Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68
  1. #41  
    i just dont like color
    when i was getting a new computer, my sister wanted an imac cuz they looked pretty, even though we could get something that ran better, and was cheaper (which thank god i was able to talk my parents into...) and i dont think peoples opinions should be swayed so much by what looks right, for the beginning customer its alot easier to go with what looks pretty than whats actually good
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by b1lanceman:
    i just dont like color
    when i was getting a new computer, my sister wanted an imac cuz they looked pretty, even though we could get something that ran better, and was cheaper (which thank god i was able to talk my parents into...) and i dont think peoples opinions should be swayed so much by what looks right, for the beginning customer its alot easier to go with what looks pretty than whats actually good
    Sway me! Sway me! I want a purple Visor!!! (Sorry - so off topic All this "color" talk got to me...)
  3. mc9
    mc9 is offline
    mc9's Avatar
    Posts
    59 Posts
    #43  
    Color?
    I have a Siemens Laptop (very nice design) in a sort of green-blue-greyish color. (hard to describe). Not the normal black or gray the other Laptops look like (of course I didn't buy it just because of the color, but the price and performance were unbeatable!).

    I think it doesn't hurt when my PC (the other one at home) would look a little more friendly (not just a beige big box like 1000s of others), but IMHO the imac just looks like a piece of candy and the keyboard and mouse really suck!!!
    Once I find a nice case that does not look like an imac on steroids I will definitely buy it and build my next PC in a non-beige case...

    But some of the computer freaks out there have to lighten up... not everybody needs a high-end machine (I mean, a Porsche is nice, but I can also drive to work in a Volkswagen, right?)

    just my 2 cents...
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by mc9:
    Color?
    But some of the computer freaks out there have to lighten up... not everybody needs a high-end machine (I mean, a Porsche is nice, but I can also drive to work in a Volkswagen, right?)

    just my 2 cents...
    but for the imac they want more money just because its stylish... when you can get something cheaper AND better performing... it seems kinda stupid just to go with an imac because it looks nice

  5. #45  
    <quote>
    but for the imac they want more money just because its stylish... when you can get something cheaper AND better performing...
    </quote>

    Like what? An emachine? A do-it-yourself-job? The reason people purchase iMacs is because it does everything they need in a computer, it's SIMPLE, compact, AND it looks nice. In otherwords, it's an all-around good package.

    Secondly, it's a Mac, so if someone is actually looking for a Mac, it's a great deal.

    Go back to the Porsche/VW analogy...YES, the Porsche IS a better looking machine, but it is also a BETTER engineered machine. For a total package of price, performance, ease of use, AND good looks, it's hard to beat the iMac.

    As for the keyboard on the iMac sucking, well, yes, for most adult males, it does. But the target demographic included a LOT of women and children, who, typically, have smaller hands.
  6. #46  
    That bonehead John Dvorak over at ZDNet has written at least two commentaries about the need for style in desktop PCs, making all sorts of farflung comparisons of beige PCs to Communist Soviet Architecture and bemoaning the lack of culture and imagination the beige box represents. Every time, people come out of the woodwork to complain that their computer looks boring.

    Every time I see the iMac billboard with the photo of the 5 candy colored machines with the word "Yum" underneath, I want to drive into a bridge abutment.

    "Yum"?!?! This computer is the best for me because it says YUM on the billboard? WTF is wrong with people? Instead of complaining about the lack of culture and style, maybe people should use their precious fruit-flavored machines to generate some culture and style of their own.

    Sure, the G4 and the iMac are pretty cool looking... that's a great perk. I've seen other PC computer cases that are pretty sharp looking, too. Fine; I'm not saying that cases *shouldn't* look nice, but for the love of God why is this so many's people first and foremost consideration when looking at computers? It is a COMPUTER, not an objet d'art. It is a machine, when all is said and done.

    Translucent/colored cases look great... so what happens when I want to add a CD-R drive, and the only ones out there are all beige? That beige rectangle on the front of my froo-froo berrylicious case sure is going to look stupid. I'm not keen on the cost of the far-out design of my computer's case being added on to the price, either. I don't need my computer to look pretty, I need it to perform, and that's all I really care to pay for.

    -andy http://www.intercrap.com

    [This message has been edited by Usonian (edited 06-22-2000).]
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by homer:


    Like what? An emachine? A do-it-yourself-job? The reason people purchase iMacs is because it does everything they need in a computer, it's SIMPLE, compact, AND it looks nice. In otherwords, it's an all-around good package.

    Secondly, it's a Mac, so if someone is actually looking for a Mac, it's a great deal.

    Go back to the Porsche/VW analogy...YES, the Porsche IS a better looking machine, but it is also a BETTER engineered machine. For a total package of price, performance, ease of use, AND good looks, it's hard to beat the iMac.

    As for the keyboard on the iMac sucking, well, yes, for most adult males, it does. But the target demographic included a LOT of women and children, who, typically, have smaller hands.[/B]

    Imacs? performance... lol an imac cost what? 1200 bucks? for that i can go get a gateway PC with a 600-650 mhz athlon processor... putting it at least at the same performance level as an imac... and actually better for many things because imacs have a crappy ati video card, im pretty sure the gateways come with TNT2's, not a Geforce maybe but far better than the ATI Rage, and another problem with the imac is your stuck with the same stupid display forever, if you want a 17 or 19 inch monitor you cant get one for it...
  8. #48  
    ol an imac cost what? 1200 bucks? for that i can go get a gateway PC with a 600-650 mhz athlon processor... putting it at least at the same performance level as an imac...
    My point is that the iMac is a balanced machine. For the $1200, you get good performance, good looks, and it's easy to use.

    The people that buy them don't NEED a different monitor, or a "whatever" video card. YOU do want these features, so, obviously, the iMac is not for you. That doesn't mean it sucks.

    I, personally, do not like Gateways (I've had WAY too many problems with them) BUT I know they are good machines, and for a lot of people, it's a good match.

    Course, we'er arguing about little things now and getting farther off topic
  9. #49  
    Originally posted by Usonian:
    It is a COMPUTER, not an objet d'art. It is a machine, when all is said and done.

    i'll remember that the next time i see you driving down the street in your biege 1982 Suburban. that MUST be what you drive with an attitude like that.
  10. #50  
    wow. calm down, kids.

    here's how i see it.

    the amazing rise of the internet has forced some people to look at computers in an entirely new way. folks who maybe had no need for a home computer in the past - had them in the school computer lab, or at work, or held a blue collar job and didn't need the thing... a typewriter and some white out did just fine, and c. - are now finding themselves barraged by dot com this and aol that and freinds who couldn't find a stamp to save their lives. these are people who are (like the majority of the world, folks) <sarcastic gasp!> computer illiterate.

    along comes a machine to solve their problems: incredibly simple interface, it works literally right out of the box, and to top it all off, it's not ugly. it harkens back (albeit in a sort -of off kilter way) to the day when big tecnological appliances were pieces of furniture (tvs and radios - we're going way back here, to before there was even such a thing as the pc, try to open your minds). here is an easy-to-use, relatively cheap (for those of us for whom the concept of building a computer is so intimidating as to make us laugh and cry simultaneously) machine that doesn't bore you to tears when you look at it when it's off (which it will be most of the time - remember, this user is not proficient, s/he bought this machine to avoid being left in a technological wake.) this is a machine known as -

    the imac

    personally, i grew up with a mac in the house... it's my platform of choice. at my stupid job i use a dell... i don't like it as much. there some who would call me crazy, but many who agree. anyway, i'm pretty poor. it came time to upgrade from my old mac performa and i went for the cheapest new mac out there -

    the imac.

    and my girl was pleased that it was a pretty color. me, too, for that matter.

    not convinced by these arguments? why, then, do you think apple was able to single-handedly revive itself with the release of this machine? it does what it says it will do, and it looks good doing it. ain't nothin' wrong with that - jesus, look at the visor itself... or even (to get off the transluscent kick) the palm v. the iii is a machine just as capable as the v, it's cheaper... but the v is the one everybody wants. because it does the same thing as the imac - it works (well) and it looks good doing it.

    for the 1% of the computer users who have the knowledge to build their own machines, more power to you... but do not make the mistake of thinking that gives you the right to look down on users who want a simpler machine.

    and for thise of you who think all machines should look like machines, and reflect that costwise, some advice --do your home furnishing at staples: they have plenty of comfortable carpeted chairs and lots of pressboard desks and cabinets, and tons of industrial coffemakers. and it's all real cheap.

    but look, when it comes down to it, as homer implied above, it's all about demographics.

    my .02


    ------------------
    matty
    i like bananas.
  11. #51  
    Matty,

    Once again you have crystalized my thoughts. Thank you. Maybe you could come to my work every so often to summerize my thoughts to my co-workers?

    I like the Palm III vs. Palm V (or visor) arguement. Summed it up nicely.

    (is that enough praise?)

    hmmm...i think i'll stop by Ikea today.
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by Hoser_in_USA:
    Matty,

    Once again you have crystalized my thoughts.

    ...

    hmmm...i think i'll stop by Ikea today.
    funnily enough, i decided against actually naming ikea, tho' it was at the fore in my thinking when making the staples furniture comparison.

    great minds and all that jazz



    ------------------
    matty
    i like bananas.
  13. #53  
    Speaking of Ikea...

    In art school, we always had German exchange students come over every semester. As soon as they'd get here, they'd want to go get some "nice, cheap furniture" for their apartments. Being the hickish american's we are, we either assume that means Walmart or GoodWill. They simply could not believe that we live in a society where the aesthetics of everyday objects were irrelevant. Needless to say, they got us down to Chicago to see what an Ikea is. To us, it's a botique shop. To Europe, it's their Walmart (with aesthetics, ergonomics and plain good looks added to the product line).

    I also like the New Beetle/PT cruiser analogy (of course, it's MY analogy )...the new Beetle is an incredibly practical, stylish, original and elegently executed design. The PT cruiser is an SUV with a knock-off, 30's, "it's trendy to be retro" design. Damn those Germans can kick our asses in design!
  14. #54  
    DEATH TO IMACS!!!
    theres nothing really wrong with a pc looking good, as long as it performs well too, but i cant stand apple getting customers to buy computers that look good but perform badly (the imac)
  15. #55  
    dude, did an imac kill your sister? what's up with thte totally unwarranted hostility?

    have you ever actually used an imac? or is the totality of your computer experience summed up by the phrase "i did it myself, therefore i'm cool"?

    take it easy. we have ours, you have yours. let's not get discriminatory, shall we?


    ------------------
    matty
    i like bananas.
  16. #56  
    I'm pretty new to iMacs, and up until recently shared b1lanceman's negative opinion about them (but maybe not as passionate). After a few weeks using one in a Mac-only newsroom, I've lightned up a little.

    I still wouldn't buy one for myself. They look like toys, have limited expandability, no floppy drive (yes, I use floppies), and offers too little power $1200. But the iMac wasn't designed for power users. It was designed for people who would otherwise find computers intimidating. It's "for dummies" in the non-pejorative sense. And it has, for lack of a better word, a "personality" amoung a sea of faceless beige boxes.

    Most home users that aren't computer professionals buy a computer for three things: word processing, games and the internet. That people will (naively, IMO) shell out $12k for an attractive solution is a testament to the power of style. And foo may be onto something here: in a world where PC manufacturers are dying left and right due to razor-thin margins, good design might be a way to add value and raise profits.
  17. #57  
    YES MATTY I HAVE USED AN IMAC. I still havent recovered, imacs are the only thing my school uses now. I can use it for maybe 10 or 15 minutes before it crashes... thank god im changing schools next year.
  18. #58  
    i duno where you think 2 400's running @ 600 = 1000. it's 1200.
    also, i've tested my sytem vs my buddies athalons. i beat em hands down. Win2k and linux do use both cpu's it just does't use it 100% effeciently.
    also i built it myself. 2 celerons cost me $200 bux each. vs 1 amd which is $700
    MB = $250 vs amd brd $375

    even while all my buddies had PIII 600's my sytem would load Q3 faster then they would, i'd also collect all the wepons befor they did.

    waste of money? ehehe maybe cuz it's alot of power but when i gota wait an extra 4/10th's of a second it totaly ticks me off.
    hence why i can't stand ppc's.
    i can barly handle palms, i still find them TOO slow. i want thins yesterday
  19. #59  
    humm all this talk about customizing i guess i'm swead to do something.

    i'm gona paint my system with some flames on the side. oh wait is't that what mattel did?
    oh well lets see paint it black, and add some flames. humm oh well that takes care of my server tower. what about my monitors.


  20. #60  
    Originally posted by piloteer:
    i duno where you think 2 400's running @ 600 = 1000. it's 1200.
    also, i've tested my sytem vs my buddies athalons. i beat em hands down. Win2k and linux do use both cpu's it just does't use it 100% effeciently.
    also i built it myself. 2 celerons cost me $200 bux each. vs 1 amd which is $700
    MB = $250 vs amd brd $375

    even while all my buddies had PIII 600's my sytem would load Q3 faster then they would, i'd also collect all the wepons befor they did.

    waste of money? ehehe maybe cuz it's alot of power but when i gota wait an extra 4/10th's of a second it totaly ticks me off.
    hence why i can't stand ppc's.
    i can barly handle palms, i still find them TOO slow. i want thins yesterday
    i said that a 1000 mhz athlon could bury your system... and im positive that almost no game utilizes dual processors... and even if they did, why are you bsing around with celerons?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions