As many of you recall, the original all-in-one Mac, released in 1984, was meant to be a true computing appliance, with absolutely no provision to upgrade. So if 128K of RAM wasn’t enough for your needs, that was just too bad. External serial ports were your sole enhancement options, and they were limited to peripheral expansion, such as an external drive or printer. Within months, the 512K version, the so-called “Fat Mac,” provided a pretty hefty amount of internal memory for that era.

After Steve Jobs departed, Apple moved away from the strict appliance approach, making it possible — and easy — for you to upgrade such models as the Macintosh II with extra memory, bigger hard drives and other peripherals. I remember when I purchased a Mac IIci (the mid-sized version) in 1990, for an “amazing” discount of $3,500. I had equipped it with a 120MB hard drive, brought over from an older Mac, and I maxed it out with 8MB of RAM. I was almost literally in ecstasy since I had such a powerful personal computer that, I was certain, would deliver years of faithful service.

By the following year, I had upgraded to Mac OS 7.0, meaning I could take advantage of 32-bit addressing and use more than 8MB. Since the OS, all by itself, demanded between 2MB and 3MB of memory, a RAM upgrade was essential to be able to run such high-power apps as QuarkXPress and Microsoft Word simultaneously, while leaving a little extra for the system to process large documents sent to my laser printer.

Are you with me so far?

Now memory upgrades were a trivial process in those days. A single screw held down the cover of the IIci, revealing an open and accessible chassis within. Snap out the old RAM, insert the new chips, and, within minutes, you could restart with your expanded memory. It wasn’t tough to replace the hard drive either, but the biggest single improvement came with the addition of a cache card, good for a sizable performance boost. Extra graphics cards and other peripherals could be installed in one of three available slots (Apple used NuBus in those days). Later on, after Apple introduced models with the Motorola 68040 processor (the IIci had the 68030), you could replace the cache card with one that would upgrade the processor too. Yes, it required special drivers — and it made your Mac a little less stable — but oh the speed!

Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple and began to shut down most expansion options, except for the most powerful Mac towers, you could even replace the CPU on a relatively inexpensive daughter card. A decent-sized cottage industry grew to supply those upgrades. Yes, you can still get affordable processor upgrades for a Power Mac G4, and even for a Mac Pro if you want to pay the price.

These days, when you expand a Mac, it’s usually all about the memory and the hard drive. Although it’s common for owners of Windows PCs to rip apart even a relatively inexpensive tower computer and change everything — even the logic board — with something newer, that’s not Apple’s way. If the simple supported upgrades aren’t sufficient for you, go buy another computer.

Now from the standpoint of support, I suppose it makes sense. By offering a limited number of models and — except for the Mac Pro — a fairly short set of customization options, support is easier. Apple doesn’t have to contend with untold thousands of potential system configurations. And, yes, even if an upgrade is built and sold by a third-party, Apple will often be called upon to help anyway if something goes wrong. Sure, it may be the fault of the add-on or replacement part, but that often involves some troubleshooting before responsibility can be determined.

Yet it’s also true that most people who buy Macs seldom change much inside — other than RAM — during its lifetime. The exception is the Mac Pro, because it’s built with expansion in mind, but, with no upgrade since mid-2010, some believe it’s an endangered species. The increasingly more powerful iMac, despite limited expansion options, has become an ideal and more affordable replacement for many content creators.

A new family of Intel Xeon processors is now available that may end up in a new generation of Apple’s workstation computer. That is, if Apple believes there’s sufficient need for such a product, even though there are no doubt tens of thousands of content creators out there who would never consider an iMac or a lesser model for their workflow. If there’s no new Mac Pro, they might even switch to Windows even if it means key Mac apps, such as Final Cut Pro, are set aside.

From the user standpoint, the relative lack of expandability may not be terribly important. Most Mac users continue to use their computers for years with a high level of satisfaction. When Apple abandons that model, in large part in the hope that you’ll buy a new one, you still have a powerful, reliable computer that can continue to work as before, or be passed on to a coworker or family member. Unlike most PC models, a well-maintained used Mac commands a decently high price on eBay or from a used equipment reseller.

These days, my Mac computing needs are well served by a 27-inch iMac. It is new enough to be fully supported when Mountain Lion comes out. But sometimes I think about that IIci, and the ease with which I kept it up to date for several years; that is, until I bought a Quadra.

Apple traditionally doesn’t get involved in reliving at the past. You no longer have anniversary edition Macs, or similar specialty products to observe one significant event or another. Apple is looking at the future, and the next great product that will revolutionize a market and grow the bottom line.

So you probably haven’t heard about a certain eleventh anniversary that went mostly uncelebrated on March 23, 2012. But that singular event signaled a sea change at Apple, one that has affected most of their products, including the new iPad.

What am I talking about? Well, Mac OS X of course — or OS X, as it’s generally known these days. But for me it actually started in August of 2000, when I was summoned to the San Francisco headquarters of CNET to meet with an Apple PR representative to discuss the forthcoming release of a Public Beta version of the new OS. The official release of 10.0 occurred on March 23, 2001.

Continue Reading…

If you’re a regular reader of these columns, you know that I’ve had a love/hate relationship with iTunes and how it interacts not just with my various online purchases, but with my Macs and iPhone 4s. A key example is iTunes Match, which, in exchange for $24.99 per year, will match your music library with equivalents in the massive iTunes library. Well mostly anyway.

Although some of you don’t think it’s very important, I’ve noticed that one or more songs from a ripped CD of an album also available in iTunes, often won’t be matched. iTunes support has never been able to explain why, other than to give me boilerplate responses about how the iTunes Match system works.

Most recently, I ran into yet another curious problem, after buying a newly released album from iTunes, “The Best of Pink Floyd: A Foot in the Door.” This came from a special “Mastered for iTunes” collection, where the tracks are, according to Apple, “specially tuned for higher fidelity sound on your computer, stereo and all Apple devices.” Clearly they are trying to get as much quality as they can from a 256K AAC digital file.

Well, this purchase seemed trivial enough, except that track three, “The Happiest Days of Our Lives,” wouldn’t download. I kept getting a prompt that the song was corrupted. After putting up with this grief for a day or so, and not faring any better in retrieving a pristine copy of that file, I contacted iTunes support, which promises to respond within 24 hours via email.

That’s where my adventures began.

Over the next couple of weeks, I kept getting the same responses, where they forwarded me to a few Apple FAQ documents that basically covered all the steps I’d already taken, but those steps never solved the problem. Since I was entitled to phone support as the result of my recent purchase of an iPhone 4s — and I also encountered problems trying to retrieve the track from that device too — I called up Apple. With the help of level one and level two support, I went through everything all over again. Finally I was informed that the people who manage the iTunes Store operations would take over the case, even though I was allegedly the only one to report a problem retrieving that file.

A few days later, I was able to retrieve an intact file to complete my album. But with all the credits Apple gave me for my trouble, it cost me nearly nothing to put up with all that nonsense. Maybe I should have just bought a copy from the nearby Walmart superstore. Live and learn, but I gather I’m not the only one to encounter corrupted files from the massive iTunes library.

The next oddity is with the iPhone 4s itself. It took interaction with Apple to help me configure a ringtone from iTunes (“Hello Goodbye” by The Beatles) as a default. It originally worked for two days, then the ringtone disappeared. Downloading the file again failed to place it among available ringtones, even though I tapped the option to make it the phone’s default. It took two restores to set things right; the second attempt involved setting up my iPhone as a new device, rather than using a backup. This also meant that I had to spend a little time redoing all my settings, but the effort got me the ringtone. It probably wasn’t worth it.

In recent days, I have also confronted “the case of the repeating login prompt.” Every few hours, I get a notice on the iPhone asking me to reenter my Apple ID password. Now you will get such messages when buying something from iTunes or the App Store, and whenever you download an app update. But this ghost-like request doesn’t coincide with the usual tasks that normally generate such a message. It just happens, with neither rhyme nor reason.

Well, that’s one symptom that Apple is still investigating. The problem arrived with the setup of the iPhone 4s, survived restores, upgrades to iTunes and installation of the iOS 5.1 upgrade. No change.

But, of course, the entire Apple ID scheme is broken. Many of you are forced to use more than one, particularly if you’ve attempted to migrate a MobileMe account to iCloud, yet you already have an Apple ID that you use for your iTunes account and purchases of Apple gear. Without judicious adjustments of the sync settings on your Mac, iPhone and iPad, you may find that your contacts, for example, are different from device to device. Even trial and error may fail to resolve the “contact list from hell” problem. Worse, Apple still has no way to let you merge all your accounts, and I’m lucky to have just two.

Now I understand why some of you have several Apple IDs, and it’s not just for business purposes, or to separate purchases among family members. You may just forget your Apple ID, so you create another when setting up a new product. Soon things get a little complicated, particularly when you try to manage an iTunes library with content purchased from different accounts. iCloud was meant as a great unifier, but it remains crippled so long as you have some stuff in one Apple ID, and other stuff in another.

Yes, it’s good to know that over 100 million Apple customers are using iCloud. But wouldn’t it be nice if Apple fixed the Apple ID problem so the system works as it should?

So a representative from Consumer Reports magazine appeared on a certain cable TV station claiming that the new iPad ran too hot. This came ahead of the magazine’s actual tests that had a different result, but it sure served as an attention-getter. Suddenly the media was paying attention to an issue that otherwise wouldn’t have been considered very important.

The question on the table: Does the new iPad overheat? Is it burning your hands, or your lap? Did Apple release a defective product? Inquiring minds want to know.

Now to put matters in perspective: Some users did report that the iPad 3 ran warmer than the previous model. This is to be expected with beefier hardware and a much larger current draw from the battery because of the Retina Display and, where equipped, the LTE wireless radio. Apple can do wonders with cooling systems, but they can’t change the laws of physics.

In recent days, some testers have delivered results about the iPad’s heat generation, and it didn’t seem so bad. Maybe it’s 10 to 13 degrees more than the iPad 2, but it’s never more than warm. But faced with the possibility of finding yet another excuse not to recommend a new Apple product — in the tradition of the iPhone 4 and Antennagate — CR’s staff got right to work and set up a test using a high-energy action game,

At the end of the day, though, even Consumer Reports reviewer Donna Tapellini had to admit that the new iPad doesn’t run too hot: “During our tests, I held the new iPad in my hands. When it was at its hottest, it felt very warm but not especially uncomfortable if held for a brief period.” This observation came at a point where the unit was measured at up to 116 degrees, which, by the way, is far higher than every other test of heat generation. The hottest reading Macworld Lab Director Jim Galbraith could achieve was 99 degrees. That result, therefore, is curious, but that’s not unusual for CR.

There was one problem, however, the result of playing that game while attempting to charge the unit. Here, the current available from the USB connection just wasn’t enough to do both. On the other hand, you hardly think that people will always or even occasionally use an iPad or an iPhone while it’s tethered to a charger. Sure, I do sometimes check my email under such conditions, but otherwise, I leave it well enough alone, as do most of you I’m sure.

In any case, CR raised enough of a fuss for Apple to release a response, in which they stated that the new iPad is “operating well within our thermal specifications.”

Now in advance of CR’s final report on the new iPad, I think we have to put the claims about possible excessive heat in perspective. If the measurement of 116 degrees is correct — and as I said, it’s far higher than other test results — it’s still not hot in the scheme of things. The rear of my 2009 27-inch iMac runs hotter, as do many note-books. Do you remember how many customers complained about the heat produced by a first-generation Intel MacBook or MacBook Pro? Some people suggested you might be able to fry an egg on it, but that’s an exaggeration. At the same time, it could get almost uncomfortably hot without going into a thermal shutdown.

Where was CR then? Oh, that’s right, PC note-books run even hotter, and how often has CR mentioned that terrible truth? Have they ever?

With the new iPad, CR wasn’t able to get the temperatures up without playing a game that taxed the quad-core graphics chip for 45 minutes straight. At the same time, such gear is equipped to go into a thermal shut down in the event it runs too hot. And 116 degrees isn’t even close. For normal use and service, it’ll run much cooler, but I have no objection with CR testing the extremes. After all, when they test autos, they will perform emergency handling tests to see how a vehicle will perform if you have to make an abrupt maneuver to avoid a road obstacle of some sort, even if it’s an animal or a person. If the vehicle goes out of control under such conditions, and a very few do, that becomes a serious safety issue.

If CR refused to recommend the new iPad because of runs a little warmer under stressful conditions, that would be curious, because it doesn’t stand the logic test. At the same time, and to be fair, CR should be testing all other tablets under similar conditions to see how they fare. With the controversial antenna on the iPhone 4, they devised a test where just one product failed, without taking into account the fact that, when held in somewhat different ways, other mobile handsets also had severe signal drops.

As I’ve said in the past, most members of the press give CR a pass. They are considered incorruptible, even though the magazine clearly hasn’t a clue how to properly review tech gear. But I’m also seeing a change. Members of the tech media are beginning to realize that CR does have an agenda, and that agenda is not to simply review products thoroughly and without bias. Unfortunately the eagerness with which they jumped into this bath shows yet again that they did it to generate publicity (and sales of the magazine no doubt), not just to provide an honest review of a hot-selling gadget.

However, in fairness to CR, they are now saying that they do not consider the temperature readings they recorded in their tests of the new iPad to reflect a potential safety hazard, and that it wouldn’t influence their final rating. At least that’s progress.