No DVD drive in new iMac ???

Trumped up nonsensical arguments? You are being niave. Yes, you can pay for and hang one more ugly periphal from the back of the new iMac, such as a DVD drive. But without an internal DVD drive many will opt to purchase their content from Apple. It's simply the an easier alternative, even though there are cheaper alternatives.

Content notwithstanding, all of the ports are inconveniently placed on the BACK of the new iMac. All of them! Not one port in a convenient location!

I think my physics knowledge is just fine. Just because an emitter is sending a more powerful beam does not necessarily mean that the emitter gets hotter. Newer technology can solve that problem.

If I use your interoperation of physics then my high-band radio in my truck that can talk 25 miles should be hot enough to weld metal compared to my collector radio with tubes in it that can barely talk around the block. My LED MagLite should be just as hot as my old MagLite with the filament bulb for the same candlepower. My natural gas furnace should require the same brick chimney as my coal stove did instead of that PVC pipe for heating the same space in my house. The first computers had to be placed in temperature controlled rooms to keep them cool, why doesn't my computer with more power than the first computers require this?

You need to tell all the optical drive manufacturers that they don't know what they are doing by not putting cooling systems in their hardware that match the systems they had 10 years ago… Those guys are nuts. They don't know what they are doing!!

zBernie2 wrote:

Trumped up nonsensical arguments?

I think justamacguy's latest posts are proof enough of that. But as I've said time & time again, it is your choice. Nobody is forcing either of you or anybody else to buy one of the new iMacs.

It is dead simple: if you don't like it, don't buy it. End of story.

Your non rhetorical comment did crease me up. Always good to start the day off with a laugh. Have a great weekend.

Funny how posts here keep disappearing, especially those extremely critical of Apple's decision to ax the optical drive. Remember, email notifications are forever, or at least until I delete them anyway.

Nothing funny, they get deleted by the hosts for transgressing the terms of use for the site.

Simple really.

cwmmjm wrote:

Funny how posts here keep disappearing, especially those extremely critical of Apple's decision to ax the optical drive. Remember, email notifications are forever, or at least until I delete them anyway.

If you saw what was deleted then you probably know it was the language & not the criticism itself that got that recent post & the ones replying to it deleted. If you are unclear about that, refer to the ASC terms of use, which among other things prohibits offensive language.

What you may not know is that anyone who has reached level 2 or above can report a post to the hosts, who then review it & decide if it needs to be removed or edited because it violates the ToU. Anything that doesn't violate the ToU is unlikely to be touched, except for things like removing personal info that would compromise your privacy or moving a discussion to a more appropriate forum.

R C-R wrote:

What you may not know is that anyone who has reached level 2 or above can report a post to the hosts, who then review it & decide if it needs to be removed or edited because it violates the ToU.

Although I was on the other side of the OP's argument, I didn't think there was much wrong with their post. It was a bit of a rant - there was were strongly expressed points but nothing offensive. It certainly didn't merit deleting because it was ultimately an illuminating exhange.

I think it had more to do with a trigger happy moderator drunk on power 😉

Well you are entitled to your opinion, personally I saw it as a rant that added absolutely nothing the thread and violated the TOU. I felt that the deletion was perfectly justified.

Allan

Allan Eckert wrote:

Well you are entitled to your opinion, personally I saw it as a rant that added absolutely nothing the thread and violated the TOU. I felt that the deletion was perfectly justified.

Allan

On that basis you could delete about another 300 messages out of this thread. Forums are a place for voicing opinions - that poster's was on topic, did not contain any offensive swearing or ad-hominem attacks and appropriately reflected the writer's level of frustration at the design priorities being discussed in this thread.

It did not merit deletion just to save a few sensitive souls' aversion to strongly worded remarks.

indigopete wrote:

Allan Eckert wrote:

Well you are entitled to your opinion, personally I saw it as a rant that added absolutely nothing the thread and violated the TOU. I felt that the deletion was perfectly justified.

Allan

On that basis you could delete about another 300 messages out of this thread.

If you had the power to decide, yes. But the hosts have that power, so they decide what stays and what goes.

Forums are a place for voicing opinions - that poster's was on topic, did not contain any offensive swearing or ad-hominem attacks and appropriately reflected the writer's level of frustration at the design priorities being discussed in this thread.

It did not merit deletion just to save a few sensitive souls' aversion to strongly worded remarks.

Again, not our decision, we all agreed to the TOU and to the hosts being the final word. If you can not hold to that agreement I only see one option.

I think you need to read the TOU again.

You don't seem to understand then at all.

Allan

Allan Eckert wrote:

I think you need to read the TOU again....You don't seem to understand then at all.

I think your refering to this part:

"Everyone should feel comfortable reading Submissions and participating in discussions. Apple will not tolerate flames or other inappropriate statements, material, or links. Most often, a "flame" is simply a statement that is taunting and thus arbitrarily inflammatory."

Yes - the post violated the condition whereby everyone should feel comfortable reading it, but it should not have been deleted as it was on topic and inoffensive. At worst a mod could have asked the poster to tone down the rhetoric, that's why I used the phrase "trigger happy",

As I said previously, if you want to apply the letter of the TAC to every post in the thread you might as well delete half of them. It's important that a diversity of opinion and a degree of animated expression be allowed for the discussion to have some depth.

indigopete wrote:

Forums are a place for voicing opinions - that poster's was on topic, did not contain any offensive swearing or ad-hominem attacks and appropriately reflected the writer's level of frustration at the design priorities being discussed in this thread.

1. These forum are not intended for voicing opinions or for users to vent their frustrations. Again, if this is unclear to you, read the ToU, particularly sections 2.1 & 2.3. There are plenty of other forums on the Internet that permit (or even encourage) this sort of thing. If you feel you need to do that, pick one of them.

2. The post that was removed (along with those that replied to it) did in fact contain what many people would consider a highly offensive swear word, one that for example is regularly 'bleeped' from U.S. TV broadcast programming. If a post contains language like that, it is likely something that will get edited or removed if posted here.

3. The hosts are pretty tolerant of minor ToU violations. But as I mentioned before, any user that reaches level two or above can report a post for (among other things) what they believe to be inappropriate content. This is how the moderators find out about most potentially offensive posts, & usually what triggers their removal, not "trigger happy" mods.

R C-R wrote:

2. The post that was removed (along with those that replied to it) did in fact contain what many people would consider a highly offensive swear word

I think "mildly excessive" would be a more accurate description than "highly offensive".

Despite that, post was characteristic of exactly how many customers feel about the new design priorities. The replies were equally assertive and addressed the OP's issues technically and succunctly without wandering off topic or indulging in ad hominem attacks.

The whole exchange therefore encapsulated the core issues of this entire debate in an, engaging and informative way that has taken pages of posts to cover hitherto.

They should not have been deleted.