It cycles. If you didn't already know that they don't care about their computers, is there really anything that can be done to help you now? Been FIVE YEARS.
It doesn't cycle when the iPhone or iPad get launched...
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....
The only data that didn't get ported up in the move from vBulletin were our logs of use. So if it happened before Huddler took over, there's no record of who, what, when, where, or why.
But if you think there's an old… friend… back again, assemble some evidence and present it to a mod in a PM. We'd be happy to check it out.
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Can't you let someone express their opinion without resorting to the tiresome refrain of XXXX-gate and sophomoric sarcasm?
Can't they express actual opinions instead of mindless anti-Apple rhetoric?
Originally Posted by pinkunicorn
It doesn't cycle when the iPhone or iPad get launched...
1) Sure it did. They came out at the same time, therefore it cycled to them.
2) Why would it? In the past, nothing else had come out at the same time. No sense in a product still showing up on the front page months after launch.
I am so tired of hearing this particular "complaint," and most of your assumptions just seem wrong to me. The point of the thin-ness is that the iMac is widely deployed as a desktop (as are most all in one computer designs).
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
It also means that for the folks who need to deploy several hundred of the things in a lab environment that it's just that much easier carrying them around. It means that you can move it around on your desk much easier, and turn it so as to show something to someone else. The new iMac is a sealed, light, thin, all-in-one desktop that can be rapidly deployed and setup, which is basically exactly what the market is wanting.
As someone who sees hundreds and hundreds of Mac devices in my day job, all the stuff you say about the latest models being prone to heat problems also seems totally wrong to me. The failure rate of iMacs due to heat or any other cause, has in my experience gone far *down* from where it was previously, not up.
Finally the fact that you think it significant how hot it gets at the top just shows you to be an amateur. The aluminium gets warm because that's part of the cooling design. A computer getting warm or even hot doesn't mean that there is something "wrong." It doesn't mean that it's a bad design, or that it's likely to fail. It just means that electrical resistance causes heat, and that heat rises (duh).
In my experience, iMacs never get "too hot to touch" or anything even close. They also only get warm (notice I used the correct "warm" word instead of implying disaster by using "hot"), at the top edge which is basically WHERE PEOPLE RARELY EVER TOUCH THEM (which is kinda the point).
Apple never bullet-points lower shipping costs. They talk about how SEXY the new, incredibly-thin iMac is! Steve Jobs once pointed out that a true artist that created a cabinet would make sure the back piece was as beautiful and flawless as any of the visible pieces. Yes, no one will see the back, but the artist knows it's there.
And that sums up Apple's motivation. They desire to create incredibly beautiful and functional devices that appeal to the masses. Thinness is just one highly-appreciated metric.
By the way, I wouldn't just go buy Bose speakers. New kit is on the market that looks and sounds equally wonderful. But I have a Bose surround sound for my TV and it sounds wonderful. Bose pisses off audiophiles for some reason, but my ears aren't that anal that I notice the differences they so passionately scream about. For what it's worth, I'd probably go with Harman Kardon or M-Audio.
A lighter product. Why should you care? Lighter means less fuel resources, and less costs to ship product from factory to your door.
Not necessarily. Yes, the new ones are lighter I will give you that. But since you seem to be arguing the Al-Gore-poits on this, lets bring up another issue. How aware are you of the manufacturing processes required to make the new machines? Do you have any idea of what effect those might have upon the environment? Maybe the result is a lighter piece of deliverable hardware, but the manufacturing processes are such that the total effect upon the environment is worse?
Mind you, I don't think they are, and in fact you are most likely correct that the thinness does result in a net positive effect when it comes to how nice these machines (and their manufacturing) plays with the environment.
A smaller package. Meaning more can be squeezed into a given space. One can ship more product in the same space. Again, less shipping, less fuel, less costs.
Less materials. Thinner means less metal. Less metal means less resources used.
Good points. Not ALWAYS true though. Thinner may mean less mechanical integrity and therefore require packaging which is more protective to reduce the possibility of various stresses being transferred to the chassis (and especially the glass) during shipping. Chances are you are correct, but you cant present these points as if they are objective facts.
In fact there is data that is starting to show that reducing the packaging TOO much can have detrimental effects overall. Sure, you save money and resources by having to transport less mass and smaller volumes. However there is always a non-zero probability of items being damaged during shipping, and when you shave off much off of the protection provided for shipping a piece of hardware, the failure rates goes up, and you end up with a net loss because the costs (and resource impact) of the increase in failures is greater than the savings due to the reduced packaging.
Or is it all supposed to be only about you??
Oh, get over it. I was expressing a learned OPINION about design trade-offs. These must always be made. My concerns boil down to whether or not such a focus upon aesthetics (even with the benefits you mentioned) is really worth all of the other aspects that have to be considered.
I push my iMac hard at times to get the heat up. Yes it gets hot. Then, afterwards it cools down. What's your point? Should Apple design their products in the assumption that it will be running at 100% full load the entire time? That's not realistic. They found a good balance I think.
The point is that any thermal stress does contribute to long-term reliability. Statistically you have to integrate the thermal stress over time to see the overall effects upon the components and therefore extrapolate that to determine the long-term effects that such stress has upon component reliability. There is no need to assume that you have 100% load 100% of the time, but trade-offs are always made in these areas.
Finally, please provide more insight on these supposed motherboard, hard drive, GPU failures that happen in iMacs, especially your implication that it is caused by this so-called heat issues that "Stresses everything out". This is a first to me.
I've purchased way too many iMacs to count for numerous clients and none of them have ever exhibited the kind of issues that you're describing. Obviously, system issues arise, but in my case all the iMacs I purchased have never failed at all. They are built like tanks.
LOL.
Insight? Ok ...
Much of my career has been involved in design and production of high-relaibility components, systems, and platforms for various uses. The biggest use would be ... well, I would rather not get into detail, but let me just say that if you had REALLY good Superman-like vision, you could go outside and look up. Farther. No, not the planes. Look farther. Now farther. Ok, you may see one of the several hundred pieces of hardware that I have been responsible for. Oh, and their cost (cumulatively)? Well, that is greater than the GDP of all but the top 12-15 countries in the world.
I have managed situations where the smallest of failures had to be analyzed by teams of several dozen people (about half of which were PhDs), so .... uh ... I guess I know a bit about how stuff may... like ... break. LOL
And, lets see, I have used and repaired Macs since the original 128k Mac in 1984. I have also been responsible for entire IT departments and software development efforts that spanned everything from Macs, PC, Sun Workstations, various servers, many OS's, desktop systems, enterprise systems, embedded systems, etc. So maybe I have a bit of experience with these things.
No doubt you will retort with some troll-like response. And we shall all be entertained. Please, enlighten us. LOL
Nothing personal. Lighten up. I am having fun.
You made a lot of really good points, but to sink to the "it's all about you" line tends to invalidate them because it implies that your motivation is somewhat subjective and therefore calls all of your points into scrutiny. Don't do that. Just state your facts, your opinions and interpretation of facts, and your insights will be considered much more seriously.
For what it's worth, the guy complaining about the race to thin resulting in worse sounding speakers, he's probably right. But I can't imagine executives at Apple sitting around the table arguing for a fatter iMac to accommodate better speakers.
Now on the iPad....that argument makes more sense. I think the sound output of the current iPads is the minimum of what Apple should accept. If they can keep the same performance and go thinner, fine. But I wouldn't race to thin over the speaker performance because sound output on that thing is far more critical than a desktop computer.
can't even tell you the last time i used an optical drive. even the best imac speakers have been ok at best. there are excellent speakers out there that take up little desk space and produce very good sound. eliminating little used features, think floppy disk, makes room for far better tech. on the inside!
$2,574.00 for my 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz with 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB and 3TB Fusion Drive and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 with Magic Trackpad. Plus another $150 for 32GB RAM (4x8GB) from Newegg for a total of $2,724 before taxes. That should last me a couple years.
Great configuration. Congratulations, and enjoy!
While I'm positive about the changes the new generation of iMacs brings overall, I'll be interested to hear what users like you report about the process of installing RAM in their new Macs. You'll to need to remove both the screen and the logic board to get the job done.
While I'm positive about the changes the new generation of iMacs brings overall, I'll be interested to hear what users like you report about the process of installing RAM in their new Macs. You'll to need to remove both the screen and the logic board to get the job done.
Correction: the 27" model has a 'flap' in the rear for access to the RAM modules. A pushbutton in the power socket well pops it open.
Owners of the 21.5" model aren't so fortunate. They get to begin the process by removing an LCD screen that is glued down.
I'm just Joe Doe and I initailly decided to buy B&O A9 speaker and pair it with a 27" iMac (32 GB RAM, 3TB Fusion Drive, ,NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5) as a media center in my living room. Even the price seems to be just right.
Correction: the 27" model has a 'flap' in the rear for access to the RAM modules. A pushbutton in the power socket well pops it open.
Owners of the 21.5" model aren't so fortunate. They get to begin the process by removing an LCD screen that is glued down.
Yeah. If it didn't have easily accessible RAM I would have just opted for the Apple's $600 price for 32GB, but they did include the hatch so I'll just do it after market.
1) Thanks for posting the video.
2) I don't think that's unreasonable. As noted in a different thread I'll be paying $150 for 2x8GB Kingston RAM for my iMac.
I don't understand. The page we talked about showed Kingston 1600MHz DDR3 was $35 a stick. $150 should get you 32GB.
Huh, I didn't see that one. Is Apple using CL9 RAM?
I guess we won't know until we can feet more info on their RAM. They might use a lower CAS for certain configurations. For instance, a base model iMac gets CAS 11 (or worse) but the highend model with upgraded RAM gets CAS 9.
I'll see how how much info we can get from the iFixit breakdown. If not from them, perhaps Anandtech will figure it out when they (I presume) test the 27" model.
However, I will be going for the fastest RAM since it's a one time charge.
I guess we won't know until we can feet more info on their RAM. They might use a lower CAS for certain configurations. For instance, a base model iMac gets CAS 11 (or worse) but the highend model with upgraded RAM gets CAS 9.
I'll see how how much info we can get from the iFixit breakdown. If not from them, perhaps Anandtech will figure it out when they (I presume) test the 27" model.
However, I will be going for the fastest RAM since it's a one time charge.
I see they finally posted an image:
I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules to get 32GB.
I see they finally posted an image:
I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules.
I would agree.
I can't find any info on that module but I did come across another reason Apple would charge more: environmental concerns. I don't recall a single 3rd-party component vendor ever stating how green their product is and how they keep it that way.
Also, I would imagine Apple would use more reliable and better tested RAM because a DOA Mac could be a very costly mistake.
1) Perhaps they like the chin. I certainly like the chin. It does hose the one area that has the Apple logo which also houses a window for the IR and maybe a radio antenna. Not that the iconic look even needs a logo on the front but I think it works.
2) The chin allows for the glass (and now display) to rest upon the structure.
3) Making the back more curved allows for less material to be used in the structure while still getting the same rigidity and strength from a flatter back.
4) It looks more stunning to have thinner edges than to have thick edges without a chin. It's one thing to say that aesthetics aren't as important as performance but when the complaint is that "the chin is ugly" then it's no longer an argument about performance.
5) Let's remember this is an AIO. By design it's a feat of compromise. Engineering balance. Whether we like their goal and execution is moot. People seem to hate notebook for a long time after I adopted them as my primary machine, and yet they are more common than desktop PCs in the market. There are things I'd change about the iMac (there are things I'd change about nearly every product) but I still think it's the most remarkable iMac Apple has ever created and I look forward to jumping back into the desktop PC after 1.5 decades.
This typo made your post really funny. It sounds like the detail ruined it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Here's a full teardown video: Looks like they've glued the screen on now. I was wondering if they'd hold the entire panel in with magnets. I suppose it's a screwless design but y'know a lot of problems in life can be solved with a good screw now and again.
The best place for the screws is at the base where you don't see them but with the chin they can't really do that. Now customers have little choice but to take the machine back to Apple for a hard drive failure or RAM upgrade. The RAM upgrade requires taking out the motherboard. I suppose that's one way of getting people to spend $200 on 16GB of RAM.
Obviously when the computer is working fine, this design is no big deal and for most customers this will be the case but for the few where it does go wrong, it's now a major problem. This is where a laptop + display is a far better setup because not only is the laptop more easily carted into the Apple Store, it can be opened very easily. Same with a Mini in fact.
That was funny. They seem to have set their pricing earlier in the year as they did with the rMBP at WWDC. At that time 16GB was around $100 and falling from newegg. It has continued to drop off a cliff in pricing. On the second bolded portion, I thought the last one was unnecessarily difficult to service too. If someone is considering a 21.5" with fusion or ram upgrades, I'll probably suggest waiting for refurbished availability and buying the base 27". It shouldn't be much different going that route and doing your own upgrades. Having seen the 21.5" breakdown, it looks like junk. Hard drives are unreliable by their nature, so not being able to remedy such a problem makes it a non starter for me. There's also the possibility of higher service costs now that they're glued together, much like we've seen with battery replacements on each redesign of the macbook pro. The rMBP pushed it to $200. It was initially about half of that prior to the unibody, I think the original macbook pro had a slightly less expensive battery than my old G4, but I can't remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Thanks for posting the video.
2) I don't think that's unreasonable. As noted in a different thread I'll be paying $150 for 2x8GB Kingston RAM for my iMac.
3) Yeah, people that are buying an iMac are even less likely to upgrade than those who have traditionally bought towers in the past. It's just not something most do.
4) Note that the 27" does have easy access to the RAM in the back. It's too bad that this wasn't an option on the 21.5" model (as well as having a 3.5" HDD) but it is what it is and those that are buying a desktop with a 1TB drive max should know this.
PS: I noticed that Apple doesn't advertise their Fusion Drive capacity as being the HDD+SSD capacity, but instead just the capacity of the largest drive. Not that it's too much more but 1TB+128GB is 1.08TB.
I'm guessing Kingston HyperX? That stuff is always expensive. Crucial is around $80. The access on the 27" actually looks quite good. It appears easier to service than the last generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Some people will still call that technically upgradeable but it's difficult enough to be classed as not user-ugradeable IMO. The ifixit teardown says you'd have to peel off all the old glue right round the display before putting new glue back on to get it back together:
They might as well have soldered the RAM on if they were going to glue it shut. It only has two slots so it can't be upgraded beyond 16GB RAM.
The use of glue was kind of funny. I'm not sure why they went that route. I wouldn't want to touch this one. Not being able to replace a dead drive is basically the one thing I won't tolerate in a computer. Phones are an exception to this. it was never an option there. To be fair I wasn't interested in buying one of these anyway at the moment. This generation I'm mainly interested in what they've done with the display in case others ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I am so tired of hearing this particular "complaint," and most of your assumptions just seem wrong to me. The point of the thin-ness is that the iMac is widely deployed as a desktop (as are most all in one computer designs).
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
This isn't entirely accurate as you don't know how they're manufacturing the item. With the notebooks shells are carved from blocks of aluminum. Repairs can involve replacing an entire top case. Now I'm sure they do recycle or reuse the cut away portions in those machines, but recycling aluminum takes a lot of energy. The same can be stated for glass, which has to be melted down. I'm just saying it's not always as simple as you stated it.
I see they finally posted an image:
I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules to get 32GB.
I know I'm quoting you twice but I don't want this detail lost. If you look at the first link, a PDF, you'll see that the stick is indeed CAS 11. It would appear that any Hynix RAM with a PB rating is CAS 11 so if we see other Hynix RAM in the 8GB sticks with a PB we can assume that it's also CAS 11 without looking it up.
edit: I was able to find 2 options for DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz 8GB RAM on Hynix site. They are both CAS 11, but they are also both 1.35V and "Lead-Free & Halogen-Free (RoHS Compliant)". I wonder how much more that costs?
Can anyone who's already bought the new iMac advise if it comes with a USB stick with recovery OS/Software?
No Macs comes with external media with restore software on them. They have a recovery partition on the drive. You can also create your own recovery boot disc on a USB stick per a a utility you can DL from Apple's site.
What's the point of a recovery partition on the drive that has just failed ? The drive is the most likely point of failure.
The reason the recovery partition is on the drive is cheeeeepness. Not intelligent design.
Comments
GPU benchmarks of various iMac configurations mixed with other GPU
I am upgrading from my late 2009 27" iMac with a radeon 4850 GPU. So even the GT 650m beats my old GPU now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It cycles. If you didn't already know that they don't care about their computers, is there really anything that can be done to help you now? Been FIVE YEARS.
It doesn't cycle when the iPhone or iPad get launched...
Originally Posted by sflocal
That guy's responses just reeks of a banned member from ages past... just reeks of it Solips....
The only data that didn't get ported up in the move from vBulletin were our logs of use. So if it happened before Huddler took over, there's no record of who, what, when, where, or why.
But if you think there's an old… friend… back again, assemble some evidence and present it to a mod in a PM. We'd be happy to check it out.
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Can't you let someone express their opinion without resorting to the tiresome refrain of XXXX-gate and sophomoric sarcasm?
Can't they express actual opinions instead of mindless anti-Apple rhetoric?
Originally Posted by pinkunicorn
It doesn't cycle when the iPhone or iPad get launched...
1) Sure it did. They came out at the same time, therefore it cycled to them.
2) Why would it? In the past, nothing else had come out at the same time. No sense in a product still showing up on the front page months after launch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I am so tired of hearing this particular "complaint," and most of your assumptions just seem wrong to me. The point of the thin-ness is that the iMac is widely deployed as a desktop (as are most all in one computer designs).
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
It also means that for the folks who need to deploy several hundred of the things in a lab environment that it's just that much easier carrying them around. It means that you can move it around on your desk much easier, and turn it so as to show something to someone else. The new iMac is a sealed, light, thin, all-in-one desktop that can be rapidly deployed and setup, which is basically exactly what the market is wanting.
As someone who sees hundreds and hundreds of Mac devices in my day job, all the stuff you say about the latest models being prone to heat problems also seems totally wrong to me. The failure rate of iMacs due to heat or any other cause, has in my experience gone far *down* from where it was previously, not up.
Finally the fact that you think it significant how hot it gets at the top just shows you to be an amateur. The aluminium gets warm because that's part of the cooling design. A computer getting warm or even hot doesn't mean that there is something "wrong." It doesn't mean that it's a bad design, or that it's likely to fail. It just means that electrical resistance causes heat, and that heat rises (duh).
In my experience, iMacs never get "too hot to touch" or anything even close. They also only get warm (notice I used the correct "warm" word instead of implying disaster by using "hot"), at the top edge which is basically WHERE PEOPLE RARELY EVER TOUCH THEM (which is kinda the point).
Apple never bullet-points lower shipping costs. They talk about how SEXY the new, incredibly-thin iMac is! Steve Jobs once pointed out that a true artist that created a cabinet would make sure the back piece was as beautiful and flawless as any of the visible pieces. Yes, no one will see the back, but the artist knows it's there.
And that sums up Apple's motivation. They desire to create incredibly beautiful and functional devices that appeal to the masses. Thinness is just one highly-appreciated metric.
By the way, I wouldn't just go buy Bose speakers. New kit is on the market that looks and sounds equally wonderful. But I have a Bose surround sound for my TV and it sounds wonderful. Bose pisses off audiophiles for some reason, but my ears aren't that anal that I notice the differences they so passionately scream about. For what it's worth, I'd probably go with Harman Kardon or M-Audio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The thinness also allows for:
A lighter product. Why should you care? Lighter means less fuel resources, and less costs to ship product from factory to your door.
Not necessarily. Yes, the new ones are lighter I will give you that. But since you seem to be arguing the Al-Gore-poits on this, lets bring up another issue. How aware are you of the manufacturing processes required to make the new machines? Do you have any idea of what effect those might have upon the environment? Maybe the result is a lighter piece of deliverable hardware, but the manufacturing processes are such that the total effect upon the environment is worse?
Mind you, I don't think they are, and in fact you are most likely correct that the thinness does result in a net positive effect when it comes to how nice these machines (and their manufacturing) plays with the environment.
A smaller package. Meaning more can be squeezed into a given space. One can ship more product in the same space. Again, less shipping, less fuel, less costs.
Less materials. Thinner means less metal. Less metal means less resources used.
Good points. Not ALWAYS true though. Thinner may mean less mechanical integrity and therefore require packaging which is more protective to reduce the possibility of various stresses being transferred to the chassis (and especially the glass) during shipping. Chances are you are correct, but you cant present these points as if they are objective facts.
In fact there is data that is starting to show that reducing the packaging TOO much can have detrimental effects overall. Sure, you save money and resources by having to transport less mass and smaller volumes. However there is always a non-zero probability of items being damaged during shipping, and when you shave off much off of the protection provided for shipping a piece of hardware, the failure rates goes up, and you end up with a net loss because the costs (and resource impact) of the increase in failures is greater than the savings due to the reduced packaging.
Or is it all supposed to be only about you??
Oh, get over it. I was expressing a learned OPINION about design trade-offs. These must always be made. My concerns boil down to whether or not such a focus upon aesthetics (even with the benefits you mentioned) is really worth all of the other aspects that have to be considered.
I push my iMac hard at times to get the heat up. Yes it gets hot. Then, afterwards it cools down. What's your point? Should Apple design their products in the assumption that it will be running at 100% full load the entire time? That's not realistic. They found a good balance I think.
The point is that any thermal stress does contribute to long-term reliability. Statistically you have to integrate the thermal stress over time to see the overall effects upon the components and therefore extrapolate that to determine the long-term effects that such stress has upon component reliability. There is no need to assume that you have 100% load 100% of the time, but trade-offs are always made in these areas.
Finally, please provide more insight on these supposed motherboard, hard drive, GPU failures that happen in iMacs, especially your implication that it is caused by this so-called heat issues that "Stresses everything out". This is a first to me.
I've purchased way too many iMacs to count for numerous clients and none of them have ever exhibited the kind of issues that you're describing. Obviously, system issues arise, but in my case all the iMacs I purchased have never failed at all. They are built like tanks.
LOL.
Insight? Ok ...
Much of my career has been involved in design and production of high-relaibility components, systems, and platforms for various uses. The biggest use would be ... well, I would rather not get into detail, but let me just say that if you had REALLY good Superman-like vision, you could go outside and look up. Farther. No, not the planes. Look farther. Now farther. Ok, you may see one of the several hundred pieces of hardware that I have been responsible for. Oh, and their cost (cumulatively)? Well, that is greater than the GDP of all but the top 12-15 countries in the world.
I have managed situations where the smallest of failures had to be analyzed by teams of several dozen people (about half of which were PhDs), so .... uh ... I guess I know a bit about how stuff may... like ... break. LOL
And, lets see, I have used and repaired Macs since the original 128k Mac in 1984. I have also been responsible for entire IT departments and software development efforts that spanned everything from Macs, PC, Sun Workstations, various servers, many OS's, desktop systems, enterprise systems, embedded systems, etc. So maybe I have a bit of experience with these things.
No doubt you will retort with some troll-like response. And we shall all be entertained. Please, enlighten us. LOL
Nothing personal. Lighten up. I am having fun.
You made a lot of really good points, but to sink to the "it's all about you" line tends to invalidate them because it implies that your motivation is somewhat subjective and therefore calls all of your points into scrutiny. Don't do that. Just state your facts, your opinions and interpretation of facts, and your insights will be considered much more seriously.
For what it's worth, the guy complaining about the race to thin resulting in worse sounding speakers, he's probably right. But I can't imagine executives at Apple sitting around the table arguing for a fatter iMac to accommodate better speakers.
Now on the iPad....that argument makes more sense. I think the sound output of the current iPads is the minimum of what Apple should accept. If they can keep the same performance and go thinner, fine. But I wouldn't race to thin over the speaker performance because sound output on that thing is far more critical than a desktop computer.
can't even tell you the last time i used an optical drive. even the best imac speakers have been ok at best. there are excellent speakers out there that take up little desk space and produce very good sound. eliminating little used features, think floppy disk, makes room for far better tech. on the inside!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
$2,574.00 for my 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz with 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB and 3TB Fusion Drive and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 with Magic Trackpad. Plus another $150 for 32GB RAM (4x8GB) from Newegg for a total of $2,724 before taxes. That should last me a couple years.
Great configuration. Congratulations, and enjoy!
While I'm positive about the changes the new generation of iMacs brings overall, I'll be interested to hear what users like you report about the process of installing RAM in their new Macs. You'll to need to remove both the screen and the logic board to get the job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub
While I'm positive about the changes the new generation of iMacs brings overall, I'll be interested to hear what users like you report about the process of installing RAM in their new Macs. You'll to need to remove both the screen and the logic board to get the job done.
Correction: the 27" model has a 'flap' in the rear for access to the RAM modules. A pushbutton in the power socket well pops it open.
Owners of the 21.5" model aren't so fortunate. They get to begin the process by removing an LCD screen that is glued down.
I'm just Joe Doe and I initailly decided to buy B&O A9 speaker and pair it with a 27" iMac (32 GB RAM, 3TB Fusion Drive, ,NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5) as a media center in my living room. Even the price seems to be just right.
Yeah. If it didn't have easily accessible RAM I would have just opted for the Apple's $600 price for 32GB, but they did include the hatch so I'll just do it after market.
I don't understand. The page we talked about showed Kingston 1600MHz DDR3 was $35 a stick. $150 should get you 32GB.
Huh, I didn't see that one. Is Apple using CL9 RAM?
I guess we won't know until we can feet more info on their RAM. They might use a lower CAS for certain configurations. For instance, a base model iMac gets CAS 11 (or worse) but the highend model with upgraded RAM gets CAS 9.
I'll see how how much info we can get from the iFixit breakdown. If not from them, perhaps Anandtech will figure it out when they (I presume) test the 27" model.
However, I will be going for the fastest RAM since it's a one time charge.
I see they finally posted an image:
I would guess this stick is 11. I would hope the upgrade modules are better given the prices. I wonder if it's best to stick with reputable third party modules. If it's all CL11, then there would be little need to spend the extra $450 to buy Apple's modules to get 32GB.
I would agree.
I can't find any info on that module but I did come across another reason Apple would charge more: environmental concerns. I don't recall a single 3rd-party component vendor ever stating how green their product is and how they keep it that way.
Also, I would imagine Apple would use more reliable and better tested RAM because a DOA Mac could be a very costly mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Perhaps they like the chin. I certainly like the chin. It does hose the one area that has the Apple logo which also houses a window for the IR and maybe a radio antenna. Not that the iconic look even needs a logo on the front but I think it works.
2) The chin allows for the glass (and now display) to rest upon the structure.
3) Making the back more curved allows for less material to be used in the structure while still getting the same rigidity and strength from a flatter back.
4) It looks more stunning to have thinner edges than to have thick edges without a chin. It's one thing to say that aesthetics aren't as important as performance but when the complaint is that "the chin is ugly" then it's no longer an argument about performance.
5) Let's remember this is an AIO. By design it's a feat of compromise. Engineering balance. Whether we like their goal and execution is moot. People seem to hate notebook for a long time after I adopted them as my primary machine, and yet they are more common than desktop PCs in the market. There are things I'd change about the iMac (there are things I'd change about nearly every product) but I still think it's the most remarkable iMac Apple has ever created and I look forward to jumping back into the desktop PC after 1.5 decades.
This typo made your post really funny. It sounds like the detail ruined it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Here's a full teardown video:
Looks like they've glued the screen on now. I was wondering if they'd hold the entire panel in with magnets. I suppose it's a screwless design but y'know a lot of problems in life can be solved with a good screw now and again.
The best place for the screws is at the base where you don't see them but with the chin they can't really do that. Now customers have little choice but to take the machine back to Apple for a hard drive failure or RAM upgrade. The RAM upgrade requires taking out the motherboard. I suppose that's one way of getting people to spend $200 on 16GB of RAM.
Obviously when the computer is working fine, this design is no big deal and for most customers this will be the case but for the few where it does go wrong, it's now a major problem. This is where a laptop + display is a far better setup because not only is the laptop more easily carted into the Apple Store, it can be opened very easily. Same with a Mini in fact.
That was funny. They seem to have set their pricing earlier in the year as they did with the rMBP at WWDC. At that time 16GB was around $100 and falling from newegg. It has continued to drop off a cliff in pricing. On the second bolded portion, I thought the last one was unnecessarily difficult to service too. If someone is considering a 21.5" with fusion or ram upgrades, I'll probably suggest waiting for refurbished availability and buying the base 27". It shouldn't be much different going that route and doing your own upgrades. Having seen the 21.5" breakdown, it looks like junk. Hard drives are unreliable by their nature, so not being able to remedy such a problem makes it a non starter for me. There's also the possibility of higher service costs now that they're glued together, much like we've seen with battery replacements on each redesign of the macbook pro. The rMBP pushed it to $200. It was initially about half of that prior to the unibody, I think the original macbook pro had a slightly less expensive battery than my old G4, but I can't remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Thanks for posting the video.
2) I don't think that's unreasonable. As noted in a different thread I'll be paying $150 for 2x8GB Kingston RAM for my iMac.
3) Yeah, people that are buying an iMac are even less likely to upgrade than those who have traditionally bought towers in the past. It's just not something most do.
4) Note that the 27" does have easy access to the RAM in the back. It's too bad that this wasn't an option on the 21.5" model (as well as having a 3.5" HDD) but it is what it is and those that are buying a desktop with a 1TB drive max should know this.
PS: I noticed that Apple doesn't advertise their Fusion Drive capacity as being the HDD+SSD capacity, but instead just the capacity of the largest drive. Not that it's too much more but 1TB+128GB is 1.08TB.
I'm guessing Kingston HyperX? That stuff is always expensive. Crucial is around $80. The access on the 27" actually looks quite good. It appears easier to service than the last generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Some people will still call that technically upgradeable but it's difficult enough to be classed as not user-ugradeable IMO. The ifixit teardown says you'd have to peel off all the old glue right round the display before putting new glue back on to get it back together:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+EMC+2544+Teardown/11936/1
They might as well have soldered the RAM on if they were going to glue it shut. It only has two slots so it can't be upgraded beyond 16GB RAM.
The use of glue was kind of funny. I'm not sure why they went that route. I wouldn't want to touch this one. Not being able to replace a dead drive is basically the one thing I won't tolerate in a computer. Phones are an exception to this. it was never an option there. To be fair I wasn't interested in buying one of these anyway at the moment. This generation I'm mainly interested in what they've done with the display in case others ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I am so tired of hearing this particular "complaint," and most of your assumptions just seem wrong to me. The point of the thin-ness is that the iMac is widely deployed as a desktop (as are most all in one computer designs).
Thinner and lighter means:
- lower shipping costs
- less pollution generated
- fewer computers in the landfill
- more efficient manufacturing
- less packaging
This isn't entirely accurate as you don't know how they're manufacturing the item. With the notebooks shells are carved from blocks of aluminum. Repairs can involve replacing an entire top case. Now I'm sure they do recycle or reuse the cut away portions in those machines, but recycling aluminum takes a lot of energy. The same can be stated for glass, which has to be melted down. I'm just saying it's not always as simple as you stated it.
I know I'm quoting you twice but I don't want this detail lost. If you look at the first link, a PDF, you'll see that the stick is indeed CAS 11. It would appear that any Hynix RAM with a PB rating is CAS 11 so if we see other Hynix RAM in the 8GB sticks with a PB we can assume that it's also CAS 11 without looking it up.
edit: I was able to find 2 options for DDR3 PC3-12800 1600MHz 8GB RAM on Hynix site. They are both CAS 11, but they are also both 1.35V and "Lead-Free & Halogen-Free (RoHS Compliant)". I wonder how much more that costs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy
Can anyone who's already bought the new iMac advise if it comes with a USB stick with recovery OS/Software?
No Macs comes with external media with restore software on them. They have a recovery partition on the drive. You can also create your own recovery boot disc on a USB stick per a a utility you can DL from Apple's site.
What's the point of a recovery partition on the drive that has just failed ? The drive is the most likely point of failure.
The reason the recovery partition is on the drive is cheeeeepness. Not intelligent design.