Which ones (Dell workstation line
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac rant
- Thread starter LunchMoney
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which ones (Dell workstation line
In the Small Business section, they list three models, T1650, T3600, and T5600. All three of them are available with both SATA 3.5" and 2.5" hard drives, and 2.5" SSDs. The top end can also be bought with 2.5" SAS drives which you find in the compact rackmount servers. The bigger models seem to have the most 2.5" choices, probably so they can pack the most drives in the case for RAID 5 or 10 configurations.
Last edited:
Ah...but they still offer 3.5" drives...for a second, I thought that they only did 2.5". Off-topic, I know. Though, when it comes to the 21.5" iMac, moving to the 2.5" drive was a necessary move in order to improve reliability on those machines. Sadly, they still need to do that on the 27" and haven't/can't/won't. Still though, at least the 21.5" iMac now features a reliable design.
Surely his book keeping and invoices would be empirical evidence? I'm guessing Apple also have figures for faulty returns and repairs.
Chances are they match his personal observations as computer failures aren't generally geographical.
It will be very interesting to see if the Mac Pro replacement uses 2.5" drives.
No, that's not empirical evidence. That's like saying that you can look at how many repairs a BMW shop does on a given model and extrapolate how failure prone they are across the entire nation. For one thing you'd have to know the total population of BMWs in the service area in question and a lot of other things.
The only real source of this data is Apple, as they are the only ones who know how many iMacs of a given configuration were produced and how many had problems either under Apple Care or under factory warranty. Apple knows this because they pay for all repairs.
I would not be foolish enough to argue that the iMac is LESS failure prone than a beige box PC, because all-in-ones almost always have slightly lower overall reliability. However, I am skeptical of the claim that the previous generation iMac is the most failure prone that Apple have ever produced.
Shrug. I'm more inclined to believe someone who repairs them all day long for a living than an enthusiast on the internet.
as someone whohad a dud 2010 and a dud 2009
As someone who had a brand new lemon 2010 21.5" iMac in March 2010 and a dud 2009 21.5" refurb iMac respectively (buzzing and blacklight bleed on the 2010 and hard drive faiilure within a month of owning the refurb), I got a perfect (thank goodness) 2010 21.5" new iMac on the third try (all in a span of five months.)
Needless to say that experience left me more than a bit skittish about continuing onward with iMacs, even though I'm slowly coming around to the new design. It's very disheartening to read the same problems with the 2012 variant (light bleed, horrid loud noises and hard drive failure along with IR)...
When these work, they work beautifully, I went almost 9 years with two perfect iMacs before the miasma in 2010. I sure as heck do not want to repeat that experience ever again.
As someone who had a brand new lemon 2010 21.5" iMac in March 2010 and a dud 2009 21.5" refurb iMac respectively (buzzing and blacklight bleed on the 2010 and hard drive faiilure within a month of owning the refurb), I got a perfect (thank goodness) 2010 21.5" new iMac on the third try (all in a span of five months.)
Needless to say that experience left me more than a bit skittish about continuing onward with iMacs, even though I'm slowly coming around to the new design. It's very disheartening to read the same problems with the 2012 variant (light bleed, horrid loud noises and hard drive failure along with IR)...
When these work, they work beautifully, I went almost 9 years with two perfect iMacs before the miasma in 2010. I sure as heck do not want to repeat that experience ever again.
Last edited:
Don't forget he is also someone on the internet. For all we know he could be a dishwasher in Topeka KS.
Allright, I've bought a bunch of different Macs over the years. Here's how they've done:
Notebooks-
12" iBook. Bought 5/05 Had 4 years + 2 months. No repairs.
13" MacBook bought 1/08. Retired 3/12. "Destroyed" with water at one point but repaired, which I don't consider a failure on its part.
13" Al MacBook bought 6/09. Still in use. No repairs.
15" MBP, bought 3/12. No repairs
11" MBA, bought 12/10. No repairs
So my experience with these has been perfect. About 14 computer-years
Mac Minis, all in use-
Mini with Snow Leopard Server bought 3/10. Defective hard drive 1/12.
Mini base model bought 1/10
Mini base model bought 6/10
One failure, a disk drive, in roughly 9 computer-years of use.
iMacs, all in use-
17" iMac G5, bought 12/04, power supply died (the bad capacitor problem) after 7 years. Gave to friend who repaired and gave to his GF.
20" iMac C2D, bought 11/06, display replaced 6/09, hard drive recently replaced.
24" iMac C2D, bought 7/08, hard drive replaced 11/12.
24" iMac C2D, bought 6/09. No repairs
27" iMac i7, bought 11/09. Disk drive replaced under recall (not a failure), temperature sensor became disconnected (repair).
Five failures in roughly 25 computer-years of use.
So I'd put the portables on the top, followed by the minis and the iMacs in the rear at roughly twice the failure rate of the minis. But the sample is still small.
Notebooks-
12" iBook. Bought 5/05 Had 4 years + 2 months. No repairs.
13" MacBook bought 1/08. Retired 3/12. "Destroyed" with water at one point but repaired, which I don't consider a failure on its part.
13" Al MacBook bought 6/09. Still in use. No repairs.
15" MBP, bought 3/12. No repairs
11" MBA, bought 12/10. No repairs
So my experience with these has been perfect. About 14 computer-years
Mac Minis, all in use-
Mini with Snow Leopard Server bought 3/10. Defective hard drive 1/12.
Mini base model bought 1/10
Mini base model bought 6/10
One failure, a disk drive, in roughly 9 computer-years of use.
iMacs, all in use-
17" iMac G5, bought 12/04, power supply died (the bad capacitor problem) after 7 years. Gave to friend who repaired and gave to his GF.
20" iMac C2D, bought 11/06, display replaced 6/09, hard drive recently replaced.
24" iMac C2D, bought 7/08, hard drive replaced 11/12.
24" iMac C2D, bought 6/09. No repairs
27" iMac i7, bought 11/09. Disk drive replaced under recall (not a failure), temperature sensor became disconnected (repair).
Five failures in roughly 25 computer-years of use.
So I'd put the portables on the top, followed by the minis and the iMacs in the rear at roughly twice the failure rate of the minis. But the sample is still small.
I've been planning to buy an iMac since 2010 and am ready to buy now but lack of new stock sent me out into the wild seeking a used machine. Lack of new stock seems to be driving the prices through the roof. Lack of a SuperDrive is sending the prices higher. Look on Craigslist and find people pricing slower used models with cracked or chipped glass over new iMacs. If it fell hard enough to break the glass I don't want to pay more than a new one costs.
Did Apple announce a new iMac too soon?
They have acknowledged that not having any product to sell is hurting the company. Who blew it here? The forum is full of how long did you wait or how long do you think it will take stories. They have been saying a few weeks since November, that was 2 months ago.
I realize rolling out a brand new model isn't easy but I can't help but think if Steve Jobs were around this wouldn't be. If I was in charge of this and bungled this badly I would expect to be fired.
Sorry for the rant, I love Apple but if they keep dropping the ball like this I'll be stuck on my old computers forever.
Where are you shopping for yours?
Don't believe anything then. I don't care. It really doesn't matter at all anyway.
No way that'd happen. That's just too much of a shark-jumping... What I wouldn't be surprised to see is a narrower design that is wide enough to accommodate 3.5" hard drives and PCIe cards, but that'd be it. That'd complete their design transition from having optical drives to not, while making it much more likely to be able to be rack mounted with either an Apple-made accessory kit or with a third-party kit designed by a brand that likely would've worked closely with Apple on something like that.
I have to stop you here with the following link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
Notably: "originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>"
and
"relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>"
and
"capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>"
all of which apply here. Unless you were meaning to use a word other than "empirical", I'm pretty sure, by definition, my assertions are based ENTIRELY on empirical data.
Also, data on how many iMacs have failed everywhere is neither important nor relevant. When in an area (such as Los Angeles) that has a high density population of Mac owners, and when the majority of machines coming in are iMacs, that seems to be a good indicator. But that being said, I've also worked at an AASP in Santa Cruz, CA in which iMacs were also more common visitors to my shop than any other non-accidental-damage repair (with the exception of the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT R.E.P repairs being done on Mid 2007, Early 2008 and Late 2008 [17" only] MacBook Pros). So, I've got a high density area and a low density area and in both cases, the machines were common. No, I don't have data for everywhere, but it would seem highly coincidental that they were by far the most frequent machine to come in while in both cities especially given how different both are from each other in most respects. My data isn't conclusive, but it is absolutely empirical and I make no claims that it is anything but.
Actually, this is also false. Apple only has data on in-warranty repairs done by Genius bars and AASPs. They do not have data on machines that failed past the first year with people who didn't have AppleCare or people with machines that are older than four years at locations that stocked parts for those machines (and given the failures that those machines are prone to, most places DO have stocking parts for those machines). If Bob's computers, a non-AASP who just happens to have one tech who got his ACMT on his own accord, decides to repair an iMac with a failure, Apple will have no record of it.
The generation before it was fairly reliable by comparison, as was the generation before it (white with iSight). The pre-iSight G5s were comparably unreliable due to the bad capacitors on those logic boards and the often faulty GPUs as were the iMac G4s. The Late 2009-Mid 2011 generation really isn't stellar in the reliability department.
It's funny, when I first read this, I thought you meant the kitchen appliance and I had a good chuckle.
No, sadly, I'm not a dishwasher in Topeka, KS. I feel like my life would be much more interesting (or at least much more pleasant) if I was. I'm a lowly ACMT-certified technician working at an Apple Authorized Specialist (AASP+Retail sales) in Los Angeles. Also, I sadly have had enough experience with these machines to confidently make the claims that I have made and not feel like anywhere near as much of an idiot as you paint me out to be here at the end of the day.
Last edited:
Certainly compares with my limited experience (except for the late 2009) with the most problems with a white without iSight C2D and G5 (with the capacitor problem).
How about Mac minis of various vintages? I've heard it said that these are the most reliable Macs and that the white models were better than the new aluminum ones. My limited experience (cited above) however puts portables on top, minis in the middle and iMacs at the bottom. In fact my iBook/MacBook/MacBookPro systems have been stellar.
Mac minis are more or less extremely reliable. As for the 2005/6-2009 era minis versus the 2010-current form factor, I've been told that the current form factor is largely better in terms of reliability, but I have no experience one way or the other to suggest that either one is more reliable than the other. I've been told that cooling is better on the newer ones and that the power brick that the older ones had was prone to issues that the integrated power supply of the new one isn't, but again, that's only me hearing second hand from other techs.
iBooks and MacBooks are so-so, in my experience in terms of reliability. The iBooks had ATI GPU issues for a good while and the MacBooks (pre-unibody) would begin to fall apart after a while of normal wear and tear and had a few heating/thermal issues of their own. I was able to lemon my Late 2006 model because it consistently overheated on Adobe Flash Player and original StarCraft (two programs that shouldn't heat a MacBook that much) and after multiple logic board and heatsink assembly replacements. As for the unibody machines, I've only heard of a few 9600M GT/9400M issues from 2008-2009 machines, and the 15" MacBook Pro from Mid 2010 had some GeForce GT 330M issues. The Early 2011 MacBook Pros had some cooling issues that were later resolved with firmware updates (though it just works out that Sandy Bridge does run warm and AMD's laptop graphics aren't historically the best for thermal efficiency). But other than that, unibody MacBook Pros have been fairly solid.
So far, it seems that, image retention and lack of better graphics drivers aside, the new retina design is also fairly reliable, though I guess it's too early to tell with this design.
Admittedly my white MacBook got ugly over the years but has never failed. I teach electrical engineering courses part time and see students with lots of Windows PCs (in plastic housings) and I'd say they look no better! The move to unibody aluminum has done wonders for appearance (plus it conducts heat better than plastic).
Appearances can often be deceiving...frankly, I wouldn't put it past a ThinkPad laptop to be plenty durable despite looking more plastic-y than even the nicest MacBook. A lot of PC laptops, while ugly, are fairly reliable. Still, that being said, I've never heard of a totally reliable all-in-one, Apple-made or not.
rMBP's are currently Rev A yeh, which is the first products that have been released. You're right though, I hope they make a few necessary small changes to the 2nd gen rMBP to make it more stable... though it's fairly ok to begin with.
Gotta say, I kind of disagree with you in some regard. When you consider the exposure that computer components are rated to (CPU won't force itself off until 105C (TjMax), or there abouts, capacitors are often rated somewhere around 85-105C, mobile and desktop GPUs alike quite often hit the high 90C's when under heavy operation), and what the normal temperatures of operation are in (for explicit example, the 2009 model) iMacs, I don't think that it's too crazy. My quad 2.8GHz 2009 iMac used to idle around 40-50C on CPU, under load once the fans kicked in, about 80-90C (depending on ambient temperature), the GPU, HDD, RAM and other components were all well within their rated operation loads.
It is very evident that failure rate of components increases when exposed to higher temperatures, but I think Apple has enough experience/design capabilities to keep the majority of machines within an acceptable range to keep failure rates low. The benefit of that obviously the really nice design of the machines, draw back is that the machines run hotter and may consume a tad more battery... But oh well, maybe you disagree, it's just how I see it...
Workstations will never die I think, though "dumb terminals" are actually coming back into play more and more these days (with the whole virtualisation thing, cloud hosting, even cloud based gaming, etc), but 2.5" HDDs are increasing more rapidly in speed/capacity than their 3.5" counterparts.
The next NEW MacPro will include 4x 3.5" HDD bays, 2x DVD bays and full size PCI cards. Of course it will have USB3 and TB and more than likely still retain FW800. I think it could also include a Fusion option with blade SSD so the HDD bays aren't used.
They could possibly reduce the size a little but not much to keep the functionality other wise why would you spend $1000s on a Pro when you could just get an iMac or Mac Mini?
The whole point of the MacPro is expandability with HDDs and a 2nd DVD or 3rd party BluRay and extra PCI cards.
JMO
They could possibly reduce the size a little but not much to keep the functionality other wise why would you spend $1000s on a Pro when you could just get an iMac or Mac Mini?
The whole point of the MacPro is expandability with HDDs and a 2nd DVD or 3rd party BluRay and extra PCI cards.
JMO
Same here, my 2011 27" i7 (Made in USA
No complaints for my 2011 27" iMac except for a single stuck pixel. It has been a fantastic device for me!
My 2011 27" has been rock solid. My sister is a certified apple tech (14 years of experience) in San Fran and says that the 2011's are the best designed as they were the last iteration before the refresh. 1st Gen Apple products are notoriously issue prone.
Ya.... Like others posters here I don't needs stats to back my claims... just anecdotes.
Ya.... Like others posters here I don't needs stats to back my claims... just anecdotes.