The wonderful Truth about iMac:

[Frank Carney <frankcNOSPAM@cyberhighway.net>]

>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
So is and does every other "low-cost" computer.

>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
That is good, but if a user is confused then they should not be in the
computer.

>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
If it is on a network is is MORE vulnerable to software theft from
anywhere.

>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.
Since when is an expansion slot considered specialized.  It allows a
computer to be non-specialized.

>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
How does it fall short and why would a P3 have a foot in the grave when
it runs backward-compatible assembly language?  The pentium three would
not barely outperform its predecessors if all the code was written for
it in the first place.

>7100/80 with the latest version of system software, Microsoft Office
98, Netscape
>4.5, and it is a responsive, viable machine.
It better be or there would be a lot of angry customers.  However, what
happens to the iMac if M$ gets split up and no one is around to produce
office?

>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...
First of all define responsiveness, then I will show you a 486DX2/66
that can run the latest versions of Office or Office compatible
softeware and  Netscape under not just one but two operating systems:
Win and Linux.  With Linux being the most responsive.  Then I could take
it a step further and run all those on a 486SX25 or earlier (maybe even
a 386, though not as "responsive").

>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.
They remain more viable because users are forced to use them longer
because an upgrade is incompatible with what they already have
(software, special hardware).  The PC suffers from this when upgrading
to advanced architectures, but alas they are so cheap who cares.

>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.
If you want a low-cost computer that will give you decent performance
then go buy a PC off someone that is upgrading to a newer PC or an
iMac.  If you want a computer that is at the front of technology then
wait a couple of years when they introduce PCs that will get
sub-Supercomputer speeds using on-the-fly reconfigurable hardware.  It
will change the physical hardware for each application transparent to
the application and probably the OS.  Don't ask me about it, this is all
I know.




--
To e-mail me please click here mailto:frankc@cyberhighway.net or remove
remove "NOSPAM" from the reply-to address.