NB: That Apple tool that will ATTEMPT to get data off the SSD is only relevant if you've been fool enough not to keep backups.
Look, you've willingly let yourself get painted into a corner her that I'm not sure you want to be in. You're not stupid. You know that discrete graphics are FAR more likely to be a problem than a dying SSD at this point. You know that soldered RAM is irrelevant, since you'll be maxing it out from the start. You know that batteries swelling are an issue that Apple usually takes care of, and you know that people who DEPEND upon computers have backup machines or rentals in case of downtime.
All of these things are inconveniences, but they really aren't new, or particularly relevant to the "pro" market.
They aren't an indication that Apple has lost track; indeed, looking at the last fifteen years, they're obviously doubling down, rather than faltering.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks).
You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks).
You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
Uh, basic engineering: thinner case = higher surface to volume ratio, BETTER heat dissipation.
I suppose the mobile architecture and thin cases in the 21.5" iMac follow the same reasoning, as a primary goal of designing the iMac is to build an absolutely silent living-room machine. But honestly, it's not my job to justify everything Apple does to some random guy on the internet. I merely try to correct stuff that's outright wrong.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
1) Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to heat dissipation. A bigger case means a thicker casing to maintain the same structural integrity which translates into more weight, more cost in many areas. You need air to help pull the heat away so thinner material has its benefits. Don't believe me? Here's a guy who shows that a thick slab of cooper doesn't a great heat sink make (listed results near end of video).
2)) The iMac uses desktop-grade processors, not mobile processors. They stop doing that once Intel's architecture made it feasible.
NB: That Apple tool that will ATTEMPT to get data off the SSD is only relevant if you've been fool enough not to keep backups.
Look, you've willingly let yourself get painted into a corner her that I'm not sure you want to be in. You're not stupid. You know that discrete graphics are FAR more likely to be a problem than a dying SSD at this point. You know that soldered RAM is irrelevant, since you'll be maxing it out from the start. You know that batteries swelling are an issue that Apple usually takes care of, and you know that people who DEPEND upon computers have backup machines or rentals in case of downtime.
All of these things are inconveniences, but they really aren't new, or particularly relevant to the "pro" market.
They aren't an indication that Apple has lost track; indeed, looking at the last fifteen years, they're obviously doubling down, rather than faltering.
As I have said from the very start. This new line is full of unnecessary compromises.
People are howling about those compromises. The backlash has been of such proportions that fireman Phil has had to come out and try to calm those critical voices. Have you seen some of the Black Friday discounts on this new line - which isn't even a month old?
Having the SSD soldered on is one of those and as I said not for ONE reason but for a few. Obviously if any part of the motherboard fails you lose access to your data until Apple plugs its little tool in. Backups? It seems you are spinning this as positive because Apple will 'educate' us into doing real time backups.. Some foolish people don't backup. Others do but not every minute. Others not every hour and others, not every day. Can you see where I am heading? If this machine fails, for whatever the reason, the only way you will get your non-backed up data back is by visiting an Apple shop with the tool and there is no guarantee that they will be able get that data off it. That is a nightmare scenario if you live any reasonable distance from a shop with the tool. Now you are going to tell me to use the internal SSD for applications and system files and put all my documents on an external disk and problem resolved!!! That's right, the stupid user didn't even have to risk putting his data at risk in the first place!! Wait! There is more! Why not use the internal disk as a backup!! Apple would be doing us a favour by having a backup soldered to our million dollar prized possession. And now you will try to say that this scenario isn't ridiculous!
Which part is far more likely to fail than another part is totally irrelevant! And I never 'paint myself into a corner because I think before posting!
As for batteries. I have a story for you. The battery on my 2006 MBP started having problems. That one was covered by an Apple extended warranty due to battery issues that Apple had detected but I was unaware of that as, in spite of being a registered user and using a unique mail address, no one from Apple support contacted me. When I started having issues and found the programme I visited an Apple Store for a replacement. No joy. The programme had ended. All I got was a pair of shrugged shoulders and asee sorry. And I had bought AppleCare too. If there was any 'flexibility' the issue, I think I would have got some. I don't know where you got the Apple 'usually takes care of you'. Apple 'takes care of you' at checkout time. They will fall over themselves to contact you for that but try getting info on buying a battery!
This was an issue that had its origin in a factory. In the case of battery swelling, most issues have their roots in use (charging, temperatures etc) and although not every user will see it, the amount of users who will see it is not insignificant. On these machines that's yet another unnecessary compromise.
Great! Just pop out my tool and whip my unbacked up data off. Oh NO! I don'thave the tool. Appledoes, so I have to go to them.
No worries, I'm sure they'll send a repair drone from the mothership... (As long as I have AppleCare Extreme). If I don't, I'm out of warranty, and I live any reasonably far distance from the tool, I'm up shit street.
I'm sure you get the gist. Ha!
Anyway, what do I know? Apple OEMd SSDs will outlive me and my great, great grandchildren! Oh! But wait a moment! To lose my data, the SSD itself doesn't even have to fail! Anypart that prevents booting will do!
And how much did this thing cost me? After having maxed the specs out at purchase time?
Now I know why I never had any kids! After buying the MBP with Touch Bar, I couldn't afford them.
Every tool I have ever bought, in virtually every aspect of my professional work, was its own set of compromises.
I understand that you take issue with what others may consider "necessary" compromise, as dictated by varying priorities.
But: Professional life is a constant chain of choosing the least annoying/painful compromise of features, budget, and limitations.
You can spend decades getting worked up over that fact on Internet forums, I suppose. I know I have.
Exactly. That's why our voices need to be heard. If nobody complained, our needs would never be catered to. I'm sure there have been some emergency meetings to manage damage control. The level of damage control will depend on many factors, with sales being the biggest one. For that, we will have to wait until the next earnings call.
If sales are the highest ever for a new release, they probably won't do much. If sales are flattening out, share value may be affected. That is when Apple might feel the need to do something.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks).
You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
Uh, basic engineering: thinner case = higher surface to volume ratio, BETTER heat dissipation.
I suppose the mobile architecture and thin cases in the 21.5" iMac follow the same reasoning, as a primary goal of designing the iMac is to build an absolutely silent living-room machine. But honestly, it's not my job to justify everything Apple does to some random guy on the internet. I merely try to correct stuff that's outright wrong.
The iMac isn't a 'living room' machine. It's a desktop machine. Apple has living room machines for living room activities (Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, Mac Mini as media centre etc). The iMac needs a desk (few people would want an iMac sitting on their dining table or coffee table and even fewer want an extra desk in the living room to plunk an iMac on it.
I see laptops in dining rooms. They can be folded down and put out of the way in three seconds. The only time I see iMacs (or regular desktops) in living rooms is not because the owners want them their but because there was nowhere else to put them.
I very much doubt Apple is working towards the 'silent' living room iMac.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks).
You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
Uh, basic engineering: thinner case = higher surface to volume ratio, BETTER heat dissipation.
I suppose the mobile architecture and thin cases in the 21.5" iMac follow the same reasoning, as a primary goal of designing the iMac is to build an absolutely silent living-room machine. But honestly, it's not my job to justify everything Apple does to some random guy on the internet. I merely try to correct stuff that's outright wrong.
Uh, basic engineering: bigger case = more area to dissipate heat. You and others seem to think the heat is generated by the volume of the machine. It's not. There're a few components that generate most of the heat - those components don't get more numerous nor hotter as the case size expands - as I've said before and you're obviously not understanding. Therefore if the volume those components has to heat is greater, the more time it'll take for the volume to heat up and the easier it is to get rid of the heat due to bigger surface area. Which is why a 2kw fan heater in a small cupboard will quickly heat it, but in a hall won't do anything. If you scaled the heaters proportionally to the volume of the room, yes the room would get hotter as there's less heat loss through surface area. This is your logic with the Mac, but it's completely wrong. The amount of heat produced does not increase as the volume of the computer increases. Your engineering knowledge is severely lacking, you really should quit arguing on thermodynamics; you're utterly wrong. Ask any physicist, or just use a room heat requirement calculator. It's the same concept.
In any case, why isn't the Mac Pro just one flat slab if the volume to surface area is important? In fact, being round, the Mac Pro has the worst volume to surface area. Apple must be wrong, they should have made the Mac Pro a flat slab.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
1) Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to heat dissipation. A bigger case means a thicker casing to maintain the same structural integrity which translates into more weight, more cost in many areas. You need air to help pull the heat away so thinner material has its benefits. Don't believe me? Here's a guy who shows that a thick slab of cooper doesn't a great heat sink make (listed results near end of video).
2)) The iMac uses desktop-grade processors, not mobile processors. They stop doing that once Intel's architecture made it feasible.
It does as long as the heat being dissipated isn't increased with the increase in volume. A volumetrically bigger case requires thicker materials yes, but a deeper/thicker machine doesn't mean an increase in material gauge is required. A thicker machine is more sturdy with the same gauge of construction material. A flat sheet flexes easily, a box doesn't.
You've inadvertently proven my point with that video. The thin and flat piece of copper can't dissipate any heat. The volumetrically large sink without a fan gets to 50°C, the copper slab gets to 80°C.
I didn't know they use desktop CPUs now, they certainly still use mobile GPUs, however.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said:
Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them.
A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks).
You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
Uh, basic engineering: thinner case = higher surface to volume ratio, BETTER heat dissipation.
I suppose the mobile architecture and thin cases in the 21.5" iMac follow the same reasoning, as a primary goal of designing the iMac is to build an absolutely silent living-room machine. But honestly, it's not my job to justify everything Apple does to some random guy on the internet. I merely try to correct stuff that's outright wrong.
Uh, basic engineering: bigger case = more area to dissipate heat. You and others seem to think the heat is generated by the volume of the machine. It's not. There're a few components that generate most of the heat - those components don't get more numerous nor hotter as the case size expands - as I've said before and you're obviously not understanding. Therefore if the volume those components has to heat is greater, the more time it'll take for the volume to heat up and the easier it is to get rid of the heat due to bigger surface area. Which is why a 2kw fan heater in a small cupboard will quickly heat it, but in a hall won't do anything. If you scaled the heaters proportionally to the volume of the room, yes the room would get hotter as there's less heat loss through surface area. This is your logic with the Mac, but it's completely wrong. The amount of heat produced does not increase as the volume of the computer increases. Your engineering knowledge is severely lacking, you really should quit arguing on thermodynamics; you're utterly wrong. Ask any physicist, or just use a room heat requirement calculator. It's the same concept.
In any case, why isn't the Mac Pro just one flat slab if the volume to surface area is important? In fact, being round, the Mac Pro has the worst volume to surface area. Apple must be wrong, they should have made the Mac Pro a flat slab.
You're just plain wrong. This is basic stuff. Volume alone does not cool; movement of air across surface area cools. Volume will just continue to heat up unless air is moved. You maximise surface area to volume and then move air across that. This has been a MAJOR factor in Apple's hardware design for many years.
You are entirely ignoring that THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEAT SINK.
I'll repeat that a third time: THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEAT SINK.
As for Apple not following my reasoning because the Mac Pro is round: The Mac Pro's cooling system is on the INSIDE, towards the central vent - what Apple calls its "thermal core". If you look at the Mac Pro website, you can see that this vent is completely filled with vertical blades to maximise SURFACE AREA, while the heat is taken off by air pulled upwards by the huge fan at the top. What they did was exactly to make the Mac Pro not one "flat slab", but THREE flat slabs, and put as many fins on top of those slabs to dissipate heat as would allow maximum movement of air at minimum noise level. Then they built a case around the whole system. In contrast to the 'Books and the iMacs, the Mac Pro's outside case plays a much smaller role in moving heat away from the components.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
1) Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to heat dissipation. A bigger case means a thicker casing to maintain the same structural integrity which translates into more weight, more cost in many areas. You need air to help pull the heat away so thinner material has its benefits. Don't believe me? Here's a guy who shows that a thick slab of cooper doesn't a great heat sink make (listed results near end of video).
2)) The iMac uses desktop-grade processors, not mobile processors. They stop doing that once Intel's architecture made it feasible.
It does as long as the heat being dissipated isn't increased with the increase in volume. A volumetrically bigger case requires thicker materials yes, but a deeper/thicker machine doesn't mean an increase in material gauge is required. A thicker machine is more sturdy with the same gauge of construction material. A flat sheet flexes easily, a box doesn't.
You've inadvertently proven my point with that video. The thin and flat piece of copper can't dissipate any heat. The volumetrically large sink without a fan gets to 50°C, the copper slab gets to 80°C.
I didn't know they use desktop CPUs now, they certainly still use mobile GPUs, however.
Dude, it's really simple: the "volumetrically large sink" isn't about volume. If it were, they could just make it a big block of copper. Why do you think they didn't? That thing is about SURFACE AREA. a solid block wouldn't get much below 80°.
You've inadvertently proven my point with that video. The thin and flat piece of copper can't dissipate any heat. The volumetrically large sink without a fan gets to 50°C, the copper slab gets to 80°C.
That would only work if the top of a MBP chassis where to be an aluminum porcupine.
Oh that's why the new MBP has two fans and the old has one? And why the MBP's battery has gone from 75 to 50watt-hour? That's odd, seems like less battery to me.
macplusplus said: Millions of research dollars are spent every year by every chip maker for the sake of thinness. From now, every laptop will be thinner and thinner. More ports will be removed for the sake of fanless operation.
No, it's for the sake of power consumption. Thinness is due to Apple being able to reduce the battery (a useful function, unlike thinness) as Intel's chips use less idle power. Personally, I'd rather a laptop that has a bigger battery so I can use it as, oh I dunno - maybe a laptop, for longer. I can't use thinness. Other companies are extending the battery life as they realise making their laptops thinner is diminishing returns. Also, number of ports has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans. Geez. How blinded by fanboyism can one guy get?
What was the function of thinning the iMac? Apple have had some shocking design ideas recently. I hope things turn around soon, if not for us but also for the companies that rely on copying all of Apple's designs.
The iMac includes only one fan, while even the new 13" MBP with Touch Bar includes two. So the reason of iMac's thinness becomes obvious: to cope with the heat. It also partly uses mobile components, for the same reason. A bulky machine would retain much more heat and would amplify fan noise much more. Thanks to its thinness, we don't even notice that there is a fan inside. Much more comfortable...
Wow, I've never heard someone with such little basic engineering knowledge... If it wasn't so sad it'd be amusing. The thinner you make something, the harder it is to dissipate heat, as there's less volume to empty heat into. The reason it uses mobile components is because it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat produced by desktop chips. If the iMac was thicker, it wouldn't need a fan. Remember the huge CRT iMac? That had no fan.
I'd be careful harping on about "basic engineering knowledge" if you're unable to see that heat dissipation THROUGH METAL is a lot more effective than via airflow. Last I checked, there are metal heat sinks on all CPU and GPU, not fans blowing straight at them. A thinner case has higher surface/volume ratio, and the metal case becomes more effective at moving heat outwards. It is an essential element of Apple's thermal designs.
I never said it wasn't more effective, in fact I said "it's too thin to have proper heat sinks to dissipate heat". I didn't think I needed to specify the heat sinks are metal, not air. In any case, you need airflow to remove heat from the metal, no matter how big it is. A heatsink (or computer) in a vacuum would rapidly overheat as there's no air to remove the heat. And yes, unless you're referring to a 68000 or 80386 era CPU, they have fans blowing straight at them (and their heatsinks). You're correct the surface area to volume ratio is greater in a thin machine, but the heat production isn't related to the volume, the heat production is by the hot components which still produce just as much heat whether the machine is thin or thick. And in a smaller chassis, those components have less volume to heat, so it heats up more quickly. Which is why a small room heats more quickly than a large room. If it was the case that less volume means Apple could use hotter (read:desktop) components because of a thinner chassis, why are they on laptop CPUs still? And why do PC manufacturers have huge heatsinks on their CPUs/GPUs, with your logic surely a volumetrically tiny heatsink would be best?
THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEATSINK.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
Uh, basic engineering: thinner case = higher surface to volume ratio, BETTER heat dissipation.
I suppose the mobile architecture and thin cases in the 21.5" iMac follow the same reasoning, as a primary goal of designing the iMac is to build an absolutely silent living-room machine. But honestly, it's not my job to justify everything Apple does to some random guy on the internet. I merely try to correct stuff that's outright wrong.
Uh, basic engineering: bigger case = more area to dissipate heat. You and others seem to think the heat is generated by the volume of the machine. It's not. There're a few components that generate most of the heat - those components don't get more numerous nor hotter as the case size expands - as I've said before and you're obviously not understanding. Therefore if the volume those components has to heat is greater, the more time it'll take for the volume to heat up and the easier it is to get rid of the heat due to bigger surface area. Which is why a 2kw fan heater in a small cupboard will quickly heat it, but in a hall won't do anything. If you scaled the heaters proportionally to the volume of the room, yes the room would get hotter as there's less heat loss through surface area. This is your logic with the Mac, but it's completely wrong. The amount of heat produced does not increase as the volume of the computer increases. Your engineering knowledge is severely lacking, you really should quit arguing on thermodynamics; you're utterly wrong. Ask any physicist, or just use a room heat requirement calculator. It's the same concept.
In any case, why isn't the Mac Pro just one flat slab if the volume to surface area is important? In fact, being round, the Mac Pro has the worst volume to surface area. Apple must be wrong, they should have made the Mac Pro a flat slab.
You're just plain wrong. This is basic stuff. Volume alone does not cool; movement of air across surface area cools. Volume will just continue to heat up unless air is moved. You maximise surface area to volume and then move air across that. This has been a MAJOR factor in Apple's hardware design for many years.
You are entirely ignoring that THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEAT SINK.
I'll repeat that a third time: THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEAT SINK.
As for Apple not following my reasoning because the Mac Pro is round: The Mac Pro's cooling system is on the INSIDE, towards the central vent - what Apple calls its "thermal core". If you look at the Mac Pro website, you can see that this vent is completely filled with vertical blades to maximise SURFACE AREA, while the heat is taken off by air pulled upwards by the huge fan at the top. What they did was exactly to make the Mac Pro not one "flat slab", but THREE flat slabs, and put as many fins on top of those slabs to dissipate heat as would allow maximum movement of air at minimum noise level. Then they built a case around the whole system. In contrast to the 'Books and the iMacs, the Mac Pro's outside case plays a much smaller role in moving heat away from the components.
My god. In the first line I say "bigger case = more area to dissipate heat". Perhaps you need glasses? This is such a basic concept you're completely failing (or refusing) to understand yet again, pretty sure you know you're completely wrong but are continuing to bleat on in an attemt to save face. I never said volume cools. I said earlier that anything in a vacuum would cool very poorly due to lack of air, which amusingly you're now telling me. However, and this is what you fail to understand over and over and over, I have told you this at least three times so as you think repeating three times helps:
The components still produce exactly the same amount of heat whether the volume of the case is large or small. A larger case has more surface area to dissipate heat.
The components still produce exactly the same amount of heat whether the volume of the case is large or small. A larger case has more surface area to dissipate heat.
The components still produce exactly the same amount of heat whether the volume of the case is large or small. A larger case has more surface area to dissipate heat.
Has that gone in now?
So, as I keep saying, a large case has a larger surface area. Therefore, better cooling. You still think the volume of the machine is related to the heat produced. It's not. The volume produces no heat, components do. And a volumetrically larger case allows bigger heatsinks to cool, and has a larger surface area, to cool. It's really quite simple.
I know exactly how the MP cools thanks. Just how I know exactly how the Macbook Pro cools, shame you don't have the engineering knowledge to see that. And that "thermal core" is known as a heat sink without Apple's marketing slant. A sink for heat. And yes, the surface area of it is large, just as a volumetrically larger Macbook has a larger surface area for cooling, and more space for bigger heatsinks.
Well noticed. And a bigger case = bigger area to dissipate heat, plus taller, more efficient heatsinks on hot components. Noticed you didn't have an answer for Apple's use of mobile chips in the iMacs. Funny that.
1) Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better when it comes to heat dissipation. A bigger case means a thicker casing to maintain the same structural integrity which translates into more weight, more cost in many areas. You need air to help pull the heat away so thinner material has its benefits. Don't believe me? Here's a guy who shows that a thick slab of cooper doesn't a great heat sink make (listed results near end of video).
2)) The iMac uses desktop-grade processors, not mobile processors. They stop doing that once Intel's architecture made it feasible.
It does as long as the heat being dissipated isn't increased with the increase in volume. A volumetrically bigger case requires thicker materials yes, but a deeper/thicker machine doesn't mean an increase in material gauge is required. A thicker machine is more sturdy with the same gauge of construction material. A flat sheet flexes easily, a box doesn't.
You've inadvertently proven my point with that video. The thin and flat piece of copper can't dissipate any heat. The volumetrically large sink without a fan gets to 50°C, the copper slab gets to 80°C.
I didn't know they use desktop CPUs now, they certainly still use mobile GPUs, however.
Dude, it's really simple: the "volumetrically large sink" isn't about volume. If it were, they could just make it a big block of copper. Why do you think they didn't? That thing is about SURFACE AREA. a solid block wouldn't get much below 80°.
In something three-dimensional, such as a Macbook or that heatsink, volume is directly linked to area. Except it increases by a power of three for area, instead of two. If the heat sink was a large block of copper, it would dissipate however many times bigger surface area the block has compared to the slab. That block would have a larger volume. But that block would also have a bigger surface area. Therefore the solid block would be a fair bit below 80°. It'd also absorb transient heat events much better.
You've inadvertently proven my point with that video. The thin and flat piece of copper can't dissipate any heat. The volumetrically large sink without a fan gets to 50°C, the copper slab gets to 80°C.
That would only work if the top of a MBP chassis where to be an aluminum porcupine.
Huh? The top of the MBP is a fairly effective heatsink without fins due to its large area. However, the components aren't actually touching the case of the machine directly, making the case not particularly efficient as a heat sink. There are heatsinks inside the MBP with fins, but they're pretty poor as they're so flat. Which is why they throttle performance and why Apple's reportedly underclocked the CPU. All due to Ive's obsession with thin.
My god. In the first line I say "bigger case = more area to dissipate heat". Perhaps you need glasses? This is such a basic concept you're completely failing (or refusing) to understand yet again, pretty sure you know you're completely wrong but are continuing to bleat on in an attemt to save face.
It is a basic concept so it's odd that you keep insisting that bigger is the same thing as surface area.
You know that a polar bear is bigger than a flamingo, right? Which one do you think displaces heat better? Why do you think this is?
My god. In the first line I say "bigger case = more area to dissipate heat". Perhaps you need glasses? This is such a basic concept you're completely failing (or refusing) to understand yet again, pretty sure you know you're completely wrong but are continuing to bleat on in an attemt to save face.
It is a basic concept so it's odd that you keep insisting that bigger is the same thing as surface area.
You know that a polar bear is bigger than a flamingo, right? Which one do you think displaces heat better? Why do you think this is?
The old Mac Pro was bigger than the current Mac Pro and yet it wasn't nearly as efficient with removing heat.
So you think it's possible to increase surface area on a case with a smooth surface without making it bigger? Damn! Engineers have been making things bigger for so many years to dissipate heat better but you have a solution! Please enlighten the engineering world?
Again that doesn't apply as the heat produced by the Polar Bear is much greater, since it has thousands of times more heat-producing cells. If the polar bear was producing the same amount of heat as a flamingo, it would cool more quickly as it has more surface area. Just as a bigger Macbook has the same number of heat producing components as a smaller one, but is better able to dissipate the heat.
It was almost good at removing heat, but there were more hot components than there are in the newer one; and there was no convection due to horizontal airways instead of vertical.
My god. In the first line I say "bigger case = more area to dissipate heat". Perhaps you need glasses? This is such a basic concept you're completely failing (or refusing) to understand yet again, pretty sure you know you're completely wrong but are continuing to bleat on in an attemt to save face.
It is a basic concept so it's odd that you keep insisting that bigger is the same thing as surface area.
You know that a polar bear is bigger than a flamingo, right? Which one do you think displaces heat better? Why do you think this is?
The old Mac Pro was bigger than the current Mac Pro and yet it wasn't nearly as efficient with removing heat.
So you think it's possible to increase surface area on a case with a smooth surface without making it bigger? Damn! Engineers have been making things bigger for so many years to dissipate heat better but you have a solution! Please enlighten the engineering world?
Again that doesn't apply as the heat produced by the Polar Bear is much greater, since it has thousands of times more heat-producing cells. If the polar bear was producing the same amount of heat as a flamingo, it would cool more quickly as it has more surface area. Just as a bigger Macbook has the same number of heat producing components as a smaller one, but is better able to dissipate the heat.
It was almost good at removing heat, but there were more hot components than there are in the newer one; and there was no convection due to horizontal airways instead of vertical.
Jesus fucking christ! How the fuck ca you still be arguing that surface area has no relation to volume when it comes to heat displacement? If common sense isn't working for you then read the goddamn Wikipedia link and try to apply some basic critical thinking. This is technically science but it's about as rudimentary as it gets.
Comments
Look, you've willingly let yourself get painted into a corner her that I'm not sure you want to be in. You're not stupid. You know that discrete graphics are FAR more likely to be a problem than a dying SSD at this point. You know that soldered RAM is irrelevant, since you'll be maxing it out from the start. You know that batteries swelling are an issue that Apple usually takes care of, and you know that people who DEPEND upon computers have backup machines or rentals in case of downtime.
All of these things are inconveniences, but they really aren't new, or particularly relevant to the "pro" market.
They aren't an indication that Apple has lost track; indeed, looking at the last fifteen years, they're obviously doubling down, rather than faltering.
I suppose the mobile architecture and thin cases in the 21.5" iMac follow the same reasoning, as a primary goal of designing the iMac is to build an absolutely silent living-room machine.
But honestly, it's not my job to justify everything Apple does to some random guy on the internet. I merely try to correct stuff that's outright wrong.
2)) The iMac uses desktop-grade processors, not mobile processors. They stop doing that once Intel's architecture made it feasible.
People are howling about those compromises. The backlash has been of such proportions that fireman Phil has had to come out and try to calm those critical voices. Have you seen some of the Black Friday discounts on this new line - which isn't even a month old?
Having the SSD soldered on is one of those and as I said not for ONE reason but for a few. Obviously if any part of the motherboard fails you lose access to your data until Apple plugs its little tool in. Backups? It seems you are spinning this as positive because Apple will 'educate' us into doing real time backups.. Some foolish people don't backup. Others do but not every minute. Others not every hour and others, not every day. Can you see where I am heading? If this machine fails, for whatever the reason, the only way you will get your non-backed up data back is by visiting an Apple shop with the tool and there is no guarantee that they will be able get that data off it. That is a nightmare scenario if you live any reasonable distance from a shop with the tool. Now you are going to tell me to use the internal SSD for applications and system files and put all my documents on an external disk and problem resolved!!! That's right, the stupid user didn't even have to risk putting his data at risk in the first place!! Wait! There is more! Why not use the internal disk as a backup!! Apple would be doing us a favour by having a backup soldered to our million dollar prized possession. And now you will try to say that this scenario isn't ridiculous!
Which part is far more likely to fail than another part is totally irrelevant! And I never 'paint myself into a corner because I think before posting!
As for batteries. I have a story for you. The battery on my 2006 MBP started having problems. That one was covered by an Apple extended warranty due to battery issues that Apple had detected but I was unaware of that as, in spite of being a registered user and using a unique mail address, no one from Apple support contacted me. When I started having issues and found the programme I visited an Apple Store for a replacement. No joy. The programme had ended. All I got was a pair of shrugged shoulders and asee sorry. And I had bought AppleCare too. If there was any 'flexibility' the issue, I think I would have got some. I don't know where you got the Apple 'usually takes care of you'. Apple 'takes care of you' at checkout time. They will fall over themselves to contact you for that but try getting info on buying a battery!
This was an issue that had its origin in a factory. In the case of battery swelling, most issues have their roots in use (charging, temperatures etc) and although not every user will see it, the amount of users who will
see it is not insignificant. On these machines that's yet another unnecessary compromise.
No worries, I'm sure they'll send a repair drone from the mothership... (As long as I have AppleCare Extreme). If I don't, I'm out of warranty, and I live any reasonably far distance from the tool, I'm up shit street.
I'm sure you get the gist. Ha!
Anyway, what do I know? Apple OEMd SSDs will outlive me and my great, great grandchildren! Oh! But wait a moment! To lose my data, the SSD itself doesn't even have to fail! Any part that prevents booting will do!
And how much did this thing cost me? After having maxed the specs out at purchase time?
Now I know why I never had any kids! After buying the MBP with Touch Bar, I couldn't afford them.
I understand that you take issue with what others may consider "necessary" compromise, as dictated by varying priorities.
But: Professional life is a constant chain of choosing the least annoying/painful compromise of features, budget, and limitations.
You can spend decades getting worked up over that fact on Internet forums, I suppose. I know I have.
If sales are the highest ever for a new release, they probably won't do much. If sales are flattening out, share value may be affected. That is when Apple might feel the need to do something.
I see laptops in dining rooms. They can be folded down and put out of the way in three seconds. The only time I see iMacs (or regular desktops) in living rooms is not because the owners want them their but because there was nowhere else to put them.
I very much doubt Apple is working towards the 'silent' living room iMac.
In any case, why isn't the Mac Pro just one flat slab if the volume to surface area is important? In fact, being round, the Mac Pro has the worst volume to surface area. Apple must be wrong, they should have made the Mac Pro a flat slab.
You've inadvertently proven my point with that video. The thin and flat piece of copper can't dissipate any heat. The volumetrically large sink without a fan gets to 50°C, the copper slab gets to 80°C.
I didn't know they use desktop CPUs now, they certainly still use mobile GPUs, however.
You are entirely ignoring that THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEAT SINK.
I'll repeat that a third time: THE CASE ITSELF IS A HEAT SINK.
As for Apple not following my reasoning because the Mac Pro is round:
The Mac Pro's cooling system is on the INSIDE, towards the central vent - what Apple calls its "thermal core". If you look at the Mac Pro website, you can see that this vent is completely filled with vertical blades to maximise SURFACE AREA, while the heat is taken off by air pulled upwards by the huge fan at the top.
What they did was exactly to make the Mac Pro not one "flat slab", but THREE flat slabs, and put as many fins on top of those slabs to dissipate heat as would allow maximum movement of air at minimum noise level.
Then they built a case around the whole system.
In contrast to the 'Books and the iMacs, the Mac Pro's outside case plays a much smaller role in moving heat away from the components.
That thing is about SURFACE AREA.
a solid block wouldn't get much below 80°.
The components still produce exactly the same amount of heat whether the volume of the case is large or small. A larger case has more surface area to dissipate heat.
The components still produce exactly the same amount of heat whether the volume of the case is large or small. A larger case has more surface area to dissipate heat.
The components still produce exactly the same amount of heat whether the volume of the case is large or small. A larger case has more surface area to dissipate heat.
Has that gone in now?
So, as I keep saying, a large case has a larger surface area. Therefore, better cooling. You still think the volume of the machine is related to the heat produced. It's not. The volume produces no heat, components do. And a volumetrically larger case allows bigger heatsinks to cool, and has a larger surface area, to cool. It's really quite simple.
I know exactly how the MP cools thanks. Just how I know exactly how the Macbook Pro cools, shame you don't have the engineering knowledge to see that. And that "thermal core" is known as a heat sink without Apple's marketing slant. A sink for heat. And yes, the surface area of it is large, just as a volumetrically larger Macbook has a larger surface area for cooling, and more space for bigger heatsinks.
In something three-dimensional, such as a Macbook or that heatsink, volume is directly linked to area. Except it increases by a power of three for area, instead of two. If the heat sink was a large block of copper, it would dissipate however many times bigger surface area the block has compared to the slab. That block would have a larger volume. But that block would also have a bigger surface area. Therefore the solid block would be a fair bit below 80°. It'd also absorb transient heat events much better.
Huh? The top of the MBP is a fairly effective heatsink without fins due to its large area. However, the components aren't actually touching the case of the machine directly, making the case not particularly efficient as a heat sink. There are heatsinks inside the MBP with fins, but they're pretty poor as they're so flat. Which is why they throttle performance and why Apple's reportedly underclocked the CPU. All due to Ive's obsession with thin.
You know that a polar bear is bigger than a flamingo, right? Which one do you think displaces heat better? Why do you think this is?
If you don't know, here's the answer:
The old Mac Pro was bigger than the current Mac Pro and yet it wasn't nearly as efficient with removing heat.
Again that doesn't apply as the heat produced by the Polar Bear is much greater, since it has thousands of times more heat-producing cells. If the polar bear was producing the same amount of heat as a flamingo, it would cool more quickly as it has more surface area. Just as a bigger Macbook has the same number of heat producing components as a smaller one, but is better able to dissipate the heat.
It was almost good at removing heat, but there were more hot components than there are in the newer one; and there was no convection due to horizontal airways instead of vertical.