you keep repeating this, apparently because its the party line, but seriously how was there room for firewire AND DVI in the Macbooks and iBooks BEFORE?
You repeat it as much as you want, but you keep ignoring the FACT that these designs had the space to include the ports, I guess they now don't exist?
Sorry, but it gets tedious.
its obvious there is a demand for firewire in the Macbook, and Apple keeping the white Macbook in the line up is likely an admission of that (its also less glossy than the glass screen in the Alu MBs)
and what will happen to your repetition of this "there is no room" meme if and when Apple add back firewire in some shape or form?
So the fact the battery is now longer than before, thus pushing the HDD closer to the edge isn't something that is different between the machines? Or the fact the the removable bottom now goes the entire width of the machine making showing exposed circuitboards something that should not be allowed for a user-removable bottom? Did you not notice that the setup of the battery being thinner and then longer, despite not having the same capacity as before, not something different to you? I don't think you've even seen the bottom, muchless the insides, of these machines.
Apple will move to all non-user replacable batteries, which will allow for more ports in the left edge. And I don't think well have to wait a full 2.5 years for this change.
Edit: Let me come this a little more Socratically. If you claim that same edge real estate is still available then where would these additional ports be placed. We know that ports are not spaced farther apart than before (I even have anecdotal evidence to support that the USB ports are slightly closer than before). We know that the footprint is equivalent. Since Apple didn't put any ports on the back, right, front, top or bottom, those are not to be used. So that leaves us with the left edge in front of the Kensignton lock. But that has a HDD pressed against. But wasn't the HDD in that spot before? It was, just not so far over because the battery wasn't as long. So where would these additinal ports go if [i]nothing[\\i] has changed?
(A little more condesending than Socratic. Oh well. )
I agree with everything you said, save for the iMac comment. I love that design. Aesthetically it's great, but I will admit that trying to change the HDD was a huge PITA.
I could be wrong, but didn't the G5 iMac from 2004 have a user replaceable HDD, CD drive and Display? I don't know what changed with the aluminum/glass one...
HDMI ports are useless for an iMac. Why the hell would anyone want HDMI ports on an iMac? Its a desktop computer that sits on your desk, not a television that sits in the living room. I'm sorry Apple doesn't make the iMac to be what you want, but thats just never gonna happen. HDMI IMO is on its way out, replaced my the Display Port. In order for Apple to have an HDMI port they would have to get yet, another license just to ship it in their products which very few people would use it. Component ports? Again, why would any one want component ports on the back of an iMac? Again, its NOT a television! Its a consumer desktop all-in-one computer. If you want component ports on it, buy an EyeTV Hybrid ($129 USD) and there ya go.
Compared the sunflower, which was a TERRIBLE design, it looks a ton better.
FIrst, if you can point me to whatever EyeTV Hybrid that has component ports, please do so. I have found find it quite difficult, since it apparently does not exist.
Maybe your inability to comprehend why anyone would want HDMI or component inputs is because you're not very young. Maybe paying between several hundred and sever thousand dollars for a separate screen makes sense in the world you came from. It does not make much sense in 2009, where every single new television, every single one, has been made to function as a computer monitor. That's because they are basically computer monitors that have been made to double as a television. There is no difference. They are the same.
You say computers sit on a desk and televisions in a living room. My desk happens to be in my living room -- and in my bedroom, and quite close to my kitchen. I'm young and live in a studio apt. I do not see the sense in wasting my hard-earned money on redundant displays. Even if my money was not hard-earned, I would not want to waste the space. The iMac is an inferior design at any price.
As for HDMI, of course it will not be around forever, but it has not reached its zenith. Apple seems fine paying for the license for AppleTV, which relies on it, and that's not going to change anytime soon. The real Apple TV is the Mac Mini, though, which is no coincidence, as computer monitors and television are the same.
I don't know why so many people seem to have a problem with the chin. The current iMac is beautiful. I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically. I can only hope that Apple will not listen to the suggestions here of losing the chin and making the screen thicker. That's just ridiculous. Sure, you could lose the chin and make it almost as thick as a CRT monitor but why would you want to devolve into a big, ugly hunk of plastic?
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Not I said the Cat. And while they're at it...don't use those low power desktop chips. Use teh goddaman i7 chip. It's cheaper than the low power version! Give us the goddammit Cube/mid-tower!!!
I don't know why so many people seem to have a problem with the chin. The current iMac is beautiful. I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically. I can only hope that Apple will not listen to the suggestions here of losing the chin and making the screen thicker. That's just ridiculous. Sure, you could lose the chin and make it almost as thick as a CRT monitor but why would you want to devolve into a big, ugly hunk of plastic?
Who said anything about making it out of plastic? Just make it out of aluminium as per usual...
"I see you're admiring our MyCube, it's fuelled by dreams and powered by imagination"
Sadly, they may be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns
I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically.
Removing the screen would be a start but even if it had to stay all-in-one, the logo is far too big and it looks horrible as black. It should be white like the laptops and Mac Pro. The bezel is wrong because the black bit was put there to try and maintain a certain symmetry (symmetry = universally aesthetically pleasing) to make up for the asymmetry of the chin. So now what we are left with is an asymmetric silver bezel with a symmetric black bezel inside that sticks out like a sore thumb. All they had to do was make it like the non-LED Cinema display and they messed it up.
Now that they've improved the design with the LED one, that's how they can improve the iMac. Small, white logo, no chin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns
I can only hope that Apple will not listen to the suggestions here of losing the chin and making the screen thicker. That's just ridiculous. Sure, you could lose the chin and make it almost as thick as a CRT monitor but why would you want to devolve into a big, ugly hunk of plastic?
It wouldn't be nearly as thick as a CRT. At worst, it would have a bulge in the middle at the back.
Even if the optical goes in the base, look at the 24" display base:
The optical drive and hard drive take up loads of room that is completely free in the base. Moving the hard drive out means it's easier to replace too and it lowers the heat inside the machine where the CPU is. The HD can sit on top of the optical drive to minimize space and put a curved aluminium shell over it that is easily removed for drive replacement.
FIrst, if you can point me to whatever EyeTV Hybrid that has component ports, please do so. I have found find it quite difficult, since it apparently does not exist.
HDMI to USB tuners are not very common right now, if they even exist at all. I'm sure at some point they will be developed.
Quote:
Maybe your inability to comprehend why anyone would want HDMI or component inputs is because you're not very young. Maybe paying between several hundred and sever thousand dollars for a separate screen makes sense in the world you came from. It does not make much sense in 2009, where every single new television, every single one, has been made to function as a computer monitor. That's because they are basically computer monitors that have been made to double as a television. There is no difference. They are the same.
Televisions and computer monitors are not the same. This is totally wrong. They both use completely different LCD panels. A good computer monitor has much higher pixel density than a television. Computer monitors have better color reproduction and strive for better viewing angle. That is why a 30" HDTV costs $600 while a 30" computer monitor costs $2000.
Think about it. You sit a couple of feet from a computer monitor, while you sit 10 - 30 feet from a television. Each are designed with these conditions in mind.
Quote:
You say computers sit on a desk and televisions in a living room. My desk happens to be in my living room -- and in my bedroom, and quite close to my kitchen. I'm young and live in a studio apt. I do not see the sense in wasting my hard-earned money on redundant displays. Even if my money was not hard-earned, I would not want to waste the space. The iMac is an inferior design at any price.
Your personal situation has little to do with computer and television design.
From the description of your living situation their is no need to spend thousands of dollars on a television, a $500 26" flat screen would suite your living space just fine. You don't have to have a desktop computer and a television.
If you must have a desktop computer that you watch television on, as was mentioned you can watch television on an iMac using Eye TV. If you absolutely require HDMI then you have use another solution.
Otherwise you cannot have champagne expectations on a kool-aid budget.
Televisions and computer monitors are not the same. This is totally wrong. They both use completely different LCD panels. A good computer monitor has much higher pixel density than a television. Computer monitors have better color reproduction and strive for better viewing angle. That is why a 30" HDTV costs $600 while a 30" computer monitor costs $2000.
Think about it. You sit a couple of feet from a computer monitor, while you sit 10 - 30 feet from a television. Each are designed with these conditions in mind.
I have to agree 100% here. We have a Mini hooked up to a 48" plasma at work and it doesn't look great. Sure the Mini doesn't have the most advanced graphics, and the set-up works fine for meetings, but I wouldn't want to spend time working on it.
This is why I have always agreed with Apple's approach of using your computer for a computer, and using an AppleTV for an interface with a separate TV over the media center/computer mess that Microsoft and some PC manufacturers were trying to push a few years ago.
I could be wrong, but didn't the G5 iMac from 2004 have a user replaceable HDD, CD drive and Display? I don't know what changed with the aluminum/glass one...
It was just typical Apple crazyism.
Somebody decided that user-serviceable design would cut down on support costs.
So our favourite geniuses designed a machine where users could get at everything.
Since entry-level users should never be trusted to change things like the LCD, CD drive and power supply, Apple's support costs actually went up. Then another Somebody decided that to avoid this problem, everything should be locked up.
That, believe it or not, is how this multi-billion dollar company decided that their desktop users shouldn't be able to change their hard drive.
No one involved in the iMac decision has apparently seen a MacBook.
I don't know why so many people seem to have a problem with the chin. The current iMac is beautiful. I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically.
For me its not an issue of aesthetics, but ERGONOMICS. Due to the "chin" and the non-adjustable stand, the iMac screens are too high for comfortable viewing. I would get a sore neck if had to look UP at an iMac screen for very long.
The bottom of the screen is about 7-8" off the desk. Too high for me.
For me its not an issue of aesthetics, but ERGONOMICS. Due to the "chin" and the non-adjustable stand, the iMac screens are too high for comfortable viewing. I would get a sore neck if had to look UP at an iMac screen for very long.
The bottom of the screen is about 7-8" off the desk. Too high for me.
Are you less than 4 feet tall? They make chairs that are height adjustable, you know.
Are you less than 4 feet tall? They make chairs that are height adjustable, you know.
I'm sorry. Are you really saying that one has to adjust the height of a chair (recall: desk heights are fixed, some chairs have arms) to be comfortable with their screen?
That doesn't seem strange that someone would have to do this for you..
That is actually what made the previous imac with the articulating arm so interesting for people.
Are you less than 4 feet tall? They make chairs that are height adjustable, you know.
If you want to sit properly (ie, the position optimum for avoiding repetitive stress injuries), you need to have your feet flat on the floor -- and to have your sightline hit around the top of the monitor screen. People a lot taller than four feet find this impossible because of the "chin" and the "neck" of the iMac.
Which is a shame because like a lot of people I do find the whole look of the iMac beautiful. Someone needs to invent an office chair with a little adjustable platform for your feet.
Comments
you keep repeating this, apparently because its the party line, but seriously how was there room for firewire AND DVI in the Macbooks and iBooks BEFORE?
You repeat it as much as you want, but you keep ignoring the FACT that these designs had the space to include the ports, I guess they now don't exist?
Sorry, but it gets tedious.
its obvious there is a demand for firewire in the Macbook, and Apple keeping the white Macbook in the line up is likely an admission of that (its also less glossy than the glass screen in the Alu MBs)
and what will happen to your repetition of this "there is no room" meme if and when Apple add back firewire in some shape or form?
So the fact the battery is now longer than before, thus pushing the HDD closer to the edge isn't something that is different between the machines? Or the fact the the removable bottom now goes the entire width of the machine making showing exposed circuitboards something that should not be allowed for a user-removable bottom? Did you not notice that the setup of the battery being thinner and then longer, despite not having the same capacity as before, not something different to you? I don't think you've even seen the bottom, muchless the insides, of these machines.
Apple will move to all non-user replacable batteries, which will allow for more ports in the left edge. And I don't think well have to wait a full 2.5 years for this change.
Edit: Let me come this a little more Socratically. If you claim that same edge real estate is still available then where would these additional ports be placed. We know that ports are not spaced farther apart than before (I even have anecdotal evidence to support that the USB ports are slightly closer than before). We know that the footprint is equivalent. Since Apple didn't put any ports on the back, right, front, top or bottom, those are not to be used. So that leaves us with the left edge in front of the Kensignton lock. But that has a HDD pressed against. But wasn't the HDD in that spot before? It was, just not so far over because the battery wasn't as long. So where would these additinal ports go if [i]nothing[\\i] has changed?
(A little more condesending than Socratic. Oh well.
I agree with everything you said, save for the iMac comment. I love that design. Aesthetically it's great, but I will admit that trying to change the HDD was a huge PITA.
I could be wrong, but didn't the G5 iMac from 2004 have a user replaceable HDD, CD drive and Display? I don't know what changed with the aluminum/glass one...
HDMI ports are useless for an iMac. Why the hell would anyone want HDMI ports on an iMac? Its a desktop computer that sits on your desk, not a television that sits in the living room. I'm sorry Apple doesn't make the iMac to be what you want, but thats just never gonna happen. HDMI IMO is on its way out, replaced my the Display Port. In order for Apple to have an HDMI port they would have to get yet, another license just to ship it in their products which very few people would use it. Component ports? Again, why would any one want component ports on the back of an iMac? Again, its NOT a television! Its a consumer desktop all-in-one computer. If you want component ports on it, buy an EyeTV Hybrid ($129 USD) and there ya go.
Compared the sunflower, which was a TERRIBLE design, it looks a ton better.
FIrst, if you can point me to whatever EyeTV Hybrid that has component ports, please do so. I have found find it quite difficult, since it apparently does not exist.
Maybe your inability to comprehend why anyone would want HDMI or component inputs is because you're not very young. Maybe paying between several hundred and sever thousand dollars for a separate screen makes sense in the world you came from. It does not make much sense in 2009, where every single new television, every single one, has been made to function as a computer monitor. That's because they are basically computer monitors that have been made to double as a television. There is no difference. They are the same.
You say computers sit on a desk and televisions in a living room. My desk happens to be in my living room -- and in my bedroom, and quite close to my kitchen. I'm young and live in a studio apt. I do not see the sense in wasting my hard-earned money on redundant displays. Even if my money was not hard-earned, I would not want to waste the space. The iMac is an inferior design at any price.
As for HDMI, of course it will not be around forever, but it has not reached its zenith. Apple seems fine paying for the license for AppleTV, which relies on it, and that's not going to change anytime soon. The real Apple TV is the Mac Mini, though, which is no coincidence, as computer monitors and television are the same.
Actually it's not better from either a historic or strategic standpoint to put these chips inside an iMac vs a small headless machine.
They are desktop chips and are hot. We all remember the hot G5 chips in the iMacs.
It also means that the machines will be more expensive as presumably they will leave dual-core for the lower end. The high end iMac sells for $2,199.
It is not a safer bet to put a quad chip into a $2000+ machine during a recession when tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs.
It is a safer bet to put these chips into a new breed of desktop that comes in at under $1000 ($1500 at worst) and rivals what PC manufacturers are offering. It needs to be stylish but it needs to be headless.
The return of the Cube is overdue. Superbowl Sunday, the Mac for everyone, in celebration of their 25th anniversary, the 'Mac' that started everything we have now. The Next Cube.
Macbook -> Mac Pro
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Next month might bring 8-core chips so the Mac Pro could even go 16-core with a single 8-core on the low end.
I'd love a neXt cube.
You da man. You speak truth.
Lemon BOn BOn.
Mac Cube -> Mac Pro
That's it. Who would honestly complain about a setup like that?
Not I said the Cat. And while they're at it...don't use those low power desktop chips. Use teh goddaman i7 chip. It's cheaper than the low power version! Give us the goddammit Cube/mid-tower!!!
Lemon Bon Bon.
I don't know why so many people seem to have a problem with the chin. The current iMac is beautiful. I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically. I can only hope that Apple will not listen to the suggestions here of losing the chin and making the screen thicker. That's just ridiculous. Sure, you could lose the chin and make it almost as thick as a CRT monitor but why would you want to devolve into a big, ugly hunk of plastic?
Who said anything about making it out of plastic? Just make it out of aluminium as per usual...
I'd love a neXt cube.
You da man. You speak truth.
Even the Simpsons writers want them to make cubes (0:30):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2fsubA2-c
"I see you're admiring our MyCube, it's fuelled by dreams and powered by imagination"
Sadly, they may be right.
I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically.
Removing the screen would be a start but even if it had to stay all-in-one, the logo is far too big and it looks horrible as black. It should be white like the laptops and Mac Pro. The bezel is wrong because the black bit was put there to try and maintain a certain symmetry (symmetry = universally aesthetically pleasing) to make up for the asymmetry of the chin. So now what we are left with is an asymmetric silver bezel with a symmetric black bezel inside that sticks out like a sore thumb. All they had to do was make it like the non-LED Cinema display and they messed it up.
Now that they've improved the design with the LED one, that's how they can improve the iMac. Small, white logo, no chin.
I can only hope that Apple will not listen to the suggestions here of losing the chin and making the screen thicker. That's just ridiculous. Sure, you could lose the chin and make it almost as thick as a CRT monitor but why would you want to devolve into a big, ugly hunk of plastic?
It wouldn't be nearly as thick as a CRT. At worst, it would have a bulge in the middle at the back.
Even if the optical goes in the base, look at the 24" display base:
http://www.apple.com/displays/gallery/#image2
Now look at the slot loading drive for the MBA:
http://www.fallingpixel.com/products...ont400-400.jpg
and look at the insides here:
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawar...l/01141052.jpg
The optical drive and hard drive take up loads of room that is completely free in the base. Moving the hard drive out means it's easier to replace too and it lowers the heat inside the machine where the CPU is. The HD can sit on top of the optical drive to minimize space and put a curved aluminium shell over it that is easily removed for drive replacement.
FIrst, if you can point me to whatever EyeTV Hybrid that has component ports, please do so. I have found find it quite difficult, since it apparently does not exist.
HDMI to USB tuners are not very common right now, if they even exist at all. I'm sure at some point they will be developed.
Maybe your inability to comprehend why anyone would want HDMI or component inputs is because you're not very young. Maybe paying between several hundred and sever thousand dollars for a separate screen makes sense in the world you came from. It does not make much sense in 2009, where every single new television, every single one, has been made to function as a computer monitor. That's because they are basically computer monitors that have been made to double as a television. There is no difference. They are the same.
Televisions and computer monitors are not the same. This is totally wrong. They both use completely different LCD panels. A good computer monitor has much higher pixel density than a television. Computer monitors have better color reproduction and strive for better viewing angle. That is why a 30" HDTV costs $600 while a 30" computer monitor costs $2000.
Think about it. You sit a couple of feet from a computer monitor, while you sit 10 - 30 feet from a television. Each are designed with these conditions in mind.
You say computers sit on a desk and televisions in a living room. My desk happens to be in my living room -- and in my bedroom, and quite close to my kitchen. I'm young and live in a studio apt. I do not see the sense in wasting my hard-earned money on redundant displays. Even if my money was not hard-earned, I would not want to waste the space. The iMac is an inferior design at any price.
Your personal situation has little to do with computer and television design.
From the description of your living situation their is no need to spend thousands of dollars on a television, a $500 26" flat screen would suite your living space just fine. You don't have to have a desktop computer and a television.
If you must have a desktop computer that you watch television on, as was mentioned you can watch television on an iMac using Eye TV. If you absolutely require HDMI then you have use another solution.
Otherwise you cannot have champagne expectations on a kool-aid budget.
Televisions and computer monitors are not the same. This is totally wrong. They both use completely different LCD panels. A good computer monitor has much higher pixel density than a television. Computer monitors have better color reproduction and strive for better viewing angle. That is why a 30" HDTV costs $600 while a 30" computer monitor costs $2000.
Think about it. You sit a couple of feet from a computer monitor, while you sit 10 - 30 feet from a television. Each are designed with these conditions in mind.
I have to agree 100% here. We have a Mini hooked up to a 48" plasma at work and it doesn't look great. Sure the Mini doesn't have the most advanced graphics, and the set-up works fine for meetings, but I wouldn't want to spend time working on it.
This is why I have always agreed with Apple's approach of using your computer for a computer, and using an AppleTV for an interface with a separate TV over the media center/computer mess that Microsoft and some PC manufacturers were trying to push a few years ago.
I could be wrong, but didn't the G5 iMac from 2004 have a user replaceable HDD, CD drive and Display? I don't know what changed with the aluminum/glass one...
It was just typical Apple crazyism.
Somebody decided that user-serviceable design would cut down on support costs.
So our favourite geniuses designed a machine where users could get at everything.
Since entry-level users should never be trusted to change things like the LCD, CD drive and power supply, Apple's support costs actually went up. Then another Somebody decided that to avoid this problem, everything should be locked up.
That, believe it or not, is how this multi-billion dollar company decided that their desktop users shouldn't be able to change their hard drive.
No one involved in the iMac decision has apparently seen a MacBook.
I don't know why so many people seem to have a problem with the chin. The current iMac is beautiful. I really don't know how it could be improved upon aesthetically.
For me its not an issue of aesthetics, but ERGONOMICS. Due to the "chin" and the non-adjustable stand, the iMac screens are too high for comfortable viewing. I would get a sore neck if had to look UP at an iMac screen for very long.
The bottom of the screen is about 7-8" off the desk. Too high for me.
For me its not an issue of aesthetics, but ERGONOMICS. Due to the "chin" and the non-adjustable stand, the iMac screens are too high for comfortable viewing. I would get a sore neck if had to look UP at an iMac screen for very long.
The bottom of the screen is about 7-8" off the desk. Too high for me.
Are you less than 4 feet tall? They make chairs that are height adjustable, you know.
Are you less than 4 feet tall? They make chairs that are height adjustable, you know.
I'm sorry. Are you really saying that one has to adjust the height of a chair (recall: desk heights are fixed, some chairs have arms) to be comfortable with their screen?
That doesn't seem strange that someone would have to do this for you..
That is actually what made the previous imac with the articulating arm so interesting for people.
Are you less than 4 feet tall? They make chairs that are height adjustable, you know.
If you want to sit properly (ie, the position optimum for avoiding repetitive stress injuries), you need to have your feet flat on the floor -- and to have your sightline hit around the top of the monitor screen. People a lot taller than four feet find this impossible because of the "chin" and the "neck" of the iMac.
Which is a shame because like a lot of people I do find the whole look of the iMac beautiful. Someone needs to invent an office chair with a little adjustable platform for your feet.
Thank you Romy- or is it Michelle?
"I hope your babies look like monkeys."
Touchscreen. Thats all I have to say.
You still won't be able to play Crysis on it. (Yes, I'm totally obsessed with this Crysis thing right now...