely based on the center of gravity of the machine, some hard disks are heavier than others, it would stink to put a hard disk in there that was heavy enough to mess up the balance of the stand, you'd get people complaining that the screen sags. (Speculation)
Along with a MacWorld interview with the imac G5 designer.
Apple touted the fact they made it user serviceable. Then suddenly changed their mind in the VERY NEXT REVISION. Why would that be? No model before that model was user servicable and no model since has been. I wonder what the variable is.
That is circumstantial at best, that still doesn't establish that it's because of not wanting to fix what customers damage. Apple isn't obliged to fix what customers damage, by law or by their policy.
Quote:
By the way, I never presented it as a fact, someone asked me that since I work on them, what do I think the reason is they took the user servicability away was. I gave the information I had based on what I saw personally and by what my parts supplier (Apple) told me, I can't say that was the official policy.
Just to be clear on that article, it mentions the fact that a customer was fixing the power supply on his computer.
I completely understand that's crazy. Even Pros shouldn't be messing with the motherboard of their computers.
My point is that the iMac (and Mac Mini) should be re-engineered to allow customer replacement of only three basic components: RAM, Hard Disk and GPU.
I'm fine with everything else being fixed at the dealer.
Oh I completly agree and always have. But will that affect the integrity of the design, in many cases you give up elegant design for ease of use (not that that is always a problem) I'd love if they'd made it easier to get to the hard disk, I replace enough of them (granted the machines are generally 6 years old by the time the drive fails)
But people might want bigger hard disks, I personally think 250 GB is perfect right now, I've only used about 60 GB of my 250 GB hard disk in my Mac Pro, but I keep all my music on a portable external drive. I shy away from 500 and 750 GB hard disks because if that drive were to crash when full, that is a lot of data to lose.
That is circumstantial at best, that still doesn't establish that it's because of not wanting to fix what customers damage. Apple isn't obliged to fix what customers damage, by law or by their policy.
Unfortunately there is a huge gray area there as to what damage was caused by customer negligence or whatever, Apple chose to remove all doubt.
Check with the PC warranty as well on desktop machines, make sure it is clear that if you replace the hard disk on your computer that you don't void the warranty. In cases where I have done warranty work on an HP if the hard disk in the machine is not the one that came with it, we're not supposed to work on it as warranty work, most of the time we let it go, and if it is a case where we have to send the unit to HP (processor replacement) we have to ask the customer to bring in the original hard disk, so we can swap it out before sending it.
Yeah, they do, what was the point? Run Mac OS X on it? Ok, anyone have Mac OS X drivers for all those components? Will all those components talk to EFI? And why spend more money on this Gateway than an iMac then when the iMac clearly has better specs? A buddy of mine has hacked his HP to run OS X, he says it's neat and all but the performance isn't that great. His video support isn't great either since the card doesn't really have OS X drivers. Apple wants that quality control on the OS user experience.
I was responding to a post by bg_nyc in which the question was asked about the possibility of Dell or HP intentionally designing some of their future computers with the express purpose of being compatible with Mac OS X.
If you read my whole post, you'll notice that in the the very next phrase following the EFI reference, I actually did talk about the need for additional drivers for those additional components.
I went on to say that any "official" installation of Mac OS X on a Dell or HP (or <insert name here>) computer would legally and technically (TPM, anyone?) require cooperation by Apple.
I'll thank you not to misrepresent me or use my comments out of context.
I was responding to a post by bg_nyc in which the question was asked about the possibility of Dell or HP intentionally designing some of their future computers with the express purpose of being compatible with Mac OS X.
If you read my whole post, you'll notice that in the the very next phrase following the EFI reference, I actually did talk about the need for additional drivers for those additional components.
I went on to say that any "official" installation of Mac OS X on a Dell or HP (or <insert name here>) computer would legally and technically (TPM, anyone?) require cooperation by Apple.
I'll thank you not to misrepresent me or use my comments out of context.
I do apologize, I realized that after I posted.
Although technically the only thing keeping OS X from being installed on any PC is basically down to DRM on the OS and the requirement to flash the EFI, I don't ever see Apple liscensing the OS unless they themselves get out of the hardware business, they learned from that already, the OS experience was messed up due to the clone makers using hardware not completely supported. Apple is very protective of that user experience. The easiest way to protect that UI is to make sure they have complete control on what it runs on. A mismatched video card can destroy what they've worked hard to achieve.
So far, most of the iMac-alikes have failed or are just obscure. Windows PC buyers seem to just reject them. It seems like Apple customers are the only ones that buy this kind of thing.
As if we had a choice in the matter. Ya, Apple customers are the only ones that buy this kind of thing because...? DUH! That's all we have
The hard drive is like the cell phone battery. Its going to take a long time before it fails. By that point most people will just buy a new one.
What exactly is the issue with hard drive replacement on the new iMacs? Hard to do? Practically impossible to without having some special Apple tool? Just a little tricky? Voids the warranty? What?
A hard drive failure isn't the only reason to want to get at the drive. In fact, if any other part of the computer failed and required service, the first thing I'd often want to do is get the drive out of the machine, get any important files off the drive and safely stored elsewhere, remove anything that might be a privacy issue (if not leave the drive out entirely and send the computer in for service driveless), and THEN take the computer in for service.
Only retarded people buy a computer which restricts you from replacing the hard drive in-house.
There are serious privacy and security implications to leaving your hard drive for days on a reseller's counter. Especially if your computer is being used for online purchases, small business accounting or credit card processing. The Canadian Privacy Commissioner should caution people against buying the iMac. Maybe then Jobs will get a clue.
While the Gateway's screen is too small, it shouldn't take long for a larger version to become available. While I'm extremely partial to the Mac OS, I would (sadly) counsel friends and family to buy this machine before buying a current iMac.
Comments
Yes it was speculation, not necessarily only my speculation, It isn't like I can quote a source that is an internal memo.
An internal memo is not the only way to get a source. I don't care whose speculation it is, it's important to make that clear and not present it as if it were a known fact.
That Negligible portion of the market you speak of is not that negligible, there were 6 versions of the Profile, Sony made as many all-in-one models as there were imacs.
The number of models doesn't make it negligible, it's the actual number of units sold. Another reason the number of models wouldn't be a good comparison because the number of models of towers is considerably higher as well.
Take a look here
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2004/10/65510
Along with a MacWorld interview with the imac G5 designer.
Apple touted the fact they made it user serviceable. Then suddenly changed their mind in the VERY NEXT REVISION. Why would that be? No model before that model was user servicable and no model since has been. I wonder what the variable is.
By the way, I never presented it as a fact, someone asked me that since I work on them, what do I think the reason is they took the user servicability away was. I gave the information I had based on what I saw personally and by what my parts supplier (Apple) told me, I can't say that was the official policy.
However, Apple could just as easily make only the hard disk and RAM compartments accessible, instead of having users take off the entire back of the machine. This is how it's done with the Apple portables, and I haven't heard of Mac users damaging their MacBooks internals because they went messing with the insides of the machine.
Roehl's explanation is a good one, and very likely is the reason Apple went crazy locking up the iMac internals.
However, Apple could just as easily make only the hard disk and RAM compartments accessible, instead of having users take off the entire back of the machine. This is how it's done with the Apple portables, and I haven't heard of Mac users damaging their MacBooks internals because they went messing with the insides of the machine.
Yeah with the advent of SATA drives plug and play is easy, (I am still frustrated at what it takes to replace a hard disk on the MacBook Pro, I wonder if they did this with the imac because the way the stand works on the iMac is largely based on the center of gravity of the machine, some hard disks are heavier than others, it would stink to put a hard disk in there that was heavy enough to mess up the balance of the stand, you'd get people complaining that the screen sags. (Speculation)
Take a look here
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2004/10/65510
Along with a MacWorld interview with the imac G5 designer.
Apple touted the fact they made it user serviceable. Then suddenly changed their mind in the VERY NEXT REVISION. Why would that be? No model before that model was user servicable and no model since has been. I wonder what the variable is.
That is circumstantial at best, that still doesn't establish that it's because of not wanting to fix what customers damage. Apple isn't obliged to fix what customers damage, by law or by their policy.
By the way, I never presented it as a fact, someone asked me that since I work on them, what do I think the reason is they took the user servicability away was. I gave the information I had based on what I saw personally and by what my parts supplier (Apple) told me, I can't say that was the official policy.
OK, fair enough.
I completely understand that's crazy. Even Pros shouldn't be messing with the motherboard of their computers.
My point is that the iMac (and Mac Mini) should be re-engineered to allow customer replacement of only three basic components: RAM, Hard Disk and GPU.
I'm fine with everything else being fixed at the dealer.
Just to be clear on that article, it mentions the fact that a customer was fixing the power supply on his computer.
I completely understand that's crazy. Even Pros shouldn't be messing with the motherboard of their computers.
My point is that the iMac (and Mac Mini) should be re-engineered to allow customer replacement of only three basic components: RAM, Hard Disk and GPU.
I'm fine with everything else being fixed at the dealer.
Oh I completly agree and always have. But will that affect the integrity of the design, in many cases you give up elegant design for ease of use (not that that is always a problem) I'd love if they'd made it easier to get to the hard disk, I replace enough of them (granted the machines are generally 6 years old by the time the drive fails)
But people might want bigger hard disks, I personally think 250 GB is perfect right now, I've only used about 60 GB of my 250 GB hard disk in my Mac Pro, but I keep all my music on a portable external drive. I shy away from 500 and 750 GB hard disks because if that drive were to crash when full, that is a lot of data to lose.
That is circumstantial at best, that still doesn't establish that it's because of not wanting to fix what customers damage. Apple isn't obliged to fix what customers damage, by law or by their policy.
Unfortunately there is a huge gray area there as to what damage was caused by customer negligence or whatever, Apple chose to remove all doubt.
Check with the PC warranty as well on desktop machines, make sure it is clear that if you replace the hard disk on your computer that you don't void the warranty. In cases where I have done warranty work on an HP if the hard disk in the machine is not the one that came with it, we're not supposed to work on it as warranty work, most of the time we let it go, and if it is a case where we have to send the unit to HP (processor replacement) we have to ask the customer to bring in the original hard disk, so we can swap it out before sending it.
Yeah, they do, what was the point? Run Mac OS X on it? Ok, anyone have Mac OS X drivers for all those components? Will all those components talk to EFI? And why spend more money on this Gateway than an iMac then when the iMac clearly has better specs? A buddy of mine has hacked his HP to run OS X, he says it's neat and all but the performance isn't that great. His video support isn't great either since the card doesn't really have OS X drivers. Apple wants that quality control on the OS user experience.
I was responding to a post by bg_nyc in which the question was asked about the possibility of Dell or HP intentionally designing some of their future computers with the express purpose of being compatible with Mac OS X.
If you read my whole post, you'll notice that in the the very next phrase following the EFI reference, I actually did talk about the need for additional drivers for those additional components.
I went on to say that any "official" installation of Mac OS X on a Dell or HP (or <insert name here>) computer would legally and technically (TPM, anyone?) require cooperation by Apple.
I'll thank you not to misrepresent me or use my comments out of context.
I was responding to a post by bg_nyc in which the question was asked about the possibility of Dell or HP intentionally designing some of their future computers with the express purpose of being compatible with Mac OS X.
If you read my whole post, you'll notice that in the the very next phrase following the EFI reference, I actually did talk about the need for additional drivers for those additional components.
I went on to say that any "official" installation of Mac OS X on a Dell or HP (or <insert name here>) computer would legally and technically (TPM, anyone?) require cooperation by Apple.
I'll thank you not to misrepresent me or use my comments out of context.
I do apologize, I realized that after I posted.
Although technically the only thing keeping OS X from being installed on any PC is basically down to DRM on the OS and the requirement to flash the EFI, I don't ever see Apple liscensing the OS unless they themselves get out of the hardware business, they learned from that already, the OS experience was messed up due to the clone makers using hardware not completely supported. Apple is very protective of that user experience. The easiest way to protect that UI is to make sure they have complete control on what it runs on. A mismatched video card can destroy what they've worked hard to achieve.
So far, most of the iMac-alikes have failed or are just obscure. Windows PC buyers seem to just reject them. It seems like Apple customers are the only ones that buy this kind of thing.
As if we had a choice in the matter.
The hard drive is like the cell phone battery. Its going to take a long time before it fails. By that point most people will just buy a new one.
What exactly is the issue with hard drive replacement on the new iMacs? Hard to do? Practically impossible to without having some special Apple tool? Just a little tricky? Voids the warranty? What?
A hard drive failure isn't the only reason to want to get at the drive. In fact, if any other part of the computer failed and required service, the first thing I'd often want to do is get the drive out of the machine, get any important files off the drive and safely stored elsewhere, remove anything that might be a privacy issue (if not leave the drive out entirely and send the computer in for service driveless), and THEN take the computer in for service.
This is where it beats the iMac hands down.
Only retarded people buy a computer which restricts you from replacing the hard drive in-house.
There are serious privacy and security implications to leaving your hard drive for days on a reseller's counter. Especially if your computer is being used for online purchases, small business accounting or credit card processing. The Canadian Privacy Commissioner should caution people against buying the iMac. Maybe then Jobs will get a clue.
While the Gateway's screen is too small, it shouldn't take long for a larger version to become available. While I'm extremely partial to the Mac OS, I would (sadly) counsel friends and family to buy this machine before buying a current iMac.
One word, my friend: "OS X."
Are we sure this thing is an All In One?
That looks awfully like the base unit to me...
lol.
Also, how is the screen on when there is no power cable?
lol.
Also, how is the screen on when there is no power cable?
Like a true All-in-One, this machine runs on "Apples"