Q: No DVD drive in new iMac ???

justamacguy wrote:

 

You may not want them... but the customers I deal with do. And as long as there is a market, I will produce them.

The people on here that insist the optical is dead are advanced computer users and don't really care about the millions of people that still have a use for dvd/bluray at home or in the work place. M-Disc will soon be available on Bluray offering near permanent storage in a sizable format.

Csound1 just spews his arrogant drivel and thinks he is the most intelligent being in the universe...just disregard him.

Fred Jorge wrote:

 

The people on here that insist the optical is dead are advanced computer users and don't really care about the millions of people that still have a use for dvd/bluray at home or in the work place.

Why do people keep insisting on scewing the argument this way ? This debate really has nothing to do with the longevity of optical drives or otherwise, it has to do with the merit of the iMac design desicion not to BUILD IT INTO THE BODY OF THE MACHINE.

A very different subject.

As you've probably noticed, there's a range of views on this, as there is a range of products on the market to cater for those views. I won't labour the point again but there are more than enough documented reasons for taking such a design decision given the philosophy of the iMac and its target audience.

Exactly the point many others have made -- You stare at the computer from the front, so what difference does it make how thin it is?  From the front, you can't tell if the computer is 1/2 inch or 3 inches thick.  Look at the design of every other all-in-one.  They're all around 1" thick, have optical drives, and conveniently located USB ports and SD slots, plus some on the back.  Not user hostile like the iMac!

There's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.  I've seen numerous threads with you and others in name calling matches.  But regardless, I was insulted first, and was simply reciprocating.

Every other manufacturer who makes all-in-ones like HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc., all still have optical drives, conveniently placed USB ports, convneiently placed SD slots, and numerous ports on the back.  The iMac is THE ONLY (and I use the term loosely) all-in-one which DOES NOT have an optical drive or conveniently placed ports of any kind.  If you can't see this as a deficiently then believe me, you are brainwashed and beyond help.

zBernie2 wrote:

 

The iMac is THE ONLY (and I use the term loosely) all-in-one which DOES NOT have an optical drive or conveniently placed ports of any kind

I think you might have too much time on your hands.

Don't waste it here when you'll be sinking hours into accessing those inconveniently placed ports

indigopete wrote:

 

zBernie2 wrote:

 

The iMac is THE ONLY (and I use the term loosely) all-in-one which DOES NOT have an optical drive or conveniently placed ports of any kind

 

I think you might have too much time on your hands.

 

Don't waste it here when you'll be sinking hours into accessing those inconveniently placed ports

zB doesn't actually own one, doesn't want to, he's complaining on behalf of others.

Csound1 wrote:

zB doesn't actually own one, doesn't want to, he's complaining on behalf of others.

Well, there's of course no better way of spending your time than complaining on behalf of others.

I for one appreciate his valiant rearguard action.

You keep deluding yourself that not having ANY conveniently placed ports or an optical drive is not an inconvenience.  Yea, it's much better to have a thin iMac, even though it makes no difference whatsoever when viewed from the front.

zBernie2 wrote:

 

You keep deluding yourself that not having ANY conveniently placed ports or an optical drive is not an inconvenience.  Yea, it's much better to have a thin iMac.

Thanks, I remain accordingly deluded.

justamacguy wrote:

Yes... I know about data rot on organic dye optical disc. However, the study completed by the Library of Congress confirms that optical discs will, at a minimum, perform at 95% data integrety up to 10.7 years. Most opticals will retain data for 20 to 40 years. (page 17 of their report http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rt/NIST_LC_OpticalDiscLongevity.pdf)

I'm glad you mentioned the 2007 NIST study because it contains a wealth of info to consider. I think anyone serious about archival data storage should study it, or at least skim through it. If you did either, you know there is much more to it than what you mentioned:

To begin with, let's be accurate about what the accelerated life test was meant to determine (page 9, emphasis added):

The length of time (usually measured in years) one can expect, with 95 % confidence, that a disc is expected to store data before uncorrectable errors are imminent, when the disc is maintained at the ambient conditions of 25 °C and 50 % relative humidity.

The bolded part is why I was careful to add the 'depending on storage conditions' proviso to my earlier comment. Very few users have the luxury of a temperature & humidity controlled data storage vault. If you do, I'm happy for you; if not, it is a bit over optimistic to expect similar results.

Also consider this (from page 19) which I think sums it up pretty well:

Many factors affect the longevity of optical media, including the stability of the materials used in the recording and substrate layers; the relative sensitivity of the recording layer to the effects of heat, humidity and light; the quality of the manufacturing process; the amount and type of markings or labels attached; the compatibility of the media with the recording device and the quality of the initial recording; the age of the media at the time of recording; the storage and handling conditions encountered and more. All these factors are important in determining the actual life of a particular disc and there are obviously great variations possible within each factor.

Beyond that, consider some of the things NIST did to ensure consistency of its results & 95% confidence level. As noted on pages 12 & 13, great care was taken to use test discs that were "nominally identical" in structure, age, & pre-test storage conditions. The discs & test drives were then carefully matched with test burns at various recording speeds to determine maximum compatibility & ensure high recording quality because otherwise that can cause "very high error rates immediately after recording the disc."

Note also that without exception the test drives were high quality, full height tray-loaders (list on page 14). None would fit in any iMac besides the bulky old CRT ones.

As a final note, on page 18 there is some speculation that the "CD/DVD stability divide" (CD's showed superior long term stability vs. DVD's) might be because the lower data density of CD's results in larger bit markings more resistant to dye degradation. If this is true it does not bode well for the much higher data density of the Blu-Ray formats for archival purposes.

So to summarize, there is nothing wrong with using optical media for archival purposes, but for best results you need to be careful about storage conditions, use a high quality burner & discs well matched to it, & (ideally) verify each burned disc for data integrity before storing it away. It is also probably best to avoid the highest data density discs for archival use, at least until more is known about their long term stability.

I am not arguing that optical media will not fail... ALL... let me repeat that. ALL!!! media will eventually fail. What I am saying is that optical has the longest life span of any media out there and at an inexpensive price point. Even the crappy optical discs have a life span better than hard drives or flash drives. What I'm saying is that you can archive more data for a cheaper price than any other media. We still have discs that were written on the original old "gold" dye in the 80's when the only writers you could buy were the Plextor CD burners and they read fine.

Everybody has their own archive method. Ours is to burn sensitive materials to 3 discs. The first disk is a file copy which we have immediate access to every day. The second is an archive copy which is stored on site. And the third is an archive copy which is stored off site. If one disc is not readable we have 2 backups to fall back on and make another copy from. The odds of all copys 3 going bad at the same time is miniscule. It works for us. And it's a lot cheaper in our smaller operation that maintaining arrays of raid systems for files you might only access once every couple of years.

justamacguy wrote:

 

What I am saying is that optical has the longest life span of any media out there and at an inexpensive price point.

Yes indeed. It still doesn't justify building them into the body of the machine "for convenience".

All that happens is the drives break down (statistically, thousands upon thousands of DvD drives WILL break) meaning you need to take the whole **** machine to repair in order to get the drive fixed. On the other hand, an external:

- lets you pick your choice of brand and quality without being "lumbered" with the one Apple gives you

- allows it to break down without scuppering the whole machine

- lets you renew or change it without having to renew the whole machine

- means Apple doesn't have to "design the whole machine around the DvD drive"

Altogether, a good decision to ditch the drives.

justamacguy wrote:

What I am saying is that optical has the longest life span of any media out there and at an inexpensive price point.

What I am saying is that is only true if they are verified after being burned, the media & burner are of high quality & well matched to each other, & they are stored properly.

And as an archive medium they begin to look a lot less economical if you consider the time it takes to burn & verify each disc & what it costs to store them properly, particularly if you are making redundant copies & storing them at different locations.

Like a lot of people, I started off using CD-R's to archive my important files. As those files grew in size & number, I switched to DVD-RW. Mindful of the above, I was diligent about verifying each disc I burned, & about labeling them so I could find anything I needed later. I learned (the hard way) that labeling the disc itself with a Sharpie compromised their integrity so I started using archival quality sleeves & labeling them instead of the discs.

But eventually all that became such a time consuming hassle that I did it a lot less often than I should have. Worse, by then I had accumulated well over 100 archive discs & even with my labeling efforts I realized I really didn't have a very good way of finding anything: when I did have to retrieve anything from my archives, I had to rummage through the likely candidates, pull them from storage & check them one by one until I found what I was looking for.

Plus, by then I was using iMacs with slot loading optical drives for this. It became increasingly obvious those drives weren't as reliable as the old tray loaders I had used in my Mac towers. As they aged, they became more finicky about media & burn speeds. They sometimes would not recognize a burned disc as a formatted one when it was first inserted and/or struggled to eject a disc.

So when hard drive prices came down to easily affordable levels, I switched to redundant HD backups & never looked back. Now everything -- not just my most important files -- are backed up on at least two HD's besides the built-in drive & I sleep much better at night because of that.

So for me at least, optical discs as an archive medium are no longer a viable alternative.