Monitor Issues - AIO @ its disadvantage.

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I am seeing more issues arise on the LCD display wih iMac. And it seems Apple are doing anything about it. Dead Spot on LCD monitor, where other LCD could make an RMA or exchange. Apple refuse to accept this as a case.



And this come to the problem. Unless someday we fix this technical problem. All in one will forever have this disadvantage. And while i would like / want to believe apple have high QA. It is obvious that Apple's QA has been degrading in the past years.



So is apple going to wait for technology to fix itself via OLED or other display tech, or introduce xmac?



And as IPS / VA Panel are losing to TN, the chance that next iMac will uses IPS panel is getting less day by day. We will be stuck with poor quality TN panel for our Mac.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    hmmm, i thought they would repair it if it's still under the 1 year apple care service, or do something about it... really, it's an internal fault, not anything physical damage
  • Reply 2 of 19
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    ksec



    Yes the AIO has this disadvantage.



    No Apple will not introduce an xMac.



    I don't agree with your assessment of Apple's QA. Apple seems to be praised for their QA and relatively good products(re: see Consumer Reports). However, even Apple products are not immune to problems.



    Like killamike said, if your computer is still under warranty Apple should repair it, they did mine one month before Applecare expired I got a new LCD screen for my Powerbook.



    Good luck, let us know what happens.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Desktop AIO has many pros and many cons. For me, the cons outweigh the pros.



    Desktop AIO is great for Apple, and it results in accelerated decrepitude (you have to replace one component, you have to replace the entire system). With separate components you don't have that problem.



    With regards to reliability, I'm hoping that Apple has turned the corner. The dark days of the Power Mac G5 and the first aluminium Cinema Displays are hopefully behind us. I've bought a lot of Apple kit these last few years, and by and large it's all been good. I think that Apple has come a long way in the last few years.



    Yes there are plenty of features which are implied, which don't pan out (Rosetta, 64-bit, Back To My Mac, MobileMe, Syncing). And yes, Apple in general is heading in a direction which I don't agree with (glossy displays, AIO, cheap jack iPhone 3G, needless GUI eye-candy, the use of portable components in desktop systems).



    But, credit where credit is due, I have to say that the products Apple has released recently for my particular target market (pro) have been absolutely fantastic. I can't praise the Mac Pro enough!
  • Reply 4 of 19
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    ...or introduce xmac?



    Oh, please, not this again.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    Oh, please, not this again.



    It will not end until one of two things happen.



    Apple introduces an xMac.(not happening)



    The consumer demand for desktop computers with slots, an extra drive bay(s) and an extra optical bay(s) approaches zero.



    So, I'd say that these threads (or other threads morphing into xMac threads) will continue for a very long, long time.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rickag View Post


    The consumer demand for desktop computers with slots, an extra drive bay(s) and an extra optical bay(s) approaches zero.



    There is hardly any demand for a consumer desktop with slots. Jobs is completely right here.

    Extra drive and optical bays for sure, but slots are unnecessary in the USB/Firewire age.



    This is except for a few vocal gamers, who refuse to understand that the gaming market has largely moved to the Wii/Xbox/PS3 consoles, and isn't coming back.
  • Reply 7 of 19
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    There is hardly any demand for a consumer desktop with slots. Jobs is completely right here.

    Extra drive and optical bays for sure, but slots are unnecessary in the USB/Firewire age.



    This is except for a few vocal gamers, who refuse to understand that the gaming market has largely moved to the Wii/Xbox/PS3 consoles, and isn't coming back.



    Yeah, ATI and Nvidia keep releasing video cards for the fun it...
  • Reply 8 of 19
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    There is hardly any demand for a consumer desktop with slots. Jobs is completely right here.

    Extra drive and optical bays for sure, but slots are unnecessary in the USB/Firewire age.



    This is except for a few vocal gamers, who refuse to understand that the gaming market has largely moved to the Wii/Xbox/PS3 consoles, and isn't coming back.



    You maybe right about consumer demand, but every time I wander through Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, etc. or I look online, the vast majority of all consumer desktops offered disagrees with your comment. Also, everyone I know that has bought a computer recently disagrees with you, in every instance they bought computers that had slots, extra drive bays etc. Maybe they won't use them, but that is what's available for them, unless they want to pay extra for the meager AIO offerings of Apple's competitors.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    There is hardly any demand for a consumer desktop with slots. Jobs is completely right here.

    Extra drive and optical bays for sure, but slots are unnecessary in the USB/Firewire age.



    This is except for a few vocal gamers, who refuse to understand that the gaming market has largely moved to the Wii/Xbox/PS3 consoles, and isn't coming back.







    Your lack of understanding of the fundamentals is entertaining ? on multiple levels.



    I would argue that slots are actually more important in a desktop consumer machine than the 'Extra drive and optical bays' because these drives are the very components that are designed to plug in to the USB/FireWire ports. Good luck trying to find a graphics card that plugs into a USB/FireWire port.



    To say that there isn't any demand for a consumer desktop with slots is also entertaining.



    Take it from me, there are in general two types of punters. The novice 'appliance' buyers who are attracted by the iMac's form factor and the fact that it is a sealed unit that they will never have to open. These punters mistakenly equate computers to microwave ovens and hoovers ? appliances where the demands of the task remain constant over the products lifespan.



    Then there are the people who know what they are doing, who know that they should be keeping their options open and avoiding AIO. These are the punters who realise that goalposts will shift over time, and that by avoiding AIO they are keeping their upgrade options open.



    AIO is BETTER FOR APPLE - because you can't upgrade the very components that extend the lifespan of the computer ? the processor and the graphics card. You have to buy a new computer instead.



    Which brings us to your comment about those self-deluding gamers being the only people interested in upgradability. Just try selling AIO desktops to Enterprise ? you'll be shown the door in double-quick time.



    AIO on the desktop will only become feasible when the developers stop writing new code.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,807member
    First of all, you're talking to the biggest critic of the iMac's total sealed box approach.



    The fact that you can't change the iMac's hard drive shames the entire platform. It's like producing a car and being unable to change the oil or the battery yourself.



    But I also realize that the video card isn't the same thing. While I've upgraded the card in my Sawtooth (Pro) machine, very few consumers ever bother to upgrade the card during the normal life of the computer.



    The only ones who did so frequently were gamers, and the gaming market has moved on to consoles.



    I don't know where you work, but I seriously doubt any major enterprises (outside the creative industry) upgrades video cards regularly. And those creatives are usually Pro purchasers anyway.



    Business and productivity apps in general just don't push the graphics system to the limit.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    First of all, you're talking to the biggest critic of the iMac's total sealed box approach.



    The fact that you can't change the iMac's hard drive shames the entire platform. It's like producing a car and being unable to change the oil or the battery yourself.



    But I also realize that the video card isn't the same thing. While I've upgraded the card in my Sawtooth (Pro) machine, very few consumers ever bother to upgrade the card during the normal life of the computer.



    The only ones who did so frequently were gamers, and the gaming market has moved on to consoles.



    I don't know where you work, but I seriously doubt any major enterprises (outside the creative industry) upgrades video cards regularly. And those creatives are usually Pro purchasers anyway.



    Business and productivity apps in general just don't push the graphics system to the limit.



    Thank you for clarifying.



    I agree that most people do not upgrade their video card. Maybe some iMac owners would have if they could when Core left them behind, but maybe not. But slots can be used for many many things besides video cards. That's the beauty of slots, they can help make the computer more adaptable to the constantly changing standards in USB, Firewire, Wireless connectivity, SATA, etc.



    I know I don't know a lot of people, but virtually every one I know has bought cards due to changing technology and no they are not geeks. If they are apprehensive of adding a card they get some one they know to add the card.



    Anyhooo, this is moot, Apple won't offer the consumer anything but AIO or Mac mini like computers. sigh
  • Reply 12 of 19
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rickag View Post


    Thank you for clarifying.



    I agree that most people do not upgrade their video card. Maybe some iMac owners would have if they could when Core left them behind, but maybe not. But slots can be used for many many things besides video cards. That's the beauty of slots, they can help make the computer more adaptable to the constantly changing standards in USB, Firewire, Wireless connectivity, SATA, etc.



    I know I don't know a lot of people, but virtually every one I know has bought cards due to changing technology and no they are not geeks. If they are apprehensive of adding a card they get some one they know to add the card.



    Anyhooo, this is moot, Apple won't offer the consumer anything but AIO or Mac mini like computers. sigh



    I agree. My parents is barely computer literate, let alone geeks. In the four or so years they've owned their HP. I've upgraded the RAM a couple of times, installed two different low end graphics cards (not using up your system memory on driving your display does help your performance), installed a DVD burner, replaced the 15" standard aspect display with a 19" widescreen, and installed wireless B&G cards.



    If they would have bought a Mac Mini or iMacG5 as I told them to do, they would be a lot worse off than they are now. All in ones are slaves to the time they are released. I have had two (a performa 5200 and a REV.A ALU iMac) and I talked an aunt into a Bondi blue iMac (who went right back to PCs). All computers begin to show their age after 24 months or so. With the all in ones there is little you can do about it. That's fine for the average email user, but isn't Apple supposed to be for the user with above average needs?
  • Reply 13 of 19
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    All computers begin to show their age after 24 months or so. With the all in ones there is little you can do about it. That's fine for the average email user, but isn't Apple supposed to be for the user with above average needs?



    What's average? That's one question.



    Then, Apple is supposed to address at the consumer level the needs of home users and very often of those living together and/or having familes. That's the whole point of iLife. And in this context you would rarely need to upgrade your computer for 2-3 years at least, with the exception of adding a hard drive as photos and videos pile up, which can be external by the way. I see no other logic, regarding client needs with respect to upgradeability options, explaining Apple's practices here.



    In order to satisfy my own needs now (probably "needs" ) I would ask for no less than a Mac Pro. But for my home use in a family context, an iMac as it is today (or it will soon become ) is more than I want/need. I have the impression (but no data to back up my assertion) that the majority of home users feel like that, especially those with families and much obligations having no time to fiddle with upgrades, and this is the reason Apple paid so much attention to the iMac.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    *Sorry, long post - but hopefully you'll enjoy it*



    It always amazes me, how computer users are 'forced' into the perpetual upgrade cycle. It is inescapable.



    AIO is great if you're intending on running the bundled software for the lifetime of the machine, and never installing any additional software or peripherals further down the line. And whilst a lot of consumers fool themselves that this is the case, it never is.



    This is why I draw comparisons with the 'appliance' mentality and microwave ovens. You don't walk into the supermarket to collect your TV dinner, only to read that the TV dinner requires the latest generation of microwave oven, or it won't cook. But consumers expect to be able to install any number of software upgrades or additional peripherals without having to touch the hardware.



    And why not? There are very few things in life where you have to keep upgrading them in order to do the same thing that you were doing yesterday.



    But computers are different. It's only going to be so long before Steve Jobs stands on the stage and says "look at how sh!t the old iMovie* is. Jeez you guys have only got yourselves to be blame for using such a lame piece of software. I'm here today to show you how great the next iMovie software is ? look at how shiny the new version is. Do you guys like shiny?" *insert any application here.



    And everybody who uses iMovie thinks to themselves, 'yeah that new version is really shiny, and you know what, I do like shiny!' And Boom, they're in the upgrade cycle. That iMac that they never planned on upgrading, suddenly requires an OS update. An OS update that places heavier demands on the hardware and suddenly you're looking at some hardware upgrades as well. Probably more RAM, at least.



    That's the way the game works.



    I have a good, real-world example of how that happened to someone I know, just recently. My friend, who isn't particularly computer literate even although he's used a Mac on a daily basis for the last twenty odd years, owns a 20" iMac G5. He picked this iMac because he only planned to do a bit of low-end work from home. He's not going to be doing any colour-accurate work on this iMac or anything remotely high-end, he's just going to be using it to surf the image libraries, check his emails and maybe listen to some iTunes along the way. So he's quite happy with his 20" iMac G5. And he's happy that his trusty iMac is going to see him right for a good few years. No need to fork out for a Power Mac G5.



    So then one day, his wee daughter comments that her best friend has the new iPod Nano, and it's great. Very shiny. And my friend thinks to himself, she's had a bit of a rough time lately, and she's a contented wee soul who never asks for anything ? so I'm going to treat her to an iPod Nano. So off they go to John Lewis, and he gives her the good news, and she picks the new iPod Nano in her favourite colour. And she's over the moon, and my friend is over the moon that she's over the moon. And everybody lives happily ever after ? until they get home and he can't figure out how to get the iPod Nano to work with the iMac. And his daughter's giving him the big puppy-dog eyes.



    Which is when I get the call. And I go over, and I get the tale of woe, and the puppy-dog eyes, and I can't understand why the iPod Nano won't work with what is essentially, a fairly modern Mac. And that's when I notice that for 'some reason' the new iPod Nano 'requires' Mac OS 10.4.9 ? which irks me, because it's essentially just a fancy USB iPod, and the original USB iPod Shuffles didn't require 10.4.9, did they? So why does this one?



    And of course, my friend has 10.3.9 installed on his iMac ? and he can't get to 10.4.9 from 10.3.9 - and I'd be as well talking double-dutch. So I explain that he's got to buy a shrink wrapped copy of 10.5. And at the back of my mind, I'm already thinking to myself 'I've been around this block a couple of times now, and I know it's not going to be that easy'.



    So he buys 10.5, and he's able to get the iPod Nano working, but 10.5 breaks just about everything else including his USB ADSL modem, which doesn't support 10.5. And his ISP wants to sign him up to a new contract in order to give him the shiny new modem that will work with 10.5. And of course, 10.5, with all it's useless fecking eye-candy, runs like a fecking dog on 512MB of RAM.



    So now he's looking at a 2GB RAM upgrade, and a new ISP contract, just to get the machine back to a level of performance he's enjoyed in the past. And as anyone who's tried running 10.5 on a uni-core 2.1GHz G5 will tell you, even with 2.5GB of RAM that's never going to happen. It's as slow as a fortnight. And perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but there's an undercurrent that some of this is some how my fault ? because after all, this all seems to be a bit complicated considering all he wanted to do was treat his daughter an iPod Nano, and suddenly the whole thing has gone tits-up.



    So he's decided that he may as well buy another Mac, and that way he can use all the latest software without having to worry about the performance for another five years. And because he bought AIO the last time, it means that he doesn't have a monitor, so he may as well buy AIO again. And it doesn't matter how much I protest, that's what he does. He buys another iMac with a 4GB RAM upgrade.



    So now I understand why the new iPod Nano 'requires' 10.4.9...



    ...I'm just waiting on the phone call asking why the next iPod Nano requires 10.6, four processor cores and 8GB of RAM.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    10.4 retail discs:



    http://shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_nkw..._mdoZQQ_sopZ12



    10.4 upgrade discs new: $119.00



    http://www.megamacs.com/item/Mac-OS-...,tiger%2010.4/



    He can always just give his iMac to his daughter. There are folks running Leopard on G4s. Folks are saying that Leopard isn't running much slower than Tiger. I haven't bothered upgrading my 800Mhz Quicksilver to Leopard even though with LeopardAssist or just hacking my CPU speed in openfirmware I could.



    http://blandname.com/2008/07/29/inst...z-quicksilver/



    Note the recommendation to upgrade because it's faster than Tiger. Bearfeats performance comparisons of Tiger vs Leopard. Seems like a wash but given that Tiger improved over time I would expect Leopard to improve over time as well...well at least for Intel machines, maybe not for the G5s.



    http://www.barefeats.com/leopard.html



    Yes, 512MB will suck with Leopard. It's not so hot with Tiger either. Given that he's running Panther I assume he has the 2004 Rev A iMac G5 because the Rev B came out in May after Tiger was released. In which case it's a machine that's 6 revs old.



    Uh...wah because Leopard should STILL run fine on it if he simply upgrades his RAM. His 2GB upgrade cost is a whopping $80 max if he buys from Crucial. Cheaper elsewhere.





    Value as Informed Buddy: FAIL



    PS Max RAM is 2GB not 2.5GB. 2 slots max on the Rev A. 1GB sticks max according to Crucial.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Value as Informed Buddy: FAIL



    Excuse Me?
  • Reply 17 of 19
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Messiah View Post


    Excuse Me?



    He's buying a $1500+ computer when all he needs an $80 memory upgrade.



    If the older USB ADSL modem works on Tiger then he can get Tiger off eBay. Tiger was faster than Panther anyway.



    Leopard isn't a bad move except for the modem and not getting more RAM.



    Note performance can be spotty until spotlite does it's thing and is happy.



    Which part of "he needs more RAM" requires a page long post about how you couldn't give him good advice on how to upgrade?



    "You need to buy Leopard or Tiger and you want to go to 2GB of RAM and I'll install it for you" is the correct answer.



    "Go get Leopard on your 512MB of RAM" is not. RAM is the most important upgrade for older machines.



    The ADSL modem you couldn't know about.



    $200 after 3-4 years isn't bad. Especially since Panther isn't getting security patched anymore.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Messiah View Post


    So now I understand why the new iPod Nano 'requires' 10.4.9...



    The continual upgrades irritate me. To install iwork or whatever, they continually push for updates to the latest 10.4.9 or more and the latest versions of quicktime.



    Just to use Apple's keyboard, I had to go to 10.4.10. To upgrade to Safari 3.1.2 required another jump to 10.4.11. I wouldn't mind quite so much but Safari is something like 30MB to download. The OS update is 150MB+.



    And now I can only develop apps for the iphone if I have 10.5.



    When I submit bug reports to Apple, their replies now come back 'try upgrading to Leopard and see if that fixes it'. No, how about you fix it for 10.4, which is what I'm using or offer 10.5 for free.



    They seem to have very little comprehension of what it means to offer backwards compatibility.



    In some ways I like their forward thinking approach as it forces people to use newer versions of software and ultimately it benefits more people. The assumption though is that the newer software is an improvement and often it just isn't. That's when they need to offer support for older systems.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    That's about what you should expect really. Tiger is done except for security and crash fixes really. No new enhancements should be expected.



    Safari probably depends on some security patch being there hence 10.4.11. iPhone dev probably requires some Leopard only foundations.



    10.4, aside from developing for the new stuff, should be fine for most home users.
Sign In or Register to comment.