IMac ergonomics?

I can't find any real information online on any blogs or on this site, on how I should set up my iMac 24" on my desk.
It seems to me, that the usual advice on what height your eyes should be (in line with the top of the screen) can't apply to the 24" iMac. Can anyone point me to any ergonomic resources for the iMac? I am a web designer and work at my computer 7 or 8 hours per day, so it's really important that I am sitting properly at my desk. Thanks - my first post!

Hey Jane,
Well those OSHA standards were set before the larger monitors were standard. I would say follow the standards for seating position and keyboards then set the monitor at a comfortable height.
Here's Apple's site about ergonomics:
www.apple.com/about/ergonomics
This is from the 2009 iMac manual which you can get here:
http://support.apple.com/manuals/#desktopcomputers
"Position the display to minimize glare and reflections on the screen from overhead lights and nearby windows. The stand lets you set the display at the best angle for viewing, helping to reduce or eliminate glare from lighting sources you can’t move.
Thighs tilted slightly
Shoulders relaxed
Screen positioned to avoid reflected glare
Forearms and hands in a straight line
Forearms level or tilted slightly
Lower back supported
Feet flat on the floor or on a footrest"
The picture is identical to the OSHA picture except it's a drawing
I think the seating position and arm position is the most important. Since you're short you might need a special workstation to be comfortable.
You know in the old days we were all trained on proper typewriter posture and technique. I see people pounding on their keyboards all the time, usually out of anger, then they wonder why their arms and wrists hurt.
Richard
Message was edited by: spudnuty

Similar Messages

IMAC ergonomics and screen viewing strain

I have been using my 24" iMAC for a couple of years now and from the very first moment had difficulties in viewing such a large, but wonderful, screen. Using my normal working desk and chair, I had to really tilt mu head upwards to be able to see the whole screen with my glasses. It would have been easier, I thought, it the screen could be lowered with respect to the stand it was fixed to. But this being practically impossible, I made a whole in the table surface to let the stand go through it and fixed a shelf to support the stand. So now, the bottom screen edge lies almost touching my desk surface and with the help of a taller stool, I find it easier to view he screen now. But this is a "patch" to the solution and I was wondering if any of you guys had the same problem and if you got round it in a different and more efficient way. Do the make any accessories to replace that stand? Any ideas?

You can remove the stand, if it's a 24-inch Intel iMac, attach a VESA adapter, and connect it to some type of articulating arm that can be positioned more flexibly. This is the VESA adapter for the aluminum iMacs (24-inch only)
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB902ZM/A?mco=ODIzNDM2NA
The adapter for the older white iMacs is different, and no longer seems to be available, at least at the Apple Store.

New iMac and its new keyboard 10, ergonomics 0

Computer, great looks, runs great. Keyboard great looks and wonderful tactile feel.
Just one question. Why oh why, does a company like Apple avoid ergonomic standards. The 24 " iMac needs to be adjustable so it can be lowered so you can tilt it back a bit at the top. We are not all 6'+. Or give us an option of a shorter stand. Heck you could go ahead and charge for it if need be.
The keyboard. Nicest thing in a standard layout in years. Problem. Ergonomics. Heck lay it over a mold and split the keys a bit in the middle. You guys did it years ago, where are we now?
Otherwise, killer machine.

jmel777 wrote:
[…] needs to be adjustable so it can be lowered so you can tilt it back a bit at the top.
That's why I liked my iMac G4 so much.
With the new aluminum iMac I bought an ajustable table and lowered the legs so the table is 65 cm high ; perfect.

Is there a New Ergonomics for iMac's Large 27" and Higher?

Hi. Before, with 17" screens for example, the ergonomic distance from your eyes to the screen is an arms length. Would you know what is the new (if there's new one) ergonomic distance from your eyes to bigger screens of 27" and higher?
Now, my eyes are 110cm or about 42" from the iMac's screen (27") at native resolution of 2560 x 1440. Is this still ergonomic?
Thank you in advance.
Gbu.

Your everything Mac booklet details the normal settings. Anything that works for you is ergonomic. I sit about 36"-48", use the highest resolution, am 71, burt do have 20/20 vision, and have had mine for two years.

24" iMac Screens better in recent batches? One non-Apple store thinks so...

I've been thinking about getting the Alu/Glass 24" iMac (waiting until at least Leopard's arrival) but after having read a number of threads here I thought I'd better go and check for myself...
I still use a PowerBook G4 15" at home and use a second cheapy (matte) monitor next to the latest white 20" iMac at work. I'm a web developer (not designer) but I would consider myself a pro user, so my standards may be higher than a typical home user, but not as high or finely tuned as a pro-photographer or graphic designer.
I visited a non-Apple store (in Stockholm, Sweden) and although I did not have a long time to play, I made a few basic adjustments to the screen settings (changed gamma from 1.8 to 2.2 and back) and the desktop background (white, light gray, dark gray, black).
Given the number and degree of negative comments I've read I was pleasantly surprised by the screen. Sure there were some colour imbalances (a little of the yellow/brown in the centre of the screen compared to the sides) but no obvious brightness differences from the left to the right side. I could not see any 'backlight bleed' issue at the bottom of the screen, nor any dark spots/corners.
The reflection however was something else! <insert your expletive of choice here>! Wow, the store itself was very brightly lit with many fluorescent tubes behind my standing position. I sure didn't need to turn around to see them, or my own reflection or that of the shoppers walking behind me.
My other concern is the screen brightness with reflection combined - I could imagine this causing eye strain and headaches. I'd need a longer trial to see if this is true for my (slightly less than middle-aged) eyeballs.
My home setting would obvious be very different to this, but opposite a window would be an absolute no-no. This may limit my options. But why should I have to think like this? Sure we had the same issue with CRT monitor way back when, but now? In 2007?
So, onto the subject...
The sales guy at the store saw me fiddling about with the demo model and came over to see what I was looking for. Without prompting from me he stated that this was the first 24" iMac he'd seen that he couldn't point to obvious display problems. This was the third batch of iMacs they had received. He said the first two batches both had dark spots or obvious brightness differences across the screen. I asked about the backlight bleed, explaining what it was, but he'd not seen it (probably because the store was too brightly lit). He agreed that there was a slight yellowing in the centre of the screen on light backgrounds, but otherwise this was by far the best he'd seen. I could probably live with it but not if I did a lot of heavy photography/design.
So have Apple have been quietly (so as to not admit a problem in the first place) making some improvements to later batches?
Personally, I'd have to trial one at home to be absolutely sure before parting with what I still consider to be a lot of money for a 'consumer' level computer (Apple or otherwise). I might try to find a supplier who can lease me a machine for a month to see if it would be ok in my situation, but quite frankly why should this be necessary?

I returned my 24"iMac today -- after receiving the long-awaited response from tech-support on their escalation of my issues/inquiries to the engineering department. The "final" (non)result is that Apple REFUSES to disclose the specific display quality standards alluded to in their claim that:
+"Apple designs, tests and certifies our displays to meet+
+stringent visual ergonomics (front of screen) criteria."+
_Apple engineering's response:_
+"The URL http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/APES24-in_iMac8-07-07.pdf+
+is for documenting the environmental requirements of the machine. For technical specifications+
+regarding the machine see http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMacMid2007.html.+"
_English translation:_
"+Certified? ...stringent criteria?+ You didn't really believe that BS, didya? ...BWAHAHAHA!"
They also flat-out REFUSED to comment (based on numerous screen photos and luminance measurements) on whether my iMac's display, would satisfy Apple's double-super-secret "stringent criteria."
_Apple engineering's response:_
+"Previous reports of luminescence and brightness non-uniformity+
+were found to be within the expected range for iMacs."+
_English translation:_
"Is yours within expected range? ...uh, see "+stringent criteria+," above. ...BWAHAHAHA!
I also asked repeatedly if any remedy was in the works. But of course, since the official corporate position is to deny that any problem exists, they can hardly admit to be working on a fix -- whether they are or not.
... specs?? ...we don't need no steeenking specs!!
Looby

Mac mini with a 24" display or a new iMac 24"?

Hi,
Since Apple releases the new iMac, and at the same time, updated the mini, I'm wandering where my heart should go.
I like the iMac, a little bit more powerful, better video card and not sharing memory with main memory, better BTO (bigger HD, faster HD too, memory, etc) iSight and mike, and so on so on. I have not seen one yet, but I'm still puzzled by the glossy screen. Many article I read said that it is a like or not based on personal taste and environment you put it in. I bought a Sony display 2-3 years ago, which I returned, because of the glossy screen. The images were very clean and very fun too work on, but I could not endure to see my face in the screen continuously. That's what I'm afraid about the new iMac.
So far so good, I read the article on http://www.macworld.com that compare the new mini C2D with an iMac, and while it is less performant it is still a good performer. Only a few points below the iMac. So...
Choosing a mini with a 24" of my choice with the same resolution as the iMac will cost me around the same (maybe a few hundred $ less), but I'll have a smaller/slower HD and not a dedicated video card. I'm wandering if the larger screen resolution will affect the mini performance? Sure, for the HD space, I can use an external HD on firewire. Maybe even boot from it and use the internal and slower disk for backups (like TimeMachine for instance).
I do not play game, or very occasionally, I'm doing iLife/iWork stuff, and Internet surfing. I want the larger screen, as I like to have spaces to play with, but I'm afraid the mini will suffer the higher resolution.
In the long run, the display will stay mine, when I ever decide to change my computer, while buying the iMac mean I'll drop the display and buy a new one. There's pros and cons to all of this...
So I'd like to heard from people having the new (or even older) mini to let me your impression of what you feel about this.
Thanks in advance.

If you are not able to actually examine an iMac carefully before you buy, the risk that the glossy screen may not suit you is a real issue which has to be considered. Imagine that you bought one and found it to have the same problem as the Sony display you tried and had to return?
Ultimately, the actual performance of the system is remarkably unimportant in most situations. The majority of users and uses would not show markedly different operability between a brand new Mac Pro and older G5, even though in terms of specification and benchmarking, the two are like chalk and cheese. The fact is that while the Mac Pro would be greatly faster, OS and software, not to mention the user him or herself, are all quite inefficient.
What that means is that the difference in performance between the iMac and the mini is certainly measurable, and in use would show itself in some ways (the iMac would run smoother for example) but without the ability to sit them side by side, as a user you'd really never know. Bearing in mind that the new minis are way faster than the old G5s which were themselves screamingly fast when they were in production (and still are), it's hard to imagine that a mini would fail to impress.
And since the actual performance of the system isn't all that crucial, what IS vital is to ensure that the system you buy is usable. The devices that matter most in that respect are the bits you, as the user, interface with. Keyboards and mice are reasonably cheap and easy to change, but displays are not when they are fixed and integral to the system.
The downside of the mini is twofold: Firstly that the internal drive is 5400rpm, thus relatively slow. In reality this really doesn't matter all that much, particularly not if you go for 2Gb RAM. It's been criticized for it's speed, but on the other hand, it's the same as the best laptops, users of which don't seem to have problems with the drive speed. It can be got around of course with a fast external drive, used to boot the system.
Secondly, the integrated graphics - not because that's really limiting in any absolute sense (except for gamers) but because as time goes by, more and more of the top-end software is likely to exclude systems with integrated graphics from their minimum specification list. There aren't many like that yet, and it's hardly likely to be a widespread problem, but it does mean you have to consider what software you want to run as part of the equation.
If I were in your situation, I'd not consider spending money until I had looked at the iMac and given myself some time to work with one. The fact it has a glossy screen doesn't mean it WILL have the same problem as the Sony display had, and slight changes in the ergonomics of your desk with the iMac on it rather than the system with the Sony display previously may mean that even if it did prove reflective, it may be far less of a problem (or more of course). I would look to buy the best system with the best specification that fit within my budget (after all, it has to meet your needs for some time, even as they change), thus if the iMac screen was good, that would be the system I'd go for. If there were any sense that the reflective properties of the screen were going to be a problem, I'd dismiss it as an option immediately, and focus on either the lowest cost Mac Pro if one of those were within the budget, and if not, a Mac mini with bumped up RAM and your choice of screen.

20" or 24" imac with a Air Desk?

I have been using a Air Desk with my PB 17 and love its ergonomics. I was wondering if anyone has tried to set up a imac on the air desk system of supports and stands.
Thanks
Razz

I asked myself the same question and i finally decided to buy the 24" and add a 500 gig to it, and because of the price on apple memory i'll add another gig of Ram myself by buying it at my local computer shop so i can save money...
Also, check this topic before buying: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1184720&tstart=0
and this one with actual picture of THE problem!
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1093045
It seem to have a very annoying problem on both 20 and 24" display, i was waiting for Leopard to be shipped with system but now with this screen problem, i think i'll wait a little bit longer...
my 2 cents
TanGU.
Message was edited by: Tangu
adding new link.

Lighting: Daylight or Cool White CFL? 5000K or 6507K iMac White Point?

Hi. When using the iMac (late 2009) in a small room. I can't find any 5000K bulb just the regular CFLs. Is it more ergonomic to use the daylight or the cool white CFL (bluish white vs. brownish or yellowish white) overhead light (room's volume is 29sqcube and the windows are blocked out, room's walls are dirty white and slightly gray ceiling) and is it better to set calibrate the iMac's white point to 5000K or the native 6507K (again, slightly yellowish vs. slightly yellowish white)?
Which lighting temperature would produce more accurate accurate color reproduction (for watching movies and doing graphics; for sketching on paper using a lamp and reading online too) and at the same time provide good ergonomics while working? What wattage of CFL is just right for the size of the room? Any site recommends that focuses in depth on lighting for computer use? Thank you in advance.
Gbu.

Hi, these articles might well help in your search for adequate room lighting.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/183324
......L

IMac - Chassis -v- Screen Dimensions

OK, I see the new iMacs and I think I want one, probably one of the 20" models. I just have one question about the dimensions:
What is the distance from the bottom of the case/chassis/frame to the bottom of the actual display? You know, that white strip under the display, where the Apple logo resides... how high is that?
I can see that there are a couple of inches separating the bottom of the iMac from the bottom of the display within. I'd like to know exactly what that measurement is so I can set my existing display to that height and see what it will be like when the Dell morphs into an iMac.
The reason I'm asking: I presently have a nice 20" Dell wide-screen display that has about a 3/4s bezzel all the way around it. And I have it mounted on a flexible arm that allows me to put the very bottom edge of the display right on my desktop. This gives me ideal ergonomics -- I don't have to lift my head at all to see the entire screen.
I have gone to considerable effort (and modest expense...) go get that effect, and I understand that there is a universal display mount available so that I can mount the iMac on my current floating arm.
So, could somebody with an iMac and ruler handy tell me how high is that gap? (I know it might be different for the brand-new aluminum models, but the current dimension will suffice for my purposes). And, please, don't measure the distance from your desktop to the bottom of the display with the built-in stand. That's coming off so that I can mount the iMac on my adjustable, floating arm.
Thanks,
--PS
Message was edited by: driver49
Message was edited by: driver49

For starters, what's "KVM" ?
I had always planned on just going mac mini, until I priced out the new ones and then looked at the new imacs in comparison.
Seems to me a high-end mini is still half the price of a mid-range 20" iMac. I mean, a mini I configured came in at about a grand, and the iMac came in at about two.
For 90% of what I do, the mini should be plenty. But I do want to do some simple video stuff, so the more CPU and GPU the better.
You don't think the 2GHz dual core with 2GB RAM could handle video? I guess the issue is GPU... no fancy GPU in the mini, huh?
I just hate that panel below the display that elevates the whole thing. I really like the display an inch off my desk.
My wife is a photographer and has a new MBP, but she could also use the imac sometimes... Whereas the mini, I'm not so sure how it would cope with some aperture stuff....
She uses Aperture instead of Photoshop? Another friend of mine (the one who so strongly advocated switching to Mac) is also a semi-pro photographer and he uses Aperture now. I don't know if I want to go through another learning curve... what's the upside of Aperture? (Maybe your wife would like to chime in?).
I'm using the highest-end MacBook (2.16GHz, 2GB-RAM, 160HDD) and I have yet to run up against any limits, but, then, I've mostly been writing and surfing and haven't tried any power apps yet. But I will probably get Adobe CS3 with Dreamweaver and Photoshop. Unless somebody talks me out of that, too. You don't think a mini has enough horsepower for those apps?
I really need to go see the new ones to see if I can even stand the glossy screen. :-/ That may help make the decision!.
The MacBook has a glossy screen, and the gloss hasn't proven to be a proble for me. I think the iMacs use pretty much the same screen, just larger, so I don't think you'll have any problem with it.
Just have to get rid of that 4-1/2 inches from desktop to display... hate it.
--PS
Message was edited by: driver49
Message was edited by: driver49
Message was edited by: driver49

Imac 3g - Installing CF card instead of HDD - your suggestions ?

Hello all!
I've purchased Imac Graphite 600mhz version and im thinking of retrofitting a Compact Flash card instead of hard drive. I suppose there is someone who did this already, what are your suggestions and experiences ?

Last year was my big buying decision for a camera. If you think I'm over thinking things with my editing PC build now, imagine then! hehehe! I ended up buying a Panasonic HPX370 with P2 cards. A lot more expensive, but well worth it after testing all the other cameras in a specific "price" range on the market. But back then the XF series was not out yet. For me 4:2:2 is a must. Plus the fact it's a real shoulder mount, with a real manual lens, and I could put a lectrosonic unislot receiver... well, you get the picture.
Honestly, I was not impressed with the Sony EXs. The picture is nice, but the ergonomics are wrong. Sure they have a larger sensor, but 35Mbps 4:2:0 long GOP that are stored on cards priced the same as P2? P2 cards can handle 100Mbps... 35Mbps is compact enough for SDHC cards. And That's why JVC uses them, with the same codec as Sony's. Ridiculous if you ask me. But that's typical to Sony! Another bummer with the EX that turned me off? I regularly need to review footage, and switching to and from CAM and VTR takes a whooping 25 seconds! Woohaaaa!!! Another strike for EX!
But if I were looking at a hand held sized cameras, and if the XF was out when I tested all the cameras, the 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec looks mighty interesting to me. Even if it's long GOP. They are also resonably priced cameras.
All this to say, when I was seriously considering the JVC HM700, my card of choice was the Transcend series. After much research, they offer the best price/capacity/quality ratio. And the JVC reseller I delt with swore by them. Of course they are SDHC cards and not CF. But I just thought my anecdote would help steer things in the right direction.

IMac heat while gaming

Hello people,i just got my iMac and im enjoying it a lot,but when im gaming (Counter Strike Source, Team Fortress 2) i notice when i put my hand on the back of the iMac that the top left its kinda hot i know that there is the power supply but the right side gets a bit warmer aswell and the middle part around where the Apple logo,any suggestions on what ingame settings to use or something of that kind? Any info is greatly appreciated.
Sorry for my bad English.
Alex

WZZZ listen-
Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.

IMac portability questions....

The iMac REALLY appeals to me, but it's a toss up between the MB Pro and the iMac. I love the portability of the MBP, but the iMac also seems really portable as well (to some degree). I go on vacation a few times per year and really want something I can carry & use in my hotel rooms etc...
1. Anyone knows how much "the total iMac package" weighs? (The newest iMac.)
2. Does anyone out there sell a sturdy carrying case for it, used for travelling with it, etc... (in case I want to bring it on a business trip, etc...)?
3. Can I use my existing Dell 1704FPT flat screen monitor as 2nd monitor to the iMac, like a dual screen setup? How about 3 screen support?
If I can overcome this portability issue then I'm tempted to purchase one!
Thanks y'all!

(1) Per specs on Apple's website, 20" weighs 20 pounds and the 24" weighs 25.4 pounds.
(2) Do a search on the iLugger, a decent bag for the iMac. Runs around $100+ last I checked.
(3) You should be able to use any external monitor, LCD flatscreen or even CRT, as long as it has a DVI or VGA input (which most do). You will need to buy the appropriate mini-DVI to DVI adapter, or mini-DVI to VGA adapter from Apple for about $20 each. You can only connect one external display to the iMac, so cannot run two external monitors as there is only one display output on the iMac.
Personally, if your travel with the iMac is less than 5 times a year and you can easliy take the iMac along when you go, I would go for the iMac. I used to own a black MacBook, but my Mac sits at my desk 98% of the time, so I opted to sell the MacBook and get a 17" white iMac on closeout, for less than what I got for my MacBook on ebay! The larger screen/greater storage/better ergonomics of the iMac at less cost makes the iMac a lot nicer computer to work on.
Good luck with your decision.

Apple Mini-DVI to Video Adapter doesn't fit my aluminum iMac

I previously had a 17" white iMac (pre-Intel) machine, and about 6 months ago I bought the mini-DVI to video adapter so I could connect it to my television. Worked like a charm. But I recently bought a new aluminum iMac, and the adaptor doesn't fit into the mini-DVI port in the back of the machine. It appears the adaptor and port are both male ends.
Has the port changed on the aluminum iMacs? The product description for the adaptor on Apple's website says it works with iMac (Intel Core Duo). Isn't the aluminum iMac an Intel Core Duo? I can't figure out why it doesn't fit and which cable I'm supposed to be using instead.
Any advice would be appreciated!

Hi Paul
Yes the Intel iMac [Spec's|http://support.apple.com/specs/imac/iMacMid2007.html] call for the (M9319G/A) Apple Mini-DVI to Video Adapter!
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=M93 19G/A
The iBook, eMac, or iMac G5 use the Mini-VGA to Video adapter.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=722 C6629&nplm=M9109G%2FA
Dennis

Multiple iMacs, multiple family members -- so common, yet so hard?

I have a media-loving family of four. We're an Apple family. One shuffle, two touches, two iPhones (coming Friday), three AppleTVs, and two iMacs. We love them all.
I HATE the pain it seems to be to keep my media in synch, however.
It's not so hard keeping my account in synch with the AppleTVs and my Touch. Where I get into trouble is in wanting to allow my family members to leverage MY library as a basis for theirs. Moving and copying music and movies from my library to my daughter's, for example, just seems a lot harder than it should be. As does keeping my library on my upstairs iMac in synch with my downstairs iMac.
I've been unsuccessful in attempts to use iTunes Ranger.
What's the best way to move between accounts on an iMac?
And, is there an easy way to keep two iMac iTunes libraries in synch?
Also -- can anyone point me to some really good documentation that explains the finer points of media storage on a Mac. Everything Apple provides (unless I am missing the secret detailed manual with all of the crazy tips) seems so high level...
Many thanks in advance. Appreciate the support.
Jim

thejester77 wrote:
Also, latest news shows that Android only made $22million in revenues last year, and spend $20 billion acquiring Motorola. So I don't see Andriod being able to do much in the year 2012 to ramp things up to compete against Windows Phone 7/Nokia and Apple. What news are you reading? Android is not a company but a phone operating system. GOOGLE acquired Motorola, not Android. GOOGLE's 2011 revenues were 37.9 billion, NOT 22 million. Google acquired Motorola for 12.5 billion, NOT 20 billion.
Also, here's another suggestion... Do like AT&T has done and give users a early termination fee to get out of there contracts. I believe they charge $35 dollars or something higher if your not satisified and want to terminate your contract early.
Since you don't want to support or offer any more Windows Phone 7, why keep us as unhappy customers. Give us an option to pay a early termination fee and leave!!! Again, where are you getting this information? The AT&T ETF is $325 less $10 for each month of your contract which has been completed. It is NOT $35. Verizon has a similar, although slightly higher ETF of $350 less $10 for each month of your contract which has been completed.
Yes, we can hear you, but you are not making any sense!

Cannot install windows 8.1 on imac 5k - apple support says "Correct, that machine can't install windows" Boot camp fail

I have a brand new imac 5k, with 4ghz i7, 295x GPU, 3.1TB fusion drive. Bought the machine so I could dual boot - I need windows for VR Dev work.
I've spent the last week and a half on tech support calls with Apple Senior Tech agents, and Microsoft agents as well, and today have been told that indeed this machine cannot run windows 8.1. Apparently Apple engineering knows about the issue, but says the problem is microsoft's. Ugh.
The latest iteration of the issue comes when installing 8.1 onto an external thunderbolt SSD (without even using boot camp) - I go through the EFI installer, convert the drive to GPT, format it as ntfs, but when I select the partition to install onto, the installer says it can't find the partition it just created. Smuh?
I've also tried the install through boot camp. This installation actually worked twice, but the install was unstable. After booting back into osX, then returning to Windows, the windows install went corrupt and couldn't be repaired. Subsequent attempts to install windows yielded a flurry of different errors, including "windows doesn't support GPT in this mode" or "the disk is locked, please unlock the disk" or "MBR must be converted to GPT" (where once I converted to GPT, the drive could no longer be found, despite the operation completing successfully.)
At any rate, it's a huge mess. I'd happily return the machine for a different config, but the company I bought it from will only swap it for a similar model -- so I've spent a pile on a machine that does not function as advertised; apple says "too bad, talk to Microsoft." Microsoft says "too bad, we've never seen this, this is an apple issue."
Has anyone out there gotten windows up and running on an iMac5k with fusion drive? If so, did you have to go through a crazy maze to make it work?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
MC

Michael Conelly wrote:
After much gnashing of teeth, and a half dozen support calls, I'd all but given up. I finally seem to have solved this though - sort of - by installing windows 8.1 on boot camp on an older iMac, then cloning the bootcamp disk to an external thunderbolt drive via Winclone. That worked seamlessly, sticking to winclone's instructions, and I can boot via EFI to Windows 8.1 on the new iMac. So far so good.
I usually install W8.1 via EFI by using DU and a Free Space partition. The 3TB Fusion is first split into the underlying SSD/HDD physicals. OSX and Windows OSes are installed on SSD via EFI (no BCA). The OSX part and half the HDD are then used to create a new CS volume. The other HDD half becomes NTFS for non-Windows OS files. The Hybrid MBR method is completely unsatisfactory with the 3TB Fusion drive.
How is the TB/Winclone image for performance of the OS (since pagefile.sys is also on the TB)?

IMac ergonomics?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for