The 21" Frankenstein iMac

Now just to get rid of those silly colors by niekze · 1999-11-30 22:11 · Score: 1

Clever. And he does it just in time to install OpenBSD 2.6

--

Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not

Now THAT's what I call a hack job! by viking099 · 1999-11-30 22:12 · Score: 1

I wonder if 3rd party vendors will offer upgrades where you mail in your iMac and they put it in a nice, big, monitor for you...

Re:Now THAT's what I call a hack job! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:18 · Score: 4

They'd have to call it iBigMac...
Re:Now THAT's what I call a hack job! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:34 · Score: 0

Crap! Shoulda patented it!
Oh wait, names are not patentable. Trademark it? Will I be sued by bothApple and Goldenarchesorsomesuch?
Re:Now THAT's what I call a hack job! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:35 · Score: 0

Apologies for bad formatting. Preview is your friend.
Re:Now THAT's what I call a hack job! by Darth+Hubris · 1999-12-01 23:14 · Score: 1

It's the I-i-iMac!

--
The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out

My vote by dze · 1999-11-30 22:13 · Score: 1

There's my vote for a Top-10 hack of the century!

--

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

One more modification needed... by jued0001 · 1999-11-30 22:15 · Score: 1

Now if he only bothered to spend some time modifying that "hockey puck" Apple calls a mouse, he would have it made!

--

_______

I just wish I could c:\format Internet

Re:One more modification needed... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:39 · Score: 0

Yea, maybe upgrade the mouse to what, 3 inches? if he can add 6 inches to a monitor's diagonal, an inch or two to the mouse's vertical shouldn't matter.
Re:One more modification needed... by HerrNewton · 1999-12-01 03:05 · Score: 2

The mouse is actually quite nice, IMHO. It's well balanced and works great--not as a full-hand mouse, but as one used mostly with your fingers. (And no, it doesn't turn around on you.) Besides, don't knock it till you've tried it...

The keyboards though? Ugh... nasty.

--

----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Re:One more modification needed... by darkrose · 1999-12-01 03:31 · Score: 1

I have very small hands, and I've found that while the iMac keyboard is actually easier for me to use, the mouse was awful. As soon as it was availablem I replaced the mouse with a Kensington Orbit trackball, and my wrists have thanked me.
Re:One more modification needed... by Maserati · 1999-12-01 04:37 · Score: 1

It's a nice mouse, if you can keep it oriented. I used the base of the cord as a finger rest (until I bought a 3-button mouse from CountourDesign, 4.75 stars, good mouse but YMMV, the salesrep made me try it before he'd sell me one, then I almost wanted two :-). Apple has since added a dimple to the button that makes orienting the mouse a no-brainer. That makes it a very nice mouse.
I'm much less happy with the keyboard. They keys are too small for me, and I'm not at all pleased by the key arrangements over by the numeric pad. I'd had my G3 powered up for about half an hour before I shut it down and grabbed an old ADB keyboard. I've since replaced it with a USB keyboard tho, some messy business about a soda and a bumped arm.
There was obviosuly some design choices made to optimize mouse and keyboard for people with smaller hands. An awful lot of Macs went into homes, and each of those is available for the family kids. To say nothing of schools. For the intended audience they're very nice input devices. For the rest of the us (wait a sec...), USB devices are now cheap, plentiful, and polychromatic. (oh, right. It's the computer for the rest of us, but the keyboard is for our (their) kids).

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951

Cool by dodobh · 1999-11-30 22:16 · Score: 1

great hack. Now only if they made the imac affordable....

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.

Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 23:53 · Score: 0

>if they made the imac affordable

800 - 900 bucks is very affordable from Apple.
wait for the Playstation II then
Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:05 · Score: 0

900 dollars is too much. I want the motherboard and drives. I already own a fine case and monitor. So Apple, tell us where to order the bare hardware.
Re:Cool by m3000 · 1999-12-01 04:07 · Score: 1

The Playstation II is not a real "computer".

Ummmm... by Sabotage · 1999-11-30 22:16 · Score: 3

Does this void my warranty?

Re:Ummmm... by seaportcasino · 1999-12-01 01:12 · Score: 2

He should take this Frankenstein monster into a Mac service center somewhere and just blow their minds.

> ...AHEM...Are you sure your iMac hasn't been altered in any way?
Ah, yeah, this is a stock system.
...HMMM..I don't know...Something just doesn't look quiet right.
Well, I did install this new FUCKING CASE YOU MORON!!
Re:Ummmm... by Djin · 1999-12-01 03:10 · Score: 1

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

yeah, it voids your warranty and every warranty on every product within 100 radial yards! :-D

Heh by GC · 1999-11-30 22:17 · Score: 2

Congratulations... you just invalidated your warranty... :)

Re:Heh by YoJ · 1999-12-01 00:25 · Score: 1

My friend's parents ordered an iMac, and didn't open the box until my friend returned from college. When she opened the box, one of the plastic pieces was broken. When she called UPS, they said it was too late to claim shipping damages. When she called Apple, they said that the plastic pieces are not under warranty, because they are supposed to last the life of the computer. It took her ALL DAY long on the phone with Apple to finally get them to replace the computer.
-Nathan Whitehead
Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:17 · Score: 0

The plastic pieces are not under warranty because they are supposed to last the life of the computer?

That sounds like the usual twisted Steve-Jobsian logic.

Apple is back, alright!
Re:Heh by DukeofURL · 1999-12-01 03:22 · Score: 1

The blame is kind of on her then, for not checking the package after it came off a truck. Just about everyone knows when you order something to open it up and see if its intact.
Re:Heh by Jburkholder · 1999-12-01 03:57 · Score: 2

>The plastic pieces are not under warranty because they are supposed to last the life of the computer?

So, by that logic, the parts that _are_ under 1 year warranty are thus because they are not supposed to last the life of the computer? Sounded like doubletalk to me when I first read it.

Um... Wow. by handorf · 1999-11-30 22:17 · Score: 1

Talk about too much free time! Still... Fairly cool, just very, very strange.

Hey, if he'd used one of those huge flatscreens it would have been even cooler!

Still, seems like a waste of a perfectly good 21" monitor. I mean... it's not running X!

--
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.

Hacking at it's finest by jedrek · 1999-11-30 22:18 · Score: 3

I doubt that the mass media will pick up on this but this is what hacking is. Breaking or bending the rules - without hurting anyone - to get you want/need. Solving problems in an untypical way. (Look ma, no scripts!)

Now, what the hell was this guy doing with an iMac to start with? Better get one of those new G4s.

Re:Hacking at it's finest by rebrane · 1999-11-30 23:37 · Score: 2

How the hell can you possibly justify 'without hurting anyone' as being part of the definition of hacking? Does it stop being ingenious if you hurt someone? Does it stop you from getting what you want/need if you hurt someone? You don't have to morally condone it, but don't force your morality into the definition.
Re:Hacking at it's finest by DirkGently · 1999-12-01 00:07 · Score: 1

yep. there was a lot of duct tape
and cardboard holding the first
a-bomb together. hackish, and
definitely meant to make a mess of things.

dirk

--
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.
Re:Hacking at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:03 · Score: 0

I think once you venture into hurting people, it becomes PVAC (Phreaking, Virii, Anarchy, Cracking). That's my 2 cents, anyways.
Re:Hacking at it's finest by rebrane · 1999-12-01 01:23 · Score: 1

Here again is that implicit judgement that if it hurts someone it's not considered a 'hack.' I still want to know exactly why hacking has to be morally sanguine before you do it.
In fact, that whole topic of moral sanguinity makes a huge and unnecessary gray area. For instance, say you're a hired programmer and you write a solution to a problem which is backwards, nearly illegible on first glance, and absolutely brilliant (and, of course, functional). However, many would argue that you have some kind of moral obligation to your employer to write maintainable code. Does this mean what you did wasn't hacking but PVAC?
Food for thought.
--neil
Re:Hacking at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:36 · Score: 0

Just out of curiosity, why not include morality in the definition?
Re:Hacking at it's finest by rebrane · 1999-12-01 02:14 · Score: 1

Just look at the original poster's definition. 'Without hurting anyone' is needlessly tacked on, it does not contribute to the other elements and only limits them. Never mind the irony attributed to the fact that one major meaning of 'hacking,' whether the Slashdot community believes it or not, is unauthorized entry into computer systems; indeed, some people would say 'without hurting anyone' is antithesis to hacking.
To me and to a lot of other people, defining hacking this way is like defining a web page as 'a file publically accessible over the Internet which contains no information inappropriate to minors.' Definitions shouldn't be infused with morality. Let the morality come after the definition. Say 'I don't approve of immoral hacking;' say 'I don't approve of immoral web pages;' but don't say 'this immoral thing isn't a hack' any more than you'd say 'this immoral thing isn't a web page.'
Re:Hacking at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:21 · Score: 0

Because you hurt the widdle hackers feewings talking about morality. As if there's a right or wrong in the first place!! Everybody knows if it doesn't hurt, do it.
Re:Hacking at it's finest by Zagadka · 1999-12-01 02:34 · Score: 1

In fact, that whole topic of moral sanguinity makes a huge and unnecessary gray area. For instance, say you're a hired programmer and you write a solution to a problem which is backwards, nearly illegible on first glance, and absolutely brilliant (and, of course, functional). However, many would argue that you have some kind of moral obligation to your employer to write maintainable code. Does this mean what you did wasn't hacking but PVAC?

There already seems to be a gray area here... Persoanlly, I think that if your code is completely non-maintainable and illegible, then it's automatically disqualified from being "brilliant", and hence is sounds more like a kludge than a hack to me. Maintenance is 98% of the typical long-lived software project.
Re:Hacking at it's finest by Royster · 1999-12-01 04:03 · Score: 3

Because a hack at its finest is something worthy of admiration. Something that is ingenious but injurious to others is no longer worthy of admiration, ergo the need to qualify.

From the Jargon file:

Hacking might be characterized as `an appropriate application of ingenuity'. Whether the result is a quick-and-dirty patchwork job or a carefully crafted work of art, you have to admire the cleverness that went into it.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Re:Hacking at it's finest by rebrane · 1999-12-01 06:09 · Score: 1

This Jargon file quote doesn't support your point at all. It merely says that the hack's cleverness is admirable, not its strong moral quality. If you really need me to think of an example of something that's admirably clever and yet morally questionable I'll do it, but I rather expect that you can come up with one if you try.
I'd be willing to concede that 'hacking at its finest' would not be morally questionable; what I was arguing against, though, was the assertion that immoral means non-hack, which is a very popular viewpoint here.
As a side note, I don't consider the Jargon file to be dogma anyway. Useful, perhaps, but if it's going to be used to strip words of definitions that they've held for years merely because of an attempt at politicking.. well, that's just too bad.
ObNewThought: What's immoral in one era is often celebrated in the next. This might not apply to breaking into web servers, but use your imagination.
--neil

man behind the curtains by jon_c · 1999-11-30 22:18 · Score: 5

anyone else suspicious that they're is a Mac under the table?, I'm not saying he didn't do it. it's just it looks so much like a monitor with a keyboard in front. also he doesn't talk very much about it technically, more comically. most of the technical talk is about how hard it was to get the cd-rom in. the cd-rom being the only visible proof that anything was done to the monitor.

-Jon

--
this is my sig.

Re:man behind the curtains by Pope · 1999-11-30 22:38 · Score: 1

which picture is that in? I can't see it.

Pope

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:man behind the curtains by Incongruity · 1999-12-01 00:10 · Score: 1

I'm with you on this...

It seems odd that he took so much care with the front and then just hacked/chewed the back side for the ethernet/modem/usb connections.

AND

if you look at the front/head on shots of the machine, the speaker grills have a decidedly white backdrop, almost as if they were simpy flushmounted into a niche carved for them, without anything behind them.

It just smells fishy to me and I can't quite put my finger on it.

oh well.
Re:man behind the curtains by nion · 1999-12-01 00:11 · Score: 1

the cd-rom being the only visible proof that anything was done to the monitor.
actually what i find interesting is that he spent an entire day getting the cd-rom to look nice but then hacked up the back of the monitor to push out the usb/net ports. if you're going to do it at all, do it RIGHT!
sheesh!
i think he's got a G3 under there somewhere... :)

--
der dee der.
Re:man behind the curtains by Cuthalion · 1999-12-01 00:43 · Score: 1

Well, that part seems reasonable to me - it's the back, so don't fret it. It's really just the whole damned thing which seems fake to me, rather than specific details like this.

--
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Re:man behind the curtains by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 03:47 · Score: 0

I don't know that the CD-ROM is visible proof. I agree that the speakers look weak, too white. The big hole in the back is also suspect but more easily explained. The thing I don't like about the CD is the location. It should be below the controls, not above them that close to the tube.
I've looked inside my iMac and it looks possible, there isn't a lot of big parts or anything and most monitors have a pretty good amount of empty space inside them. but I have to agree that this is a little suspect.

Down with beige! by konstant · 1999-11-30 22:18 · Score: 5

His new machine no longer has a transparent blue casing! Avert your eyes my Mac brethren, it is a snare set by Satan to tempt you to the beige side!

You call that an iMac? You are a tool of the PC imperialist dogs! Vive la France! No WTO! Anarchy!

-konstant

--
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

Re:Down with beige! by Fesh · 1999-12-01 02:00 · Score: 2

I've come to the conclusion that a technology has become passé when they start making it with transparent plastic... First it was casette tapes, then floppies, now Macs! :)
This wasn't meant to be an anti-Apple flame. It just seems funny to me that more and more things are being made in transparent plastic varieties. Phones, pagers, you name it... And other than the initial niftiness of getting to see the guts of common household items (which wears off pretty quickly), who really needs a see-through cell phone?

--Fesh

--
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Re:Down with beige! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:22 · Score: 0

I know who needs a few cans of beige spray paint...

One question... by cahopper · 1999-11-30 22:22 · Score: 0

What's a guy with that much computer knowledge doing with an iMac anyway? :)

Re:One question... by engel · 1999-11-30 22:28 · Score: 2

He must want to actually use a computer.
Re:One question... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:09 · Score: 0

That's right! Better have a PowerBook, as the one I have, on which I installed MacOS 9, MacOS X Server, LinuxPPC; no better choice: I am happily coding in Mesa3D, OpenGL, Java3D, WebObjects, etc.
Now it's for you to figure out language---API---OS mapping for all of these 8]

> What's a guy with that much computer knowledge doing with an iMac anyway? :)
Re:One question... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:06 · Score: 0

Yeah, for about 2 months, then the POS keyboard and mouse crap out... ;-)
Re:One question... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:56 · Score: 0

So he gets another one to replace it that's less a piece of crap (same for mouse)...
Re:One question... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:42 · Score: 0

But then it's not a _real_ iMac anymore, is it? It's part iMac part Real Mac... ;-)
Re:One question... by screeching+weasel · 1999-12-01 23:34 · Score: 1

ahh!
thank you. it's about time. i was getting worried that there wouldn't be any "iMac's suck" posts here. what the hell is slashdot doing posting this story anyway... what does it have to do with linux?
(sarcasm).

Big Deal by lameland · 1999-11-30 22:23 · Score: 1

On the technical side, yeah this is cool, but why does anyone want an iMac? Because of the interesting case.
This guy has just put a computer into the same old beige case...Been there, done that

Re:Big Deal by Score+Whore · 1999-11-30 22:44 · Score: 1

...but why does anyone want an iMac?

Not owning a laptop, and not being willing to leave my stash of computer related Christmas gifts until I get back home after the holidays, I always haul my computer to my parents place. And every year I wish that it wasn't such a pain to haul around all the extra pieces of equipment. If I could get a nice monitor/PC combo, I'd be pretty happy.

-sw
Re:Big Deal by Hobbex · 1999-11-30 23:04 · Score: 1

If that monitor was a 21 inch, you wouldn't be. Get an old 15 inch monitor and stack it at your parents house instead, its probably cheaper than the price/performance difference between PC and Mac.

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:56 · Score: 0

maybe to get work done?
Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 04:23 · Score: 0

What he said. That is exactly the point I would have liked to make. The design is what makes the iMac, so this frankenstein creation is a sterile bastardization.

What about the linearity of the montior? by color+of+static · 1999-11-30 22:24 · Score: 3

Monitors over 17 inchs tend to be very particular about anything being in their cases and the linearity of the display. That's why most of them have magnets glued in random place inside the case. Some guy sits and watches the picture while magnets are moved around the back (there was talk of an automated test jig seven years ago, but the one I was going to be involved with wasn't built and I haven't heard of any others). How much did this change that? Does the color get washed out when the CD spins up?

Then again an Imac owner is probably more concerned with the look of the machine then the quality or performance. "I don't want my desk cluttered." or "This matches the decor of my office." Hell none of them match the soldiering iron in mine.

Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by Zibby · 1999-11-30 22:53 · Score: 1

I've never looked inside an iMac, but I'd guess that the the components that aren't related to the monitor are at least partially shielded. I know I woulnd't want my sound card floating around in my monitor unshielded. Recording mp3s to MD gives me enough noise as it is.

--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by emmons · 1999-11-30 23:50 · Score: 4

It's been a while, but as I remember the iMac has essentially 2 fairly distinct parts. The Monitor/shell part and the computer part. The computer (well motherboard at least) part can be unscrewed from the bottem and taken out (lots of scews, in bad places). The bottem of the monitor half is shielded. And damn, those things are a bitch to put back together. 20 different sized screws. I'd love to see the manufacturing process for one of those thigns.

-----

--
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:11 · Score: 0

My guess is he uses te DeGauss Button a lot... ;-)

Maybe he was careful enough to put a little metal sheilding around the CDRom and other magnetic feild emitting devices to bring down any magnetic feilds they emit. Fortunately, he wasn't building a new case for the monitor, so it is properly positioned in its original case, and he probably didn't move the magnets on the neck of the tube...

Or maybe he just lives with the Pshychedelic colours, I mean, he is a Mac user, and Mac users are mostly hippies, right?
Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by slashdot-me · 1999-12-01 02:51 · Score: 1

> Hell none of them match the soldiering iron in mine.

Get a new iron. Fry's has a nifty blue / translucent soldering iron. Hakko is the manufacturer. I have the 20W model, works great.
Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by Bald+Wookie · 1999-12-01 04:48 · Score: 1

One of my monitors is very sensitive to any magnetic fields around it. I couldnt imagine trying to put anything at all in there. Even supposedly shileded speakers give it the purple bends from a respectable distance. None of my other monitors are this sensitive. Maybe the 21 incher he was using turned out to be fairly insensitive. I've seen some problems with larger Dell monitors at work, but haven't ever used this brand.

A side question:
I got a freebie 15" monitor to use with one of my Linux boxen. It has a small purple magenetic "monitor scar" just about in the middle. No wonder it was free... Anyway it works fine using the CLI, but under X it can be a bit annoying. Any suggestions for a fix?

-BW
Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 06:40 · Score: 0

Actually your close. The Idea of a computer part and a monitor part is about right. It is cake to pull out the computer part it has at most (4 screws on a REV a iMac) 3 on a C or D. It's soo dam easy however there is the distinct possibility of dropping a screw into the case if you are not carefull. Bottem part of the imac has the CPU board, ram, Logic Board, Hard Disk, CD. Not the Top part is a good 40 screws at least, it's somewhat servicable for a monitor, and you can pull and replace any part in there in less that half an hour if you are good. However you need another 10 minutes to recalibrate the color. The biggest technical hurdel this I mac would suffer from is that there are two boards on either side of the CRT on to of an iMac. everything is wired togather, One board is the Power Supply board the other is the Analog/Video Board. I'm shure the large monitor had it's owen powersupply and it did not do "Tricle Power" for the imac muchless have those spair connectors. The top part yould be one test of wiring unless for some reason he was just able to fit one CRT cap on another and they worked!
Re:What about the linearity of the montior? by emmons · 1999-12-02 21:50 · Score: 1

I was close then, like I said... it's been a while.

-----

--
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.

Ugh...look what the angry mob did. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:24 · Score: 0

Looks like you all killed the iMac they were using to host the site. Anyone got a mirror up?

AC/DC = Anonymous Cowards Don't Care

Re:Ugh...look what the angry mob did. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:39 · Score: 0

Netcraft says:
www.macaddict.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/2.0a on IRIX

One Year Warranty by Sethb · 1999-11-30 22:25 · Score: 3

Actually, he probably didn't void his warranty. Apple only has one-year warranties, and he said it was a first generation iMac. I assume he means the Bondi Blue ones. I don't know how Apple gets away with only offering one year when Gateway, Dell, Quantex, etc. all offer three-year warranties on their hardware. I've still got Pentium 166 machines under warranty. Gateway sends me 4 gig drives when their 2 gig drives fail, but I'm not complaining.

The flip side is that there's nothing lost by modifying your Apple hardware after one year. I had a beige G3 233, and I overclocked it to 300 the day before the warranty expired. Apple sticks a big VOID sticker across the jumpers, and also uses a big plastic block of jumpers, so you have to go find some of the right size if you want to modify the settings. When I saw that, it pissed me off so much, I had to overclock it.
---

--
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein

Re:One Year Warranty by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:43 · Score: 1

What's to keep you from completely removing the "Void" sticker, then if you have to send it in for waranty work, claim it never had a sticker on it. If you play dumb and are persistent long enough with any companies customer service (asking to talk to the manager, his/her manager, etc.), you can get anything done.
Re:One Year Warranty by TheCarp · 1999-11-30 22:50 · Score: 2

Don't even have to....
A few years back it was ruled in court that
opening up a machine and making changes
can NOT void a warrenty.

However it was stated that the user would have to
restore the hardware (ie take out any additions
and replace anything removed) before the company
could be required to honor the warranty.

Of course...they still use the "Void if opened"
etc clauses...mostly because it scares most people
away ;)

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:One Year Warranty by Mendax+Veritas · 1999-12-01 00:00 · Score: 1

I don't know how Apple gets away with only offering one year when Gateway, Dell, Quantex, etc. all offer three-year warranties on their hardware.

It's because Apple has a monopoly on Macs. Gateway, Dell, etc. are irrelevant; if you want a Mac, you buy it from Apple and you take whatever warranty they feel like offering. Besides, people buy Macs for religious reasons. Most of them probably neither know nor care what the warranty is like. The important thing to them is that having a Mac is righteous.
Re:One Year Warranty by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:16 · Score: 1

>It's because Apple has a monopoly on Macs.

And Ford has a "monopoly" on the Taurus. So what? You need to look up the definition of a monopoly.

>Besides, people buy Macs for religious reasons.

That's a pointless (and totally wrong) generalization. I bought my Macs because I like to get work done. No religion involved.
Re:One Year Warranty by fordp · 1999-12-01 00:19 · Score: 1

I don't suspose you know the state the case was in, the case name or anything like that.

Being able to say "Smith Vs ShaftCorp in 1996 ruled that you have to honor my warranty after I modified it given that I return it to its original form, which I have." would speed up calls to those pestersome people I talk to about RMA's
Re:One Year Warranty by Trailer+Trash · 1999-12-01 00:41 · Score: 1

And Ford has a "monopoly" on the Taurus. So what? You need to look up the definition of a monopoly.

The original poster is "more correct". Apple has a monopoly on Macs. While only Ford makes Tauruses, it's reasonable to say that most other cars are interchangeable with a Taurus, so Ford doesn't have a monopoly on cars.

Mac's are only partially interchangeable with PC's (otherwise, nobody would buy a Mac), so they have a limited monopoly in a limited sense.

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:One Year Warranty by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:00 · Score: 0

Just to be the most accurate, I'd say it's like Apple owning a monopoly on Gasoline cars. :-) I say this because some parts from a Mac (eg, the HD, and the CD roms, and sometimes monitor) are interchangeable with PC parts. Just like, for example, a radio from a Diesel car can be used in a Gasoline car... ;-)

There, now that should satisfy everyone!
Re:One Year Warranty by keytoe · 1999-12-01 02:45 · Score: 1

Who the hell cares how long the warranty is: they very rarely break! I've got every mac I've ever owned (Except for the little IIsi I used for a 'project' and consequently 'broke' :) since 1984 sitting on a little network running TCP through a linux box providing NAT services. They may have short warranties, but I've only had to cash in on a service repair once - and that was for a monitor with a known manufacturing defect (they replaced the whole thing - twice. It's good to know the local service folk ;)
Now, I have seen drives fail - but c'mon: who really cares about that? Apple usually sticks to fairly high quality drives (nevermind the recent switch to IDE - that's a different issue). But you probably paid more for that drive in the original manufacturing cost than it would cost you to upgrade to a drive 8 times the capacity and 32 times as fast...
Addendum: Yes, even my little Mac Plus can do email and telnet (using a localtalk router running on a 6100). I've been toying with the idea of setting up my old Apple IIe (which also still works just fine) as a dumb terminal, but getting any software onto one of those stupid old Apple formatted 5.25 floppies is a real bitch... So many useless hacks, so little time.

--
Culture is more than commerce
Re:One Year Warranty by DukeofURL · 1999-12-01 03:17 · Score: 1

You do have a brain right? Apple does indeed have a monopoly on macs especially the iMac. Haven't you heard about other companies making look alike imacs but they are pc's and apple sues the pants off them just because it looks like an imac. If you want a Mac you can only get one from Apple you can't go to Intel.com and say "duh I wanna buy a mac please". That is a monopoly pure and simple. Your tauraus reference makes no sense at all. Also he didn't mean religous as in Christianity either moron. He meant it as, let's say for example I eat at Micky D's every single day for lunch. I can then say to someone I go there religously. Not that I go there because I am baptist. He means that Mac people are the type of people that only want to use Macs. Unlike me, I have owned Dells, Gateways, home built, etc so I am not religous in the type of system I want to use.
Re:One Year Warranty by jafac · 1999-12-01 04:42 · Score: 1

My G3 Beige 233 had to be returned because of the crappy VRAM socket clip broke when they installed the VRAM. They sent me a new (prolly refurbed) mobo, that the service center replaced. It had no sticker on the jumper block. I overclocked it and it's been humming along at 300 ever since. Word of caution - keep the case well ventilated. The stock cooling works fine, as long as you make sure a plentiful supply of cool air is available outside the case, to be drawn in. Once I took that simple measure, overheating/instability disappeard forever. It's been going great at 300 for over a year now. I'm faithful that it will survive long enough for the Rev 2 sawtooths to come out, so I can replace it.

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:One Year Warranty by bmetzler · 1999-12-01 06:00 · Score: 2

Apple does indeed have a monopoly on macs especially the iMac. Haven't you heard about other companies making look alike imacs but they are pc's and apple sues the pants off them just because it looks like an imac. If you want a Mac you can only get one from Apple you can't go to Intel.com and say "duh I wanna buy a mac please". That is a monopoly pure and simple.
Isn't anyone else sick of this thread yet? I mean, get real, there's nothing to disagree on here. The statement that Apple is a monopoly is 100%, no doubt about it, pur, factual, truth. Apple has a monopoly. No one in the legal field would question that.

The point you are all missing is that being a monopoly is not illegal. That is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with being the only company you are able to buy a product from. What is illegal is *forcing* consumers from buying competitors products.

For instance, if I had a business that needed Mac's, and yet I used PC's for 3/4's of my desktop, and Apple said that wouldn't sell me any Mac's unless I replaced all my PC's, then what would I have to do. If my core business requires either buying Mac's or I go out of business, then I *must* replace all my PC's. At which time, Apple would be abusing their monopoly powers, and the DoJ would likely file an anti-trust suit. However, I know of no case where Apple has done this. Do you?

Compare that to Microsoft, where I can't buy BeOS preloaded on my PC's because MS would revoke OEM's Licensing Agreement. If I need Windows, I'm kind of stuck with getting systems preloaded with Windows only. Same thing with Netscape, and others. *That* is the reason for the anti-trust suit. Not because MS was a Monopoly. Of course, it had to be proved that they were a monopoly first, to prove that they have the power to abuse.
-Brent
--
Re:One Year Warranty by Darth+Hubris · 1999-12-01 23:36 · Score: 1

Apple makes Macintoshes, period. If you're implying that I can use another computer and run Mac OS, you're way off base. The two-year-old clones do not count. If Jobs hadn't have taken one too many tubs of acid, he'd be in federal court along side Gates as a co-defendant.

Mac Clones have been looked on as a Bad Thing[tm], and that it would cut into Apple's sales. I don't remember who posted it, but they compared Apple's relationship with the clone manufacturers with IBM's situation: Would you rather have 100% of a $100 million industry, or 5% of a $1 billion industry?

The Mac could take off and take off big if Apple would pull their heads out of their asses.

--
The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out

Ole fashioned hacking by Fesh · 1999-11-30 22:27 · Score: 3

Well, that beats the heck out of the time I cut the 3.5" drive bays out of my mid-tower case with a hacksaw so it would accomodate Asus' baseboard/processor daughtercard system. Bystanders outside in the dorm courtyard thought it was funny as hell though... And I still haven't gotten around to actually using the second socket 7!

I feel for the guy. On one job I had I ended up splicing a monitor cable extender from Radio Shack onto an old IBM PS/2 monitor because I didn't have any more parts to cannibalize from monitors that were lying around... The guts of monitors are not fun things to mess around with.

--Fesh

--
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.

Re:Ole fashioned hacking by HalloFlippy · 1999-11-30 22:44 · Score: 1

The guts of monitors are not fun things to mess around with.
Tell me about it. About two months before I finally graduated from a 486 to a pentium, my monitor suddenly wouldn't come on. Turned out the one-click-does-it-all power button was stuck in the off position. Opened the case, couldn't free it. So I just shorted around it by soldering in extra wire, and did the on/off thing the old fashioned way: plug in, unplug. Unfortunately, on my first try, it turned out I had shorted the hot to ground. Thank heaven for circuit breakers. :)

--

I am a man of const int sorrows
Re:Ole fashioned hacking by technos · 1999-11-30 23:11 · Score: 3

They're really not fun when they're hot. I've been knocked out a few times by flyback voltage when working on monitors, and you always wake up with a pounding headache and aching muscles. Usually it was because someone handed me the UNINSULATED screwdriver by mistake, or because someone distracted me, or because I was too drunk to be making that kind of adjustment) Monochrome monitors (Herc, or those bastard Cornerstone 21's) are the worst. Most modern 15/17 inch VGA monitors hardly hurt at all. They're actually nicer than 120 vac, but I wouldn't want to hold on to the lead.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!
Re:Ole fashioned hacking by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:57 · Score: 0

Monochrome monitors (Herc, or those bastard Cornerstone 21's) are the worst.

I remember working on a Cornerstone mono card, and the damn thing started to smoke! OOPS! Power off! Checking it out later, it looked defective not (the usual) operator error. My contact at Cornerstone was unphased when I mentioned what happend. Seems that quite a few cards just burst into flames back then.
Re:Ole fashioned hacking by Accipiter · 1999-12-01 03:46 · Score: 2

That reminds me of my older AT case. I had to get a pair of cutters, and cut out the 5 Pin keyboard hole to make room for the newer motherboard with 2 PS/2 ports. I think many of us have done THAT one.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

--
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)
Re:Ole fashioned hacking by Jaeger · 1999-12-01 06:13 · Score: 1

http://jaeger .festing.org/digitalpics/pics/analog/new/fest_july _1.jpg
We were trying to cut the drive mounting bracket so another motheboard and a cpu fan would fit. The operation was successful, but it was moot because the board (or the chip) was toast.
Re:Ole fashioned hacking by archmedes5 · 1999-12-01 07:40 · Score: 1

Heh, I had to do that with Three cases, with Baby at boards with builtin ps2 ports.
Dremmel Tool works really nice for that.

--
Stupid is as stupid dies.
Re:Ole fashioned hacking by technos · 1999-12-01 20:58 · Score: 2

Geez.. We have a few of those over in Legal still.
I always wondered why they had scorch marks on the etching!

Olivetti/AT+T used to make one based on a Herc chip that was infamous for going up in smoke. The manual for the 3836-16 even has a step in the setup proceedure where you pop the case open and check for smoke. Thankfully, they only ever shipped 'em on Unix boxes, so the operator was a little more prepared to deal with a flaming computer than most.

--
.sig: Now legally binding!

Heh... by justin_saunders · 1999-11-30 22:28 · Score: 5

Ok wise guy - now try that with a Palm Pilot...

Cheers,
Justin

--

"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.

Re:Heh... by QDerf · 1999-11-30 23:52 · Score: 1

hehe what exactly do you mean? fit a palmpilot in a 21 incher, or fit the imac inside the palm? :) option A would be so geekly useless and funny, I think someone should do something about it

Macintosh by fatass · 1999-11-30 22:29 · Score: 2

I learned the basics of TCP network stuff on a mac SE a long time ago :) I wish my SE had a 21" monitor, and Mac's are not bad machines.... just severely overpriced. You just don't see many of them because of the WIntel man holding us down :)

--
Scirocco! It's not just a car its a way of life!

Re:Macintosh by TheCarp · 1999-11-30 22:46 · Score: 1

I have always liked the Apple machines. Even if
their architecture may have left a thing or two
to be desired (read Alan Cox article in linux
journal about kernel porting where he assets that
part of the reason Apple didin't release all the
specs on some of the old Macs is "Embarrasment")

However, the quality of manafacture always seemd
very high. Their cases have traditionally sucked
to work on (im sorry, I shouldn't need to remove
the power suply to add more RAM) but the actual
logic boards seem to have a very low failure rate.

I have seen 15 year old Macs, still chugging away.
The main problems I have had with Macs have tended
to be stupid shit, like the heavy insistnce on
1 button mice, and their seeming refusal to
participate with open standards.
(for a long time...maybe even today, I don't know
it was impossible to get documentation on the
lowlevel HFS filesystem, unless you were a big
company like symantec and had very deep pockets)

Other than that, their promises of "II Forever"
then promptly killing off the II line by
introducing a great new II, the GS, then killing
it off. Well I didn't like that. I still have my
GS BTW.

Other things I liked about Macs was SCSI, they
always used SCSI (until recently when, and perhaps
once long ago I think they trid an IDE model but
didn't stick with it)

That and the Apple Desktop Buss for both mouse
and keyboard could be chained. That was nice.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Macintosh by sarhjinian · 1999-12-01 02:24 · Score: 1

However, the quality of manafacture always seemd high. Their cases have traditionally sucked to work on (im sorry, I shouldn't need to remove the power suply to add more RAM)

Actually, Apple has made some pretty good cases as well: the Quadra 605, 610/660, PowerMac 61xx, 7300, x600, G3 and G4s and the PowerBook 1400 were all really, really easy to take apart. Ask a salesperson to demo how easy it is to add a hard drive or more RAM to a G4 and just let your jaw drop. I used to own a 6100av and, man, what a nice repair that was -- two snap-tabs to open the whole case

They've also released some terrible machines: the Plus, SE, PowerBook anything-but-the-1400, the Quadra 800/PowerMac 8100/8500. I used to dread taking apart our office's Quadra 840av: it had to be almost completely dissasembled. The Duo Dock was even worse.

Apple's current strategy seems to be designed around letting people muck with the high-end machines (because if you're buying a G4, you're probably going to stuff it full of more RAM or faster disks) while locking down the consumer systems. This makes some sense: I've met some scary end-users who've done awesomely awful things to their systems because they had enough knowledge to take them apart, but not enough to be reasonably careful

The main problems I have had with Macs have tended to be stupid shit, like the heavy insistnce on 1 button mice

I happen to like the one-button mouse. No assumptions about left- or right-handedness. Plus, people like my father who used to be completely vilified by my Amiga's two mouse buttons (to the point where he never used it) really likes his iMac.

Other things I liked about Macs was SCSI, they always used SCSI (until recently when, and perhaps once long ago I think they trid an IDE model but didn't stick with it)

Actually, all modern Macs (save for the professional PowerBook G3s) come with IDE standard and SCSI as an add-on card. If you take a peak in the SCSI-equipped G4s, you'll see (I think, but don't quote me on this) either an Adaptec PowerDomain 2930 or 2940 series card. Professional Macs have been IDE-standard since the beige G3s, consumer Macs since the Performa 63xx and PowerBooks since the 190/2300/5300

--
--srj/mmv

Yes... it is down... Mirror anyone? by ryleyb · 1999-11-30 22:31 · Score: 1

Down for me too... although I don't think putting the whole 404 page in your comment was worthwhile...

slashdotted already... by T-Ranger · 1999-11-30 22:31 · Score: 1

The mainpage diddnt even show a count of messages and this page looks slashdotted.

Its one thing for someones departmental server that happenes to have httpd running be /.ed.. But something like macaddict? Now thats fucked up.

It would be interesting to see if we can get some logs from them in about this time, since there proably a big volume site anyway.

Of course they coud just be running there site off a 5200 or something :)

It's Alive! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:33 · Score: 0

It's alive!... (sinister laugh) it's alive!!!!

/. Strikes again??? by TheCarp · 1999-11-30 22:34 · Score: 1

***
A network error occurred while Netscape was receiving data.
(Network Error: Connection reset by peer)

Try connecting again.
***

heh every time I try to access the server I get
this. Too bad, id love to see this beast.

Now if apple only had the sense to do this
in the first place (including using a beige
case...I have such an urge to buy a damned iwhack
just to paint it beige...or better yet...in true
Apple tradition... "Platnum"

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:is the link down? by treat · 1999-11-30 22:34 · Score: 2

Wow, that's quite an error message! Over 200 words, and at no point did it give out any information about the actual problem.

And the sad thing is, that's the way things are going. Longer, more confusing error messages, with less information.

Man! we slashdotted it. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:37 · Score: 0

We Slashdotted the server!
That was worse than the "neo-hippies" or whatever they were!
I wonder if an angry server admin from that site will call up Taco and say that the slashdot effect is indeed an attempt by a group of mac haters to perform a DOS attack on his server.

Come to think of it, i wonder if slashdot ever gets slashdotted?

From the oops-i-didn't-mean-to-hit-refresh-600-times department

Why not use a 21" Color Sync Monitor? by vitaflo · 1999-11-30 22:37 · Score: 1

Heck, if he REALLY wanted to go all out, he could have baught a 21" Apple Color Sync Monitor and rigged that bad boy to have the guts of an iMac.

All the iCandy of the iMac with the big screen appeal.

Or, if he was REALLY good, he'd rig one of those Apple Cinema Displays to do a similar thing. How to do this without changing the laws of phyics however is beyond my comprehension.

SLASHDOTTED BIZATCH! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:37 · Score: 0

Hah hah. You guys manage to destroy every small website you get a link to. I don't even get to SEE half these articles. But I bet the webmasters get some great load testing from the stampede. Not that they would appreciate it when they're screaming as they're trying desperately to restart httpd. Dopey dopey dopey.

Re:is the link down? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:37 · Score: 1

I think it is time you talk to your ISP and find a nice proxy you can connect to.

Sometimes those 386 SX 25MHz Linux boxes with 4 Mb RAM has problems coping with more than a million hits per. second. because the ISA bus run out of bandwidth.

BiGMAC ATTACK! by Yohahn · 1999-11-30 22:37 · Score: 1

Way to many jokes to be made here:
(perhaps I should trademark this so I can sell it... better yet.. patent "The usage of punny names based on product name in the sale of overpriced proprietary hardware".)

Just wait till the fast food chain and Apple really do match up... will they have the iMac Apple pie?

Perhaps the cashier will ask "would you like linux with that?"

The computers will only come in bright yellow with a big arch over the main screen...

I don't know... A comedian, I am not... I'll go back to programming at my day job now! :)

Hermaphrodite by matman · 1999-11-30 22:39 · Score: 1

Well, what he needs now is a custom sculpted case. heheh. I made a hermaphrodite case/coffee table out of paper mache and wood. ehhe the power button is mounted in the end of the penis and the nipples are my LEDs. :) its helluh. the power supply and hard drive are hanging by wires and the CDROM and floppy disk are sitting atop of the table :)

Re:Hermaphrodite by luserSPAZ · 1999-11-30 22:49 · Score: 1

I think you're a sick, sick man. Do you have any pictures of this case? :)
-Ted
Re:Hermaphrodite by matman · 1999-11-30 23:36 · Score: 1

i'll take some :) and i think i'll make a web page of odd computer cases. hehe :) maybe i'll submit the link to slashdot hehe :)

netcraft results by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:43 · Score: 0

reports they are using apache 1.3.9 on solaris. We probably caught them switching from mac os x.

Try again :o) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:43 · Score: 2

Without the CGI: http://www.macaddict.com/exclusive/9911/imac21.htm l

P.U.R.G.E Save my live !

course there is a limit to this imagination... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:45 · Score: 0

The limit comes in somewhere when you try to have a full screen projection TV or a wall-mount 60" flat screen with the guts of the I mac. I think it would get annoying to have to get off the couch to put the CD into the wall.
just a thought.

Re:course there is a limit to this imagination... by InfoVore · 1999-12-01 00:30 · Score: 1

Nope. That is what your Aibo is for:

"Here Aibo, here Aibo. Good boy. Now put this Myth II CD in that little slot over there..."

IV

--
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon

Re:is the link down? by Score+Whore · 1999-11-30 22:47 · Score: 1

That's the message that MS has decided is appropriate in all situations where IE 5 can't display a proper page. It doesn't matter what the problem is, you get that message. Too bad their option to turn off "Friendly error messages" doesn't seem to do anything. :(

-sw

the /. effect strikes again! by Anitra · 1999-11-30 22:47 · Score: 0

Glad I saw this before it went down. Looks pretty cool. Too bad the server can't handle it. Just another reason to run linux on your iMac...

http://www.imaclinux.net

--

Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?

Re:the /. effect strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:20 · Score: 0

They aren't running off a mac.
Plus Linux's TCP/IP stack is shitty.
So what the fuck are you talking about?
Re:the /. effect strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:50 · Score: 0

Funny, I was just thinking how nice it would be if slashdot ran their server on something other than Linux which could handle the load. I have to say, I actually have slower downloads, and more problems connecting to it than most other sites.

Maybe Slashdot should change from Linux to Apache on OSX (sorry for the blatant flame, but come on, all this we brought your server down stuff gets a little old sometimes, especially when slashdot runs so slow sometimes and fails to pull up pages. Ever hear about throwing stones at glass houses?)
Re:the /. effect strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:48 · Score: 0

Now don't you go picking on Linux's TCP/IP stack.

The poor little thing...

iMac case just a rehash of old DEC (vt100?) terms by PALCE22V10-H4 · 1999-11-30 22:51 · Score: 1

If I had an iMac I would put lots of blinkenlights inside the case that would groove (a la BeBox) with internal cpu,disk,etc. activity. Don't know if it has been done but would be very in-sync for crimbo (tasteless)

On topic: Yes, the iMac could do with being a little less sweetshop and more mutant, a 15" and a 17" side by side is very Igor ("yes maaashter, riiight awaaay")

--
"Its not a bug its a feature" -- M$ "Its not a feature its a bug" -- GPL

A lot of work for no reason! by Archeopteryx · 1999-11-30 22:51 · Score: 3

It is *simple* to attach a larger moniter to a first generation iMac!

* Pull off the case back.

* Unscrew the built in monitor's cable. (Its a standard connector.)

* Connect your big monitor. You may need one of those Belkin MacVGA adaptors.

I have run an NEC Multisync XL on my iMac in exactly this fashion.

Also Griffin makes an adaptor that moves the connector off to the side panel so you can video mirror onto both displays.

--
Dog is my co-pilot.

Re:A lot of work for no reason! by emmons · 1999-12-01 00:01 · Score: 1

yeah but that kinda misses the point. what point? um..

nevermind.

-----

--
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Re:A lot of work for no reason! by pfingst · 1999-12-01 00:07 · Score: 1

True, there may be easier/better ways to go about giving your iMac a bigger monitor, but let's face it - half the fun of this is the coolness factor involved. The point is not just to give an iMac a bigger monitor, but to try to merge an iMac with a 21" monitor just to see if it can be done.
Mark
Re:A lot of work for no reason! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:53 · Score: 0

If you read the article, you will see that he did exactly that; at first.

But then he didn't want the "extra" little monitor to be there... and so the project began.

At school, saw one image, then site went belly up by [kilroy] · 1999-11-30 22:54 · Score: 1

Sigh, research day in my Health class... while looking up Athletes foot, i ran accross this, i went to the site, to my suprise, only the center frame worked and with only one image. After that it crashed...

Anyway, Nice way to get a biger monitor on a piece of crap. Now its just a larger piece of crap :)

Whats the point by FORTYoz · 1999-11-30 22:54 · Score: 0

Why would you buy such a non-upgradable computer in the first place if you were just gonna hack it to bits, not like you'd buy the imac for its speed or its price (both suck), but probably for its looks.

Re:Whats the point by hoppy · 1999-11-30 23:08 · Score: 1

Because ther is NO FAN in new iMac and said Confucius before No Fan No Noise...
Re:Whats the point by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 06:30 · Score: 0

mmh.. Yes butit is an old version of the iMac that guy used... Look at the CD rom drive... the new iMac has just a slot as a CD ROM drive.. oviously this one had a tray...

Silly Computers by silvwolf · 1999-11-30 22:54 · Score: 1

What's up with the wave of computers/monitors built into one case nowadays? Gateway has em now, iMac craze, any others? The idea has been around for quite a while. No, not the old Macs with 3" monitors or whatever they were. We had a Compaq 486/25 (think it was a Presario model, I don't remember) with the monitor and computer in one. 14" monitor I think it was. 4mb RAM, ~200MB hard disk. No high speed serial port so I had to install a serial card to get that external 14.4 modem working. No CD-ROM, no sound, but this was around 92 or 93. I don't see the big attraction to having everything built into one box. But that's just me.

Re:Silly Computers by mcamou · 1999-11-30 23:39 · Score: 1

Remember the old Radio Shack Model III? Waaaaaayyy back in prehistory (the early '80s, guess I'm dating myself!). Roaring fast 4 MHz Z80 CPU...oodles of RAM (48K)...5 1/4" floppy drives where you actually had to punch through the disk envelope to use both sides... those were the days... You could even write in lowercase!!!!!
Re:Silly Computers by SimJockey · 1999-12-01 00:02 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the first computer I ever bought was an all-in-one. I thought it was going to really catch on at the time, in 1987. It was an IBM PS/2 with an 8086 (8 MHz??), 14" monitor, 3.5 floppy and a 20 MB HD. I remember clearly springing an extra $200 or something to upgrade the RAM from 512K to 640K. My parents sold it at a garage sale while I was at school, otherwise it would have made a great aquarium. Or a dedicated file server for my HP48. :)

--
Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
Re:Silly Computers by rc-flyer · 1999-12-01 00:21 · Score: 1

You obviously haven't been around long enough. Anybody else remember the old Commodore Pet, with the chiklet keyboard and cassette tape backup? Great concept for the time, was the first I remember having the all-in-one concept.

--
-- Error: Cannot find file REALITY.SYS - Universe halted, please reboot!
Re:Silly Computers by the+phantom · 1999-12-01 00:42 · Score: 1

Okay, as long as we are talking about single unit machines (ie monitor, cpu etc. all in one box), let me tell you about my first machine. I don't remember exactly, but it had something like:
64 K RAM (more? less? I don't remember)
2 5 1/4" floppy drives
a cute little 7-9" green monitor
4 Mhz processor (again, I don't really remember)

Yes, it was a KAYPRO. I used it for everything until I got a Mac II in '94. Because of this machine, I learned to write BASIC almost as soon as I learned to read! And best of all, it still works! Though I use my new G3 for just about everthing now (it's the first machine I've ever owned capable of running Linux!).

--
Rhapsody in Numbers

Put a PC in the old case... by EnglishTim · 1999-11-30 22:55 · Score: 1

He should put a PC104 motherboard in the old case and run Windows on it - you might be able to get it to run with the iMac USB Mouse and Keyboard... I'd love to see an iMac with the W98 bootup screen on it... (or the BSOD ;)

Look before you leap by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:57 · Score: 1

If any of you so eager to insult (and annoy) the people running an ordinary website were to look at the previous article you would realize you can get the server platform from NetCraft. The server failure you so eagerly blame on Mac hardware is an SGI machine running Netscape Enterprise 2.0a on IRIX.

Re:Look before you leap by spacey · 1999-11-30 23:39 · Score: 1

netscape 2 on an SGI is the least stable web server I've had the dubious pleasure of admin'ing. Right now the server admin is looking at a load of 666 and an equivelant number of locked netscape threads that can't be killed. The system has to reboot to be useable again.

Things like this are why SGI isn't an admin's favorite unix, and why netscape isn't a dominant server.

-Peter

--
== Just my opinion(s)

SCSI/IDE by BJH · 1999-11-30 22:57 · Score: 1

All the Macs now, unless specifically ordered in a SCSI configuration, use IDE.

The model you're referring to is probably the LC/Quadra 630, which was indeed the first desktop Mac to use IDE. It's not that long ago - as I recall, the 630 came out in '94 or thereabouts.

Re:SCSI/IDE by Delphis · 1999-11-30 23:46 · Score: 1

... It's not that long ago - as I recall, the 630 came out in '94 or thereabouts.

Hmmm.. 5 years IS a bloody long time in computing circles. 5 years ago 486's were about the mainstream thing weren't they? .. and of course a lot of 386's in use too I'd have thought. It's amazing how fast everything changes..
--

--
Delphis

Re:is the link down? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 22:59 · Score: 0

The last time I checked, anything below a millon hits a second on a 386 are supported.

Apple - solid company, give the guy some respect by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 23:04 · Score: 0

Man, i remember the apple IIgs.
It remains the reason why i still say macs are good computers, if it weren't for software support.
gs stood for Graphics and Sound, which it had that blew my mind. We had 4 MB of ram in that sucker. It's where i learned my first programming ever - on Applesoft Basic.
So if this dude wants to have his iMac, let him have it, its a solid computer, and that motorolla chip is a solid piece of work.

You know when... by jd · 1999-11-30 23:05 · Score: 2

...you've watched too much "Blue Peter", when you expect to hear it was all done with cardboard and sticky-back plastic. :)

Personally, I think this is cool. Now all he has to do is build a second 17" monitor onto the side, and he's got a stereoscopic display. :)

(Mind you, the magnetic fields must wreck havoc with the computer's internals!)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Apple - solid company, give the guy some respec by TheCarp · 1999-11-30 23:20 · Score: 1

Yup the GS rocked...used it right up till
1996. Great machine.

Course...I never said he can't have his imac.
It was just the II line stuff that pissed _ME_
off at apple (they do seem to shoot themselves
in the foot every few years don't they?)

Hell The GS was probably one of the last machines
to ship with a ROM BASIC. I learned to program on
Applesoft BASIC...then moved up to ByteWorks
Orca/C compiler...got Orca/M just before I stopped
using the GS.

Now if I could only get one of the Linux IIGS
emulators to work...I could hook up my old
SCSI hard drive and have a blast with all the
old Games etc. Not to mention FTA Demos and all
that good stuff.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Bad idea, IMHO by DragonHawk · 1999-11-30 23:31 · Score: 2

Because ther is NO FAN in new iMac and said Confucius before No Fan No Noise...

Yeah, and if you leave one of them new iMac's on all day, the rear vents get hot enough to fry an egg! I nearly burned myself touching them in a CompUSA display. Leaving out the fan was a bad idea, IMHO. With the monitor, hard drive, and video card all packed into such a tight space, overheating is going to be a serious problem.

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.

Re:Bad idea, IMHO by rob+colonna · 1999-12-01 01:21 · Score: 1

Really? Might it be as warm as, say, your 15" monitor? i know my Sony display gets pretty toasty. Try feeling underneath the computer. It's room temperature. Most people don't notice it, but that's where the motherboard is. The monitor heats the air in the center of the machine, which rises, and exits through the top. Cooler air enters through the bottom to replace it, running across the motherboard, cooling the good stuff. It's a really good common-sense solution to the problem.
Re:Bad idea, IMHO by DragonHawk · 1999-12-01 01:45 · Score: 1

Might it be as warm as, say, your 15" monitor?

No, but that is because my 15" monitor hasn't been plugged in for several months. But it was also much warmer then my 19" Samsung monitor is, which has been on all day.

Try feeling underneath the computer.

Heat rises.

The monitor heats the air in the center of the machine, which rises, and exits through the top. Cooler air enters through the bottom to replace it, running across the motherboard, cooling the good stuff.

Perhaps the motherboard really is staying cool enough. I don't know, and I doubt CompUSA is going to let me open one up to check. My point is mainly that there is an awful lot of thermal energy coming off the top of that case, to the point where boosting air flow with a fan is in order.

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.

It's not system load, it's all bandwidth. by Wakko+Warner · 1999-11-30 23:32 · Score: 2

Most sites simply don't have a wide enough pipe to shove all the http requests through. Anything faster than an early Pentium ought to be able to handle a few hits a second without breaking a sweat, which is about what you can expect while "being slashdotted" (see here for exact numbers - it's about 5 hits per second). This is certainly not enough to put any sort of strain on the machine itself. Whether or not it can actually pump the data out onto the network quick enough is another matter entirely. (Here's a hint: If you've only got a T1, you're SOL. If you've got anything less, you may as well turn the machine off.)

-A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

off-topic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 23:35 · Score: 0

Um, CmdrTaco, or Hemos, or one of you fruits:
You should work out an e-mail warning system to warn these sites that they'll be in the news. MacAddict.com is being Slashdotted so bad now that their page won't even load 50% of the time.

Re:off-topic by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:07 · Score: 0

MacAddict sucks far more than Apple

Mirror here by Magnifico · 1999-11-30 23:35 · Score: 2

Here is a mirror: http://metalab.unc.edu/TH/bigmac/imac2 1.html. It is only partial since it was reconstructed from my browser's cache. I hope it helps out.

you forg by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 23:43 · Score: 0

> You just don't see many of them because of the > WIntel man holding us down :)

Yeah, that and they suck Rob's balls.

Don't be a baby and blame the Wintel man. Go get an Athlon and a free *nix. Or a Sun, if you can afford it.

Re:At school, saw one image, then site went belly by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-30 23:48 · Score: 0

>a piece of crap

You mean a compact Open Firmware & PCI motherboard with a RISC processor designed by IBM and Motorola?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 1999-11-30 23:48 · Score: 4

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What a concept... by otis+wildflower · 1999-11-30 23:52 · Score: 2

... A Mac-in-the-box, with the current gen's iMac bits in a stereo-style component that can be plugged into your TV or computer monitor and your stereo rig (with a cordless keyboard/mouse and/or cordless keyboard with integrated trackpoint).. I guess that's what Pippin was.

I wonder if I coudl do this by buying iMac replacement bits and putting them together.. I wonder...

Your Working Boy,

GS Emulation by Threed · 1999-11-30 23:53 · Score: 1

The best Apple IIgs emulator I've seen so far is KEGS. Freely available, emulates all graphics modes as well as normal and midi sound. Works with every disk image format I've ever heard of. Runs FTA's Modulae pretty well.

If your SCSI drive is formatted HFS I think you'll have the double benefit of being able to access it from linux and the emulated GS at the same time :)

If you can't get it working, drop me a line with any questions. Everyone who wants a GS should have one, IMHO. A2-4ever!

I'd like to see pictures of the inside... by QDerf · 1999-11-30 23:55 · Score: 1

I find it a bit suspicious that the guy didnt think of taking pictures during the assembly... This sure looks like a scam except maybe for the cdrom sticking halfway out... Anyone think my way?

Not Wintel holding them down... by Andy+Dodd · 1999-11-30 23:57 · Score: 1

Apple's got great engineers and hardware.

But their management is dumber than your average company. I sell computers at the campus store here, and there's only ONE reason why I tend to push people heavily towards PCs - Macs ar 1.5 times as much as an equivalent PC or more. (Even you yourself admit to them being overpriced.) Apple is just way too greedy, and they're too stupid to realize that their greed is pushing people to PCs. Apple could do REALLY well if they'd only stop shooting themselves in the foot.

(Side note: Powerbooks/iBooks ARE competitive in price with PC laptops. iMacs would be if they weren't so nonupgradable. Towers can't come close.)

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

Re:Not Wintel holding them down... by Kintanon · 1999-12-01 00:58 · Score: 2

But their management is dumber than your average company. I sell computers at the campus store here, and there's only ONE reason why I tend to push people heavily towards PCs - Macs ar 1.5 times as much as an equivalent PC or more. (Even you yourself admit to them being overpriced.) Apple is just way too greedy, and they're too stupid to realize that their greed is pushing people to PCs. Apple could do REALLY well if they'd only stop shooting themselves in the foot.

You're ignoring the fact that every Mac ever built will outperform every PC ever built if you compare a set of similar numbers (ie. same #Mhz, same #RAM). The MAC hardware is just beautiful, it's the OS that sucks monkey balls. My personal pet peeve is that the menu bar is permanently docked at the top of the screen and doesn't stay attached to the application that owns it. That's one of many pet peeves really...

Kintanon

--
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Re:Not Wintel holding them down... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:18 · Score: 0

Yeah, but its not the MHz that counts, its how much speed (ie, for eg. benchmarked MIPS) you get for your $. You get more MIPS for your dollar in a PC than you get in a Mac...

And who cares if a PC needs 2x the RAM as compared to a Mac for the same app... When RAM is priced normally again, it's only a $50 difference for 64 MB more.

And besides, most (not all) PCs are better built than the Imac. Seriously, the first time I punch my fist/head against an iMac keyboard in anger (I do this all the time to my PC keyboard... :-), I expect to have to halves...
Re:Not Wintel holding them down... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:00 · Score: 0

Except those numbers aren't the ones that are most relevant. It doesn't really matter if it can outperform some Intel CPU clocked so slow that it's not even sold anymore. What matters in the end is total price. That can be measured as sales price or TCO. However, sales price is far more likely to actually be paid any attention to.
Re:Not Wintel holding them down... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:41 · Score: 0

Think for a second - this isn't a coincidence. When Apple designs a large part of the parts itself, the final product is naturally going to be cheaper than in the PC industries, where there are many interchangable components to choose from, made by dozens (or hundreds) or manufacturers.
Re:Not Wintel holding them down... by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-12-01 07:48 · Score: 2

Long ago when the Mac/Lisa GUI was under development they considered the idea of having menu bars in each window.

They rejected it for two reasons:
1. It was harder to move to the menu bar, b/c you had to think about it slightly more than you did when you just went up.
2. It behaved stupidly when the window was very narrow (exactly like Windows handles this)

Additionally, they had also screwed around with round windows, and things like that, but they ended up looking bad. Finding the photos of these things is _hard_. MacWeek ran some in a special 10th anniversary (of the Mac, not MacWeek) issue in 1994. Anyone got scans online?

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

How long until by Incongruity · 1999-12-01 00:00 · Score: 2

The FCC breaks down his door, cuffs him in his bathrobe, scares the crap outta his wife and cat, and then marches away with the 21inch iMac?

I mean, it's not FCC certified for interference, now is it?

idiots by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:04 · Score: 0

Get your fucking acts together and start mirroring these sites, fucking incompetents.

Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:49 · Score: 0

ya fucking dickwads I pay good money to view this web page. where the fuck is mine? better get your act together or I'm sueing you damn andover bastards.

that's no iMac by blinko · 1999-12-01 00:12 · Score: 1

its Sun's new network computer!

--

--

--
blinko - "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down"

macaddict uses IRIX by atomJack · 1999-12-01 00:14 · Score: 1

from netcraft: www.macaddict.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/2.0a on IRIX

He's a person! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:14 · Score: 0

I'd wager that it's not just Some guy named Don Hardy, it's Don Hardy himself.

Enough already! or The MYTH of the Overpriced Mac by Weasel+Boy · 1999-12-01 00:15 · Score: 2

The incessant sniping about how expensive Macs are gets REALLY OLD, kiddies. Trust me, we know all about it. I've been tracking the prices of Macs and PCs since many of you were in grade school, and let me tell you, it ain't true that Macs are a ripoff.

I've done several side-by-side comparisons over the years. Price out a Mac and an equally equipped PC of comparable performance*. Yes, the Mac still costs more. How much more? $100 to $200. That's right. I'll say it again to make sure it's not a mistake. $100 to $200 more to buy a Mac vs. a comparably equipped PC.

*By performance, I mean the computer's ability to compute, not the MHz its oscillator runs at.

This has been true at nearly every point in time for at least the past 5 years, maybe 10.

Now... is your time worth anything to you? If that PC costs you 1 work day of support more than the Mac over the lifetime of the machine... bye bye savings! And trust me, it will. Been there, done that, got the Tee-shirt, three times over.

I reboot Windows NT as often as I reboot MacOS. If Linux is your game... I've got a Linux partition on both my Mac and my PC, so there! :-)

Case in point #1: A budget AMD PC. Starts at $670. Sounds pretty cheap. Now add stuff until it equals a $999 iMac 350. Total price: $954. And the iMac is the faster machine, significantly. I'm not making this up, this is a real quote from iDot.com.

Case in point #2: A high-end G3/450. Price: $1800 from Outpost.com. Price of a comparable** 600 MHz Intel PC from iDot: $1774.

**Remember what I said about performance.

Doggone, Macs are a better deal than I thought! The Mac premium has fallen to under $50. I'd better run out and buy one before Apple comes to their senses.

What resolution? by Fodder · 1999-12-01 00:27 · Score: 1

Will the modified iMac allow a higher screen resolution with the 21" screen?

Why is this NEWS F0R NERDZ??? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:37 · Score: 0

IMACS are for little girls...

Re:Why is this NEWS F0R NERDZ??? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:44 · Score: 0

Y34H! /\/07 P|-|0R 3|_337 |-|4>0RZ |_1K3 U 4/\/D /\/\3!

Re:Enough already! or The MYTH of the Overpriced M by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 00:39 · Score: 0

The Truth (tm):

Wow, an iMac for $999 US? In Canada, iMacs start at $1999 (about $1250 to $1350 US). And $670 for a budget AMD PC? I could (and have) build me one for $600 Can ($350 to $400 US). Add a 15" monitor, $199 Can ($125 US), total $899 Can, $500 or so US. Yeah sure, the PC is made of crap components, but the iMac is too, so it is a fair comparison. Difference: Between $499 and $850 US. That's enough to buy another PC!

Ok, now the high-end G3 - Cost in Canada, about $2999 Can, or $2000 US. Now, since we are talking comparable, we should be comparing against an AMD Athlon 550. An AMD Athlon 550 machine, with 17" monitor could be built for $2000 Can (easily!), or about $1400 US. Still, you save $600 US...

Macs are still WAAAAAAAAAY overpriced for what you get!

The speakers! by Gorimek · 1999-12-01 00:58 · Score: 1

But the speakers would not be centered if you do that. And the cd would be somewhere hard to reach.

I'm glad to see there is still some ambition left in the insane youth of america!

Back on Topic now (Was re: Off-Topic) by Kintanon · 1999-12-01 01:00 · Score: 2

A better place for iMac news is www.dailyimac.com
and soon www.dailymac.com will have Mac news. They tend to update pretty quickly and are a nice looking site...

Kintanon

--
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji

Resolution? by mdemeny · 1999-12-01 01:01 · Score: 1

Umm...it looks like the resolution from the photos is still running at 800x600. Pretty sad for a 21' monitor. Is there a way to up it? Or has he just wasted a week of his time?

Re:Resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:21 · Score: 0

Well, at least he can play VCDs in the thing and use it like a TV.
Re:Resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:11 · Score: 0

At least he has the option of 1024x768. That should be decent, if a little big, on a 21"
Re:Resolution? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 04:53 · Score: 0

You **could** send him an email asking rather than asking for speculation here.

But since you seem to want speculation, it is likely that he can... you can often force higher resolutions when the display drivers don't "recommend" them.

I am curious why the display was in 800 x 600 like many of you... perhaps it is so you can actually read what's on the screen (for the sake of the picture).

[OFF] Please make sense. by A+Big+Gnu+Thrush · 1999-12-01 01:05 · Score: 1

How are "most other cars" more interchangeable with a Taurus?

The tires, battery, gasoline, etc... all could be used by another car, but that's not how it works, is it? You don't buy a new car and use parts from the old one to keep it running ( in most cases ). You can do this with computers and you can do this with Macs.

Apple has a monopoly on Macs the same way Microsoft has a monoply of Windows. If you want to buy a Mac you have to buy it from Apple (duh!) and if you want to buy Windows you have to buy (ultimately) from Microsoft.

Monopoly has nothing to do with it. The term you are looking for is proprietary hardware or closed platform.

Re:[OFF] Please make sense. by Mendax+Veritas · 1999-12-01 01:40 · Score: 1

How are "most other cars" more interchangeable with a Taurus?

In the sense that when you're shopping for a car, one mid-size sedan isn't that different from another. You can buy Ford's, Chrysler's, Toyota's, or whatever, and get something that satisfies your needs more or less equally well. Interchangeability of parts wasn't the point. (For that matter, you can't interchange Mac parts and PC parts either, except for those components that conform to public standards such as SCSI.)
The situation with computers is a bit different. If you want to run a closed-source program that only runs on MacOS, you have to have a Mac. In fact, you have to have an Apple Mac, since Apple has deliberately prevented the development of compatible systems.
"Monopoly" isn't really the right word, in a strict sense; as you say, "closed platform" is technically more accurate. But part of my point was to hint that Apple is able to get away with only a one-year warranty for pretty much the same reason that Microsoft has been able to do many of the things they're currently in hot water for doing -- because they have no competition within their particular domain. That, in turn, is true because they have done everything they could to ensure that no such competition could exist.
I'm not up to date on Mac prices, but it certainly used to be the case that Macs cost significantly more than PC's of similar power. This, together with Apple's one-year warranty, shows that whether you want to call it a "monopoly" or not, Apple's singular control of the Mac market has been harmful to consumers, just as Microsoft's domination of the PC OS/apps markets has been.

Re:Taurus interchangeable? by Mr.+Hankey · 1999-12-01 01:06 · Score: 1

Whoa, have you ever worked on a car?

Sure, you can drive any car to get where you want to go, but you can use any computer too. That seems to be the point. I happen to own both a Mac and a PC (dual boot Linux/Windows 95 OSR2.)

As far as my reasons go, I use the Mac partially because I've used them longer than Windows has been in existence, I happen to like its interface for many tasks as well. Also, some applications just aren't there for Linux. I use Windows only for video games, since I don't like the thought of losing my necessary applications to registry corruption. I suppose that makes it my toy OS :-)

Now back to your analogy, try to repair a Taurus with a Cavalier's parts. That valve cover just doesn't fit, eh? :-) Now tell me that Ford doesn't have a monopoly on the Taurus. I'd say this case is closer to the Ford vs. Chevy cheese arguments, and IMHO neither side is exactly right. They both have their points, but in the end either will do.

(Now, none of that comparing apples to...)

--
GPL: Free as in will

How about... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:09 · Score: 0

a beowulf cluster of iMacs?

Why is that offtopic?!? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:23 · Score: 0

What's up with the friggin' moderators? Are they all idiots? Why was that post offtopic? HELLO! This story's about an IMAC. What was the subject of that post? IMAC! What was the content? IMAC! How could you be more ontopic than that?

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Weasel+Boy · 1999-12-01 01:30 · Score: 1

I don't agree with your comment about crap components, but I'll let it go. But I don't for a minute accept your argument that you can fairly compare a PC built up one part at a time against a complete package machine. That's why I quoted a PC vendor's price, not an itemized list of parts culled out of Computer Shopper after 4 hours of searching through it.

Just out of curiosity, how many hours did you spend researching, shopping for, buying, installing, and troubleshooting your custom-built $500 PC? If you spend a significant amount of time just keeping your expertise current, that counts.

Is your $500 PC truly comparable to an iMac? For that you need about a Celeron/400 or K6-III/450, 64 MB PC-100 SDRAM, 6 GB IDE, CD-ROM, Rage 128 level video, surround sound, monitor, speakers, 56k modem, and 10/100-base-T ethernet, and OS software. And, like I said, it's really only fair if you get it all packaged together out of the box.

For the high end configuration, you need an Athlon/550 or Pentium III/600, 128 MB PC-100 SDRAM, 9 GB UW-SCSI drive and adaptor, CD-ROM, Rage 128 video, surround sound, and 10/100-base-T ethernet, and OS software.

On the other hand... by DragonHawk · 1999-12-01 01:35 · Score: 2

You're ignoring the fact that every Mac ever built will outperform every PC ever built if you compare a set of similar numbers (ie. same #Mhz, same #RAM).

Comparing different architectures "at the same clock" is patently useless. The reason is that different architectures do different amounts of work per clock cycle, depending on things like the number of pipelines, RISC vs CISC, etc.

The only way to accurately compare system performance (after you eliminate systems that don't do what you want, of course) is by using price-performance ratios. How much bang do you get for your buck?

Given the fact that I can get a damn good PC for less then $300, but have to shell out $1000+ for a Mac, I think I know what I would pick. (Plus, there are too many Windows-only games, so for me personally, I would go PC so I can still boot into Windows to play games.)

My personal pet peeve is that the menu bar is permanently docked at the top of the screen and doesn't stay attached to the application that owns it.

There are advantages to that method: For one, you don't waste screen real estate duplicating the menu bar in every window. For another, it means you always know where to find the menu, no matter where a window is. I'm not saying one is better then the other, just that Apple's method is not without merit.

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.

Re:On the other hand... by Kintanon · 1999-12-01 02:11 · Score: 2

Comparing different architectures "at the same clock" is patently useless. The reason is that different architectures do different amounts of work per clock cycle, depending on things like the number of pipelines, RISC vs CISC, etc.

The only way to accurately compare system performance (after you eliminate systems that don't do what you want, of course) is by using price-performance ratios. How much bang do you get for your buck?

Given the fact that I can get a damn good PC for less then $300, but have to shell out $1000+ for a Mac, I think I know what I would pick. (Plus, there are too many Windows-only games, so for me personally, I would go PC so I can still boot into Windows to play games.)

My personal pet peeve is that the menu bar is permanently docked at the top of the screen and doesn't stay attached to the application that owns it.

There are advantages to that method: For one, you don't waste screen real estate duplicating the menu bar in every window. For another, it means you always know where to find the menu, no matter where a window is. I'm not saying one is better then the other, just that Apple's method is not without merit.

Exactly, which is why arguing that paying 1000$ for a 300mhz iMac that will out perform the 600$ K6-400 you put together on your own time is bad is just silly. (Side not, that sentence was horribly constructed)

For one thing, add in the labor for the machine, if you say... 20$ an hour to put the thing together ('s 15 less than what I charge, and 20 less than what Best buy charges) and it takes you 5 hours, that's 100$ worth of time, plus it's YOUR time. Plus, the components you purchased aren't going to be the best quality and will be more likely to have trouble.

So unless you are a power user (like most of the people reading this) an iMac is an excellent machine to purchase. I recommend them to families all the time.

The Gameing issue is why I'm still using win98 and not yet linux. Waiting for the Q3:A debut.

Oh, and the menu bar is a pet peeve, and I've been told by the chief editor at www.dailyimac.com that it isn't a valid complaint (thpppt!).

Kintanon

--
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Re:On the other hand... by Malichus · 1999-12-01 02:47 · Score: 1

My personal pet peeve is that the menu bar is permanently docked at the top of the screen and doesn't stay attached to the application that owns it.

There are advantages to that method: For one, you don't waste screen real estate duplicating the menu bar in every window. For another, it means you always know where to find the menu, no matter where a window is. I'm not saying one is better then the other, just that Apple's method is not without merit.

Actually, it is a lot like that; the Mac's menu bar is a demonstrably superior interface. In fact, if one is to actually time users, a Windows-like menu bar is a factor of five slower to use.

This superiority is a result of Fitt's Law, which states that the time it takes to point at a target with a pointing device is a function of the target's size and distance to that target. The larger the target and the nearer it is, the less time it will take to point to it. This is, of course, trivially obvious when phrased that way, but its implications are ignored far too often by software developers.

The Mac's menu bar uses a very special piece of screen real estate, exploiting Fitt's law. Because the menu bar rests all along the edge of the screen, it has an effectively infinite size; you can keep rolling the mouse upward as much as you like, but that cursor is always going to be in the menu bar. Because of this, it's faster to point at a menu title, and the entire process of using the menu is accelerated.

Of course, the most efficient place to put the mouse is right where it is, so that's an even better place for the menu bar: Under the mouse all the time. The problem is that we don't have a good user interface for that; hierarchical menus are inefficient to use (timewise) and cumbersome. NeXT actually did this, though: A right-click brought up the entire menu bar beneath the mouse, arranged hierarchically. This was in 1989, and most likely begat Windows 95's context-sensitive menus, which are a refinement in that they avoid necessitating the task of navigating cumbersome, deeply hierarchical menu structures to access the most useful commands.

But, all that aside, the Mac's menu bar, after nearly 16 years is empirically the best interface we have for presenting an entire menu hierarchy. Most likely just dumb luck, though; I doubt the designers of the original Macintosh considered these implications in the world of 1983's nine-inch, 512-by-384 monochrome displays while Steve Jobs was breathing down their necks with the refrain, "Real artists ship!"

You can read more about interface design and Fitt's Law at http://www.asktog.com/. It's an interesting, if oft-neglegted, subject.

--
- Mali
Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 02:48 · Score: 0

Add just $250 to the $600 PC and you have an Athlon 550 that beats the crap out of _any_ iMac. And still, only $850. Add in $50 for labour at the computer store (because the iMac is preassembeld) and you are saving $100 still. Plus you have a faster machine that can be upgraded to any size monitor, and upgraded to whatever components you like. The iMac is NEVER a deal!
Re:On the other hand... by Kintanon · 1999-12-01 03:07 · Score: 2

Add just $250 to the $600 PC and you have an Athlon 550 that beats the crap out of _any_ iMac. And still, only $850. Add in $50 for labour at the computer store (because the iMac is preassembeld) and you are saving $100 still. Plus you have a faster machine that can be upgraded to any size monitor, and upgraded to whatever components you like. The iMac is NEVER a deal!

Ok... According to e-bay I can get an Athlon 550 and Mobo for 450$ (Roughly). Add 140$ for a 15" trinitron (Pricewatch) and you are up to 600$, add a hardrive, the 1000$ iMacs have 4 gig or so I think, that costs 88$ refurbished from Quantum (Pricewatch again), ad an Ati 128 for 70$ (Pricewatch, ATI Rage 128) a keyboard (Microsoft natural kbd) 30$ a mouse 15$, a 24x CD-ROM for 25$ (Pricewatch), and 32 megs of PC100 SDRAM for 35$ (Pricewatch again), and our total comes to... 852$. Now, most people who the iMac is targeted at are going to pay someone 50$ to put it together, so that's 900$, plus an operating system (They aren't likely to be using linux) that puts it right around 1000$. Then you have the headaches associated with an OS that crashes twice/day. Looks like the iMac wins out here...

Kintanon

--
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 04:07 · Score: 0

Oh and MacOS dosnt crash? ya right...

And who would buy a athlon and only put 32M/4Gigs in it? And only a 15" monitor? My Athlon has 128Megs ram and 30Gig (compUSA $299) HD. 40X cdrom. When ram prices chill out a little i'll up that to 256Megs. And with a little 17" Trinitron monitor it comes out to a little over $1500. That beats ANY mac in bang for buck AND raw power. Took me about a hour and a half to 2 hours to put the system together and slap Slackware 7 onto the HD. Looks like AMD wins here...
Re:On the other hand... by DragonHawk · 1999-12-01 07:36 · Score: 2

Exactly, which is why arguing that paying 1000$ for a 300mhz iMac that will out perform the 600$ K6-400 you put together on your own time is bad is just silly.

If you paid $600 for such a system, you are getting ripped off. I can build you a K6-3 system, at 400 MHz, with 32 MB of RAM, and 4 GB HDD, for around $300 without a monitor.

Compare the two in real world tests, and you will find that system is performance equivalent to the iMac in everything except floating point-heavy applications. (AMD's regular floating point sucks on the K6 line, and they readily admit this. The Athlon kicks butt, but is still rather high in price due to its performance advantage.)

Oh, sure, the iMac does very well on Apple's favorite Photoshop tests -- but those are optimized very heavily for the Mac. Compare generic PowerPC performance to a 3DNow! optimized application, and AMD will win. Let us be fair, in both directions.

And it is worth pointing out that the generic PC has a number of advantages over the iMac. There is more room for expansion. It uses standard components that are easily replaced if something fails or needs to be upgraded. There is more software and hardware available for the PC then the iMac.

I think, in the end, you will find the PC to be a better buy in terms of price-performance. Of course, the iMac's easy-to-setup design and easy-to-use OS may well make it the better choice for the home user who just wants to do email and web browsing (if they afford the $1000 price tag -- a lot of people I know cannot).

add in the labor for the machine, if... it takes you 5 hours

It takes me less then an hour to put together a bare-bones system and test the hardware.

Getting the OS installed is another story. Installing MacOS is very easy. Meanwhile, I think making someone install Windows violates the Genevia Conventions. But then, that is why I use Linux. Let's say I'm installing Linux on both machines, which makes them about equal (actually, the PC is better, since Linux on the PPC is still a little rough around the edges).

So unless you are a power user an iMac is an excellent machine to purchase. I recommend them to families all the time.

No doubt about it, the Macintosh wins hands down in terms of ease-of-use everytime. It has for years. I still find many aspects of the MacOS very elegant.

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Re:On the other hand... by Kintanon · 1999-12-01 19:24 · Score: 2

Oh and MacOS dosnt crash? ya right...

And who would buy a athlon and only put 32M/4Gigs in it? And only a 15" monitor? My Athlon has 128Megs ram and 30Gig (compUSA $299) HD. 40X cdrom. When ram prices chill out a little i'll up that to 256Megs. And with a little 17" Trinitron monitor it comes out to a little over $1500. That beats ANY mac in bang for buck AND raw power. Took me about a hour and a half to 2 hours to put the system together and slap Slackware 7 onto the HD. Looks like AMD wins here...

That's why no one is trying to market the iMac to YOU. The iMac is marketed at families who don't have the knowledge and experience to pick out quality components and put them together. If they did, then they wouldn't need an iMac. They'd be getting a G4 tower, which will whip the ass of the Athlon (Note: I LOVE Athlons, but Motorola makes a processor that will eat AMD alive).

The system I was putting together was one that was equivelant to the 300mhz iMac in every way possible. And the iMac wins there. If you build your own out of quality components you may come out a little bit ahead, but that slight advantage isn't going to be enough to convince most people that they need to go do 3 weeks of research to figure out what components they need and how to put them together.

Kintanon

--
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji

These are the stories... by tlight · 1999-12-01 01:37 · Score: 1

that make me wish I could handle a soldering iron as good as I can handle a C compiler...

new flavor? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 01:38 · Score: 0

I wonder what flavor mac he has now...vanilla?

Re:GS Emulation, Bernie! by Mr.+Hankey · 1999-12-01 01:48 · Score: 1

Hideyho! Ok, I'm a sucker for older hardware, but I thought I'd mention a few other emulators available for various platforms. If you're running a Mac, there's a commercial emulator (with a time limited demo) called Bernie II The Rescue, created by F.E. Systems Emulation Technologies. Their web site is http://www.magnet.ch/emutech/ The emulator seems to run most programs fine, playing senseless violence is just as disgustingly offensive as it ever was :-) You can even run programs right off the floppy. They were also working on Sweet 16, a BeOS GS emulator, but have outsourced it to Sheppyware (Eric Shepherd.) The URL for this is http://www.sheppyware.net/products/beos/sweet16/ It's shareware, but worth the money. He's still developing a few GS programs as well, worth a look certainly. Admittedly even further off the course, but there's also a (now free) UNIX-like system which runs on top of GS/OS available for the GS - there's even a TCP/IP stack available for it. Oddly enough, it's called GNO/ME (GNO Multitasking Environment.) And before anyone asks, the system was written in 1993, well before the GNOME desktop was thought of. The URL's http://www.hypermall.com/companies/procyon/gnome.h tml Ahh, nostalgia...

--
GPL: Free as in will

ugh by Mr.+Hankey · 1999-12-01 01:50 · Score: 1

Blast, it's that "HTML Formatted" default again :-)

--
GPL: Free as in will

a macaddict url that works a little better by drdanny · 1999-12-01 02:01 · Score: 1

Try going here!

(Thanks, greg.)

Mac Video and IMAC still at 800x600 by clustersnarf · 1999-12-01 02:02 · Score: 1

Macintosh video has always been rather odd. I remember a few of the macs i had in the past and the res was always limited by the monitor. different monitors would let the mac video run at different resolutions. Kinda like an INF in windows will set the parms for the monitor you have and not let a destructive res be attained. Possibly the IMAC video will allow a higher res on a different monitor but i havent tested it out. ( access to imacs and big monitors is limited ) I'm sure it will run higher but inorder to get the desktop to correctly appear in the digi pic he left it at 800x600 so it would be readable in low res picure. I would like to see that thing running at like 1280x1024 but alas... why not email him and see if he would make a pic with high res to see if its really worth going to all the trouble of hacking one up to pieces. If all it will do is 800x600 whats the point? Big monitors means higher res in my book. I'll be damned if i run anything lower than 1024x768 on ANY monitor. 14" or otherwise. And yes i do have a 14" monitor that runs X at 1024x768 on a 4MB S3 GX.
Cluster

Re:Mac Video and IMAC still at 800x600 by Hacksworth · 1999-12-01 02:30 · Score: 1

For christmas last year, my family (notice how I said my family, and not me specifically) bought an original bondi blue iMac. My dad bought it for my mom, actually. While she runs it at 640x480 (which annoys the hell outta me, but her computer...), it has no problems at all doing 16-bit at 1024x768 when I'm on it. Hope that answers your question.
Re:Mac Video and IMAC still at 800x600 by sarhjinian · 1999-12-01 02:49 · Score: 1

Macintosh video has always been rather odd. I remember a few of the macs i had in the past and the res was always limited by the monitor. different monitors would let the mac video run at different resolutions. Kinda like an INF in windows will set the parms for the monitor you have and not let a destructive res be attained.

Most Macs use a somewhat bizarre sense-code to detect what resolutions are supported by the monitor. Its akin to (but not the same as) Window 9x's "Detect PnP Monitors" function. This system works well with an Apple-brand monitor and most commercial Mac-compatible displays (Sony, NEC) but makes using cheapie monitors a pain -- you need to purchase a little DIP-switch equipped adapter to properly inform the Mac of the display's supported resolutions.

I don't know if this applies to the newer Macs that come equipped with standard VGA-style connectors. I've never had an occasion to plug a SVGA monitor into my PB3400, so I can't say for certain. Older Macs used an odd fifteen-pin connector that looked a lot like the joystick port on most PCs.

--
--srj/mmv

OT: The IIgs by sarhjinian · 1999-12-01 02:29 · Score: 1

Off-topic

IIgs stood for Graphics and Sound, which it had that blew my mind.

Pah, it was just an Amiga-wannabee :)

--
--srj/mmv

Frankestein or Hoax? by deno · 1999-12-01 02:43 · Score: 1

In my opinion this got into wrong rubric - it should be under "It's funny, laught". The whole tone of the web-page sounds more like "i'm kidding" than anything else.

Even if it is not a hoax, the sheer idea of making a frankestein-like 21-inch iMac is simply hilarious. (Besides - i like the foot better than apple...)

There's a flaw in that... by Millennium · 1999-12-01 03:04 · Score: 2

You just said that you can't measure performance accurately. Therefore, the only real way to go is price/performance.

How, though, do you get price/performance if you can't accurately measure performance?

Given the fact that I can get a damn good PC for less then $300, but have to shell out $1000+ for a Mac, I think I know what I would pick. (Plus, there are too many Windows-only games, so for me personally, I would go PC so I can still boot into Windows to play games.)

A "damn good" PC for $300? Don't make me laugh. Yes, you can get a PC for that much. But a damn good one? Mediocre, perhaps. But not damn good by any means.

And I can get my hands on an iMac for about half the price you quoted.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the menubar issue, though. People forget that the principal interface of any GUI app is its menubar, and the average person can only work in one app at a time (note: that person's computer can run many apps once, but I'd like to see anyone here type up a term paper while playing Quake at the exact same time). The computer itself has no use for menubars, so displaying more than one at a time is pointless (the user can only use the obe belonging to the active app, and the computer doesn't need them anyway). That leaves the question of where to put it, and the top of the screen is a logical place.

Re:Hacking at it's finest [addendum] by Zagadka · 1999-12-01 03:10 · Score: 1

Incidently, I do agree with you that the definition of "hacking" probably shouldn't include any moral elements. Hacking does imply something that is clever, however, and creating unmaintainable code is most decidedly un-clever.

BUT-- by CrudPuppy · 1999-12-01 03:16 · Score: 1

who the hell wants a fucking Taurus anyhow? ugly sticks, they are ;)

(it's a JOKE, dont flame me)

--
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.

Re:BUT-- by whammo · 1999-12-01 04:43 · Score: 1

Has anyone been able to successfully run Linux on a Taurus yet?

(sorry.... it was either this, or "Let's Beowulf these FrankeniMacs")

the ultimate hack job by soren.harward · 1999-12-01 03:42 · Score: 1

now I want to see someone do that with a flat-panel display.

I do that to. by CrAlt · 1999-12-01 03:50 · Score: 1

And my big old IBM PS/2 keyboard is still going strong and it was made in 1988.

--
I have to return some videotapes...

Re:I do that to. by nowindowz · 1999-12-01 08:22 · Score: 1

mine also, I need more but one built arounf then are hard to find the newer clicky keyboards I just dont like as much.

--
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

macaddict isnt MacOS X? by CrAlt · 1999-12-01 04:12 · Score: 1

HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Server: Netscape-Enterprise/2.0a
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:34:47 GMT
Accept-ranges: bytes
Last-modified: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:38:19 GMT
Content-length: 2715
Content-type: text/html

Connected to www.macaddict.com.
Escape character is '^]'.

IRIX (sgi3)

login:

--
I have to return some videotapes...

Re:macaddict isnt MacOS X? by daviddennis · 1999-12-01 06:45 · Score: 2

I think Imagine Media, the parent company, runs the server, not MacAddict magazine itself. So they can run whatever server they want. Personally, I think they have good taste :-).

D

----

Hoping to get sued, eh? by Skinka · 1999-12-01 04:13 · Score: 1

That is why slashdot can't mirror sites it links to, and it's also why you shouldn't do it either.

Re: Pet Peeves and menu bars by Maserati · 1999-12-01 04:19 · Score: 1

There is one advantage to having the menu bar be docked to the top of the monitor: You can't overshoot the menubar with the mouse. Watch a longtime Mac user go for the menus sometime; I habitually just fling the pointer upwards (*crash* !) and then adjust the horizontal to the item I'm looking for. It's just a tad faster to mouse around menus when there's one direction you can bias towards without wandering away from the menubar. It's sort of like having a wall to lean on while drunk.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Nat+Lanza · 1999-12-01 04:37 · Score: 1

Okay, look at laptops. For about $2200, Sony will sell me a nice 366MHz Vaio with 64MB of memory, a 6GB disk, a 14" screen, a DVD drive, firewire, and a built-in modem. To get a laptop like that from Apple, you'll need to spend about $3000. Sure, the Vaio doesn't have built-in ethernet, but a pcmcia ether card is maybe $100.

So there you have two nicely engineered, packaged solutions. The Apple solution is at least $700 more expensive. It's really a shame; I like the new Powerbooks, but there's no way I'm going to pay a $700 premium to own one.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by ToastyKen · 1999-12-01 05:21 · Score: 2

Let's not forget that the current PowerBook models have been out since the summer at the same price, so this is a bad time to buy a PowerBook. If you compare the current prices to the prices of PC laptops during the summer, it was vastly favorable to the Mac.

When the new models come out (presumably some time soon), the price/performance ratio will be much better, and that will be a smarter time to buy a PowerBook.

Mac prices don't change as quickly as PC prices, so it's generally better to buy Macs when they first come out.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Nat+Lanza · 1999-12-01 05:28 · Score: 1

The slow price turnover is another big downside for Apple -- if I want to buy a computer, I want to buy it when it's convenient for me, not at some mystical convenient-for-Apple time.

Why shouldn't Mac prices change as quickly as PC prices? After all, isn't Apple trying to compete?

Last Post! by Last+Post! · 1999-12-01 05:36 · Score: 1

Anything less than 17 inches is criminal.

_.......................__
||.....__...._._||_..||-\\..._...._._||_
||......_\\.(/_'..||....||-//.//.\\.(/_'..||
||__((_||_,_/).||_..||....\\_//.,_/).\\_
HAHA! LAST POST! Anything following is redundant.

Applefritter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 05:58 · Score: 0

There's actually quite a few hacks along the lines of this over at Applefritter, www.applefritter.com.

monitor scars by cabbey · 1999-12-01 06:30 · Score: 1

the last hand me down tube I got has one of those... a friend who works for sony as an engineer looked at it and fiddled with the magnets for about twenty minutes before telling me it was burn in from being left on without a signal for most of it's life... she says nothing could be done since the phosphorus on the inside of the tube is chemically degraded. like you said... works ok in text mode; I gave mine to netware server farm where I'm told it still gets used every now and again.

great invention by maripuri · 1999-12-01 06:35 · Score: 1

wow, an even bigger doorstop!

Bend Over Nokia... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 06:36 · Score: 0

I can just see the look on the Nokia monitor's face as he started the project... "NOOOO.. It'll never FIT!! Don't put that thing inside ME!!!!"

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 06:40 · Score: 0

mmh.. Yes maybe

But the main advantage of having a PowerBook is because of the battery. A company where I was working a few weeks last year were using PC laptops all over the company except for sales because their people were always on the road...

The PowerBookshave nearly 3 times more battery!

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 06:42 · Score: 0

Oh and I forgot to mention speed and the fact you don't have to fear about your pants turning brown because they are burning...

Yeah, mac sucks by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 06:57 · Score: 0

!

Speaking of flaws... by DragonHawk · 1999-12-01 07:11 · Score: 2

You just said that you can't measure performance. Therefore, the only real way to go is price/performance.

No, I said that comparing performance "at the same clock" is invalid. Instead, you need to use real-world benchmarks and divide the results by price. That gives you a price-performance ratio, which you can then use for comparison. Read more carefully, please.

A "damn good" PC for $300?

Yes. Around 400 or 500 MHz, 32 to 64 MB of RAM, 4 GB HDD. No monitor, though. Make it $400, then.

Hell, there are companies who will give you a good PC for free, provided you sign up for Internet service with them. That gives you a price-performance ratio so good, it cannot be calculated. ;-)

And I can get my hands on an iMac for about half the price you quoted.

I don't get it. You flame my cheap PC prices, but then go on to boast how an iMac does not have to cost list. Just as you can get iMacs for less then list price, you can get very nice Intel-based PCs for less then the $1200 Dell wants to sell you one at.

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.

Re:Speaking of flaws... by Millennium · 1999-12-01 08:50 · Score: 1

I don't get it. You flame my cheap PC prices, but then go on to boast how an iMac does not have to cost list.

I didn't intend to boast. You claimed that it wasn't possible to get a new Mac for less than $1000. I told you of one possible way to do just that. That's all.

Re:One Year Warranty (A secret of retail) by Watcher · 1999-12-01 07:13 · Score: 1

I worked for a number of years at a large retailer. The entire reason for sticking with 1 year warranties is very simple: that way the retailer can stick on an extented warranty of their own. Those warranties are pure profit for the retailer (almost noone ever collects on them). Many manufacturers are "encouraged" to package their products with 1 year warranties because of this. Otherwise, it is very hard to get product on retail shelves.

A good thought, but a little misdirected... by jht · 1999-12-01 08:25 · Score: 2

I've come to the conclusion that a technology has become passé when they start making it with transparent plastic... First it was casette tapes, then floppies, now Macs! :)

It's not that the technology has become passé necessarily (though that's possible), it's that the technology has now become ubiquitous to a point where the item worries about the fashion statement as much as the device inside the fashion. Think about it. The iMac isn't a computer for everyone (geeks like we /. readers)- it's targeted to the consumer.

The average Joe-type consumer doesn't care that AMD has a 750 MHz Athlon, though we do. They don't even care if it runs Windows, though they're susceptible to the herd mentality. Computers (in general) have gotten simple enough, fast enough, and cheap enough that they all blur together in many a mind and the distinguishing selling characteristic becomes "How cool is it? The iMac is a decent computer for the price - not a great one. But it oozes Cool to the consumer.

In my home, I have a few PC's and they're all beige powerhouses I built myself. Two run Linux and one runs Win98 (games, games, games). But when someone comes to my house and needs to use a computer, they're drawn to my wife's iMac. I bought an iBook to replace my trusty old PowerBook 3400 (overclocked to 270MHz, in case anybody wants to buy it?), and people stop to stare at it and touch it when I pull it out of the briefcase.

When technology is all the same to people, design becomes the differentiator. Consumer products companies have known that for years - the computer industry is just catching on. Right now most of the Wintel boxes trying to play in this space are iMac knock-offs, which plays into Apple's hands. When the Wintel shops start to do interesting and different things with their designs, the sales will reflect it.

Right now Apple is winning the consumer war - their model outsells any other individual model of Wintel system (and the iBook is doing the same against laptops) at retail, and the Wintel vendors are changing their design models to imitate. Right down their alley.

- -Josh Turiel

--
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."

Use a bulk tape eraser. (really) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 08:35 · Score: 0

I had the same problem on a monitor/tv set a few years ago. I was messing with some magnets and let one touch the screen. A big purple splotch was the result. I thought I had destroyed it until someone told me to use a bulk tape eraser on it. It worked beautifully. I discovered that if I passed the eraser over the screen vertically, the whole screen would turn purple and if I passed it over horizontally, the purple would go away completely.

Keep in mind that this wasn't a vga monitor. It was a 13" sony tv with all sorts of connectors on the side. It would work as an rgb monitor for an appleIIc, appleIIgs, Atari ST, Amiga, or IBM PC.

Coincidentally, it just died 2 weeks ago after 12 years of faithful service. (The magnet incident happened when it was new.) I'm planning a viking funeral.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 09:19 · Score: 0

Well, perhaps not components, per se. I meant the keyboard, sound, speakers and mouse are crap... I can't say about the rest, because I only used one for 5 minutes :-)

Here's the comparable computer to an iMac, built from compnents at one store (my personal favourite) in Ontario, Canada (CAN $): www.best4money.com. (NEWS Consulting)

Celeron 400 - $119
Asus P2B - $149
Super MiniTower Case - $39
64 Mb PC 100 Memory - $139
6.5 GB IDE HD - $159
(I'll "one up" you on the video ;-)
16MB TNT - $89
XMas Sound Deal (Card/Speaker/Joystick) - $25
15" monitor - $179
56k Modem - $29
10/100 Ethernet - $29
OS - Linux (Can Do everything an iMac does... >:-) - Free!
(or) OS - Windoze '95 - $59
Keyboard - $5 + $5 Adapter - $10
Mouse - $5
CPU Fan - $10
40x CD-ROM - $65

TCO - $1105 /w windoze or $1046 (no windoze)

That's all from one store, if I decided to shop around I could get that down to $900 to $1000 (a little more than my original estimae, but then were using a Celeron...). And this uses 90% good quality parts... We're still talking about $800 to $900 CAN difference between this and the $1999 iMac. :-) Total 50% less...

Ok, now for High end, same store (this is FUN!)

Athlon 550 with Mobo - $679
2x 64 MB PC-100 SDRAM (a single stick is a waste of money) - $278
ATA-66 is as almost as good as your average SCSI 15.2 GB HD (But yer Mac can't use it, too bad)- $199
Using SCSI only, 9 GB HD + Controller, my guess - $599
40x CDROM - $65
16MB TNT (no Rage, sorry..., this is better) - $89
XMas Sound Deal (Card/Speaker/Joystick) - $25
10/100 Ethernet - $29
Keyboard - $5 + $5 Adapter - $10
Mouse - $5
Super MiniTower Case - $39
OS - Linux (Can Do everything an iMac does... >:-) - Free!
(or) OS - Windoze '95 - $59
17" monitor - $279

TCO (with windoze, ATA-66) - $1756
TCO (with windoze, SCSI) - $2156

Take $59 off each price for Linux box.

You are saving between $800 and $1100 (or so) with the PC... 50% of the price!

But hey, that's just the way it is with PC's...

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Henriok · 1999-12-01 10:01 · Score: 1

In addition to an additional ethernet-card, you'd have to supply the Vaio with SCSI-interface, s-video-connector, supprot for a second monitor (not just mirroring), 5.5 MB extra VRAM (8 MB in the Powerbook) and a second battery to match the Powerbooks battey length.

Those features doesn't come cheap.. and all that Vaio has to offer in return is 33 MHz more CPU.. but that's a PII Mobility-chip.. the 333 G3 with 1 MB L2 cache has desktop performance.. guess wich is the fastest?

Need I add that the Powerbook is 1 pound lighter and got a glowing apple on its cover? :)

- Henrik

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -

Overcoming extraordinarily crappy design... by James_J_Collins · 1999-12-01 10:18 · Score: 0

Discrete modules. It facilitates component upgrades and reduces the expense of brokenness. I can understand why a manufacturer would want to sucker consumers into buying a system that has "everything in one box", but why the f would someone knowledgeable enough to hack his PC this way be stupid enough to buy one of these piece of craps in the first place? It's staring you right in the face! If it's this difficult to do something simple like upgrading the monitor on your system, then the system is BAD! Please folks, for your own sakes, avoid these sort of systems.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by ToastyKen · 1999-12-01 19:28 · Score: 2

I completely agree. I actually find it odd that Apple doesn't lower their prices more often. I guess the Mac market is inherently more inelastic, since a lot of Mac users will remain Mac users.

Still, it seems to me that it'd make sense to lower prices to attract non-Mac users. But hey, the company is making lots of money, and I'm sure Fred Anderson understands the economics of the situation far better than I. =)

Someone vs. Radio Shack by vipw · 1999-12-01 20:06 · Score: 2

don't know the person, maybe a search engine could help with that. However i'm not sure if it applies to overclocking which has the potential for you to ruin hardware sold to you by the company, and they're probably not responsible for that.

The back, etc. by oneiros27 · 1999-12-01 20:52 · Score: 2

I'm guessing the majority of you haven't actually messed with an iMac, then.

The front parts (speakers, CD-ROM), are flush with the front plastic, so it might be possible to do it with them again in this task, assuming that the curvature is similar.

(and the CD isn't put in _that_ well...look at the enlarged picture of it closed, and you'll see it's not that straight of a cut that he made)

The rear ports on a normal iMac, for those that haven't looked, are behind a curved plastic privacy panel. They're not meant to be flush mounted.

(I'm not saying that it definately _is_ real, hell, they could even be doctored photos, I'm just saying that the previous reasons for it not being real, if anything, show that it's more likely to be legit.)

Oh...and as to 'hacking up' the back-- as he doesn't have the capability to flush mount the rear ports, it makes perfect sense that he'd have to cut away some extra so that he could easy grasp at connections.

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.

Re:One Year Warranty (A secret of retail) by oneiros27 · 1999-12-01 21:03 · Score: 2

Erm....when I had dealings with a computer store (I worked in Academic Computing in college, and the computer store was a devision of our department), we could get an 'Apple Extended Warranty'. From my recollection, you could even get it 11 months after you bought your hardware, so long as it wasn't out of warranty (much as you can with automobile warrenties)

I think it was somewhere in the range of 1-2% of the total price...can't remember exactly, as I never bought one.

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-01 21:55 · Score: 0

I disagree.

I have just spent several weeks shoping around for a machine to run linux on. I trek around loads (I'm a freelance linux type guy) and like to have my setup with me. So, it had to be a laptop.

I considered the Vaio, but it didn't cut it compared to the machine I actually ended up with - an end-of-line G3/300 powerbook. In real terms, it's faster than the Vaio. It has 192MB of memory - I spit on your puny 64MB! Battery usage is much better, which works for me. It has SCSI, which I need. It has built in ethernet, which is essential - I hate buggering around with PCMCIA cards. Firewire I could care less about, but you can get PCMCIA cards for that. The video supports multiple monitors, which isn't that useful to me at the moment, but with the new release of Xfree imminent - who knows? Despite being end-of line, it's still warranted, although I doubt I'll need it.

And, the clincher... 1/2 the price of a similarly configured Vaio (or 1/3 the price of a similar 'new' powerbook)

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Weasel+Boy · 1999-12-01 22:08 · Score: 1

Nice work. I have only minor nitpicks.

I'll let your cheap shot about Linux go, since I use it too. However, I will add that my net router got "demoted" from Pentium/Linux to PowerMac/MacOS because the Linux system was too fragile. Couldn't handle power outages. There's something to be said for an OS that can survive powering down without flushing its disk caches.

I think you're lowballing some of the components. Noone in their right mind would live with a $5 keyboard or a $5 mouse. Nor do I believe the sound system you quote is equivalent in quality.

I'll come right out and say, no way on earth is ATA-66 nearly as good as UW-SCSI. And the Mac I cited has both UW-SCSI and ATA-33 on it.

I'm scratching my head at some of your prices, because they look pretty good to me, even in US$. Maybe I should move to Canada.

You're also not taking into account labor. Please estimate how much time you have spent researching, shopping, installing, troubleshooting, and generally maintaining expertise in PC parts. Either that, or quote a PC package out of the box.

Case in point: I have in the past 12 months sunk about three WEEKS into smacking my Linux system into shape. It's not fair to value it at what my company pays me, but it IS time taken away from things I would rather be doing. And that's NOT counting the time I spend just generally knowing what's going on.

So please, do let us know how much sweat equity went into those cheap custom-built PCs of yours.

Re:One Year Warranty (A secret of retail) by Watcher · 1999-12-01 22:53 · Score: 1

For the short period (first year or so) I worked retail we did sell macs, and we sold them with our own extended warranties. Most Universities do not offer the same deals (they usually don't have the volume to set up a deal with one of the warranty clearing houses like Warrantech[sp]), so I'm not surprised they were offering an Apple deal instead.

These days, a 3 year (the least you can usually get on a computer) is roughly 5% of the cost of the system. Usually the sales associate sees 5% of that.

CompUSA, who have the major deal for Apple retail, sell their own extended warranties with the systems.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Weasel+Boy · 1999-12-02 00:36 · Score: 1

Incidentally, I notice that your "iMac", despite all its lowball components and *no cost of labor*, nearly comes within my stated $200 of the list price of an iMac in US$. As an experiment, I went to a site I trust and priced out a comparable PC from components and came up with a range of about US$690-$1200. Since I'm not a PC expert, I have no damn idea which exactly of these components is truly comparable.

For the high-end config, I came up with a range of US$1024-$2096 for what seems to be essentially the same system. I know for a fact that some of those minimum-priced components are not suitable for a high-end system, like for example the US$90 mobo or the US$30 case. But how the **** am I supposed to know which motherboard goes with which processor goes with max RAM of 1.5 GB? And what's the $ value of motherboard audio?

This is why, BTW, you have to include some accounting of the value of the time you put into knowing the answers to these questions.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Nite_Hawk · 1999-12-02 01:54 · Score: 1

Actually, his prices looked a bit high to me for some of the stuff I've recently bought. About 2 months ago I got a deal from www.tccomputers.com for dual celeron 400s on a bp6 with 2 fans for $229US. Granted, this was a weekend deal, but I've seen the same setup for about $260-$270 on pricewatch. At the local bestbuy type stores, they've had 17" monitors priced at $200 for a good while now. Both my mouse and keyboard were $5, and my mouse (a 3button) has lasted me about 2 years and still works beautifully. My friend recently bought a gateway PIII 550Mhz system, and the mouse cable developed problems after only a couple months. My keyboard is also one of the nicest "standard" keyboards I've used in a long time, certainly better than the imac. (I really have problems typing on the smaller form factor). Also, the mouse on the imac makes it very hard to tell if it's oriented correctly. (not to mention it's only got 1 button, and seems to cause muscles in my hand to cramp up after prolonged use.)

For being a small form factor machine, fairly well integrated, and reasonably powerful, the imac doesn't do all that bad a job. However, I think for the same amount of money you pay for the imac, you can build a good deal more powerful PC. (not quite the same thing as what the other guy was saying.)

re 17" by clustersnarf · 1999-12-02 01:58 · Score: 1

Ask any woman... heheheheh

RE: Building vs. buying by Weasel+Boy · 1999-12-02 02:26 · Score: 1

For the price of *BUYING* an iMac, I could *BUILD* a better Mac system, too. Discounting, of course, the value of my labor. This is my message: Unless you're comparing completely built and ready-to-run systems, YOU'RE NOT COMPARING THE SAME THING! A pile of parts is not a computer until you've put it all together. That takes (somebody's) time, and time is money.

I don't give a flying leap what you can pay to buy the components; that's not an acceptable response to my (implicit) challenge. Not unless it includes an accounting of your time, as previously described.

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-02 02:26 · Score: 0

If you know what you are doing labor is free, knowledge is free. Imacs are made for people who are really concerned about aesthetics. An imac has a fast processor, its like super charging a lawnmower. Wow, it goes wicked fast but it still only cuts grass. For me the only good use for an imac is a word processor or the subject of physics experiments. And if it breaks you have to send it back, or buy a new one, and we all know about those physics experiments.

Wouldn't the magnetic fields fry the imac by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-02 02:31 · Score: 0

Is it just me or wouldn't all those magnets make the imac's bios and other miscellaneous media go funny?

Re: Comparing Apples vs. * by Weasel+Boy · 1999-12-02 23:15 · Score: 1

You make some good points, but your one about labor being free is not one of them. :-) Aquiring knowledge takes time, and time is money. If you can amortize the cost of aquiring the knowledge by learning how to do it right once then flawlessly building a whole mess of PCs, great. But then you're not a customer, you're a builder.

I believe you know enough about PCs to pick up a catalog, order a bunch of parts that will work together, slap 'em in, install the OS and drivers, and have a working system in under 3 hours. HOW MUCH OF YOUR TIME WENT INTO AQUIRING THAT EXPERTISE? And if you do have it, why are you letting it go to waste? You should be out building and selling PCs!

My whole point, from the beginning, has been that the cost to me, as a customer who wants a working computer, is nearly as great with a PC as with an equivalent Mac, irrespective of the OS software you put on it. My Mac is a Linux machine, too. My original claim was that a PC costs within $200 of the price of an equivalent Macintosh. I later clarified that by requiring the PC to be a complete, working system out of the box (like a Mac) to be equivalent. I still stand by that claim.

Your point about iMacs and aesthetics is well taken. I'd say it's at least the second most important feature that sets it apart from all those boring, beige PC clones. (Incidentally, whose idea was it to make personal computers beige?)

I wouldn't say the iMac is exactly wicked fast, but it does deliver good value for the money. If you think it's only good for a word processor, you have some funny priorities. It runs all the same kinds of software as any other system, why only single out one kind? I know, your comment was only a troll, but really, you can do better than that. Everyone knows the only reason really to buy an iMac is to play Clan Lord.

Please explain to me how you obtain satisfaction from a broken PC without taking it back or buying a new one. Once it's out of warranty, there's nothing stopping an iMac owner from replacing only the busted parts him/herself, and if it's still under warranty, then you're a fool not to make the vendor do the repair. The only difference is, when you take the iMac in, you don't have a lonely, useless monitor sitting forlornly on your desk waiting for its CPU to come home.

As for physics experiments, it's not really an experiment if you already know the outcome before you start.

242 comments