[Eug]

iMac Editorial

Although I am not a huge fan of the new iMac either, I appreciate its ergonomics.

As for the editorial, I'm convinced he has smoked a bit too much sometimes... like the time he decided he could design airplane security and autopilot systems, despite the fact he knows nothing about them.

"doing away with the wires necessary to connect the keyboard and mouse would have been neater."

I thought the same thing myself, as an option. But then again, one could just buy a 3rd party RF system (assuming it worked with this machine and OS X.1).

But:

"easy access to multiple USB, serial, and 1394 ports, something the new iMac doesn't offer"

Huh? Aside from the serial ports (which are now dead anyway) all the ports are just on the back.

"APPLE ALSO MISSES the point by not allowing users to have two drives. I find it very convenient to be able to copy files from one CD to another without having to copy them to the hard drive first. Apple's unwillingness to support this is a major shortcoming."

Again, huh? That's not the point of this machine. It's an iMac, not a tower, but plug in a Firewire drive and instantly you have this feature if you really want it.

The iMac does have shortcomings, but I would submit that Mr. Coursey's comments on the iMac's hardware are not very revelant.

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Eug ]

[seanyepez]

It's obviously a PC-biased review.

I don't pay much attention to ZDNet anymore.

[Buzz Lightbeer]

Agreed. Quite clearly he is trying to think of everything he can to paint a negative picture of the product. And he's quite upfront about his motives: "It's sad that I feel almost like I need to diss the new iMac in order to offset the hype."

Anyway, Mr I-need-two-CD-drives is obviously one of the least well-informed commentators in the IT industry (and that's saying something - there are some real idiots around).

The article is littered with factual errors: contrary to what he says, the Lisa did not become the Macintosh. They were two products, two development teams (Hewlett-Packard was involved in Lisa), two price tags, and two futures. The Mac was the better product.

But there is a poll!


<form action="http://cgi.zdnet.com/zdpoll/savevote.html" method=post>
<input type=hidden name=pollid value="24916">
<table border=0 width="100%">
<tr><td><p><font face=arial>
<b>Is the new iMac 'flat-out cool'?</b><font size="-1">
<br><input type=radio name="q25581" value="27547"> Yes. Apple has once again put itself on the cutting edge of computer design.
<br><input type=radio name="q25581" value="27548"> No. The billing exceeds the beef.
</font></font></td></tr>
<tr><td><input type=submit value="Vote"></td></tr></table>
</form>

[MrBenn]

can you smoke too much?

[mikerally]

He does make some good points...

but he is a poor writer, he didn't make any of those points clear enough, e.g. his comments on the iMac and USB and Firewire ports actually meant to convey that they weren't easy to get to, what he wrote sounded like the iMac didn't have those ports at all.

That and the fact he spent half the article ranting on about Apple's press department and Time magazine gives me the impression that he isn't writing this to talk about the computer at all.

He is not a good writer, but this is what ZDnet does, if the reporters are too crap to write in their print media, or talk on tv, they dump them on the website.

To me his so called article doesn't look like anymore than a rant I would read on a 15 year old's personal homepage.

I've read the national paper everyday, and this isn't anywhere near to journalism, it's just crap - and I'm tired of reading crap too.

[msuper69]

Who gives a rat's patootie what he thinks? It's ZDNet-what would you expect?

We'll see if Apple has a hit when the sales totals come in.

I'm buying one (or two).

He has some very good points.

The iMac is a direct copy of the NetVista, cannot have two CD drives (except for uber-expensive Firewire drives that only Bill Gates can afford), has an old and creaky graphics card, overheats, looks funny & gay, is way too expensive, will fall over once a day every day, and has approximately 13 applications available whereas the PC has 900 gazillion.

Why would ANYBODY buy an iMac when they can buy a PC?

[BannanaFiend]

Originally posted by <wiggles>:
<STRONG>He has some very good points.

The iMac is a direct copy of the NetVista, cannot have two CD drives (except for uber-expensive Firewire drives that only Bill Gates can afford), has an old and creaky graphics card, overheats, looks funny & gay, is way too expensive, will fall over once a day every day, and has approximately 13 applications available whereas the PC has 900 gazillion.

Why would ANYBODY buy an iMac when they can buy a PC?</STRONG>

The iMac looks nothing like the netvista.

It can have usb drives too. Like having 2 cd drives even matters. You should never copy disc to disc.

The geforce 2 is more than enough of a graphics card for this kind of computer. Mine handles everything I throw at it just fine.

Its appearance is purely subjective. Some people will like it, and some won't. Its design has more function than your precious netvista has though.

The iMac is cheaper than PC's of similar specs. I've been over this in the "Got Mine Today" post

Given that I can see the icons for more than 13 apps on my screen right now, and gazillion is not a number, your this argument lacks any fact or meaning.

Come back when you have some facts. Or don't. Keep posting bs, so that I can kill time shooting you down again and again. It is fun to be right.

[beamso]

The journalist seems more pissed about not being in the inner circle before the release of the new iMac than any particular misgiving about its design and expandability.

I know that for PCs to get the official MS 'designed for Windows XP' sticker on the case, there has to be 2 usb ports on the front of the machine. Is this the same for the firewire port? It must be hard to connect firewire devices convieniently (i.e. without reaching behind the case that he's got on the floor under the desk) ...

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: beamso ]

[smacintush]

The iMac is a direct copy of the NetVista, cannot have two CD drives (except for uber-expensive Firewire drives that only Bill Gates can afford), has an old and creaky graphics card, overheats, looks funny & gay, is way too expensive, will fall over once a day every day, and has approximately 13 applications available whereas the PC has 900 gazillion.

Why would ANYBODY buy an iMac when they can buy a PC?

LOOK! It's the amazing flaming &lt;wiggles&gt;, making [non]sense as always.

G.L.A.A.D. to see you�

[CarpetFluff]

I really don't get all this crap i'm hearing about the ports being inconvenient at the back of the new iMac. Have these people even seen this machine? the base is so small that it's hardly an arm stretch to reach around the back and I think they're still thinking CRT, the flat panel glides out of the way to give you easy access to the back of the machine.

I'm working on a Wintel desktop machine right now with the ports at the back and it has a 22" monitor sitting on top of it, the base unit is much larger than the base of the imac but even on this it would be easy to reach around the back if the monitor was flat and swivelled out of the way like the iMac.

Also did I dream it or has the iMac not got two ridiculously convenient USB ports on the keyboard?

I think it's incredibly sad that people try to review things when it's apparent that they've neither seen, touched or used it and have very little imagination to compensate for this lack of experience.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>He has some very good points.

The iMac is a direct copy of the NetVista, cannot have two CD drives (except for uber-expensive Firewire drives that only Bill Gates can afford), has an old and creaky graphics card, overheats, looks funny & gay, is way too expensive, will fall over once a day every day, and has approximately 13 applications available whereas the PC has 900 gazillion.

Why would ANYBODY buy an iMac when they can buy a PC?</STRONG>

- Way better graphics card, DVD-Burner, much better user experience, and better design (sorry, but the Netvista X is *so* 80's), near-silent operation, for less money.

- Mac OS X. There is *nothing* you can say to that. There is not an informed Windows or *nix geek *not* drooling over a tiBook running OS X. Period.

- http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/ will also show *more* software coming out (as of today) for OS X than for Windows...strange, isn't it...

-chris.

P.S.: What's you're obsession with gayness? Was your daddy a little too nice to you when you were little?

[JoeBruin]

Originally posted by Eug:
...I'm convinced he has smoked a bit too much sometimes...
[/QB]

You're giving the ganj a bad rap. He's just an idiot. Plain and simple.
Please refrain from associating the two.

[driven]

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>He has some very good points.

The iMac is a direct copy of the NetVista, cannot have two CD drives (except for uber-expensive Firewire drives that only Bill Gates can afford), has an old and creaky graphics card, overheats, looks funny & gay, is way too expensive, will fall over once a day every day, and has approximately 13 applications available whereas the PC has 900 gazillion.

Why would ANYBODY buy an iMac when they can buy a PC?</STRONG>

Well for one: If you want the Netvista to have a movable monitor like the iMac then you have to bolt the sucker to the wall or the desk. (Like with bolts, a permanent mount.)

[Michael T. Doyle]

It's just sour grapes over the Time exclusive. And it makes the author look foolish that he had to be rewritten by the editors. He must have really punched out that article in a rage.

[mikerally]

Guys ignore Wiggles,

he wades through every single thread and tries to piss as many people off as possible.

I'm emplore the administrator to no longer allow unregistered guests to post messages in this forum.

[hawiken]

I'm just wondering why, since the monitor arm swivels 360 degrees, you couldn't turn the base sideways, so to speak, and have all of the ports on the on the side of the CPU, where they'd be easy to get to. Just a thought.
Wouldn't that be easier than crawling under the desk to access the ports?
Just out of curiousity, how many Wintel machines come with 2 CD-RW drives?
Most of this guy's article seemed like a rant against Apple's PR department rather than an objective critique of the iMac. Maybe the National Enquirer needs a 'tech writer'.
Just my thoughts... Regards to all, Ken

[Michael T. Doyle]

Originally posted by hawiken:
<STRONG>I'm just wondering why, since the monitor arm swivels 360 degrees, you couldn't turn the base sideways, so to speak, and have all of the ports on the on the side of the CPU, where they'd be easy to get to. Just a thought...</STRONG>

Depending on your desk, it might make it harder to access the drive tray, since that would now be on the side, too.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by hawiken:
<STRONG>I'm just wondering why, since the monitor arm swivels 360 degrees, you couldn't turn the base sideways, so to speak, and have all of the ports on the on the side of the CPU, where they'd be easy to get to. Just a thought. </STRONG>

Actually, the arm only swings 180 degrees, so although theoretically you could turn it sideways and have the ports on the side, you would not have the same freedom of movement of the LCD as it normally would. The iMac monitor would be restricted from swinging either to the right or to the left, depending on which side you orient the ports.

Having playing with the new iMac at MacWorld this week, I don't think the back ports are as much of a problem as many think. Getting to them in their standard orientation is fairly easy given the comparatively small diameter of the base - it's actually much easier than the old iMac, in fact. And, because it's a lot easier to turn the entire computer around than the old iMac, if you really want to get back there it's a no-brainer; at the show I saw a LOT of people grabbing the base of the iMacs and turning them this way and that way to "test" how easy it is to move and get to the ports.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by hawiken:
<STRONG>I'm just wondering why, since the monitor arm swivels 360 degrees, you couldn't turn the base sideways, so to speak, and have all of the ports on the on the side of the CPU, where they'd be easy to get to. Just a thought.
Wouldn't that be easier than crawling under the desk to access the ports?
Just out of curiousity, how many Wintel machines come with 2 CD-RW drives?
</STRONG>

I was thinking the same thing. No reason, as long as you leave room for the CD drive door to pop open.

As to Wintel machines, this is an increasingly common configuration, and it completely baffles me. Why would anyone want 2 CD-ROM drives? My father-in-law bought a new Compaq not long ago. It comes with one DVD-ROM, and one CD-RW. Why wouldn't they just put in a combo drive? I know I'd rather have that than always trying to figure out which drive was which.

I have an external CD-R on my G4, which has a built-in DVD-ROM. I never use the CDR as a CD-ROM drive, and I never copy one CD directly to another. Who really does direct disc-to-disc copies besides pirates anyway?

[Il Duce]

Nice work guys - take a look at this.
I had a read of the zdnet article and I agree that the only thing this guy is PO'd about is the fact that he had to wait as long as the pleb consumers to find out about this thing.
I also noticed two paragraphs that have now been altered:

(Editor's note: the word "internal" has been added to this paragraph to clarify the author's intended point.)

(Editor's note: This paragraph has been rewritten to clarify the author's intended point.)

I then voted at the bottom of the screen, thinking that I would put my $0.02 in, despite what all the biased PC users say, when, to my amazement, I find that 63 percent of voters decided that

Yes. Apple has once again put itself on the cutting edge of computer design.

That is roughly equal to 22000 pro vs 13000 against.

Good to see the mac fans (and maybe some PC converts) rallying behind the new imac.

[Jansar]

Actually, over 23,000 pro and less than 13,000 against.

[The Ginger Rat]

I think David Coursey has taken some major heat, as he wrote a "Clarification" column, which of course is also getting hammered.

I was disappointed in the original column, as I actually do think that David Coursey is an Apple fan, more so than Jesse Berst ever was. If you scan through his columns, he has been quite even handed and complimentary toward Apple. Gushing fanboy, no, but I don't want that. I was more disappointed in that it was a poorly argued column, and smacked big time of outraged feelings overcoming objectivity.

OTOH, I can understand his being pissed if Apple flat out lied to him. As a journalist, he *better* be pissed about that.

Originally posted by &lt;wiggles&gt;:
<STRONG>He has some very good points.

The iMac is a direct copy of the NetVista, ), has an old and creaky graphics card, overheats, </STRONG>

Uhhh...moron, the Netvista has an ancient Rage128! The GeForce 2MX in the iMac spanks its butt.

And how would you know if it overheats or not? You've never even used one!

Dear god, calling you an idiot would get me beaten up by idiots who were insulted by the comparison.

[DaedalusDX]

The anchordesk guy is a fool... he complains that the connectors are inaccessable just because the ports are on the back and the machine is on the desk.

Does he really think having a big honking tower under your desk would be MORE accessable than the iMac? instead of bending over your desk to reach the various connectors, he'd rather crawl around on his hands and knees under his desk? That's been my experience with every PC and PowerMac (not cube) that's ever been plopped on the floor.

Having two drives and doing an on the fly copy of a disc is a generally unsupported opperation on even PC burning applications like Roxio EZ CD Creator. It can be set to do that, but it certainly isn't recommended. It increases the chances of a coaster dramatically... if either drive stalls in the operation the burn fails. Imaging the disc first to the hard drive and then burning it is a more reliable way.

And give me a break... it doesn't save you THAT much time to do it on the fly. This guy has no patience.... Other than this RARE useage, there is almost no other reason to have a second optical drive on a computer...

[Subzero Diesel949]

Sigh...I guess "FireWire" is a foreign word to the Wintel crowd....

The only people I ever see fully utilize both optical drives are those pirating movies or games.