Re: The sad Truth about iMac-- maybe not so sad

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

John Paul Murdie writes ...
> 
> This is an article written by Brad Dosland in the March issue of Maximum PC., he
> is the editor in Chief.

>>
> 
> ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE.
> These lies would be laughable if there weren't any victims. But there are.
> 
> I definitely didn't want to write about the iMac again. After all, our critical
> review of Apple's savior back in October earned us reams of emotional E-mail and
> Usenet flames from Macophiles pointing out how popular the li"l Mac that could
> has proven to be ( with the tech naive ). But we had our say, we backed it up
> with facts, and we quietly stood by our position.  Until now.
> I feel compelled to re-enter the fray because I'm tired of Apple's
> misrepresentations and the celebration of this overhyped under-achiever that
> perpetrates technological obsolescence.
....

> One report I heard described Apple's adopted API,
> OpenGL, as "the PC standard for 3D graphics. "Well, let's count how many
> currently active game engines run OGL, as opposed to Direct3D. Hmmm, a small
> handful versus hundreds, maybe thousands. These lies would be laughable if there
> weren't any victims. But there are. Everyone who buys this bargain-bin
> technology dressed up in designer duds is a victim.
>
> The single biggest issue consumers have with technology is obsolescence. They
> pay their money and a  year later it won't run the software they just bought.
> Everyone else is playing the latest game, running the latest creativity app, or
> accessing the latest streaming media on the web, but alas, the iMac owners
> can't.
>
> I'm sorry, but you have no excuse if you bought from the back of the curve to
> save a buck. If you're bright , you learn to buy as forward in the curve as your
> budget will allow and get more ride for your buck. If your not so bright, you
> try to cheat the curve again, only to regret it next year.
>
 ....

> I'd hate to see the realm of personal computers become single faceted.
> But I believe the only way to solve a problem is through honesty. No amount of
> hollow or inflated reviews will to make the Mac platform improve. Hard, honest
> looks at the technology will.
>
> The biggest difference between my MacPlus back in"86" and the iMac today is that
> my MacPlus was a state of the art no excuses quality  machine with a legit life
> span. The iMac had one foot in the grave at birth, and I just can't bear to see
> people buy into this delusion.
>
<<
 
> I was going to buy an iMac, but after reading this article I don't know? I would
> like to see some feedback, hopefully my opinion will be swayed as it is a
> compact little machine that you can easily pack with you anywhere you go with
> little fuss. If I had to pack up my IBM clone it would take me an hour to stow
> it.
> John Murdie, Pender Harbour.


     My inclination is to agree with many of Brad's observations of fact regarding
iMac's place in the performance pecking order and, at least for now, to disagree
with his overall analysis.

     Brad says that he would hate to see "the realm of personal computers become
single faceted". Yet, his entire view of the new Apple machine begins with the
assumption that personal computing _is_ single faceted.

     For example, if iMac favors OpenGL it is out of step with all those Direct-3D
products. If the net is not currently iMac friendly, its users are doomed to be
losers. And, when the next 100MHz boost in processor speed hits or a 32MB Super
VooDoo + Ultra-2D video card arrives, iMac will be left in the dust.

     Again, all of the above makes sense if we begin with the presumption that
adhering to the current PC standard is the ultimate Good. The hole in such a dour
analysis is that, with a large number of enthusiastic owners, iMac defines its own
standard. According to sales reports, Apple has managed to create a significant iMac
home user base; and, it is expanding rapidly. If a lot of current game software does
not run especially well on iMac, it would be a really good idea for game producers
to make sure the next batch does. If an ISP or on-line service or web advertiser
wants all those iMac users for customers, it had best facilitate iMac net access.

     As we move toward a 500MHz PC standard and bigger, faster video, the usual
warnings against falling off the technological 'leading edge' will drive millions of
PC owners to scrap motherboards, dump peripherals, plug in new boards, hunt for
drivers, and learn, yet one more time, how everything works. Meanwhile, iMac owners
will be playing games, surfing the net, and shopping for the hottest new peripheral.
And, when Apple comes up with a new iMac in a few years, users will still be paying
less for an upgrade than PC owners.

     Will the next batch of new game software look better on the next batch of PC's
than on iMac? Well, once the user has the right drivers configured the right way on
his/her particular super-PC and has installed the most recent game patch, the
expectation would be "Yes". On the other hand, software designers can do a lot with
a well-defined platform which remains relatively stable. At 266MHz, with the
necessary RAM expansion and a 1024 x 768 24-bit color display, iMac has more power
than current software uses efficiently. It would be no surprise to find that, often,
for-iMac wares work _and_ look better.

     Potentially, iMac is the Commodore-64 of the 90's-- only better, because, in
absolute terms, it's capabilities are more than 'good enough' for practically any
current application. (That is, once your display looks like a photograph, it doesn't
much matter whether you add another 100 million colors.)  When I checked Apple's
iMac page and saw a mention of "Five Flavors of iMac", the expectation was the usual
options for faster processors, larger displays, more super video, etc., etc.. Nope;
"Flavors" are case colors! This sort of 'big green numbers and little rubber feet'
promotion is fun. 

     iMac _should_ put a big dent in off-white PC sales. About the only thing
standing in the way of a stupendous success is iMac's maker. If Apple starts
worrying about the impact upon its higher-priced (grossly over-priced) office
machines, it could fumble iMac the same way it managed to mishandle the II series.
The web page presentation is perfect; but, where is the TV blitz?

     A bunch of shoppers are wondering whether or not Apple is serious about iMac.
If not, then everything Brad says about "one born every minute" could be verified--
we'll have just another collection of orphaned kind-of-PC-campatible Mac users.
Fortunately, it seems that, this time around, there is not much choice except to be
serious. TV ads, a magazine or two, and for-iMac versions of games are some
indicators that the new machine has staying power. Once you are fairly sure of this,
the main questions are: Do you like iMac? and What's your favorite 'flavor'?



Rubywand