<A HREf="http://www.apple.com/imac/">Cool, eh?</A>. Nay, it's beyond cool, it's sheer brilliance.

http://a1424.g.akamai.net/7/1424/51/b926358f23e275/www.apple.com/imac/images/indextop01072002.jpghttp://a592.g.akamai.net/7/592/51/792df9bea1bfab/www.apple.com/imac/images/software_top.jpg

(but where will i stack my important papers?)

Bad to the bone. Damn I love Apple!

Papers!?! People still use paper these days??

:)

personally i think it looks cool, but i'd rather shoot my toe off instead of buying one. i hate apple computers. sure they look nice, but theres not all that much you can do with one, they're very limited. well thats my opionion, and it should be yours too! just kiddin ;)

i hate apple computers. sure they look nice, but theres not all that much you can do with one, they're very limited.

I am about as ultimate a computer user as possible. I'm an internet pioneer, I'm a programmer. I develop internet applications, desktop applications, and games. I'm also a graphic designer.

My Mac has never failed me. So, you're just wrong.

I've almost never used a MAC, and when I have it's been a disaster :(

I'll stick to my PC, even though it is a pretty neat design they've got going :D

I am about as ultimate a computer user as possible. I'm an internet pioneer, I'm a programmer. I develop internet applications, desktop applications, and games. I'm also a graphic designer.

My Mac has never failed me. So, you're just wrong.

My experience is true for me, thus it must be true for everyone. Right? I hope you're joking.

Originally posted by Porfiry


I am about as ultimate a computer user as possible. I'm an internet pioneer, I'm a programmer. I develop internet applications, desktop applications, and games. I'm also a graphic designer.

My Mac has never failed me. So, you're just wrong.

So, when can I be able to buy a computer with four screens (because they do not make a 36 inch LCD panel), where one computer drives all the panels and I can drag and drop windows to other panels? I am a multitasker, you can tell...

I like Mac, but Apple should move to the Intel platform. OS X is cool.

Will AOL buy Redhat and come up with an Apple and Microsoft killer? Kill two birds with one stone? Time will tell....

So, when can I be able to buy a computer with four screens (because they do not make a 36 inch LCD panel), where one computer drives all the panels and I can drag and drop windows to other panels? I am a multitasker, you can tell...

Macs have had that sort of multi-screen capability for a very long time.


I like Mac, but Apple should move to the Intel platform. OS X is cool.

Do you mean that Apple should use Intel chips, or that Mac OS X should run on any beige-box PC? Because, the issues are different. There's no reason for the former (dual-G4s outperform Pentium 4's by a sizeable margin). The latter would be a fatal business move, unless Apple were to succeed gloriously. The resource drain needed to support such an effort would probably kill Apple if it failed.

I want a screen that wraps 180 degrees around your desk, that would be cool :D

MAC is kool,i have a laptop and it works nicely,never had a problem with it.

MAC has had plug 'n play for a long time,did IBM family have it earlier?i am not too sure...

OS X is pretty nice.

bye!

You have credit Apple for great designing though,they have some of the best looking ones...:cool:






bye!

Design,
I'm a designer too, btw what's the dot pitch of those screen? I couldn't find it on the specs page,.......

1024x768

Of course, the design is flexible enough that Apple can easily swap in larger displays when component prices make it possible.

I actually saw one of these things in person the other day (university bookstore finally got one), and I'm quite impressed. The purity of the aesthetic is quite compelling (from the perspective of the user, it appears as this simple frame that floats in space -- the base is hidden away behind the frame).

I'd be the proud owner of a mac right now, porfiry, I recognize that they are better computers, and better looking . They're fulfilling the sleek-design-y wave of the future:)

But, alas, I don't own one, why you ask? Because I'm a pc gamer . There are really hardly any games for the macintosh, the pc is the primary platform for gaming, mac users wait months or don't get the latest games at all simply because they weren't designed for macs. I have a friend right now who has an imac, its a beautiful machine but it doesn't have a floppy drive! He also can't play games on it, and he's very sad about it:(

THAT is the only flaw for macs (plus their real lack of a current tv ad campaign, even though the pictures of this AWSOME machine have popped up everywhere). PC's will continue to dominate as long as developers are making pc based games.

But, alas, I don't own one, why you ask? Because I'm a pc gamer.

You're entirely correct about games. I myself left the Mac platform a few years ago when I started attending university (because, the first 3 years of university are prime gaming years). Alas, I suppose I grew up (or the game industry just sucks), because I haven't played a compelling computer game in at least a year. (I *really* think it's the industry -- Half Life was the last game I really enjoyed).

But, since PC hardware is so cheap, I'd imagine keeping a decent PC for games only is a reasonable option (say $500 at most for a barebones PC).


I have a friend right now who has an imac, its a beautiful machine but it doesn't have a floppy drive!

Nor does it have a punch card reader.

;)

I haven't played a compelling computer game in at least a year.

At the moment I'd suggest No One Lives Forever, Imperium Galactica 2, Starcraft and Starcraft: Broodwar, and Diablo 2. These games are in every genre except adventure (you'd probably have more fun reading a book than playing one of those games). Maybe this'll get you back into 'the buzz.' The best pc games website out there is gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com) . All of the games I mentioned you could probably get for $20 or less if you scrounged around the internet a bit:D


Nor does it have a punch card reader

wha??

It is the age old struggle between Beta vs VHS. or more like G4 and Intel. Unless IBM stays and continually improves the G4, Motorola may give up and then there goes the Mac....

Have you seen the Motorola stock lately? With a operating profit of -18.4% (Yahoo), how long they can bleed?

It is the age old struggle between Beta vs VHS. or more like G4 and Intel. Unless IBM stays and continually improves the G4, Motorola may give up and then there goes the Mac....

Not at all. OS X is processor-agnostic. There's no reason Apple couldn't switch to Intel/AMD chips if it was forced. Remember that the NeXTStep OS that OS X is derived from ran primarily on x86.


Have you seen the Motorola stock lately? With a operating profit of -18.4% (Yahoo), how long they can bleed?

It's a good thing the semiconductor division of Motorola is profitable.

As far as I can remember (Unless anything has changed)
PC's were 32Bit (Of course they've progressed) and MAC's were 24Bit.

PC's were and still are far more unstable for art packages than MACS. PC's had more variability than MAC back then, but I kinda liked the look of them, even though I've only ever used one once and haven't had the chance to get hold of one now.

I do intend to add a MAC to my Arsenal. As I'm a collector of fine things (or inadequite when you look at my 486x66 lol)

In away Porfiry, I'm jelous

PC's were 32Bit (Of course they've progressed) and MAC's were 24Bit.

Nope. In fact, Macs have *always* used 32-bit processors (ever since '84). I believe the 386 was the first 32-bit x86, with the predecessors being 16-bit.

The Itanium on the x86 side and the G5 on the PowerPC side will both soon bring 64-bit computing to the desktop.

I just did the search "MAC 24Bit", okay so it doesn't come back and say that I'm wrong, but I believe that the info I was in the Early 90's.

24Bit was just more stable than it's newly found (at the time) 32Bit counterpart. Quite simply the extra 8Bit's was more processes and commands that could error. That's why it was seen as a decent Image editing system in comparison to it's over-complexed counterpart.

Of course now adays all the codes have been refined, making them better than they were, but that's progress. Of course if I'm wrong, then it's fair enough. (The only reason I don't think I was, is because of that search lol)

I had win95 on a Pentium 90 MHz that ran without any trouble or blue screen of death for 3 years. It still runs and being used as the gateway to the internet and some low level games without locking up. I built that from scratch. Then I bought a 550MHz on Win98 that ran without any trouble also for 3 years. Lately, it is having some problems. What I noticed is that there are two many programs registered into the registry. I am in the process of cleaning them out.

Last time Norton ran for Antivirus, it reported 115,000 files in 4150 folders. I wonder if a Mac has the same amout of activity, it will choke too.

My laptop on W2K and another laptop on W98SE, that I use on trips has never locked up. I do run SQL2000 and DB2 on them. So, may be it is the rouge programs people write that cause problems. Any heavy Mac user can comment on this. The grass may look greener at the neighbor's yard....

But, to the topic of the new MAC being cool...it is way too cool...

I just did the search "MAC 24Bit", okay so it doesn't come back and say that I'm wrong, but I believe that the info I was in the Early 90's.

OK, you may be partially correct.

The Motorola 68000 processor used in the first Macs was a 32-bit processor. However, apparently <a href="http://www.lowendmac.com/trouble/32bit.shtml">prior</A> to System 7, Macs used 24-bit addressing of memory. That doesn't constrain the CPU itself from processing 32-bits of data. It merely means the addressable memory space is smaller (8MB). However, this is ancient history (early 90s) and appears to have been a limitation of the OS only.