Re: The sad Truth about iMac:

[Nick <n_marx@ix.netcom.com>]

This article makes claims, which while not necessarily untrue, are misleading, and
are clearly taken from an anti-mac, pro-pc standpoint.

The iMac is by no means a technical marvel, and it does have it's shortcommings,
however, for what it was designd to do, it does a good job.  It was designed to be
the ideal, low cost, networked computer for schools, business, and home.  It doesn't
have a lot of extra parts and plugs which can confuse the novice user and it
prevents component theft.  It does not have a floppy drive which limits software
piracy (in a computer lab environment for example).  It incorporates new technology
such as USB to allow future peripheral enhancements.  It does lack expansion slots,
video upgradability, and other specialized options, but most users arent going to
need that.

It is fallacious to say that the iMac was released with one foot in the grave, any
more than the Pentium III is.  The pentium III barely outperforms its predecessors
(PII, Celeron) and still falls short of the G3.  Beyond that, I just set up a Mac
7100/80 with the latest version of system software, Microsoft Office 98, Netscape
4.5, and it is a responsive, viable machine.  I challenge anyone to show me a
comparable Pentium class machine from the same time period that can run windows NT
4.0 at the same level of responsiveness...  Macs have remained much more viable than
PC machines for longer periods of time.  Therefore the iMac has a long way to go
before it is obsolete.

So the bottom line is that if you want a low-cost computer that will give you decent
performance, get an iMac.  If you want a computer that is at the front of the
technology line, I would suggest a new G3, on a 1 Year lease, then you have not
deeply invested, and you stay at the front.

John Paul Murdie wrote:

> 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.
> As I write this, Apple has announced yet another profitable quarter. Our sister
> publication MacAddict, gave the iMac its highest rating. And Jeff Goldblum
> continues to prattle on radio and television about how fab this little box is.
> I understand Goldblum is an actor paid to recite lines, but when he spouts
> outright lies such as there's never been a non-beige PC , (what about Sony,
> Compaq, and Intergraph? ), that the iMac is only one piece, (true if you don't
> use the mouse or keyboard on this modern art piece), or that getting through on
> the Internet is one click away ( must be a mighty trusting ISP), it's hard to
> respect him.
> The latest news out of Cupertino is that John Carmack is " 100 percent behind
> Apple", which doesn't seem to jibe with the man's own PLAN file. "Cautiously
> optimistic" would be my take. 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.
>  Many who read this will write it off as  typical anti-Mac sentiment from a PC
> mag. They'll assume I have to toe this line to protect my precious platform. Not
> true. Whether you choose to believe this or not, my first computer was a Mac
> Plus. I worked on Macs all through the DTP revolution and even founded a Mac
> user group. I just dig tech and I sincerely want Apple to thrive, because some
> of the best things that have happened to the PC were born on the Macintosh. 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.