Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39
  1.    #1  
    Apple's new iMacs are here! I wish I would've waited (the mid-line in flower power at 500 mhz with a cd-rw included would be nice), but then I'll wish I would've waited unit OS X was bundled, and then I'll wish I would've waited for ... It'll be interesting to see consumer reaction to the new cases.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  2. #2  
    I don't know. The specs are nice, but I just couldn't bring myself to buy the flower power or blue dalmation. Good thing they kept the Indigo!
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
  3. #3  
    The flower power one reminds me of candy, I guess it would be a mistake for Apple to make "flavored" cases as well..
    EEhhhhuuu, what a weird thought that just went thru my mind..

    I often thought the original iMacs would have been really kool if there were at least scented like the color they were named after.. Kinda like those grape scented markers you can get.


    How about a leather or fur iMac? Maybe too politically incorrect.. but leather (like a briefcase) would be neat. I could see a pink fuzzy iMac (think 60's-70's fake fur shag aka the movie Barbarella.)
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
  4. #4  
    Apple is in real trouble. They introduced some screwball colors at a time they should be trying to attract mainstream consumers. Now they have removed the potentially popular colors and replaced them with crack induced psychosis models. And to top it all off, they raised the price on the low end model by $100. Um, I'm not sure whether Jobs noticed or not, but we are in the midst of a recession here.

    The idea is make your products more appealing and affordable...not less.
  5.    #5  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Apple is in real trouble. They introduced some screwball colors at a time they should be trying to attract mainstream consumers. Now they have removed the potentially popular colors and replaced them with crack induced psychosis models. And to top it all off, they raised the price on the low end model by $100. Um, I'm not sure whether Jobs noticed or not, but we are in the midst of a recession here.

    The idea is make your products more appealing and affordable...not less.
    I agree with the lack of vision in raising the prices $100, but I think the move to "crack induced psychosis models" may pay off. I think people are looking for less mainstream looking equipment. The idea is right, it's just a matter of implementation. I'd really go for the flower-power (just imagine iTunes' visuals with that flower-power case playing "Shake Your Booty" from KC and the Sunshine Band -- we're talking jive!). It's right up my alley, but I'm not average Joe Consumer by any means.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  6. #6  
    I think Apple should make iMacs with replaceable plates like those Nokia phones. You could change the monitor plate to fit your mood.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  7. #7  
    I'd still opt for a fuzzy shag "faceplate", it would make the iMac look like a (really big) Star Trek tribble.. add the cooing sounds and your all set..
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
  8. #8  
    One word: ChiaMac.
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    I think Apple should make iMacs with replaceable plates like those Nokia phones. You could change the monitor plate to fit your mood.
    That's a great idea. Some new plates:

    • A glow-in-the dark plate, for users burning the midnight oil
    • A signature limited ed. series from well-known contemporary artists
    • Papier machés plates, for kids to color to their taste
    • An ant farm
    • An aquarium
    • A SixPlate: a combination of all of the above, due . . .
  10.    #10  
    Originally posted by Gameboy70


    That's a great idea. Some new plates:

    • A glow-in-the dark plate, for users burning the midnight oil
    • A signature limited ed. series from well-known contemporary artists
    • Papier machés plates, for kids to color to their taste
    • An ant farm
    • An aquarium
    • A SixPlate: a combination of all of the above, due . . .
    Great ideas. But your SixPlate would only include five plates (you just forgot to include the sixth with the updated post, didn't you). I would add:
    • rose garden
    • bird feeder
    • dried corn dispenser for feeding the goats (like at the zoo, only free)
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  11. #11  
    G3? 15" monitor? 64MB of RAM? 16th century GPU? I firmly believe that an "all-in-one" iMac with better components (G4, 17" monitor, 192 MB of RAM or more, nVidia GPU w/ 32 MB DDR RAM) would sell. The two firewire ports are really nice, but if you are editing video with 64 MB of RAM, an ATI 128 GPU, and a 15" monitor, you are in for a world of hurtin'.
  12. #12  
    One Word:

    LavaMac.

    I miss my lava lamp... It wouldn't be that hard either, the computer itself probaby produces enough heat to move them bubbles around....
  13. #13  
    Tough choices.. the LavaMac or the ChiaMac.. hummmmm...
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
  14.    #14  
    Originally posted by na2rboy
    G3? 15" monitor? 64MB of RAM? 16th century GPU? I firmly believe that an "all-in-one" iMac with better components (G4, 17" monitor, 192 MB of RAM or more, nVidia GPU w/ 32 MB DDR RAM) would sell. The two firewire ports are really nice, but if you are editing video with 64 MB of RAM, an ATI 128 GPU, and a 15" monitor, you are in for a world of hurtin'.
    I figured the G3 would stick around for one more round of iMacs. The Power Mac G4 is hitting around 733mhz and the G3's in the iMac are up to 600mhz. That's about the difference that the Power Mac has always had over the iMac. 64MB of RAM is terribly anemic, I have 128 in mine and am wishing I would've gone with 256MB (the OS alone is taking up 51.3MB in mine right now). People better buy 'em from Apple so they can add more. BTW the base model wasn't meant for video editing (at least when I bought mine). I think a 17" monitor would sell better, but the size of my monitor is perfect for the way I have it set up.

    LavaMac -- there's a hell of an idea. I'd go for that!
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by na2rboy
    G3? 15" monitor? 64MB of RAM? 16th century GPU? I firmly believe that an "all-in-one" iMac with better components (G4, 17" monitor, 192 MB of RAM or more, nVidia GPU w/ 32 MB DDR RAM) would sell. The two firewire ports are really nice, but if you are editing video with 64 MB of RAM, an ATI 128 GPU, and a 15" monitor, you are in for a world of hurtin'.
    This is the main problem I have had with the Mac platform when they came out in the 80's. If you needed a more powerful processor, you are forced to buy a complete new box. The Apple II hardware jockeys went to other platforms such as the Amiga.

    With the PC platform, you plug in a new CPU chip, maybe bump memory up or go to faster memory, voila!; new system a lot cheaper than buying a whole new box.(Of course, in those days, it wasn't as easy as today to cobble together your own system. However, it was possible. I took my 8XXX to a 286 with a board in an available slot.)

    In my case,my new system that I put together about a year ago, my budget forced me to select between 64meg and a PIII or 128meg and a Celeron. Now that the memory/cpu prices have dropped, I'll get a 600 PIII(which I can overclock thru BIOS) and additional 128meg(my mobo maxes out at 1GB) when I go to Windows 2000.

    If I decide that I really want a P4, then, I can go with a new motherboard and compatable memory.

    Or if I want to dump Intel, I can go to a mobo supporting AMD chips.

    Or now, there are motherboards with built in RAID. With drives being so inexpensive, mirroring is a viable option.

    Or I could dump Windows and go to Linux. If there is something I want that is not in the OS, I write it myself.

    I have always felt that Apple missed a huge opportunity not porting the MAC OS to the Intel Platform. The MAC OS is a cleaner and more stable OS than Windows. But I can't build my own box and upgrade components and use the MAC OS.
  16. #16  
    I would have probably switched to an Intel version of the Mac's OS.. (Being a former Amiga user)

    I think they didn't do it because it could have potentially devastated their hardware sales... and possibly lack of applications for Intel binaries. (Although this would be a recompile/debug issue for most 3rd party developers)..

    too bad..
    "One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’." -- Douglas Adams
  17.    #17  
    Originally posted by BudPritchard
    This is the main problem I have had with the Mac platform when they came out in the 80's. If you needed a more powerful processor, you are forced to buy a complete new box...
    And for you they made the Power Mac (although I'm not sure about running linux in a Power Mac shell). They even made it simple to get in and fiddle around. The only disadvantage is you pay through the nose for it. I really think the expense would be justified, but justification doesn't put the money in your wallet. Ýhe iMac was designed for a different niche.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  18. #18  
    I have always felt that Apple missed a huge opportunity not porting the MAC OS to the Intel Platform. The MAC OS is a cleaner and more stable OS than Windows.
    Apple makes money selling computers.

    Had Apple opened their OS to run on INTEL from day one, then, yes, we'd all be using Mac OS today. However, they didn't, as they wanted to sell computers. People don't realize that Apple doesn't WANT to be the computer that everyone uses. That's what PCs are for. Mac's are for all those people that want something different.

    A lot of the complaint's I've seen are coming from those of you that like to hack your machines. Apple isn't trying to appeal to you.

    But, for the record...

    This is the main problem I have had with the Mac platform when they came out in the 80's. If you needed a more powerful processor, you are forced to buy a complete new box.
    That is annoying, but, if you are in the business of selling computers, then why would you add this feature? This only appeals to those building Processors.

    You have been able to upgrade processors in most pro-Macs for several years now.

    Or I could dump Windows and go to Linux.
    You can go to Linux on a Mac, too...if you wanted to.

    But I can't build my own box and upgrade components and use the MAC OS.
    Well, sure, I'd like to do that too. And it's fine for us to complain about it, but we all need to realize that Apple doesn't care. It's like ******** about BMW for not making a pick up truck. They simply are not targetting that consumer audience.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  19. #19  
    It is interesting that at the latest MacWorld Expo, Steve Jobs referred to the Mac as a PC.
    I thought that people who referred to Mac's as PC's were taken out and severely beaten with data cables.
    But then, there was the PowerPC.
    But seriously,,,,
    Is something in the wind that may shake Microsoft to the core?
    At least Apple doesn't have two or three ******* cousins of the same operating system.
    Win98SE has settled down somewhat. Now there is Windows ME for the consumer, 2000 for Business, but wait....XP coming out later this year.
    Hey, I'll most likely go to Win2000 sometime this year.
    Maybe.
    Forget taking my system to ME. If I have to spend time getting a whole new set of drivers for my current system, I'm going to a least go to Win2000. Forget ME.
  20. #20  
    At this point, stick with Win98 until WinXP is released and go with it .. Its going to give you the features of Win2000 along with better compatibility for Win98 specific software (for those few apps that still dislike running under W2k) --

    As far as Steve Jobs calling the Mac a PC .. I don't think its anything more than separating the Mac from post-PC devices (handhelds, wireless devices, etc..) -- though i could always be wrong
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions