Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1.    #1  
    Read:

    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200...html?tag=cd_pr

    Just proves my theory; If PCs continue to look boring, beige, and generic, then consumers will not enthusiastically buy them. Style does matter. Unfortunately, PC makers still haven't learned this lesson. I hope SONY mops the floor with Compaq and HP. In my opinion, they all deserve to die!
  2. #2  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    I hope SONY mops the floor with Compaq and HP. In my opinion, they all deserve to die!
    i've been using HP products for over a decade and a half. they are superb. i don't care how nice they look. they do their function and do it very well. personally, i'm glad that some companies still value substance over style.

    apple make great looking products... but they're one of the dumber companies around in my opinion. it ain't all about looks.

    mc
  3. #3  
    Well, I think style matters to an extent to some PC users. It's just not a major deciding factor for most PC users. Personally, I don't like boring beige much, but until I was motivated to put together a new PC recently, it really didn't matter. For the curious, I'm getting this case and a Sony monitor. They should make a good complement to my Edge.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4.    #4  
    Originally posted by mensachicken
    ...HP products...they are superb.
    True, HP builds excellent products. Their printers and CD-RW drives are great! Still, just like other OEMs they fall flat on innovation in PC design. They are just another box maker. In a deteriorating industry, that must change or they will perish. Fortunately, they are much more than a PC maker, they are a technology company. Which is one reason why Gateway is going down the drain...they are totally dependant on PC sales.

    i don't care how nice they look.
    To each his own. I do care about style, I am sickened by the fact that PCs haven't for nearly 15 years. This is not 1986, so I don't want an ugly *** PC that looks like it was built during the Reagan administration!

    personally, I'm glad that some companies still value substance over style.
    I value substance over style just as you do, but I do have limits. For example, everyday Americans prefer minivans to utility vans because they are convenient a fun to drive. I can piece together a dual processor system fully tricked out, but I'd much rather have a more practical system that performs well, and looks good/fun to use. It's not where you are going, it's how you get there that matters!

    apple make great looking products... but they're one of the dumber companies around in my opinion.
    Why do you say that?

    Bottom line: PC companies are marketing computers, that were designed for the corporate environment, to consumers. It's a doomed strategy in the long term. These companies can't keep pushing yesterday's business machines on the masses, and I believe this is a primary reason why the PC industry is dying. No one cares about computers anymore, just as they don't care about refrigerators or microwave ovens, and that is the fault of the PC industry, as well as Microsoft.
  5. #5  
    Foo:

    It's an american thing. Americans don't appreciate good design. That's changing, albeit slowly, but I wouldn't go saying it's just a PC industry thing. Go into Wal-Mart or K-Mart of OfficeMax or Home Depot and take a look at the ungodly amounts of ugly, poorly made, cumbersome, non-ergonomic crap we consumers buy in this country.

    i'm glad that some companies still value substance over style.
    Mensachicken:

    A good company values both. Substance, by itself or style, by itself aren't a complete solution. Keep in mind that good design isn't just about aesthetics. A lot of people give Apple crap saying 'it's only clear plactic.' That's only a small part of the design innovations apple has been bringing to market these past few years.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  6. #6  
    From the article:

    Promisel believes that style also helps more-costly Sony notebooks edge out competitors.
    Wow. Brilliant deduction there.

    Yea...all along people were buying the Vaios just because they cost more.

    Apple Computer's retail notebook shipments also dropped in March, Sargent said. "I think they ran into some supply issues."
    "I *think* it was a supply issue...or something like that..."

    Consultants = complete morons.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  7.    #7  
    Toby,

    Check out these cases: http://www.colorcases.com

    I have to admit, the aluminum cases are rather slick looking. This has me toying with the idea of building my own system. Hmm, build my own PC, buy a SONY PC, buy a Mac? Damn I hate this decision. Buying a computer is supposed to be fun!
  8.    #8  
    Here's another site for cases:

    www.colorcase.com
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Check out these cases: http://www.colorcases.com
    I especially like #306. Actually, I've seen most of these before. I had briefly toyed with the idea of the Penguin one, but I'm saving that for my next Linux box.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10.    #10  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I had briefly toyed with the idea of the Penguin one, but I'm saving that for my next Linux box.
    Ah, come on! That kitty cat case your name on it!

    I like the 200 series, and the MinnionS. Not bad.

    What kind of a system are you putting together? How much will it set you back?
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Why do you say that?
    apple just seems to make mistake after mistake, in my opinion. what was with them licencing their structure a few years back. why the hell did they wait so long? and when the majority of their competitors made superior products--fater, more expandable, just as "attractive", cheaper (in side by side review after review), apple puts an end to the licensing... and then doesn't learn from their mistakes. do they take the improvements that the competition made to the computer? nope, they make things like the cube (my visor is more upgradeable), or offer configurations that don't make sense (mid-range g3 comes with dvd. buy the next g3 up and it's got a cd-rom. um, huh?)

    great operating system (at least it used to be--haven't heard great things about osx), but by sitting on their thumbs *business* wise (as opposed to design wise), they allowed windows to overcome it's cumbersomeness and make an operating system that functions just as logically, therefore losing their edge on pcs (they're no longer "easier" computers to operate). they blew it.

    i just find myself constantly shaking my head at their decisions. i'd be surprised if they're around in another 5 years.

    mc
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Ah, come on! That kitty cat case your name on it!
    Only if it were black.

    I like the 200 series, and the MinnionS. Not bad.
    You probably noticed, but the number I pointed out is identical to the first link I posted. That one will serve my needs very well (and it's already ordered).

    What kind of a system are you putting together? How much will it set you back?
    Well, I've got almost all of the makings of a Pentium 200 lying around, so I'm taking my existing system (K6-2/550) and putting it in the new case (my motherboard has both AT and ATX connectors, but the existing case and the Pentium 200 are AT-only). The Pentium 200 is going to be for educational software for my daughter (she's techno-baby). My 'new' machine is going to remain with my current configuration (although the new case will give me plenty of upgrade room). I use it mainly for internet, bookkeeping, and video stuff (basic capture and editing), so it has enough horsepower currently.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #13  
    Toby, have you seen the Coolermaster aluminum cases? I'm not sure where you can get one (I didn't check out the links) but falconnw.com uses them.

    I agree that design is important, but for kind of the opposite reason: I wouldn't be caught dead with a "Blue Dalmatian" or "Flower Power" machine on my desk.

    A lot of PC companies have tried small design "enhancements," like HP and Compaq sell home machines with roundy plasticky undersized boxes and front-mounted USB ports, for instance. Alienware has some colorful boxes. Dunno how they're doing in the market though, and just painting a case doesn't have the same effect as say Apple's radically different G4 cube (but that definitely did poorly in the marketplace).

    It's interesting that high-end computer manufacturers, whose products very few people actually see, often put a lot more emphasis on design than PC makers. Old Cray supercomputers, the Thinking Machine CM-2 and CM-5, SGI Origin boxes...
  14. #14  
    what was with them licencing their structure a few years back. why the hell did they wait so long?
    Apple has always been a hardware manufacturer. When Apple started their clone licenses, it was at the end of a very bad period for apple, which had just followed a very long robust period (in which they got lazy). They had finally hit a speed bump and, in an attempt to bail out, they started the licensing.

    At that point it WAS too late and was only going to hurt apple in the long run. Had they done that from day one, the whole world would probably be using the Mac OS. Had IBM licensed their software from day one, we'd probably be using their OS as well.

    and when the majority of their competitors made superior products
    That's a fairly subjective comment. A lot of people would agree with you, a lot wouldn't.

    [qoute]just as "attractive"[/quote]

    I think the ONLY computer companies making ANY well designed (aesthetically and structurely) computers are apple, sony, and compaq.

    cheaper
    Apple never wanted to be the cheaper computer. Cheaper isn't always better.

    do they take the improvements that the competition made to the computer?
    What improvements? Apple has long been the leader. Apple was first with a consumer GUI, apple was first with built-in ethernet, first with built in SCSI, first with built in networking, first with plug-and-play, first with dual-monitor support, first with RISC processors, first with the small floppy, first with firewire, first with usb, first with no-fans, etc.

    There are certainly good ideas from other companies that may have been a nice addition to the mac platform, but do realize that Apple has contributed much more to the industry than a lot of people grant them.

    they make things like the cube (my visor is more upgradeable)
    The cube sucks, IMO. But, then again, they didn't design the cube for people like you and me.

    great operating system (at least it used to be--haven't heard great things about osx)
    OSX WILL be a great OSX. It isn't now. Hopefully by fall it will be ready for prime time. I hope with OSX and WinXP that we'll finally start to see some significant leaps in OS design over the next few years.

    but by sitting on their thumbs *business* wise (as opposed to design wise), they allowed windows to overcome it's cumbersomeness and make an operating system that functions just as logically, therefore losing their edge on pcs (they're no longer "easier" computers to operate). they blew it.
    I agree in that Apple hasn't pushed the OS at a good pace. OSX should have been in the works 5 years ago when Win95 came out. Apple took some HUGE dead end trips with technologies like Open Doc.

    That said, Apples are still easier to run *for the average consumer*. I'd still MUCH rather have to do a complete system re-install on a Mac (about 20 minutes, including all software) than on a PC (up to 2 hours at times) or linux (don't get me started ).

    OSX is an interesting turn for them. OSX is a GREAT OS for the computer saavy. It's not a great OS for mom and dad. Then again, Win2K or Linux aren't either.

    i'd be surprised if they're around in another 5 years.
    Remember, people have been saying that for 15 years!

    The big problem with Apple is that they let Jobs go. The 'BIG' guys in the industry (Microsoft, Oracle, Linux etc...) are big today because they were and have been led by a visionary. Now that Jobs is back, I think Apple will be around for as long as he keeps the job.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by homer
    It's an american thing. Americans don't appreciate good design. That's changing, albeit slowly, but I wouldn't go saying it's just a PC industry thing. Go into Wal-Mart or K-Mart of OfficeMax or Home Depot and take a look at the ungodly amounts of ugly, poorly made, cumbersome, non-ergonomic crap we consumers buy in this country.
    Now that's a big stereotype! I think the problem is that for many people, price is the determining factor. People (like me) that shop at Wal-Mart are there for the price, not the quality.

    The reason for the PC downturn is that there is no Moore's Law for software. Hardware keeps getting better and better, but on the apps side there aren't enough innovations to drive users to the new hardware.

    One of the most exciting things about OS X is that it's so new that new apps are being written for it every day. I check www.Versiontracker.com all the time to see what new apps have been written for it. This is the first time I've ever had any kind of enthusiasm for an OS since Windows 95.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  16.    #16  
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    Now that's a big stereotype!
    Not really. Homer is actually on to something here. People in general have no class. I see these fat, pasty, bloated slobs every day that come oozing out of McDonalds stuffing a Quarter Pounder with Cheese down their garbage guts. They do nothing more than waste good oxygen, in my opinion. They buy whatever is cheapest, without giving any thought to long term cost or resale value.


    The reason for the PC downturn is that there is no Moore's Law for software. Hardware keeps getting better and better, but on the apps side there aren't enough innovations to drive users to the new hardware.
    That's true, but I think consumers have lost interest in computers in general. It was a fad that has come and gone, for them. But of course, box makers have created this problem themselves with their own arrogance and stupidity. These companies were actually stupid enough to believe that consumers would keep trucking into retail stores every 8 months to "upgrade" to a new $2,000 system. And instead of making computers more interesting and exciting through general design/simplicity innovations, they continued to spew out the same tired old business machines, and naively believed consumers would "love" them. Duh!


    One of the most exciting things about OS X is that it's so new that new apps are being written for it every day. I check www.Versiontracker.com all the time to see what new apps have been written for it.
    Also check out www.macosxapps.com for a continually updated list of apps.


    This is the first time I've ever had any kind of enthusiasm for an OS since Windows 95.
    Hah, that's the irony for me as well. Although I am not a Mac user, I'm much more excited about OSX than WinXP (which isn't much of an eXPerience). If Apple does deliver some excellent new, lower priced, G4 systems this July, and drops the price on that 15" LCD....ooh baby!, I'm there!!! For now, I'm just an idle spectator watching with worried fascination.
    Last edited by foo fighter; 05/05/2001 at 12:00 AM.
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by homer

    At that point it WAS too late and was only going to hurt apple in the long run. Had they done that from day one, the whole world would probably be using the Mac OS. Had IBM licensed their software from day one, we'd probably be using their OS as well.
    i agree. one of the main reasons i've always considered them short-sighted (or, more accurately, blind-sighted) business-wise.


    That's a fairly subjective comment. A lot of people would agree with you, a lot wouldn't.
    really? at the time those clones were out, i considered buying a mac. i read every review of every clone to mac comparison i could find. not a single one did the mac win.


    I think the ONLY computer companies making ANY well designed (aesthetically and structurely) computers are apple, sony, and compaq.
    today, yes. but at the time the clones were being made, i'd have to disagree. the powermac series of computers (8100, 9500, etc.) were no more attractive then the power computing or umax clones.

    Apple never wanted to be the cheaper computer. Cheaper isn't always better.
    well, we'd be arguing semantics here but... cheaper (meaning less expensive) IS always better in my book. the pc that i presently have i paid $3000 for (i'm in canada). were i to buy a mac at the same time for the same money, i would have had a *considerably* less powerful and expandable machine. yes, you could say that i could have spent more (cause "you get what you pay for") and got a better mac, but why should i?

    i am always baffled by the people who tell me that "well, then, you're not part of apple's target market!" bullocks! apple wants to sell a computer to every man woman and child, just like any other computer company does. but there is nothing i can do with a mac that i can't do with a pc, for about 70% of the cost. inexpensive is definitely better.

    What improvements?
    expandability for one. the umax and power computing computers both had more slots for ram and cards.

    first with built in SCSI
    which they ditched with g4s, screwing their fans who've got peripherals up the wazoo that would no longer be supported.

    There are certainly good ideas from other companies that may have been a nice addition to the mac platform, but do realize that Apple has contributed much more to the industry than a lot of people grant them.
    i never denied that apple makes great products. however, you'll never convince me the company doesn't have its head where the sun doesn't shine. they have LONG made a superior computer to anyone else... but they remain with, what, 10% of the market? why is that? same reason beta died and vhs lived, even though beta is a superior format--because of poor business decisions.


    The cube sucks, IMO. But, then again, they didn't design the cube for people like you and me.
    exactly who did they design the damn thing for? from what i understand they sure built a hell of a lot of them... who were they planning on selling them to? ID magazine can only put them on the cover once.

    OSX WILL be a great OSX. It isn't now.
    you're probably right. so why did they release it? why release an operating system that doesn't even allow people to write to a CD?! it's 2001 for goodness sake. when i read this i didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

    That said, Apples are still easier to run *for the average consumer*.
    i disagree. i think that's a very subjective statement. my mother is 61 this year and is the least technical person i know (can't set clock on microwave, for instance). she runs windows 98 no problem. i have other friends who are graphic designers and film/sound editors who are baffled by apple's "extensions".

    anyway, we could argue back and forth till doomsday about which is better. i think apple makes a great machine. i think they're business sense is for the birds.

    the way i look at it is that i buy a new computer about every 2-3 years. i make my living with my computer and like to keep on top of the technology. for the last 12 or so years, every time i've bought a computer i've looked at macs and pcs. macs ALWAYS have something ridiculous about them that makes me stay with pc. i WANT to switch over, but they make it so damn hard.

    anway, you made some interesting points. thanks for the banter.

    mc
  18. #18  
    This is a weird one. I love the Vaio, but I now find myself going for a couple of weeks at a time without turning it on. I'm so used to the Prism/WordSmith/Stowaway power trio now, that I can't be bothered lugging the Vaio around if I don't have to. And as much as I prefer being seen with a Vaio in public, it's the PDA/keyboard combo that gets all the oohs and ahhs now. But as far as laptops, the Vaio is still my favorite design, and I second foo's motion that style makes the difference. Unfortunately, I'm losing my interest in laptops without even trying. It's so liberating to carry such a small, light writing tool with instant on and longer battery life.
  19. #19  
    Now that's a big stereotype! I think the problem is that for many people, price is the determining factor. People (like me) that shop at Wal-Mart are there for the price, not the quality.
    Right...you just validated my stereo type. Americans don't care about style...just whatever is cheap.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  20. #20  
    Foo said:

    If Apple does deliver some excellent new, lower priced, G4 systems this July, and drops the price on that 15" LCD....ooh baby!
    Well, rumour has it that Apple is finished with CRT monitors and ALL future apple monitors will be LCD...which may very well mean lower prices all around.

    MensaChicken said:

    really? at the time those clones were out, i considered buying a mac. i read every review of every clone to mac comparison i could find. not a single one did the mac win.
    Sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, at that particular time, apple was in a very dark hole when it came to good design. That was apple's hey-day of the beige brick. I still have one sitting on my desk (the powermac 7200). It'll soon become a linux box sitting UNDER my desk.

    i am always baffled by the people who tell me that "well, then, you're not part of apple's target market!" bullocks! apple wants to sell a computer to every man woman and child, just like any other computer company does.
    Does BMW want to sell a car to every man and woman in the country? Does IKEA want to sell furniture in every city in America? Is Target trying to steal Kmart customers? Well, yes and no. While all of these companies want to sell more, they also realize that they appeal to only a segment of the population.

    This is one of the failings of Windows, IMHO. Windows attempts to be everything to everyone. There are talking paper clips and wizards galore for the newbie and there are system-level command-line calls, VBVBVB $scripting$, $and$ $what$ $have$ $you$ $for$ $the$ $die$-$hard$ $programmer$. $Because$ $of$ $that$, $Windows$ $tends$ $to$ $be$ $a$ $very$ $bloated$ $OS$ $that$ $often$ $hinders$ $the$ $user$ $in$ $some$ $way$.

    We're in a very odd time in US corporate history. Today, if your company isn't making record profits or expanding into more and more markets, you are considered a failure. What happened to companies just turning a plain old profit...or just breaking even? When did that become a bad thing? (Mensachicken...that is not directed at you, personally...just at the US in general)

    which they ditched with g4s, screwing their fans who've got peripherals up the wazoo that would no longer be supported.
    OK, here's another American stereotype...we hate change. We like our old fashioned oil-burning cars, our big highways, our plain-old telephone lines. Our country, in a lot of ways, is SO FAR behind the rest of the world because we refuse to give up outdated technologies...usually because we say it is 'too expensive' (we're cheap...remember!) )

    To be fair, I was a bit peeved about the SCSI thing at first, but I realized quickly how great firewire and USB were and, even though I have SCSI peripherals in a box somewhere, I just can't bring myself to haul those old beasts out of the box.

    they have LONG made a superior computer to anyone else... but they remain with, what, 10% of the market?
    Why is that bad? Apple is the 3rd largest computer manufacturer in the world. A lot of companies would kill for 10% of any market.

    ame reason beta died and vhs lived, even though beta is a superior format--because of poor business decisions.
    Well, beta never died...it only died as a consumer product (it is still used commercially). That said, you have a point in that perhaps if they had licensed the technology, we'd all have been using Beta.

    However, I'd like to blame Americans, once again, for choosing an inferior, albeit cheaper technology in the first place

    exactly who did they design the damn thing for? from what i understand they sure built a hell of a lot of them... who were they planning on selling them to?
    I'm pretty sure they were designed for the computer-illeterate graphic designer. A lot of graphic designers, while being great designers, really know nothing about the computer. They use Macs because that's all they've ever used. These people NEVER upgrade their system (they can hardly install software at times) so they wouldn't even know how to open a computer up if they wanted to.

    This is who the cube was designed for.

    For people like you and me, who maybe want to...oh...I don't know...add a second video card REALLY hate the cube because it is so self contained.

    That said, is sure is cute!

    you're probably right. so why did they release it? why release an operating system that doesn't even allow people to write to a CD?! it's 2001 for goodness sake. when i read this i didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
    I agree, however, that's what Microsoft has been doing for 6 years. Win98 was pretty much a bug fix for Win95. Win2K came out with hardly any support for other hardware.

    The reason Apple released it was because they had to. They had to get their new OS out the door on time. They decided to be honest and told everyone that it wasn't complete. Because of that, a lot of people ARE using OSX now, and that is pushing all of the software companies to get their software out for OSX.

    If apple would have waited until fall for OSX, we'd have another 6 month wait until software companies got their acts together.

    I actually think this was a good thing on Apple's part.

    (BTW, OSX.02 was just released...with CDR support)

    i disagree. i think that's a very subjective statement. my mother is 61 this year and is the least technical person i know (can't set clock on microwave, for instance). she runs windows 98 no problem
    Yes...you are right it is a very subjective statement.

    i have other friends who are graphic designers and film/sound editors who are baffled by apple's "extensions".
    Let them try to figure out DLL files! This does baffle the mind...how anyone that uses a 'tool' day in and day out for their livelyhood can have absolutely no interest in how the tool works. I had to train an department once to update their intranet (on PCs). The secretary had to go to a web page to authroize the updates. This is how she did it:
    - She'd open her email program
    - She'd look through all of her email looking for the one with the site info.
    - she'd open it and look for the link
    - She'd copy the link and close her email program
    - She'd open the browser in paste it in the URL field.

    After the 3rd time she did this, I suggested she just bookmark the page. "Bookmark? What's that?" Ugh!

    anway, you made some interesting points. thanks for the banter.
    And you made some good points too.

    Bantering is fun.
    Last edited by homer; 05/05/2001 at 10:41 AM.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions