OSNews

The iMac G4s are terrible to service and the inherent design of drawing air through the bottom vents causes the Optical Drives in them to fail frequently. Good looking design from an aesthetic point of view, horrible from a servicing/functioning point of view.

My favorites are the Rev. A and Rev. B iMac, from a servicing point of view. You cannot beat three phillips screws to reveal the components neatly laid out. Aesthetically... the later, slimming iMacs and the new aluminum.

I'm waiting for Apple to have both easy servicing like the original iMac G5s and the aesthetics of the G4 for example. So far they haven't quite hit it with their all-in-ones.

USB is just not an option for external-disk performance.

;)

I've a little external box with USB and 802.3 ports. I very quickly gave up on using the USB in favour of the network connection.

Using the drive over the network connection was magnitudes faster than over USB and without the random system lockups that the USB seems to cause (budget grade NAS after all). Even when using the drive as a standard external box when fixing friends machines; access over the network, it just works.

If you want hard drive performance, you should have firewire enclosures. USB is dog slow for data transfers. Even firewire 400 is faster than the "theoretical" USB 480. The current iMacs have firewire 800.

Initially, USB seemed to be a port for plugging in input devices, such as keyboards and mice. Allthough USB uses polling instead of interrupts to act on hardware events, it's completely fine for this purpose. Furthermore, it enabled PCs to do things that were common years ago on Macs, on Sun workstations and even on the Atari ST, i. e. plugging the mouse into the keyboard so you have only one cable to the central unit.

After hardware manufacturers found out that you can plug nearly everything into an USB port (cameras, scanners, even rocket launchers, I'm waiting for the USB power drill), many different implementations developed. Instead of using existing standards, hardware manufacturers decided to develop things on their own in order fo force the user to have exactly that OS installed what they were providing drivers for.

While USB 2.0 makes external hard disk access faster, it won't be my choice. As you mentioned, firewire is faster, and if it's about an external hard disk, a simple NAS enclosure is very welcome, it makes things easier.

USB has never been designed to serve as a high performance data transfer connection. You can, however, use it that way, but don't expect performance.

Just my 0,02 Euro. :-)

from what i understand the usb port was supposed to be a replacement for the serial port, with a added hot swap capability.

firewire on the other hand started out as a replacement for scsi.

but as usb is centrally controlled and allow for star like connections, its much cheaper to implement then firewire.

firewire on the other hand is a chain, and each device must also hold a controller chip (iirc, you can in theory connect two firewire devices together and transfer data between them without a computer to control it. something usb only picked up with usb-on-the-go or usb-otg as its more often called) and as such becomes more expensive.

also, it means that any proper firewire device should really have two firewire ports. and trying to unplug a device in the middle of the chain can be a pain as it has to wait until all the others are done doing their thing.

all in all, it depends on how things are to be used.

Edited 2008-05-07 18:37 UTC

I had to go look just to be sure but yes, Steve Jobs is wearing a suite. No turtle neck or geans to be seen anywhere.

oops, wrong place...

Edited 2008-05-07 18:43 UTC

yep, only macs i had any contact with, until recent years when a friend of mine got a macbook pro, was a row of imac on display in a local electronics store.

i played around with them for a while (what did they run at first? os8 or os9?) then shrugged and moved on the the pc games section...

Amazing isn't it that this fashion / sex appeal trend in consumer electronics was started by a guy who wears nothing blue jeans and a black shirt. Lord knows a billionaire could afford a better wardrobe

Edited 2008-05-06 18:52 UTC

It is always amazing how this forum and others are constantly flooded with Apple fanatics who are design/usability experts and accomplished design historians.

Neither Steve Jobs nor Apple started the "stylish trend" in electronics and computers.

IBM began hiring top industrial/product designers around 1947, and they started using these designers on their computers in 1957 (19 years before Apple computer existed). Here is a link to a bio of Eliot Noyes, one of IBM's early designers: http://216.169.150.18/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=252

Here is a link to an article on the design of International Computers' 2903 system, from Design magazine, December, 1973 (Apple Computer formed in 1976): http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/diad/article.php?title=300&year=1973&article...

If you click on the image on the far right, you will see an "all-in-one" terminal, that looks just as stylish today as Apple's original Imac does now.

Also, for all those who think Apple was the first to consider usability for non-technicians, note the first sentence in the article's second paragraph, "The 2903 is a small powerful system designed for the first-time user..."

Here is a page from the June, 1974 Design, that shows a photo (upper left) of another stylish computer terminal: http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/diad/bres/pub/COID/306/026gray.jpg

By the way, Design magazine was a fantastic design periodical. It was richly informative and inspiring, and it had no snobbery like that commonly found in today's glossy design rags. It covered every design discipline: graphic, product, industrial, interior, advertising, architecture, transportation, photographic, illustration, etc. It was published by the UK Design Council, and I believe it started in the early 1950s and folded in the 1990s. Fortunately, a decade of its issues have be captured for posterity by the Visual Arts Data Service: http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/diad/index.php

Peruse these issues (especially the "Things Seen" section), and it will quickly become apparent that a lot of today's designs are actually "retro" in style.

An eclectic world of "modern" design and designers exists out there, and this world has existed for almost a century.

Edited 2008-05-06 22:50 UTC

Then I guess one would say "Apple was the first computer company to Successfully use designers in their manufacturing process" ;-)

One would say that only if one were an Apple fanboy who is completely naive about design and lacking any sense of design history.

Maybe it's safer to say that Apple were one company that were successful in merging style and functionality, (that one is a little harder to argue against). That way anti-fans won't be sitting on here picking their twisted knickers out of the cracks and getting all flustered...

Not really. Not from a design standpoint.

Apple has a history rife with design/usability blunders in both their hardware and software. Almost all of these problems resulted from the common tendency to let style rule over function/usability. Some of Apple's hardware design mistakes were catastrophic (round mouse, monitors that can't tilt down, no floppy in the first Imacs, etc.), and the design/usability problems with Apples software are numerous.

So, on the contrary, Apple has frequently been unsuccessful in merging style and functionality.



That's a funny joke, but it's hardly an accurate depiction of someone merely trying to enlighten naive Apple adorers on the scope of the design world.

Just from Sony.

Here is the TR-1825 cube radio (1970) that slides open: http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1970/tr-1825.html

The ICR-9 ultra slim radio (1977): http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1970/icr-9.html

The PS-F9 portable turntable (1983): http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1980/ps-f9.html

The MDR-W30L headphone (1983), which came in six colors (one year before the beige Mac was released): http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1980/mdr-w30l.html

Here is the Sony PTC-300 PDA (1991), which preceded the Apple Newton by two years: http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1990/ptc-300.html

Here is the link to the Sony design home page: http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/top.html

The history section contains a lot more of past Sony designs. All of these examples come from only one company, so this selection barely scratches the surface of what is/was out there.

In light of all of the zillions of previous, innovative, slick, electronic designs, it seems a bit naive to think that the Imac and/or Ipod started the "electronic fashion" trend. Such a notion reflects the same savvy in claiming that Steve Jobs invented carrying a backpack by only one of its straps. Furthermore, when one becomes more familiar with design history, Apple products begin to look generic and derivative. And this realization arrives even without considering the direct matches shown between Apple products and prior Braun items: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-...

Even "i-names" existed prior to Apple's use of them. Here is the Lowel i-Light (spelled with a lower-case "i" since 1985): http://lowel.com/ilight/

By the way, here is a good site for conceptual gadget designs: http://www.tuvie.com/ Note the "Mac Laptop Case" near the bottom (5/7/08).

Edited 2008-05-07 18:49 UTC

i think a lot of the people that come up with these claims where born around the early 80's or so. so by the time they start paying attention, said products have come and gone.

for jobs and crew on the other hand, it may well be that said designs reminds them of their own youth, and thats why they get chosen. but thats only guesswork.

I believe that your point about young Mac fans being "born too late" is partially correct. However, the vast world of designers and design didn't disappear when these young consumers grew up. This world is still there and it has always been there, churning out a lot of varied, colorful designs.

One must also consider that Apple's product line is sparse compared to many other electronics manufacturers, so they can channel a greater portion of their advertising and marketing efforts into each product.

Also, I think that Apple just advertises a lot more than other manufacturers. I see Apple ads on almost every bus stop in L.A. I have never seen a bus stop ad for Sony, Toshiba, Dell, Braun, etc.

So, products from other manufacturers don't get anywhere near the visibility of Apple items.

In addition, one cannot discount the effect of the reality distortion field. Blind adoration eclipses all other contenders in the mind of the fanboy.

true, that RDF is impressive...

and its not a recent development:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A

and its ingrained in everything jobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3tUkyCRp0A

just watch how he more or less demands to tell the story about microsoft stepping in with floating point basic when bill gates makes it to techie and "boring".

basically the underlying message keeps being that computing should be fun, exciting and lighthearted.

problem is that we are talking about one of the most complex creations man have devised...

its not a single task device, like just about every other tool humanity have come up with. its a tool that is close to being as flexible as man himself.

Is it such a bad thing to use design cues from the past to make present-day design better? I would argue that Apple have made better looking products than most of the competition, and that it's better for us to have, and look at, these "derivative" but appealing products in our homes and workplaces than the beige alternatives... Regardless of its leverage of historical design.

No. It is not a bad thing to build on past ideas. In fact, it is often obvious and unavoidable to use prior art.

However, I merely point out that Apple's designs are a minuscule spec in a vast design world, and that much of Apple's work is derivative -- not the product of "inspired genius."



One can argue that Apple has superior looks and appeal, but such assertions are ultimately just subjective opinions. To those familiar with the eclectic world of design, Apple products can seem generic. Indeed, even Dell can be more daring in design than Apple: http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/01/10/dells-monito...

Also, one must question the mental benefit (or detriment) derived from staring adoringly at a piece of equipment, in lieu of actually using that piece of equipment. To me, the most important aspect of a computer is what is on the screen and how well the moving parts work.

Edited 2008-05-08 19:20 UTC

hmm, that display reminds me of a stand on a local education expo i went to some years ago.

among other things there was a private design academy there, that had a tv setup. it was created by applying a reflective coating on a sheet of glass (or maybe plexiglass) and mounting a projector behind it.

end result, a tv image that appeared to almost float in space.

compared to recent apple products, that was just impressive. the funny thing is that apple have more or less resurrected the beige box. only with a more whitish tint and rounded corner. that and brushed metal on some of their top end products.

ok, the macbook air was impressive. but the port sacrifices? i dont know. fortunatly both dell and lenovo have rolled out responses.

lenovo's ideapad u110
http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en...

and dells xps m1330
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsnb_m133...

Yes, well that's fortunate...

That's why I once referred to the imac as a 'toy.' (uh oh the mac zealots may be angry at me...)

As the guy in the Switch parody said "the best thing about macs is that when it is time to upgrade, you just pick it up, throw it away, and go buy another one. Now that's convenience!"

When less than 1% of the PC market "upgade" their existing box with anything other than memory or a bigger hard disk your point is? Both of those "upgrades" can also be done to an iMac.

Here's a question though. How often do you have to upgrade a PC compared to an iMac for it to remain usable? I know a number of my family members are still using those original Bondi Blue's and until fairly recently my kids were using one of the fruity iMacs (slot-loading CD). I got them one of the original Mac Mini's to replace it - runs Leopard, iLife, iWork and World of Warcraft quite adequately - ok, WOW is a bit laggy but I have a P4 2.4 box for web site testing purposes that is about the same age and has similar memory and video specs that runs Vista like a dog stuck in treacle and you can forget WOW on that thing...

it's not just about upgrades...if something happens to an imac, it is a lot harder and more expensive to service than a typical pc where you can go a few blocks to the nearest pc repair store.

true that. but just every brand name computer can be mailed in or be picked up for transportation these days.

hell, im starting to get the impression that its all the effort that apple put into service related details thats draws people to them, just as much as the products themselves.

it becomes a very special kind of mental ecosystem. genius bar where they work on your mac while you wait? specifically styled stores? applecare (apple cares for your macs wellbeing)?

its a beltfeed machinegun of brand loyalty ads.

it kinda reminds me of a norwegian chain of hifi equipment that ran ads that basically asked "would you buy your hifi equipment in the same place that you buy your dishwasher?".

the funny thing is that while dell spearheaded the idea of doing everything by mail and web, apple have kinda gone the other way with their specialist stores.

still, given the recent experience of one guy thats having trouble with his macbook pro, it seems that the people operating the genius bar may not know much more then your average "geek" working at the generic pc repair place.

http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/05/genius-bar-visi.html

all in all, "why be generic when you can be special?".

Edited 2008-05-07 19:09 UTC

Huh... we get iMacs G3s in all the time and they're still ticking along with the original Quantum drives in there. They've last longer than a lot of modern drives have, in computers with fans.

It's possible that I've had extraordinarily bad luck, but dead drives have been the norm rather than the exception with all the iMacs I've encountered (ditto eMacs).



Well, yeah. Considering that increasing failure rates have gone hand-in-hand with the increases in disk density, that's exactly what I would expect.

the imac worked as a lifebelt until the ipod came along to pull apple up on the beach again.