Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Time for new imac?

Time for new imac?
Thread Tools
jeff k
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 03:48 PM
 
My last imac was the 27" from Sept. 2009. So that about 5 years, and really I still love it, but I do notice that the beachball comes up a lot, especially, on large files in Photoshop - CS5. And especially using plug in filters.

How much will the pain reduce with a new imac? And then there is still the issue of the hardrives causing slowness correct? I'm on 2TB externals from about three years ago, Seagates. thanks.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 04:00 PM
 
There is speculation of a Retina iMac 27" coming out. It'll be expensive if true. On the other hand, your beachballs might go away with some more RAM and/or an SSD. Have you done any checking with Activity Monitor to see where the bottleneck is when the beachball comes up?
     
jeff k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 04:04 PM
 
Thanks Reader, no never figured that out. I've done many Ram buys and it never solves those issues.

SSD is different though. Maybe I should get some external SSDs for stuff that I'm working on in Photoshop. That is much faster than having images on traditional spinning drives? Price of those was so high a few years ago, maybe better now?

But I'm getting bottlenecks even with basic apps up like Word and the internet... New processors would help that?

Another issue is I have one final project using my Nikon scanner which is just Firewire. I suppose I should finish that before buying a new imac?
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 04:22 PM
 
This conversation is best had tomorrow, but anything you're going to buy is going to be at a minimum quad-thread with a faster bus.

I/O is a bottleneck, sure, and a SSD will fix some of that, sure. A SSD boot and app disk, that photoshop would use for a scratch disk would be a great addition to that machine. They're still loads more expensive than spinning platters, but the speed is notable.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 04:34 PM
 
Sounds like you need an SSD. Unfortunately much of the gain from an SSD is lost if you go external (the USB 2.0 connection adds too much latency. FireWire is better, but still a real loss compared to SATA).
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 04:45 PM
 
Stop ****ing around with SSD and RAM and splash out for a new iMac!!!
     
jeff k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 06:21 PM
 
Thanks Esta, going to try to translate some of your text.

What is quad-thread and what is I/O?

You say use SSD for boot and apps, I think the new ones come with SSD for that?

Thanks P and Matt.

Ok, I think I should get this new imac, and also try to get the boot on SSD and get my main files I work on SSD too? I assume the main internal will now be SSD or some fusion of the two..
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2014, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by jeff k View Post
Thanks Esta, going to try to translate some of your text.

What is quad-thread and what is I/O?
Quad thread -- in essence, can do four things at once, with the C2D you have capable of doing two. There's more to it than this, but this works.

You say use SSD for boot and apps, I think the new ones come with SSD for that?
Mostly, yes.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 09:55 AM
 
I/O is input/output, usually but not always used in terms of disk access. SSD has better access times than spinning metal. BUT, it isn't great for files that are changed alot, the performance deteriorates over time.

AFAIK you won't manage what goes on the SSD in the latest iMacs, OS X decides. Maybe others can correct me.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I/O is input/output, usually but not always used in terms of disk access. SSD has better access times than spinning metal. BUT, it isn't great for files that are changed alot, the performance deteriorates over time.
That's... not quite right. If you don't fill a SSD to more than 80 percent or so, performance maintains. If you pack the drive full, that's when you run into issues. These days, drives in firmware have good garbage collection so this isn't really a problem.

AFAIK you won't manage what goes on the SSD in the latest iMacs, OS X decides. Maybe others can correct me.
Hybrid drives, this is true. I'm not a giant fan of Hybrid drives.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I/O is input/output, usually but not always used in terms of disk access. SSD has better access times than spinning metal. BUT, it isn't great for files that are changed alot, the performance deteriorates over time.
Wait, what? That's not what happens. On a modern SSD this is not a concern at all for anything remotely resembling regular usage. On older models you could get worse performance over time if you wrote a lot, but even so they were massively faster than any spinning disk.

Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
AFAIK you won't manage what goes on the SSD in the latest iMacs, OS X decides. Maybe others can correct me.
Depends on what you order. If you order a Fusion Drive, it is like that by default, although you can change it. If you order an SSD, you get an SSD and no extra HDD.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:28 PM
 
The retina iMac is here … looks like a great machine.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
That's... not quite right. If you don't fill a SSD to more than 80 percent or so, performance maintains. If you pack the drive full, that's when you run into issues. These days, drives in firmware have good garbage collection so this isn't really a problem.
Originally Posted by P View Post
Wait, what? That's not what happens. On a modern SSD this is not a concern at all for anything remotely resembling regular usage. On older models you could get worse performance over time if you wrote a lot, but even so they were massively faster than any spinning disk.

Depends on what you order. If you order a Fusion Drive, it is like that by default, although you can change it. If you order an SSD, you get an SSD and no extra HDD.
I'll let you two pick through the articles : https://www.google.fr/search?q=ssd+p...EImf-wb0voDgBg
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:05 PM
 
The very first article proves our points.

The proper care and feeding of SSD storage | PCWorld
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:11 PM
 
Don't need to, I know how an SSD works. Basically, a block has to be deleted before it can be rewritten, the deletion has to happen on a bigger segment than the writing, and the number of deletions in a lifetime are limited. To work around this, there is a level of indirection, where the official SATA LBAs are being translated to actual flash block addresses and these blocks are moved around to spread the deletions over as many blocks as possible. The slowdown that could happen was if the number of free blocks to be written dropped too low, so the drive firmware had to start moving data around to be able to write anywhere. With good newer SSDs - anything from the first Sandforce or newer - this problem has been solved. Put simply, there is always some spare capacity hidden in the 7 % between the real GB that the flash actually comes with, and the reported mini-gigs that drive reports to the OS. The drive will the aggressively maintain the spare space to make sure that it never ends up in the slow situation. This works, and all drives these days work that way. Don't worry about it.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:11 PM
 
And all the others?
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:13 PM
 
So drives from when don't suffer the performance degradation seen in earlier models?
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:21 PM
 
1st gen Sandforce was what, 2009 or so? And to be honest the OEM-focused drives never had it, but they were much slower as a result. It was drives with early enthusiast controllers like Indilinx Barefoot and whatever that terrible JMicron controller was called that were the problem. These spread the bad word - and then hailed TRIM as the solution to all their problems, when it mostly about them developing good garbage collection routines.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 03:58 PM
 
In essence, if you buy anything SATA-3, then you're set.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The retina iMac is here … looks like a great machine.
It's less fun breaking down the specs when Apple refers to unreleased hardware in them, but anyway:

* CPU is top of the line i5 upgradeable to the regular desktop i7 - as usual. Now Intel has changed the exact specs a bit, so the i7 is a bigger jump, and it also has the newer Devil's Canyon variant which is supposed to cool better and therefore turbo more. Don't think it matters much though.
* Base GPU is M290X, which is a desktop Radeon 270 or thereabouts. Compared to the old 27", it ends up over the old base 775M and just below the old BTO option 780M. Not too shabby, but general recommendations would indicate that you need to drop resolution all the way to 1920*1080 to game comfortably. That said, I used a very similar card (Radeon 7850) and the 2560*1440 display of my current iMac to play a number of AAA games, and it worked well enough in most games if just dropped the quality from Very High to High.
* Upgraded GPU is M295X, which is... not released yet, so I don't know. It has however been heavily rumored to be based on a fully enabled version of AMDs newest performance chip "Tonga", found in a slightly nerfed version in the desktop Radeon 285. I suspect that it will behave like a desktop 280X, roughly, which means that you should get away with 2560*1440 gaming. The interesting part about this chip is that it has improvements in color compression, which means that it needs less memory bandwidth. As that is a weak spot of mobile GPUs, it will be very interesting to see what it can do.
* Either of these chips are more than powerful enough to just drive the displays at regular work, though.
* Fusion Drive is standard, but 8 GB of RAM in $2500 computer? Really? It's still user accessible, however.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2014, 05:22 PM
 
$3300 for the retina iMac (euro price into US) is a ****ing rip-off.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 01:39 AM
 
Mac Mini update may finally replace my 7 year old Macbook. I'll wait for the reviews and the ifixit teardown, then sort out whether to get the 2.6 or the 2.8 with options. Hard drive or fusion drive, i5 or i7, 8GB or 16GB yada yada yada...

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 06:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
$3300 for the retina iMac (euro price into US) is a ****ing rip-off.
Every. Single. ****ing. Time.

Please subtract VAT and then complain.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 06:49 AM
 
The Swedish price translates to $2800 after deducting VAT, $300 more. The base model translates into $1150 after the same math, only $50 more. The other iMacs have roughly the same premium, between $50 and $75, except the old top of the line which is $125 more. Even including VAT and compared to other Apple products, we're getting shafted on this one.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 07:30 AM
 
Yes, I figured through that, as well. But it's not *nearly* the $800 mattyb makes it out to be.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Every. Single. ****ing. Time.

Please subtract VAT and then complain.
Why? Do I somehow magically not have to pay VAT/TVA now? No.

The Swiss pay $2955. The Norwegians $3059. The Brits $3215. The Spaniards $3355.

Shafted. Doesn't matter what the tax rate is.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2014, 08:40 PM
 
That train of thought irks me for several reasons:

a) US citizens pay taxes, which vary depending upon where they live.

b) VAT is not some mystical thing that Apple charges, thereby ripping you off. It is a tax that they are required to collect for the government on every product they sell you.

b) If you are a business customer who charges VAT, you do not pay VAT on business expenses (well, you pay, but it is directly figured against the VAT you've billed your clients). The price I pay for a computer, iPhone, or iPad, is the price Apple charges, sans VAT.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 07:18 AM
 
$2499 is 1958€. Add VAT at 20% and its 2349€.

Apple.fr has the price at 2599€, a 250€ ($319) difference. That irks me.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Why? Do I somehow magically not have to pay VAT/TVA now? No.
No, but in many countries (such as Canada) prices are advertised without VAT. Meaning if you compare a European sticker price (where the VAT has to be included by law) to, say, the Canadian one (where VAT is not included), you are comparing apples and oranges, and in my opinion you should compare prices after adding the VAT on all sides. However, in the US AFAIK the tax rate depends on the state which makes comparisons more difficult, though.

None of us are disputing that people outside of the US are paying extra, but the difference is smaller than your computation makes it out to be. It's usually of the order of 10 % for Europe.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 01:24 PM
 
If anyone is wondering why there isn't a Retina Thunderbolt Display with the same panel as the iMac, the short answer is we don't have the technology yet, the longer answer is that to get the data to an external screen will need the next gen Intel and upcoming 1.3 spec Displayport. Current ports and cables don't have the bandwidth.

Unless... you do what Dell is doing and sell a 5k panel that needs 2 Displayports to run. It will cost $2500 though, the same as the Retina iMac. Dell's new 27-inch 5K monitor packs as much details as 7 monitors | TechRadar

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 01:52 PM
 
Deleted and moved to Mac Mini thread.
( Last edited by ajprice; Oct 19, 2014 at 03:03 AM. )

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2014, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
$2499 is 1958€. Add VAT at 20% and its 2349€.

Apple.fr has the price at 2599€, a 250€ ($319) difference. That irks me.
So, we're back at the 10% currency fluctuation buffer and business overhead they've been taking for the past fifteen years or so.

Certainly not the outrageous 30% you made it look like.
     
Mojo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2014, 05:58 PM
 
The iMac has needed a significant hardware upgrade since the introduction of the flat-panel G5 model: basic ergonomic adjustments.

The company that created the most ergonomic all-in-one computer ever made (the G4 iMac) followed-up with one of the least ergonomic computers on the market: the flat-panel iMac.

The iMac needs the ability to adjust its height; the option to swivel the display would be great. (iMacs can already be tilted a few degrees.)

I am a male of average height and I developed serious neck strain symptoms because I was forced to look up at the iMac display. The problem is much worse for children and shorter people. I looked at a wide variety of computer desks and chairs but none of them mitigated the lack of height adjustment.

A VESA mount and third-party stand or an articulated arm can be added to an iMac. But that costs at least $150 and probably more depending on the stand that is used. NEC displays come with a VESA mount as standard equipment as well as a very sturdy and adjustable stand. Apple charges an additional $40 for a VESA mount; one would think that at the very least Apple could provide a VESA mount at no extra cost.

Unfortunately, Apple tends to value form over function. The minimalist iMac aluminum stand certainly fits into Apple's design aesthetic. But as a functional part of the computer it is a failure.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2014, 06:30 PM
 
Height adjustment would be nice, but if they didn't add it back in the 17" iMac G5 days, they won't now. There isn't really much space below to lower the display with. I suspect Apple is quite happy with the VESA mount solution, and with the reduced weight, many regular arms will work. Back in the G5 days, it was heavy enough that special heavy duty arms were required.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2014, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
$2499 is 1958€. Add VAT at 20% and its 2349€.

Apple.fr has the price at 2599€, a 250€ ($319) difference. That irks me.
You also get a 24 month warranty (as per European law), as compared to 12 month in the US.
And don't forget other law and regulations. I'm sure French law requires certain surcharges on internet devices.

Not sure what came of it, but at some point, a 1% "culture tax" was discussed on all electronic equipment.
France weighing 'culture tax' on phones, slabs, PCs, TVs • The Register

So, before you continue whining, why don't you do your due diligence, and compare all cost, Apples to apples (pun intended).

-t
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 05:31 AM
 
FWIW, the EU warranty is pretty worthless, because in most EU countries, the only things it covers beyond the basic one-year Apple warranty are problems that already existed at time of purchase (I.e., showed up within the first six months). And that warranty is a DEALER warranty, not a manufacturers' warranty, so it only applies to Apple in cases where items were bought directly from Apple.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 09:42 AM
 
Yes, agreed. But it is still one example of many why cost of doing business in Europe is higher than in the US, and that's reflected in the prices.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, agreed. But it is still one example of many why cost of doing business in Europe is higher than in the US, and that's reflected in the prices.
AFAIK the 10 % price hike is justified by preserving an exchange rate buffer, not about the price of doing business.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mojo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Height adjustment would be nice, but if they didn't add it back in the 17" iMac G5 days, they won't now. There isn't really much space below to lower the display with. I suspect Apple is quite happy with the VESA mount solution, and with the reduced weight, many regular arms will work. Back in the G5 days, it was heavy enough that special heavy duty arms were required.
You are correct about the lack of space because so much of the internal hardware is located below the iMac display. Apple's fetish for anorexic devices causes some serious problems for users in the Real World.

NEC displays can weigh around the same as an iMac that includes a display and all the computer hardware. (If I understand correctly the built-in display controls require the equivalent of a small computer inside the display...) And some of those displays can be lowered so the bottom of the display almost touches the top of a desk. But NEC displays are several times a thick as a 2014 iMac.

I couldn't care less how thin a computer is... I'm always looking at the front of my display, not the side. I think that having ergonomic adjustments is a lot more important than the depth of a computer.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I couldn't care less how thin a computer is... I'm always looking at the front of my display, not the side. I think that having ergonomic adjustments is a lot more important than the depth of a computer.
The effect of thinness is cumulative: for a single product it doesn't make sense, but if you want to make products smaller (e. g. putting a whole computer behind a display), you need to add this pressure to the engineers.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 05:22 PM
 
Apple has had good success with making things thinner. They're not going to change as long as it works for them. The area where the ports are needs to be "outside" the display to avoid extra thickness there, and below makes sense to avoid stretching cables - hence a "chin" If you need to adjust the display down, they offer a solution for that in the form of a VESA mount.

A rule of thumb is that the top edge of your display should be even with your eyes. The 27" iMac total height is 20", according to Apple. The distance below it is maybe two inches. The 21.5" iMac is 17" high, which means that it is lower than you would ever be able to lower the 27" model to even with a mount. It seems that the cheaper solution is to simply use the smaller model.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mojo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2014, 08:12 PM
 
Apple could add a stand with ergonomic adjustments without it affecting the thickness of the computer. The stand couldn't be as small as the current stand but it could still be made of aluminum and/or aluminum-colored plastic, so it wouldn't clash with Apple's current designs. If NEC can make an excellent adjustable stand (which includes a VESA mount) and still compete price-wise, why can't Apple do the same?

I neglected to mention in my earlier post that I use an UpDesk motorized sit/stand desk. When raised to the standing position the display needs to be raised in order to keep the top of the display at or slightly below eye-level. Purchasing a smaller iMac (as suggested in an earlier post) would not solve that problem.

As the health risks associated with sitting for long periods of time are becoming better known, more and more people are using standing desks. At the same time there a lot of kids using iMacs in schools and at home. Apple has obviously put a lot of time and thought into developing a signature design for its products. I would like to see Apple budget a fraction of that time and ingenuity into designing a stand for its iMacs and displays so its customers are at less risk of developing health problems caused by poor ergonomics.

Having proper seating and a suitable desk are parts of the solution that should not be overlooked. But even the best and most expensive computer desks and chairs cannot mitigate all the problems caused by computer hardware that lacks basic ergonomic adjustments or is designed in such as way to encourage poor work habits.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 04:06 AM
 
Aluminium-colored plastic? Are you serious? If there's one thing Apple would never do, it's that. And sure, they could make a different stand for height adjustment and that would be great, but your request now is something completely different. Now you're talking about motorized desks, at which point I don't think a real VESA mount arm is too much to ask - the desk itself costs enough to dwarf the cost of the the arm.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 06:59 AM
 
I agree that the iMac could stand some serious improvements in adjustability. On the other hand, there's a huge improvement space for desks too.

Way too many people buy desks without thinking about - or even noticing - the height of the desk top, or at what height the keyboard and mouse would sit. With a decent desk top height, my 2008 (I think) 20" iMac has plenty of tilt to make it work fine for any user.

As for swivel, I don't see that as a problem; just turn the whole machine. I have managed that a few times, even with the shelf on the back for my external drive, without any real issues. Unlike monitors with swiveling mounts, once I turn my iMac, it stays turned!

...and yes, I actually am an ergonomics professional....

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
Swivel (as in rotate in the plane) works fine, IMO - it has specially designed feet that actually does that quite well. I thought about pivoting, which would have to be a considered a bonus feature.

I think the easiest way to add basic height adjustment would be to make the angle in the stand adjustable (and increase the amount of tilt in the display fixing, to make it work at all angles of the stand). It would by necessity make the stand bulkier, but it seems doable.

The stand is user replaceable (because you can switch to the VESA mount). Someone should make a design and put it on Kickstarter, see if there is interest for it.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 09:05 AM
 
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 09:09 AM
 
Apple patent diagrams for an adjustable stand iMac with a touchscreen. Found 4 years ago. The Mother Lode: Welcome to the iMac Touch - Patently Apple

If they can make the hinge part look good, and they've fixed or got around the saggy springs in the bigger screen iMac G4, this seems fine. All we need is a touchscreen iMac

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 11:22 AM
 
That adjustable stand was just what I was thinking about. Must have seen that drawing before and recalled it now without its context.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mojo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I agree that the iMac could stand some serious improvements in adjustability. On the other hand, there's a huge improvement space for desks too.

Way too many people buy desks without thinking about - or even noticing - the height of the desk top, or at what height the keyboard and mouse would sit. With a decent desk top height, my 2008 (I think) 20" iMac has plenty of tilt to make it work fine for any user.
When I encountered my problem I compared the height of my computer desk with a wide-range of desks including some of the most expensive from well known companies. And not one of them could mitigate the problem: the desk can only be lowered so low before the tops of your knees touch the bottom of the desk.

Tilt is not a replacement for proper height adjustment; as an ergonomics pro you should know that. A few degrees of tilt doesn't lower the display. I want my eyes level with the top edge of the display. You can only do so much with desk and chair adjustments; the final touch is proper adjustment of the display.

It's funny that you should mention input devices... When I finally found a desk/chair adjustment combo that was (barely) OK using my then-current office furniture I then had to raise my keyboard and trackball. I did that by putting some books under them. Classy!
     
Mojo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2014, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Aluminium-colored plastic? Are you serious? If there's one thing Apple would never do, it's that. And sure, they could make a different stand for height adjustment and that would be great, but your request now is something completely different. Now you're talking about motorized desks, at which point I don't think a real VESA mount arm is too much to ask - the desk itself costs enough to dwarf the cost of the the arm.
OK, make it out of aluminum... I'm not crazy about plastic either but the plastic part of my NEC display doesn't bother me because I spend my time looking at the screen, not the stand. (When I do look carefully at its stand I honestly have trouble telling the difference between the plastic and metal parts; NEC did a good job fabricating the plastic components.)

I suggested plastic in case Apple feels the need to pinch pennies in order to extract maximum profit out of its hardware. Something is behind Apple's decision to stick with a very simple stand. It could be profit-based or motivated by esthetics; I think that it's most likely the former... Hence my suggestion to consider using less expensive materials that do not compromise the sturdiness and adjustability of the stand.

I don't understand your comment about my motorized desk... Are you saying that if I can afford a motorized desk I should feel OK about spending additional money on a VESA system? Hmmm... Putting aside my own financial situation, how about all the people who cannot afford a motorized desk? And a motorized desk does not mitigate the lack of a height adjustment; as I noted previously, the display needs to be adjustable to obtain the proper ergonomics. If the display cannot be raised it will be too low. (I only mentioned sit/stand desks because they are becoming more common in response to consumer concerns about sitting too much...)

A common criticism of Apple is the cost of its hardware compared to its competitors. Generally-speaking, I do not agree with the rationale most people use when comparing Apple to Oranges... But in this case they would have a point: Apple's competitors can produce an adjustable stand and remain competitive price-wise. But if you want an adjustable stand with an iMac or Apple display be prepared to spend at least a couple hundred more dollars on an optional VESA mount and third-party hardware.

Try to keep in mind that we aren't talking about a purely esthetic design consideration... Poor ergonomics can adversely affect the health of a computer user. Children are particularly vulnerable in this regard. Apple is supposedly the Think Different company when it comes to technology and design. How about thinking different and putting the health of your customers at the top of its corporate priorities? I really do not understand why anyone would be against including ergonomic adjustments when designing a stand, much less spend time trying to defend Apple's intransigence.

It seems so simple to me: design a stand that has proper ergonomic adjustments. NEC does it. Eizo does it. Heck, even Dell does it. Why can't Apple do it?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,