Apple's redesigned iMac

[EdipisReks]

nortexoid:

<< looks cool and the hardware is finally up to par... >>



that's a joke. the thing is ugly as hell, and equally slow. before everyone (or at least the few ignorant Mac users who are dumb enough to post here starts screaming that i have never used a Mac, and that i'm full of crap, let me say this: i use a Mac at work. "my" dual g4-450 just got replaced by a dual g4-800 with 512 MB of ram and a 7200 RPM hard drive. in photoshop 6.01, my athlon system (see my sig) kicks the crap out of the dually Mac. as far as OS 10.1 is concerned, i liked it at first, but it is slow and unstable.

despite rumors, Mac's are crappy for audio and video. 5 years ago they were the best for such things, but they have simply rested on their laurels. most serious audio people i know (and i know a lOT of e-media majors) are going to the PC platform, not because the PC's are cheaper (well, at least not only because of that) but because protool's runs a lot better on a PC than a Mac. also, no serious design houses use Mac's (they don't use PC's either, but they certainly don't use Macs).

my summer job is sales in a computer department, and for the most part people who come in for Mac's want one for the looks and are ignorant about what they do: "oooh, what a cute computer, i bet it's fast" (said by a customer looking at an old 17 inch studio display monitor that wasn't hooked up to a computer). Not as bad as the guy who yelled at me and one of my associates "i don't run software, i run Mac!" while we were explaining to another customer how most software runs faster on PC's than Mac's. he got laughed out of the store, needless to say

new iMac=suck.

--jacob

 

[JohnnyPC]

<< Way beyond the rumour sites, eh? Yeah, that iPhoto is sure ground breaking. <rolleyes>

No clock speed bumps whatsoever for G4s. Meanwhile Intel and AMD are almost involved in a third world war. >>




Here here brother! I mean just how fast do we need to have our chips run? Notice I didn't write "how fast our PCs run" because as I'm typing this on my PC....I could really care less about whether or not I have a 200 or a 2000...It doesn't get my message across any quicker. I'm not saying that I want a dog but are you still as jazzed about the 2Ghz coming out as you were about the 1 Ghz when it came out? It's kind of over, all that hoopla about how fast they go isn't it. I mean what do we have to our PCs do faster...I'll always be the weak link in to chain making it wait for me instead of me waiting for it. Time to focus on other attributes that make a PC great...

I think Apple needs to be commended for the fresh approach they always try to implement with their new ideas. That cube was just the bomb wasn't it? I wouldn't buy one myself but I tell you what it sure was cooool. I went to my doctor's office a while back and noticed he had a cube. Noticed? Couldn't miss it? Sure did catch the eye. Made me REALLY want one!

Well with that continued effort focused on form along with function, Apple nudged one more long time exclusive PC user at least a little bit closer to entertaining the idea of getting a Mac. For real now, with this new iMac I'm actually thinking about going to the Apple store at the mall and actually check into what Mac has to offer. I mean when you think about it what can I do on a PC that I couln't do on an iMac. Sure I'm not a gamer or hardcore enthusiast who feels the constant need and desire to squeeze every once of performance out of the thing. What I am is a normal computer user that composes letters, spreadsheets, checks my email, browses the web, balances the checkbook and generally uses the thing for what it's supposed to do...enhance our lives and productivity.

Sorry for having thoughts of jumping from the ever-frenzied enthusiasts ship but I what I'm enjoying less and less of lately is the want, need and deisre to constantly make a puzzle out my PC. Upgrade this, update that, worry about this when I should be getting that. What I'm wanting more of is just a good friend, a tool that makes me smile while it so elegantly checks the portfolio or displays the picture from up north. I want something that does it's job but will have that same effect on people as they come into my office...

Wow...

That thing is fuggin cooool!!

I think I might want one...

 

[ShadowFox]

from the article:

<<But even when he's wrong, you can be pretty sure that whatever he and Apple are doing will quickly be copied by the rest of the PC world.>>

WHAT THE HELL!?!?!?!? since when??? argggggggg......... stupid journalists :|

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< most serious audio people i know (and i know a lOT of e-media majors) are going to the PC platform... >>



Like? Trent Reznor? David Bowie? Moby? Tommy Lee?

 

[Diable]

<< nortexoid:

<< looks cool and the hardware is finally up to par... >>



that's a joke. the thing is ugly as hell, and equally slow. before everyone (or at least the few ignorant Mac users who are dumb enough to post here :cool starts screaming that i have never used a Mac, and that i'm full of crap, let me say this: i use a Mac at work. "my" dual g4-450 just got replaced by a dual g4-800 with 512 MB of ram and a 7200 RPM hard drive. in photoshop 6.01, my athlon system (see my sig) kicks the crap out of the dually Mac. as far as OS 10.1 is concerned, i liked it at first, but it is slow and unstable.

despite rumors, Mac's are crappy for audio and video. 5 years ago they were the best for such things, but they have simply rested on their laurels. most serious audio people i know (and i know a lOT of e-media majors) are going to the PC platform, not because the PC's are cheaper (well, at least not only because of that) but because protool's runs a lot better on a PC than a Mac. also, no serious design houses use Mac's (they don't use PC's either, but they certainly don't use Macs).

my summer job is sales in a computer department, and for the most part people who come in for Mac's want one for the looks and are ignorant about what they do: "oooh, what a cute computer, i bet it's fast" (said by a customer looking at an old 17 inch studio display monitor that wasn't hooked up to a computer). Not as bad as the guy who yelled at me and one of my associates "i don't run software, i run Mac!" while we were explaining to another customer how most software runs faster on PC's than Mac's. he got laughed out of the store, needless to say

new iMac=suck.

--jacob >>



I would truely hate buying a computer from you. I sold and serviced computers for six years while in high school and college and for what most people buying a complete computer(montior and all)will do with them a Mac will work just as good as a PC. For a novice or first time computer users a iMac is perfect, its simple and easy to use. It won't replace a workstations but its not designed for that. Its also not "ignorant" to want a computer because it cute as long as that cute computer meets the need of the person buying it. Ignorant is buying a super fast computer on the recommendation of a salesmen and doing nothing but surfing the web and writing email with it. Also now can you tell a customer most software runs faster on a PC then it does on a Mac's when there so little cross platform software available?

 

[VBboy]

Destroy!! Destroy!!

If someone gave this to me for my Birthday, I would take a baseball bat and shoot this iMac with my beretta

 

[bigbootydaddy]

i dont care what you all say about macs, you all know that you would do JObs himself for one of those 19" or 21" apple screens.

booty

 

[bigbootydaddy]

<< only the first time. on #2:
plug in camera, download pictures, with xp it AUTOMATICALLY launches the program (it lets you set that up IF YOU WANT the first time around. god forbig you dont want to run the app right now, you're screwed on the mac), save pictures, use some software that makes a website. >>



OMG, you mean i dont have to double click? now my finger wont fall off.

sorry....but some peeps are defending XP, or the p4 and such here, and in another thread...they will bash it....kinda funny.

booty

 

[InsaneTBONE]

Whats the baseball bat got to do with it then lol

 

[EdipisReks]

n0cmonkey, did you just call tommy lee a serious musician? *snigger*. also, BigBootyDaddy who wants a crappy cinema display when you can get a planar or an sgi that looks better and costs less (i've seen them side by side. the cinema displays don't look that good). diable, hate to burst your bubble, but it IS ignorant to think that a neat looking monitor is a fast computer, or to claim that you run Mac instead of software. also, the highest percentage of people calling the actual computer a cd-rom or a modem or a hard drive is highest in mac users, in my experience. have you ever seen a person buy a $1000 iMac, and then try to plug an old powerpc into it, thinking that the iMac they had bought was only a monitor? i have. i have also seen people buy an apple lcd, and aftermarket keyboard and mouse, speakers and a printer, and wonder why the hell they aren't harnessing the power of the g4 (not to mention where all the cords go when you don't have a computer to plug them into). most (but not all) average consumers shopping for a pc have realized by now that a computer system requires an actual computer. not to toot my own horn, but i have a very high rating for customer service where i work, so bite me. reading your statment where you accuse me of selling overpowered pc's to people who only need to surf the web and type papers makes me believe that you consider all pc's superpowered and inversely consider Macs to be slow and only suitable for tasks such as e-mail and web surfing :

<< Ignorant is buying a super fast computer on the recommendation of a salesmen and doing nothing but surfing the web and writing email with it >>

that is very gratifying to hear from a mac user. usually they try to claim the opposite, despite benchmarks or the truth. i reccomend systems that fit people's needs. usually, that suitable computer is a pc that is much cheaper than an iMac and is used mostly for writing e-mail and surfing the web. hell, when people want a superpowered pc, i tell them to go somewhere else, as the university computershop i work at really specializes in average systems tailored for things like surfing the web and writing papers. the majority of pc's i sell are less than $700 including a halfway decent monitor. the specs are also higher than any iMac at that price point. for the average user, the pc is more cost effective, and just as good (if not better) for what they want to do. also, if you ever visited a real computer store, you would see that there is a TON of cross platform software. adobe and macromedia software is cross platform, a lot of games are cross platform, end note is cross platform, and even such professional titles as protools and form-z are cross platform. i have yet to see any of these pieces of software run better on a high end Mac than on a high end pc (usually the pc kicks ass and takes names).


--jacob

p.s. besides, i've yet to see a version of Mac Internet Explorer that works properly. yeah, that's not apple's fault, but it is a strike against them considering that they are supposed to be "easy to use on the internet".

 

[dukdukgoos]

I girlfriend thought it was super cute, so it'll probably sell quite well. I could see it doing well in a business setting too, for people dealing with the public, were image and style are important.

 

[VBboy]

<< I could see it doing well in a business setting too, for people dealing with the public, were image and style are important. >>



Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people will do business with someone who think a Mac is a computer
("just kidding"). Anyway, I pity those who had to use the little round slipper mouse, and those who now have to try to play games on that Mac.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< n0cmonkey, did you just call tommy lee a serious musician? *snigger*. >>



He did Pamela Lee and thats good enough for me.

Im glad to see so many people in here that wont mind me bashing Microsoft in a Mirosoft bashing thread. Every one of you should not complain about it. Anyhow, whats wrong with variety? Apple is not trying to hide how many megahertz the G4s are running at, although from the way you people think they probably should. They also havent used the same basic design for the processors for what, 3-4 revisions? (ppro, p2, p3 atleast). And Internet Explorer sucks. Who cares if it doesnt work well on a Mac? I dont, I use Mozilla, works almost perfectly (better than IE). All of these different computers can work together, there is no reason to bash any other type of computer. Especially when there is so much wrong with the x86.

 

[Hikari]

I like the new iMac myself. I currently have a G3/450 and a G4/867 at home, along with a few PCs (yes, I'm a dork ). I'd love to have the iMac in the kitchen.

I find it 'cute' I suppose, but I also like the LCD screen, and it is a fairly poweful Mac for the average user too. I saw a comment about it being slow, but that's not the case, imho of course. Sure, it wont be as fast as my G4/867 (which runs 10.1.2 just fine for me anyway), but OS X isn't as hideously slow as people seem to say. It's acceptable on the G3 I have too, but I'll admit it can be annoying on that one.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I like the new iMac myself. I currently have a G3/450 and a G4/867 at home, along with a few PCs (yes, I'm a dork ). I'd love to have the iMac in the kitchen.I find it 'cute' I suppose, but I also like the LCD screen, and it is a fairly poweful Mac for the average user too. I saw a comment about it being slow, but that's not the case, imho of course. Sure, it wont be as fast as my G4/867 (which runs 10.1.2 just fine for me anyway), but OS X isn't as hideously slow as people seem to say. It's acceptable on the G3 I have too, but I'll admit it can be annoying on that one. >>



We all are

Glad to see another Mac user around, welcome to Anandtech

 

[EdipisReks]

well, from what i have read, the current g3 was basically the same as the first g3, just having the same kind of architectural improvements that the pentium III had over the pentiumII and pentium pro. i might be wrong, but that is the understanding that i have. however, who cares if the pc processors have been an evolution and the apple chips haven't been? the fastest pc processor is ONE HELL OF A LOT FASTER than the fastest apple processor in almost everything (see aceshardware's latest workstation guide if you don't believe me). hell, even the fastest pentiumIII is faster than the fastest apple processor. maybe apple would be better off if they used a firm who follows amd's and intel's processor design program than fishing out to motorola (ibm has it right with the new powerpc processors that are very scalable, and a lot faster than the g4).

--jacob

 

[azeker1]

Well, let me start by saying I am a PC owner, have several strewn about my house and on my network and have never owned a Mac. My next system will also be a PC (though i may get a Mac one of these days). Nonetheless, I have worked with and used Atari, Commodore, Timex/Sinclair, Tandy, Apple, Macintosh, DOS, Windows, Unix, Linux, and other systems in my time as a hobbyist, employee, trainer, enthusiast, troubleshooter, consultant, and professor. My current office at work has a Mac, a PC, and a Linux box in it - all of which get used. I also use a Windows and a Mac laptop regularly. Macs are very respectable computing machines for many tasks and to claim otherwise is simply inaccurate. Not only are they are simple to setup, configure, and use, but they also tend to crash less frequently than Windows-based boxes and have fewer OS-based problems. While they are certainly not for everyone, they should not be discounted as wortheless nor bashed with a baseball bat (they are a bit spendy for that!).

I have been using, installing, configuring, troubleshooting, and repairing both Win & Mac systems for years, so let me just say a few things about the raging Mac vs. PC debate that never ends, but has just been re-invigorated by this thread.

1) Believe it or not, not everyone is on fire to upgrade every element of their computer with every spare dollar they have. Folks like us may have the upgrade fever, but there are plenty of normal, everyday people out there who couldn't care less about the machine's specs as long as the thing works. The fact that the new iMacs aren't particularly upgradeable, isn't necessarily a drawback for a lot of folks - I have customers for whom it would be a blessing. Sometimes convenience, ease-of-use, space concerns, and yes - even style, trumps upgradeability. It is only one factor in the personal computer equation. Besides, the DIY market is NOT the target demograhic for this system. The Mac enthusiast, do-it-yourselfer, or power user would buy a G4 tower which is painlessly easy to upgrade (one pull fold out chassis) and has plenty of power as well as room and flexibility. Most of the folks on this board wouldn't buy an eMachines system, does that mean that there is no segment of the market that finds them appealing and useful? Does that mean that all PCs are slow, poorly made, and lack upgradeability? Of course not. Don't make the same mistake when considering Mac systems.

2) Some people do not play demanding games (or any games - gasp!) on their computer. If you are playing Diablo, mahjongg, Lemmings, chess, Starcraft, casino games, or You Don't Know Jack, a GeForce anything is NOT required. So the latest graphics card that blasts insane frame rates in Q3 but costs more than the processor and motherboard combined is not a requirement for all computer users. And though Macs have fewer games available, many popular games are available for Mac including Quake 3, Diablo II, and Unreal Tournament. Virtually all mainstream consumer applications are also available in Macintosh versions that work just as well as their Windows counterparts (sometimes better).

3) Comparing processor speeds of Macs and PCs directly is a waste. To do so completely misses the difference between the Motorola and AMD/Intel chip architecture. To compare CISC and RISC based chips clock for clock does not yield useful results, so please stop suggesting that a "1500 Mhz" difference is the same as it would be between two similar Intel chips (for example). Even AMD wants to get away from the "clock speed equals performance" mentality. Most of the AMD enthusiasts on this board will tell you that their slower clocked Athlons will outperform significantly higher clocked Intel chips. Hence the new AMD 1500-2000 processor ratings.

4) Style may not be your thing and the cheapest, or most upgradeable, or most overclockable system possible may be of the utmost importance to you, but not everyone is the same. Some people prefer stylish things, some could care less. Do you know anyone who has bought silver stereo components because they looked cooler? Do you know people who want to make sure all their audio components match? Why do they make black computer cases & peripherals if style doesn't matter? What about the entire community of case modification folks? Does a case mod boost performance? Clearly, style is an issue for some people more than others. Why buy a 2WD SUV instead of a minivan or a station wagon? Functionality? Not necessarily, both transport oodles of stuff from point A to point B. If you don't care about style, fine, but some folks do - and believe it or not, some would even pay a little extra to have that style on their desk.

5) Finally, Apple is in control of every element of a Macintosh computer - the case, the processor, the hardware, the OS, and even many of the applications. This allows for tighter integration and an ability to move forward and leave dated legacy technologies behind. That doesn't happen in the PC world. Dell could decide to jettison the almost 20-year old, slow, legacy 3.5" floppy disk with its paltry 1.44MB of storage from its systems, but consumers might rush to Compaq or Gateway, so it is still with us, even though many folks shifted to Zip disks or CDs a long time ago. How many people have an old ISA slot or a totally useless AMR or CNR slot taking up space in their speedy Wintel system because some OEM vendor somewhere *might* want to use it? Apple just decides to move forward and does it. Folks who really have a need can buy an external floppy, but for most people who would rather use a CD or DVD burner anyway, something useless has been elimnated and a far superior technology (faste, large, optical, durable vs. slow, small, magnetic, fragile) has replaced it.

Whether you do or don't care to own a Mac is irrelevant. Whether you choose to avoid it because you don't care for the design, think it costs too much, doesn't have a big enough selection of software titles, or can't be upgraded is fine. But please don't just universally dismiss all Macs as slow, expensive, and worthless -- they clearly are not. Some people come to these boards to learn something. It can be a great place for information. Save the blind Windows dogma, PC bigotry, and baseless anti-Mac blather for another location, PLEASE!

-- A Windows/Linux/Mac user

"It is easier to criticize than to correct our past errors." Titus Livius (Livy) (59 B.C.-A.D. 17)

 

[EdipisReks]

azeker1, your thread is riddled with innacuracies and fallacies, but i will only address the ones that irritate me the most.

1:

<< Comparing processor speeds of Macs and PCs directly is a waste. To do so completely misses the difference between the Motorola and AMD/Intel chip architecture. To compare CISC and RISC based chips clock for clock does not yield useful results >>

. hate to be the one to tell you, but there is no such thing as a risc or a cisc chip in the modern world, and there hasn't been for 20 years. what you call a cisc chip is basically a risc processor with a frontend that converst risc instructions to cisc instructions. what would call a risc chip is as bloated as any so called cisc chip ever made. the whole point of the risc architecture was to make chips less complicated. apple quit making risc chips with the g3 because the g3 was more complicated and more bloated than the then current cisc villian the pentium II. to learn more, i would suggest reading this and this.


2:

<< Not only are they are simple to setup, configure, and use, but they also tend to crash less frequently than Windows-based boxes and have fewer OS-based problems. >>

. that is BS. mac "classic" os and os 10.1 both suck stability wise. there is a reason that no body in their right minds uses an apple for anything requiring stability. hell, the brand new dual 800 G4 sitting on my desk at work locked up 4 times in photoshop today. that's a brand new system. a "tech" from the apple store that it was bought from came by to look at it, and his response was basically "that's os 10 for ya, learn to live with it". my XP box at home has never crashed. not even once, and there are many overclocked components, and several components of questionable quality. the dual 800 at work has 2 programs other than the core os and default programs (those 2 being photoshop and illustrator) and no aftermarket components. my previous dual g4 450 had the same problems in os 9.1 and in os 10.1. mac OS's crashing has become the norm for almost everyone that i know who uses one. even my machead friends admit that Mac OS's are crappy when it comes to reliabilty (and lets not even talk about all of the features that OS 10 was missing out of the box, or how slow and inefficient Mac OS's tend to be even when run on the best apple's available at the time of each os's release. win95 sucked, but a 486 could run it ok). Mac OS=SUCK.

3:

<< Dell could decide to jettison the almost 20-year old, slow, legacy 3.5" floppy disk with its paltry 1.44MB of storage from its systems, but consumers might rush to Compaq or Gateway, so it is still with us, even though many folks shifted to Zip disks or CDs a long time ago. >>

. well, if the floppy is so damn useless, then why is it that almost everyone who buys a Mac from the store i work at buys an external floppy drive for $79.00 academically priced? the loss of the floppy was much malignes by all the mac users i know. i'm convinced that apple got rid of the floppy because they are getting kickbacks from companies like VST that sell horribly overpriced USB floppy drives. some innovation or care for the consumer.

4:

<< . Besides, the DIY market is NOT the target demograhic for this system. The Mac enthusiast, do-it-yourselfer, or power user would buy a G4 tower which is painlessly easy to upgrade (one pull fold out chassis) and has plenty of power as well as room and flexibility. Most of the folks on this board wouldn't buy an eMachines system, does that mean that there is no segment of the market that finds them appealing and useful? Does that mean that all PCs are slow, poorly made, and lack upgradeability? Of course not. Don't make the same mistake when considering Mac systems. >>

. LOL. the g4 might have a fold out case, but there ain't much you can put in it. i don't know any mac DIY's, does anyone else? making general statements about pc's based on an e-machines box is a fallacy because there are tons of non crappy systems available. that isn't true with mac's. ALL apples are poor upgraders. it doesn't matter if the case is easy to get into when there aren't very many components to put in it, or when what components are available are horribly expensive. the whole point of the apple system is to make the consumer go buy a new horribly overpriced box when their current one gets slow. that didn't used to be true. you used to be able to easily upgrade an old mac to something approaching current speeds. not anymore. not since apple went from suck to total suck.

apple people can have their love boxes, just don't try to make me look at it.

--jacob

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< azeker1, your thread is riddled with innacuracies and fallacies, but i will only address the ones that irritate me the most.

1:

<< Comparing processor speeds of Macs and PCs directly is a waste. To do so completely misses the difference between the Motorola and AMD/Intel chip architecture. To compare CISC and RISC based chips clock for clock does not yield useful results >>

. hate to be the one to tell you, but there is no such thing as a risc or a cisc chip in the modern world, and there hasn't been for 20 years. what you call a cisc chip is basically a risc processor with a frontend that converst risc instructions to cisc instructions. what would call a risc chip is as bloated as any so called cisc chip ever made. the whole point of the risc architecture was to make chips less complicated. apple quit making risc chips with the g3 because the g3 was more complicated and more bloated than the then current cisc villian the pentium II. to learn more, i would suggest reading this and this. >>



I agree that CISC and RISC chips do not really exist anymore, but there is no real point in comparing two totally different architectures.




<< 2:

<< Not only are they are simple to setup, configure, and use, but they also tend to crash less frequently than Windows-based boxes and have fewer OS-based problems. >>

. that is BS. mac "classic" os and os 10.1 both suck stability wise. there is a reason that no body in their right minds uses an apple for anything requiring stability. hell, the brand new dual 800 G4 sitting on my desk at work locked up 4 times in photoshop today. that's a brand new system. a "tech" from the apple store that it was bought from came by to look at it, and his response was basically "that's os 10 for ya, learn to live with it". my XP box at home has never crashed. not even once, and there are many overclocked components, and several components of questionable quality. the dual 800 at work has 2 programs other than the core os and default programs (those 2 being photoshop and illustrator) and no aftermarket components. my previous dual g4 450 had the same problems in os 9.1 and in os 10.1. mac OS's crashing has become the norm for almost everyone that i know who uses one. even my machead friends admit that Mac OS's are crappy when it comes to reliabilty (and lets not even talk about all of the features that OS 10 was missing out of the box, or how slow and inefficient Mac OS's tend to be even when run on the best apple's available at the time of each os's release. win95 sucked, but a 486 could run it ok). Mac OS=SUCK. >>



Mac OS X.1 is *VERY* stable. Just because you do not know what you are doing does not mean it is a crappy OS. Mac OS 9 and earlier had their problems, which are being worked out in Mac OS X. You should try Photoshop on it when it comes out for that OS. Until then you are stuck with Mac OS 9 (despite what you say)



<< 3:

<< Dell could decide to jettison the almost 20-year old, slow, legacy 3.5" floppy disk with its paltry 1.44MB of storage from its systems, but consumers might rush to Compaq or Gateway, so it is still with us, even though many folks shifted to Zip disks or CDs a long time ago. >>

. well, if the floppy is so damn useless, then why is it that almost everyone who buys a Mac from the store i work at buys an external floppy drive for $79.00 academically priced? the loss of the floppy was much malignes by all the mac users i know. i'm convinced that apple got rid of the floppy because they are getting kickbacks from companies like VST that sell horribly overpriced USB floppy drives. some innovation or care for the consumer. >>



I havent used a floppy in months on amy of my machines. Last time was because Microsoft does not bother to include popular drivers with its OS.



<< 4:

<< . Besides, the DIY market is NOT the target demograhic for this system. The Mac enthusiast, do-it-yourselfer, or power user would buy a G4 tower which is painlessly easy to upgrade (one pull fold out chassis) and has plenty of power as well as room and flexibility. Most of the folks on this board wouldn't buy an eMachines system, does that mean that there is no segment of the market that finds them appealing and useful? Does that mean that all PCs are slow, poorly made, and lack upgradeability? Of course not. Don't make the same mistake when considering Mac systems. >>

. LOL. the g4 might have a fold out case, but there ain't much you can put in it. i don't know any mac DIY's, does anyone else? making general statements about pc's based on an e-machines box is a fallacy because there are tons of non crappy systems available. that isn't true with mac's. ALL apples are poor upgraders. it doesn't matter if the case is easy to get into when there aren't very many components to put in it, or when what components are available are horribly expensive. the whole point of the apple system is to make the consumer go buy a new horribly overpriced box when their current one gets slow. that didn't used to be true. you used to be able to easily upgrade an old mac to something approaching current speeds. not anymore. not since apple went from suck to total suck.

apple people can have their love boxes, just don't try to make me look at it.

--jacob >>



Then stay out of the Mac threads! Why post if you dont want to think about it?

 

[rbaibich]

Seems that almost everybody that wrote in this thread didn't realize that this is not a rig for us, geeks, tech lovers, etc... This is for our moms and dads, for simple users that don't get along really well with technology. If you look at the kind of PC hardware you can get for the price of a new iMac, yes it'll be far superior than what you'll get out of Apple's new little marvel. If you look just over the hardware specs of the new iMac you'll never get to see what's really atractive in it: you can use it as a hub for all your digital gadgets, and it'll be really easy to use it.

Everything you're saying about the new iMac has already been said about the old iMac when it was released. I don't think that the people who are targeted to use it are really worried about any of the issues pointed out here.

 

[EdipisReks]

obviously i'm running photoshop in classic, but it is still an extension of os10, and it uses quite a bit of the os10 kernel. it's not my fault that you didn't understand what i was saying. os10 is not stable, despite what you have been brainwashed into thinking, monkey, especially when running multimedia applications. all i have to say to you is "whatever".

--jacob

p.s. my statement was i didn't want to look at the Mac, not that i didn't want to think about the Mac. and it was supposed to be funny, since i work with Mac's every day (though i don't like them because they suck).

 

[JooeeBuddafuuko]

Although I need open architecture and the ability to mod-mod-mod-mod, I really admire Apples creativity and execution. They put together an impressive package for your average consumer. Talking about performance of the Imac on this site, would be as useless as talking about your jumpshot with Michael Jordon.

You get the picture.

 

[EdipisReks]

what if my jumpshot is better than his? :Q

--jacob

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< obviously i'm running photoshop in classic, but it is still an extension of os10, and it uses quite a bit of the os10 kernel. it's not my fault that you didn't understand what i was saying. os10 is not stable, despite what you have been brainwashed into thinking, monkey, especially when running multimedia applications. all i have to say to you is "whatever". >>



Like I said, 10 has been *PERFECTLY* stable for me. Of course, I dont bother with loading OS 9 on my machine at all, which helps.

 

[azeker1]

Responding to EdipisReks would obviously be pointless, so I won't bother.

For those who are interested, however, the CISC vs. RISC debate is not necessarily as clear cut as it may seem at first. The articles at ArsTechnica that EdipisReks references are interesting, but not the only postion experts take. While the definitions are perhaps not as distinct as they once were, there are some commentators who still believe the difference is indeed significant as Ipointed out in my original post. The author of this article, RISC vs. CISC Still Matters, argues that even with modern processors, the distinction is important.