I assume that people that usually buy iMacs are not very tech savvy or just don’t want to fiddle with HW upgrades. How often do normal consumers usually upgrade their HDDs anyway?
Not often but the HDD is by far, in my experience, the most likely component in a computer to fail. I wouldn't buy a machine that required me to remove a big honkin' piece of glass and the display to reach the inside.
Apple doesn't like doors and access panels, well, they need to suck it up. I'm sure their repair techs curse the iMac's engineers daily.
There will be a 20" MacBook Pro long before we ever see a 30" iMac.
I don't know, I think both are a ways off, but I think the reverse order is going to happen. A 30" iMac is a lot more sensible than a 20" notebook. A 17" notebook is about at the margin of sane portability, thickness and weight doesn't matter so much because the screen size still forces a long and wide device profile.
I don't know, I think both are a ways off, but I think the reverse order is going to happen. A 30" iMac is a lot more sensible than a 20" notebook. A 17" notebook is about at the margin of sane portability, thickness and weight doesn't matter so much because the screen size still forces a long and wide device profile.
LG makes some 20" E-IPS Panel, so next generation iMac could very well use that. Although i expect it to upgrade with new Intel CPU as well, so may be October - November timeframe.
With the new price drop from Intel SSD, i also hope Apple will use them as well.
I agree. People make too much of this. It takes more time to add a HDD to the average PC.
Maybe I missed something here but designers should always prefer accessibility over and serviceability over other elements of the design. The new MacBook Pros clearly demonstrate that this can be a reasonable goal. So why not an iMac or other platform? Even the Mini could use some accessibility love.
Quote:
And with laptops, really, how often is this going to be done?
I have an early 2008 MBP and honestly the though of getting to the drive in this machine puts one off upgrading. I may very well hang around with the current capacity solution until I can afford a new Mac. The question should be how long do people put off upgrades because of poor design?
Frankly to me a PC that is easy to upgrade, at the lowest cost, is more green than one that gets replaced regularly because it is difficult to maintain. For many of us we outgrow our storage capacity much faster that the machines base performance.
Agreed, a few extra screws on the MacBook Pro is a non-issue.
yep! Screws don't impact professional use of a MBP one bit.
Quote:
It is a major issue on the top-end iMac though, which is being pitched to a professional audience.
Followed immediately by this statement which really makes no sense at all. How can it not be a problem on one professional platform and not another? Seriosely I see this attitude expressed countless times when it makes no sense at all.
Screws in a machine can even become a design element. Apple could go the Allen Cap Screw route and proudly display those heads. Frankly though the arguement that screws make the machine unprofessional is baseless.
Quote:
I still don't understand why the LCD can't be swung out on an arm, with latches on the inside.
in some ways this is a very good idea. It would be very easy to hide the release mechanism and hinges really don't cost that much. The only bad part is the tipping moment that you have with the screen open. It would be very acceptable if opening the screen gave you direct access to the drive and powersupply. Ideally the platform would have two drive bays.
On the other hand if they can't give you access to the power supply and drives why bother? The idea here is a more servicable machine.
Quote:
That wouldn't ruin the outer appearance at all. Must be a space issue?
Screws wouldn't ruin the outer appearance either. As to the hinged panel I don't think it is a space issue as they seem to waste a lot of that. In anyevent in my experience a good latch must have a screw based tightening arraingement anyways. There are all sorts of spring latches out there but none of them all that secure but at the same time allowing easy access.
As a side note that actually pulls this thread back on track I think Apple could easily make iMac cheaper be simply doing a better layout of the parts. The curret PC board looks like it was attacked by a mad Sushi chief. Simple rectangular PC boards are cheaper and far easier to assemble. The current iMac is expensive by design.
What really needs to be done is to have a survey, not asking people if they would upgrade their machines if it were possible, but asking people if they ever DID upgrade their machines that were upgradable, and asking that if they did, what did they upgrade.
Not just Mac users, but PC users as well.
I'm sure the results would surprise all the techie types who are always insisting on upgradable machines (other than memory).
While we're at it, lets just make one generic computer with a 2.0ghz core 2 and a 20" since that's what most people actually use. Why all this instance on making computers for the least demanding user? Is the Mac nothing more than a status symbol anymore? Once upon a time Apple was the computer maker who wanted something more than consumer crap. With Apple pricing the Mac Pro out of reach, the imac is the only "desktop" (despite not actually being one) that Mac users can afford.
There have been several 20" "notebooks" introduced over the last few years. I don't think anybody bought them, and most of them are gone from the market.
? Would Apple in effect make two separate product lines...one with Quad processors, the other with the dual cores?
Something I've thought of before (like the Mac Pro) and sounds good, but not something I consider likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Intel has created some low-power desktop quads that are faster and cheaper than the notebook-grade chips Apple has been using in the iMacs. I think the next chips may offer low enough power usage to make that small enclosure possible for these desktop-grade CPUs. (I forget the TPM, but will look it up)
The Penryn quad-cores are 65 W and the Lynnfield ones will be 82 W (similar TDP once the northbridge is subtracted). That's still 10 W hotter than the hottest CPU Apple has used in the iMac.
While we're at it, lets just make one generic computer with a 2.0ghz core 2 and a 20" since that's what most people actually use. Why all this instance on making computers for the least demanding user?
I tend to agree. More so I think people have to be in denial if they don't think that disk drives get replaced often. Depending on the manufacture the replacement of disk drives is right up there with power supplies. If forced into a replacement people often want to upgrade storage at the same time.
Personally everyone of my machines from the past got an updated disk to extend it's life. When I got my MBP in 2008 I thought I was set with a 200GB disk. That proved to be a joke in short order. I would have preferred an internal upgrade if it didn't demand such a horrific tear down of the machine. So for the interm I simply went external which is an storage upgrade anyways.
The thing is external working storage sucks. People can whine all they want about how nice Firewire is but it is still slow, cumbersome and unreliable. I really don't want to have to carry that extra disk for system storage. Backup would be a different story but it isn't being used that way. In anyevent I might seriously consider an internal upgrade when the 750 GB disks come out.
Quote:
Is the Mac nothing more than a status symbol anymore? Once upon a time Apple was the computer maker who wanted something more than consumer crap. With Apple pricing the Mac Pro out of reach, the imac is the only "desktop" (despite not actually being one) that Mac users can afford.
I don't see the iMac as a crap concept but rather a crap implementation. Certain things need to be easy to do on a PC and replacing the harddrive is one of them. Not just for the user either, Apple approved servicing shouldn't be grossly impacted cost wise be cause the tear down leaves you with as many pieces as a Ravensburg puzzle. You are also right about the lack of a midrange machine.
Like it or not Apple has stagnated on the desk top. They seemed to have painted themselves into a corner. Likely the result of falling prey to their own BS. Even the Mini seems to be in this corner and as a result going no where fast. That being said while I acknowledge actally liking the Mini idea. The iMac on the otherhand seems to be going backwards, becoming harder to support.
Something I've thought of before (like the Mac Pro) and sounds good, but not something I consider likely.
Really why not? Frankly Apple should be doing this right now leaving people with the option to choose a best fit machine. It is not like every problem will leverage a quad core effectively so why not let the buyer choose.
Quote:
The Penryn quad-cores are 65 W and the Lynnfield ones will be 82 W (similar TDP once the northbridge is subtracted). That's still 10 W hotter than the hottest CPU Apple has used in the iMac.
But the total system power is less. That is a great feature of the coming hardware. In anyevent Apple either needs to keep up with iMac or kill it. The performance gap is so wide now that it really brings to question the wisdom of buying any of Apples low end desktops. Like mentioned above Apple has painted themselves into a corner and they need to break out. Even if that means a dead iMac line. Or maybe it just means using screws.
Maybe I missed something here but designers should always prefer accessibility over and serviceability over other elements of the design. The new MacBook Pros clearly demonstrate that this can be a reasonable goal. So why not an iMac or other platform? Even the Mini could use some accessibility love.
Designers aren't manufacturers.
What often happens is that designers get together after guidance from executives, and come up with a product.
But then it goes to the production engineers, who then tear the product apart, and make changes based on produce-ability.
Sometimes that moves back up the ladder, but sometimes not.
Production cost is the big bugaboo in all product design and manufacturing.
If end user accessibility is considered to be a major feature, then you are going to pay for it. The same thing with serviceability.
If price is an object, accessibility moves down the feature list.
The more compact a device is, the harder it will be to service, unless techniques are used to make it easier, but as I said, that costs money. Making something compact already costs more, so that could bring the price out of the market it's aimed at.
Quote:
I have an early 2008 MBP and honestly the though of getting to the drive in this machine puts one off upgrading. I may very well hang around with the current capacity solution until I can afford a new Mac. The question should be how long do people put off upgrades because of poor design?
I haven't yet opened up a new machine, but from the guides I've seen on the web, it looks to be fairly easy.
If people upgrade their laptop, it's usually to add RAM. Fewer people upgrade their HDDS.
When they do either, it's usually just one time. Maybe twice at most for a HDD.
If it takes another three or four minutes, does that really matter if done once or twice during a two or three year period?
I don't think so. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Quote:
Frankly to me a PC that is easy to upgrade, at the lowest cost, is more green than one that gets replaced regularly because it is difficult to maintain. For many of us we outgrow our storage capacity much faster that the machines base performance.
Dave
People just don't do it. It's a myth that people like upgrading their machines. We can't go by the percentage of people here.
yep! Screws don't impact professional use of a MBP one bit.
Agreed.
Quote:
Followed immediately by this statement which really makes no sense at all. How can it not be a problem on one professional platform and not another? Seriosely I see this attitude expressed countless times when it makes no sense at all.
Screws in a machine can even become a design element. Apple could go the Allen Cap Screw route and proudly display those heads. Frankly though the arguement that screws make the machine unprofessional is baseless.
It depends on where the screws are. I know that may seem odd, but as one who has designed professional equipment, my experience is that if not done right, the product can look unfinished, or haphazardly designed, almost as if the design was changed at the last minute because they got something wrong, and this was the fastest and cheapest way to modify it.
Screws must fit into the design as though they belong there, not as an afterthought.
When we look at circuit boards, one of the first things we look at are how many (if any) wires are on the board crossing over traces. When we find that, it means the board wasn't properly designed, and they had to do this to get it to work. Very bad.
If screws aren't looking as though they belong, people get an unconscious feel that it's not "right".
So while I agree that there's nothing "wrong" with screws, it might be better to not have them.
Quote:
in some ways this is a very good idea. It would be very easy to hide the release mechanism and hinges really don't cost that much. The only bad part is the tipping moment that you have with the screen open. It would be very acceptable if opening the screen gave you direct access to the drive and powersupply. Ideally the platform would have two drive bays.
No. Hinges would change the entire design internally, and externally. They aren't all that cheap either, for what would be needed. In addition, there would be a need for a long flex wiring circuit to allow the swing, which is breakable as we know from hinge designs that use them. This would take more room so the case would have to be thicker. how much? Maybe a half to and inch, depending. With a hinge comes a latch, reachable from somewhere outside. More complexity and cost.
This could add a couple of hundred to the price.
Quote:
On the other hand if they can't give you access to the power supply and drives why bother? The idea here is a more servicable machine.
I don't think accessability to the power supply is that important.
But I would like to see the HDD accessed from the back. It could be done less expensively that having the entire monitor front open.
Quote:
Screws wouldn't ruin the outer appearance either. As to the hinged panel I don't think it is a space issue as they seem to waste a lot of that. In anyevent in my experience a good latch must have a screw based tightening arraingement anyways. There are all sorts of spring latches out there but none of them all that secure but at the same time allowing easy access.
As I said above.
Quote:
As a side note that actually pulls this thread back on track I think Apple could easily make iMac cheaper be simply doing a better layout of the parts. The curret PC board looks like it was attacked by a mad Sushi chief. Simple rectangular PC boards are cheaper and far easier to assemble. The current iMac is expensive by design.
Dave
How do you know the iMac isn't already made as efficiently as possible? Are you a product engineer?
While we're at it, lets just make one generic computer with a 2.0ghz core 2 and a 20" since that's what most people actually use. Why all this instance on making computers for the least demanding user? Is the Mac nothing more than a status symbol anymore? Once upon a time Apple was the computer maker who wanted something more than consumer crap. With Apple pricing the Mac Pro out of reach, the imac is the only "desktop" (despite not actually being one) that Mac users can afford.
I would also like to see Apple make some machines they don't make. But they are focussed on something that we don't really understand, and as I read in an article the other day, this is said to be a major reason for their recent success. They have long term goals that most outsiders don't see.
No. Hinges would change the entire design internally, and externally. They aren't all that cheap either, for what would be needed. In addition, there would be a need for a long flex wiring circuit to allow the swing, which is breakable as we know from hinge designs that use them. This would take more room so the case would have to be thicker. how much? Maybe a half to and inch, depending. With a hinge comes a latch, reachable from somewhere outside. More complexity and cost.
This could add a couple of hundred to the price.
The lucite Macs opened by pulling a ring and having the insides fold out to lie horizontally. I doubt that added hundreds to the price. A G4 tower cost about $1500. The G4 was very easy to upgrade.
Only the expensive Mac Pro is easy to upgrade now. Otherwise, Macs have gotten more difficult. What is Apple thinking? it would seem that Apple has no regard for it's faithful users. They couldn't care less about users.
The lucite Macs opened by pulling a ring and having the insides fold out to lie horizontally. I doubt that added hundreds to the price. A G4 tower cost about $1500. The G4 was very easy to upgrade.
Only the expensive Mac Pro is easy to upgrade now. Otherwise, Macs have gotten more difficult. What is Apple thinking? it would seem that Apple has no regard for it's faithful users. They couldn't care less about users.
That's a lot different than having the panel with the glass swing out on hinges. Totally different.
G3 and G4 towers were also very different. You can't compare them at all with an iMac.
They care about users, just not the user you think you are.
Comments
I agree. People make too much of this. It takes more time to add a HDD to the average PC.
And with laptops, really, how often is this going to be done?
Agreed, a few extra screws on the MacBook Pro is a non-issue.
It is a major issue on the top-end iMac though, which is being pitched to a professional audience.
I still don't understand why the LCD can't be swung out on an arm, with latches on the inside.
That wouldn't ruin the outer appearance at all. Must be a space issue?
Agreed, a few extra screws on the MacBook Pro is a non-issue.
It is a major issue on the top-end iMac though, which is being pitched to a professional audience.
I still don't understand why the LCD can't be swung out on an arm, with latches on the inside.
That wouldn't ruin the outer appearance at all. Must be a space issue?
That would be very complex, and expensive.
I assume that people that usually buy iMacs are not very tech savvy or just don’t want to fiddle with HW upgrades. How often do normal consumers usually upgrade their HDDs anyway?
Not often but the HDD is by far, in my experience, the most likely component in a computer to fail. I wouldn't buy a machine that required me to remove a big honkin' piece of glass and the display to reach the inside.
Apple doesn't like doors and access panels, well, they need to suck it up. I'm sure their repair techs curse the iMac's engineers daily.
There will be a 20" MacBook Pro long before we ever see a 30" iMac.
I don't know, I think both are a ways off, but I think the reverse order is going to happen. A 30" iMac is a lot more sensible than a 20" notebook. A 17" notebook is about at the margin of sane portability, thickness and weight doesn't matter so much because the screen size still forces a long and wide device profile.
I don't know, I think both are a ways off, but I think the reverse order is going to happen. A 30" iMac is a lot more sensible than a 20" notebook. A 17" notebook is about at the margin of sane portability, thickness and weight doesn't matter so much because the screen size still forces a long and wide device profile.
There are a couple of 19s, but they are monsters.
With the new price drop from Intel SSD, i also hope Apple will use them as well.
I agree. People make too much of this. It takes more time to add a HDD to the average PC.
Maybe I missed something here but designers should always prefer accessibility over and serviceability over other elements of the design. The new MacBook Pros clearly demonstrate that this can be a reasonable goal. So why not an iMac or other platform? Even the Mini could use some accessibility love.
And with laptops, really, how often is this going to be done?
I have an early 2008 MBP and honestly the though of getting to the drive in this machine puts one off upgrading. I may very well hang around with the current capacity solution until I can afford a new Mac. The question should be how long do people put off upgrades because of poor design?
Frankly to me a PC that is easy to upgrade, at the lowest cost, is more green than one that gets replaced regularly because it is difficult to maintain. For many of us we outgrow our storage capacity much faster that the machines base performance.
Dave
Agreed, a few extra screws on the MacBook Pro is a non-issue.
yep! Screws don't impact professional use of a MBP one bit.
It is a major issue on the top-end iMac though, which is being pitched to a professional audience.
Followed immediately by this statement which really makes no sense at all. How can it not be a problem on one professional platform and not another? Seriosely I see this attitude expressed countless times when it makes no sense at all.
Screws in a machine can even become a design element. Apple could go the Allen Cap Screw route and proudly display those heads. Frankly though the arguement that screws make the machine unprofessional is baseless.
I still don't understand why the LCD can't be swung out on an arm, with latches on the inside.
in some ways this is a very good idea. It would be very easy to hide the release mechanism and hinges really don't cost that much. The only bad part is the tipping moment that you have with the screen open. It would be very acceptable if opening the screen gave you direct access to the drive and powersupply. Ideally the platform would have two drive bays.
On the other hand if they can't give you access to the power supply and drives why bother? The idea here is a more servicable machine.
That wouldn't ruin the outer appearance at all. Must be a space issue?
Screws wouldn't ruin the outer appearance either. As to the hinged panel I don't think it is a space issue as they seem to waste a lot of that. In anyevent in my experience a good latch must have a screw based tightening arraingement anyways. There are all sorts of spring latches out there but none of them all that secure but at the same time allowing easy access.
As a side note that actually pulls this thread back on track I think Apple could easily make iMac cheaper be simply doing a better layout of the parts. The curret PC board looks like it was attacked by a mad Sushi chief. Simple rectangular PC boards are cheaper and far easier to assemble. The current iMac is expensive by design.
Dave
There are a couple of 19s, but they are monsters.
Oops, I meant from Apple. You are right that other brands have larger ones. I think Dell had a 20-21" model:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39...9284379,00.htm
I don't think I watched the clip yet.
What really needs to be done is to have a survey, not asking people if they would upgrade their machines if it were possible, but asking people if they ever DID upgrade their machines that were upgradable, and asking that if they did, what did they upgrade.
Not just Mac users, but PC users as well.
I'm sure the results would surprise all the techie types who are always insisting on upgradable machines (other than memory).
While we're at it, lets just make one generic computer with a 2.0ghz core 2 and a 20" since that's what most people actually use. Why all this instance on making computers for the least demanding user? Is the Mac nothing more than a status symbol anymore? Once upon a time Apple was the computer maker who wanted something more than consumer crap. With Apple pricing the Mac Pro out of reach, the imac is the only "desktop" (despite not actually being one) that Mac users can afford.
? Would Apple in effect make two separate product lines...one with Quad processors, the other with the dual cores?
Something I've thought of before (like the Mac Pro) and sounds good, but not something I consider likely.
Intel has created some low-power desktop quads that are faster and cheaper than the notebook-grade chips Apple has been using in the iMacs. I think the next chips may offer low enough power usage to make that small enclosure possible for these desktop-grade CPUs. (I forget the TPM, but will look it up)
The Penryn quad-cores are 65 W and the Lynnfield ones will be 82 W (similar TDP once the northbridge is subtracted). That's still 10 W hotter than the hottest CPU Apple has used in the iMac.
While we're at it, lets just make one generic computer with a 2.0ghz core 2 and a 20" since that's what most people actually use. Why all this instance on making computers for the least demanding user?
I tend to agree. More so I think people have to be in denial if they don't think that disk drives get replaced often. Depending on the manufacture the replacement of disk drives is right up there with power supplies. If forced into a replacement people often want to upgrade storage at the same time.
Personally everyone of my machines from the past got an updated disk to extend it's life. When I got my MBP in 2008 I thought I was set with a 200GB disk. That proved to be a joke in short order. I would have preferred an internal upgrade if it didn't demand such a horrific tear down of the machine. So for the interm I simply went external which is an storage upgrade anyways.
The thing is external working storage sucks. People can whine all they want about how nice Firewire is but it is still slow, cumbersome and unreliable. I really don't want to have to carry that extra disk for system storage. Backup would be a different story but it isn't being used that way. In anyevent I might seriously consider an internal upgrade when the 750 GB disks come out.
Is the Mac nothing more than a status symbol anymore? Once upon a time Apple was the computer maker who wanted something more than consumer crap. With Apple pricing the Mac Pro out of reach, the imac is the only "desktop" (despite not actually being one) that Mac users can afford.
I don't see the iMac as a crap concept but rather a crap implementation. Certain things need to be easy to do on a PC and replacing the harddrive is one of them. Not just for the user either, Apple approved servicing shouldn't be grossly impacted cost wise be cause the tear down leaves you with as many pieces as a Ravensburg puzzle. You are also right about the lack of a midrange machine.
Like it or not Apple has stagnated on the desk top. They seemed to have painted themselves into a corner. Likely the result of falling prey to their own BS. Even the Mini seems to be in this corner and as a result going no where fast. That being said while I acknowledge actally liking the Mini idea. The iMac on the otherhand seems to be going backwards, becoming harder to support.
Dave
Something I've thought of before (like the Mac Pro) and sounds good, but not something I consider likely.
Really why not? Frankly Apple should be doing this right now leaving people with the option to choose a best fit machine. It is not like every problem will leverage a quad core effectively so why not let the buyer choose.
The Penryn quad-cores are 65 W and the Lynnfield ones will be 82 W (similar TDP once the northbridge is subtracted). That's still 10 W hotter than the hottest CPU Apple has used in the iMac.
But the total system power is less. That is a great feature of the coming hardware. In anyevent Apple either needs to keep up with iMac or kill it. The performance gap is so wide now that it really brings to question the wisdom of buying any of Apples low end desktops. Like mentioned above Apple has painted themselves into a corner and they need to break out. Even if that means a dead iMac line. Or maybe it just means using screws.
Dave
With the new price drop from Intel SSD, i also hope Apple will use them as well.
There have been statements made in the industry that Apple won't use Intel SSDs. The reason aren't given, but There could be three.
One could be price.
Two could be technology,
and three could be politics.
Maybe I missed something here but designers should always prefer accessibility over and serviceability over other elements of the design. The new MacBook Pros clearly demonstrate that this can be a reasonable goal. So why not an iMac or other platform? Even the Mini could use some accessibility love.
Designers aren't manufacturers.
What often happens is that designers get together after guidance from executives, and come up with a product.
But then it goes to the production engineers, who then tear the product apart, and make changes based on produce-ability.
Sometimes that moves back up the ladder, but sometimes not.
Production cost is the big bugaboo in all product design and manufacturing.
If end user accessibility is considered to be a major feature, then you are going to pay for it. The same thing with serviceability.
If price is an object, accessibility moves down the feature list.
The more compact a device is, the harder it will be to service, unless techniques are used to make it easier, but as I said, that costs money. Making something compact already costs more, so that could bring the price out of the market it's aimed at.
I have an early 2008 MBP and honestly the though of getting to the drive in this machine puts one off upgrading. I may very well hang around with the current capacity solution until I can afford a new Mac. The question should be how long do people put off upgrades because of poor design?
I haven't yet opened up a new machine, but from the guides I've seen on the web, it looks to be fairly easy.
If people upgrade their laptop, it's usually to add RAM. Fewer people upgrade their HDDS.
When they do either, it's usually just one time. Maybe twice at most for a HDD.
If it takes another three or four minutes, does that really matter if done once or twice during a two or three year period?
I don't think so. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Frankly to me a PC that is easy to upgrade, at the lowest cost, is more green than one that gets replaced regularly because it is difficult to maintain. For many of us we outgrow our storage capacity much faster that the machines base performance.
Dave
People just don't do it. It's a myth that people like upgrading their machines. We can't go by the percentage of people here.
yep! Screws don't impact professional use of a MBP one bit.
Agreed.
Followed immediately by this statement which really makes no sense at all. How can it not be a problem on one professional platform and not another? Seriosely I see this attitude expressed countless times when it makes no sense at all.
Screws in a machine can even become a design element. Apple could go the Allen Cap Screw route and proudly display those heads. Frankly though the arguement that screws make the machine unprofessional is baseless.
It depends on where the screws are. I know that may seem odd, but as one who has designed professional equipment, my experience is that if not done right, the product can look unfinished, or haphazardly designed, almost as if the design was changed at the last minute because they got something wrong, and this was the fastest and cheapest way to modify it.
Screws must fit into the design as though they belong there, not as an afterthought.
When we look at circuit boards, one of the first things we look at are how many (if any) wires are on the board crossing over traces. When we find that, it means the board wasn't properly designed, and they had to do this to get it to work. Very bad.
If screws aren't looking as though they belong, people get an unconscious feel that it's not "right".
So while I agree that there's nothing "wrong" with screws, it might be better to not have them.
in some ways this is a very good idea. It would be very easy to hide the release mechanism and hinges really don't cost that much. The only bad part is the tipping moment that you have with the screen open. It would be very acceptable if opening the screen gave you direct access to the drive and powersupply. Ideally the platform would have two drive bays.
No. Hinges would change the entire design internally, and externally. They aren't all that cheap either, for what would be needed. In addition, there would be a need for a long flex wiring circuit to allow the swing, which is breakable as we know from hinge designs that use them. This would take more room so the case would have to be thicker. how much? Maybe a half to and inch, depending. With a hinge comes a latch, reachable from somewhere outside. More complexity and cost.
This could add a couple of hundred to the price.
On the other hand if they can't give you access to the power supply and drives why bother? The idea here is a more servicable machine.
I don't think accessability to the power supply is that important.
But I would like to see the HDD accessed from the back. It could be done less expensively that having the entire monitor front open.
Screws wouldn't ruin the outer appearance either. As to the hinged panel I don't think it is a space issue as they seem to waste a lot of that. In anyevent in my experience a good latch must have a screw based tightening arraingement anyways. There are all sorts of spring latches out there but none of them all that secure but at the same time allowing easy access.
As I said above.
As a side note that actually pulls this thread back on track I think Apple could easily make iMac cheaper be simply doing a better layout of the parts. The curret PC board looks like it was attacked by a mad Sushi chief. Simple rectangular PC boards are cheaper and far easier to assemble. The current iMac is expensive by design.
Dave
How do you know the iMac isn't already made as efficiently as possible? Are you a product engineer?
While we're at it, lets just make one generic computer with a 2.0ghz core 2 and a 20" since that's what most people actually use. Why all this instance on making computers for the least demanding user? Is the Mac nothing more than a status symbol anymore? Once upon a time Apple was the computer maker who wanted something more than consumer crap. With Apple pricing the Mac Pro out of reach, the imac is the only "desktop" (despite not actually being one) that Mac users can afford.
I would also like to see Apple make some machines they don't make. But they are focussed on something that we don't really understand, and as I read in an article the other day, this is said to be a major reason for their recent success. They have long term goals that most outsiders don't see.
No. Hinges would change the entire design internally, and externally. They aren't all that cheap either, for what would be needed. In addition, there would be a need for a long flex wiring circuit to allow the swing, which is breakable as we know from hinge designs that use them. This would take more room so the case would have to be thicker. how much? Maybe a half to and inch, depending. With a hinge comes a latch, reachable from somewhere outside. More complexity and cost.
This could add a couple of hundred to the price.
The lucite Macs opened by pulling a ring and having the insides fold out to lie horizontally. I doubt that added hundreds to the price. A G4 tower cost about $1500. The G4 was very easy to upgrade.
Only the expensive Mac Pro is easy to upgrade now. Otherwise, Macs have gotten more difficult. What is Apple thinking? it would seem that Apple has no regard for it's faithful users. They couldn't care less about users.
The lucite Macs opened by pulling a ring and having the insides fold out to lie horizontally. I doubt that added hundreds to the price. A G4 tower cost about $1500. The G4 was very easy to upgrade.
Only the expensive Mac Pro is easy to upgrade now. Otherwise, Macs have gotten more difficult. What is Apple thinking? it would seem that Apple has no regard for it's faithful users. They couldn't care less about users.
That's a lot different than having the panel with the glass swing out on hinges. Totally different.
G3 and G4 towers were also very different. You can't compare them at all with an iMac.
They care about users, just not the user you think you are.