You have to admit, Apple has been pushing the envelope for small form factor designs lately.
The iPhone, the Touch iPod, the new (touchless) iMac.
I don't personally own a single mac product. I enjoy being able to meddle too much with things in the background. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work they're doing. They're setting standards that take us away from the big grey box paradigm.
And into the thin, silver box paradigm.
Not quite.
I should have said big grey boxes. Monitor + tower.
The thin silver box paradigm is pretty stylin', even if it isn't upgradable.
You have to admit, Apple has been pushing the envelope for small form factor designs lately.
The iPhone, the Touch iPod, the new (touchless) iMac.
I don't personally own a single mac product. I enjoy being able to meddle too much with things in the background. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work they're doing. They're setting standards that take us away from the big grey box paradigm.
And into the thin, silver box paradigm.
Not quite.
I should have said big grey boxes. Monitor + tower.
The thin silver box paradigm is pretty stylin', even if it isn't upgradable.
Towers don't look too shabby, either.
I find the massive cooling towers stacked next to a computer have a certain retro appeal, like pipes and boilers and steam engines, but it's just not as practical in the long run as the effective miniaturization of components.
Reaper Smith on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You have to admit, Apple has been pushing the envelope for small form factor designs lately.
The iPhone, the Touch iPod, the new (touchless) iMac.
I don't personally own a single mac product. I enjoy being able to meddle too much with things in the background. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work they're doing. They're setting standards that take us away from the big grey box paradigm.
And into the thin, silver box paradigm.
Not quite.
I should have said big grey boxes. Monitor + tower.
The thin silver box paradigm is pretty stylin', even if it isn't upgradable.
Towers don't look too shabby, either.
I find the massive cooling towers stacked next to a computer have a certain retro appeal, like pipes and boilers and steam engines, but it's just not as practical in the long run as effective miniaturization.
Practical? Which one can you put together yourself and upgrade, again?
I'm not disagreeing that the new iMac isn't sexy. It's just that I value a couple of qualities over a specific aesthetic value of the thing.
You have to admit, Apple has been pushing the envelope for small form factor designs lately.
The iPhone, the Touch iPod, the new (touchless) iMac.
I don't personally own a single mac product. I enjoy being able to meddle too much with things in the background. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work they're doing. They're setting standards that take us away from the big grey box paradigm.
And into the thin, silver box paradigm.
Not quite.
I should have said big grey boxes. Monitor + tower.
The thin silver box paradigm is pretty stylin', even if it isn't upgradable.
Towers don't look too shabby, either.
I find the massive cooling towers stacked next to a computer have a certain retro appeal, like pipes and boilers and steam engines, but it's just not as practical in the long run as effective miniaturization.
Practical? Which one can you put together yourself and upgrade, again?
Will there come a point where you won't need to upgrade for the rest of your lifetime?
Reaper Smith on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The difference between Mac and Non mac users, see if you can see who is who
"Did you se that new Imac?"
"yeah it looks great"
"Did you see that new Imac?"
"It seems a little much for those specs"
Funnily, I've found that people buying cars are about the same. Sadly, the line, in my experience, runs right along the gender line. I've met fa too many women who bought their car because "It was cute" I guess.
The difference between Mac and Non mac users, see if you can see who is who
"Did you se that new Imac?"
"yeah it looks great"
"Did you see that new Imac?"
"It seems a little much for those specs"
Funnily, I've found that people buying cars are about the same. Sadly, the line, in my experience, runs right along the gender line. I've met fa too many women who bought their car because "It was cute" I guess.
I know this may not be the popular view here, but there's nothing objectively wrong about buying a car (or a computer) because it's "cute." In the case of a car, if you're given a choice between 3-4 different models that all have about the same cost, reliability, fuel efficiency, and utility as each other, then what's wrong with choosing the model whose aesthetics you like best? Similarly, there's nothing objectively wrong with wanting a really simple, easy-to-use, functional computer. There's nothing wrong with paying a little bit more for it, even for a preferred aesthetic, if that's what you want it for.
...Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but the wording "far too many" quoted above sparked this.
Considered or the driving force? I'm all for putting form on an equal or slightly greater footing than function, but not to this point. You basically get to use it and then junk it for new when it's no longer up to snuff. I can understand that with a laptop given the intention, but for a desktop? No, that just ain't right.
The difference between Mac and Non mac users, see if you can see who is who
"Did you se that new Imac?"
"yeah it looks great"
"Did you see that new Imac?"
"It seems a little much for those specs"
Funnily, I've found that people buying cars are about the same. Sadly, the line, in my experience, runs right along the gender line. I've met fa too many women who bought their car because "It was cute" I guess.
I know this may not be the popular view here, but there's nothing objectively wrong about buying a car (or a computer) because it's "cute." In the case of a car, if you're given a choice between 3-4 different models that all have about the same cost, reliability, fuel efficiency, and utility as each other, then what's wrong with choosing the model whose aesthetics you like best? Similarly, there's nothing objectively wrong with wanting a really simple, easy-to-use, functional computer. There's nothing wrong with paying a little bit more for it, even for a preferred aesthetic, if that's what you want it for.
...Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but the wording "far too many" quoted above sparked this.
Aesthetics are important. Buying a car based solely on aesthetics is a terrible idea though. Aesthetics are part of the picture, not the whole.
Your mistake here is assuming people buying a car are making a choice between "3-4 different models that all have about the same cost, reliability, fuel efficiency, and utility".
Aesthetics are important. Buying a car based solely on aesthetics is a terrible idea though. Aesthetics are part of the picture, not the whole.
Your mistake here is assuming people buying a car are making a choice between "3-4 different models that all have about the same cost, reliability, fuel efficiency, and utility".
What cause do we have to think that someone*** willing to plunk down thousands of dollars on a new car is going to sign the agreement only because of a car's "cuteness"?
***By "someone" I mean a significant proportion of the car-buying public, and possibly a significant proportion of the female car-buying public.
Here's the thing: different people value things differently. There's nothing objectively wrong with valuing aesthetics over fuel efficiency, especially since everyone's circumstances are different: how do we know that the hypothetical female car-buyer isn't just in the market for a twice-a-week-jaunt-around-town vehicle instead of a daily commute car?
I see it the same way when it comes to computers. Sure, most everyone here and/or in the know about computers isn't going to like the overall iMac package. That's fine. Other people will, however, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with their logic or their value systems. You're right, aesthetics are just part of the picture and not the whole, but the relative importance of those parts varies from whole picture to whole picture.
Even granting that, those aren't mutually exclusive.
They are when utility is sacrificed for aesthetics.
The "iPhone can't use 3G because the hardware would make the phone too big." argument. Or, hell, look at the iMac. How are you supposed to open it to replace the hardware?
They are when utility is sacrificed for aesthetics.
The "iPhone can't use 3G because the hardware would make the phone too big." argument.
Because size has nothing to do with utility. Nosir.
We're not talking about carrying a UNIVAC in your pocket. A slight increase in size would not hamper the utility of the iPhone.
It wouldn't hamper it in integer values, sure. But it would make it slightly harder to carry every single day. It would take up a little more space in your jacket pocket, pull your pants down a little more. For a few people at the extreme end of the curve, that difference would be a dealbreaker. The lack of 3G has a similarly deleterious effect. These things can be compared as equals.
Not to say that it was, but assuming that that decision was made for that reason, well, that's why. Don't get all pretentious about function over form. In a consumer product, and especially a high-end, high-aesthetic product, form is very much a function.
What part of the failures of Modernist design aren't you aware of? Functionality as an end in and of itself leads to disasterous results almost always and the rare exception where it does work generally is due to other factors being given equal weight. Not to mention the fact that function doesn't actually lead to a specific form anyway and that any number of geometries and styles could provide for the same effect. I mean, christ, there are libraries on this stuff.
moniker on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
a sleek package vs. a package you have more direct control over.
ease of use vs. options.
there need not be arguments about this. the two sides can co exist.
a sleek package vs. a package you have more direct control over.
ease of use vs. options.
there need not be arguments about this. the two sides can co exist.
it's a trade off. Everything with computers is, which is why having a lot of choices is awesome. All the fucking mac hype, bugs the piss out of me, but hardwarewise, it is just the far end of one side of the spectrum. There are all sorts of options out there in the middle.
I think this imac is slightly neat just cause it is so wee, but honestly my tower sits under my desk anyway. You don't see it. It lights up blue, and is glossy metal all over, but you don't see it. All this imac does, it get rid of 2 cords and prevent you from kicking your tower a couple times a week.
In terms of upgradability I'm not sure it's really an argument anymore. Given the current penchant for routinely replacing entire system bus architectures on a whim, you're sort of stuck buying a whole new system anyway most of the time.
I'm still kind of pissed how the whole AGP thing has gone, since swapping out video cards has really been the only upgrade path anyone using PCs has needed to take for a long while (though I'll admit going dual core on my laptop was actually a good move for my productivity coz the office apps were running slow).
Apple's aesthetics would be a more valid argument if they came in a wider variety.
I've never actually seen a modern Mac that looked better to me than your average modern PC.
They all remind me of something you'd see in a dentist's office. iPods included.
Even the monitors look like upright light boxes.
So, since I prefer Windows to Mac and Linux to begin with, there's no draw to buy their more expensive, slightly more limited equipment, which will last about the same amount of time, since I have no space issues to begin with.
That said, I probably would have gotten an iBook eventually if they hadn't started developing those super-cheap laptops, simply because they do perform so well.
In terms of upgradability I'm not sure it's really an argument anymore. Given the current penchant for routinely replacing entire system bus architectures on a whim, you're sort of stuck buying a whole new system anyway most of the time.
I'm still kind of pissed how the whole AGP thing has gone, since swapping out video cards has really been the only upgrade path anyone using PCs has needed to take for a long while (though I'll admit going dual core on my laptop was actually a good move for my productivity coz the office apps were running slow).
Uh, the move from AGP to PCI-E was not exactly taken "on a whim" -- AGP was around for a really long time, and hardware makers needed more bandwidth and a more efficient architecture linking peripherals to the chipset and memory. And it's not like you can't easily find AGP shit, even though the whole standard was obsolesced several years ago.
In terms of upgradability I'm not sure it's really an argument anymore. Given the current penchant for routinely replacing entire system bus architectures on a whim, you're sort of stuck buying a whole new system anyway most of the time.
I'm still kind of pissed how the whole AGP thing has gone, since swapping out video cards has really been the only upgrade path anyone using PCs has needed to take for a long while (though I'll admit going dual core on my laptop was actually a good move for my productivity coz the office apps were running slow).
Uh, the move from AGP to PCI-E was not exactly taken "on a whim" -- AGP was around for a really long time, and hardware makers needed more bandwidth and a more efficient architecture linking peripherals to the chipset and memory. And it's not like you can't easily find AGP shit, even though the whole standard was obsolesced several years ago.
I know this, AGP to PCI-E had to happen but the fact is I'm looking at a thousand dollars to get an PCI-E motherboard and it's been noted in sales that a lot of people simply aren't upgrading as a result of it.
The system bus thing is valid though - the only major gains in processor performance seem to really be between generations and no system bus survives the release of something that is actually better.
In terms of upgradability I'm not sure it's really an argument anymore. Given the current penchant for routinely replacing entire system bus architectures on a whim, you're sort of stuck buying a whole new system anyway most of the time.
I'm still kind of pissed how the whole AGP thing has gone, since swapping out video cards has really been the only upgrade path anyone using PCs has needed to take for a long while (though I'll admit going dual core on my laptop was actually a good move for my productivity coz the office apps were running slow).
Uh, the move from AGP to PCI-E was not exactly taken "on a whim" -- AGP was around for a really long time, and hardware makers needed more bandwidth and a more efficient architecture linking peripherals to the chipset and memory. And it's not like you can't easily find AGP shit, even though the whole standard was obsolesced several years ago.
I know this, AGP to PCI-E had to happen but the fact is I'm looking at a thousand dollars to get an PCI-E motherboard and it's been noted in sales that a lot of people simply aren't upgrading as a result of it.
The system bus thing is valid though - the only major gains in processor performance seem to really be between generations and no system bus survives the release of something that is actually better.
What'll be neat is when they start incorporating GPUs and other components directly into the multi-core CPU during the fab process.
Bypassing the system bus completely in favor of truly integrated graphics should provide for a significant performance increase. One would hope, at least.
AMD and ATI will probably do it first. Then Intel will buy up Nvidia and follow suit.
In terms of upgradability I'm not sure it's really an argument anymore. Given the current penchant for routinely replacing entire system bus architectures on a whim, you're sort of stuck buying a whole new system anyway most of the time.
I'm still kind of pissed how the whole AGP thing has gone, since swapping out video cards has really been the only upgrade path anyone using PCs has needed to take for a long while (though I'll admit going dual core on my laptop was actually a good move for my productivity coz the office apps were running slow).
Uh, the move from AGP to PCI-E was not exactly taken "on a whim" -- AGP was around for a really long time, and hardware makers needed more bandwidth and a more efficient architecture linking peripherals to the chipset and memory. And it's not like you can't easily find AGP shit, even though the whole standard was obsolesced several years ago.
I know this, AGP to PCI-E had to happen but the fact is I'm looking at a thousand dollars to get an PCI-E motherboard and it's been noted in sales that a lot of people simply aren't upgrading as a result of it.
The system bus thing is valid though - the only major gains in processor performance seem to really be between generations and no system bus survives the release of something that is actually better.
What'll be neat is when they start incorporating GPUs and other components directly into the multi-core CPU during the fab process.
Bypassing the system bus completely in favor of truly integrated graphics should provide for a significant performance increase. One would hope, at least.
AMD and ATI will probably do it first. Then Intel will buy up Nvidia and follow suit.
Intel's not buying nV anytime soon. They're planning on just going into the graphics market on their own.
Remember that 80-core prototype monster that everyone was talking about a while back? Yeah.
Daedalus on
0
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
This graphics card, which I just recently bought, is AGP.
It's not completely outdated yet.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
Wait, what are you doing that requires a thousand dollar motherboard?
I bought a new PCI-E mobo for ~$40.
If he has an AGP mobo, odds are upgrading to PCIE means a new processor, RAM set, and perhaps power supply. And the new graphics card, too. This is essentially an entirely new computer.
Posts
Towers don't look too shabby, either.
I find the massive cooling towers stacked next to a computer have a certain retro appeal, like pipes and boilers and steam engines, but it's just not as practical in the long run as the effective miniaturization of components.
I'm not disagreeing that the new iMac isn't sexy. It's just that I value a couple of qualities over a specific aesthetic value of the thing.
Will there come a point where you won't need to upgrade for the rest of your lifetime?
Whats next then, spintronics?
I'd rather a book than a tablet.
Tablets are so 6000 years ago.
Funnily, I've found that people buying cars are about the same. Sadly, the line, in my experience, runs right along the gender line. I've met fa too many women who bought their car because "It was cute" I guess.
I know this may not be the popular view here, but there's nothing objectively wrong about buying a car (or a computer) because it's "cute." In the case of a car, if you're given a choice between 3-4 different models that all have about the same cost, reliability, fuel efficiency, and utility as each other, then what's wrong with choosing the model whose aesthetics you like best? Similarly, there's nothing objectively wrong with wanting a really simple, easy-to-use, functional computer. There's nothing wrong with paying a little bit more for it, even for a preferred aesthetic, if that's what you want it for.
...Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but the wording "far too many" quoted above sparked this.
tl;dr - beat by Loren.
Considered or the driving force? I'm all for putting form on an equal or slightly greater footing than function, but not to this point. You basically get to use it and then junk it for new when it's no longer up to snuff. I can understand that with a laptop given the intention, but for a desktop? No, that just ain't right.
Aesthetics are important. Buying a car based solely on aesthetics is a terrible idea though. Aesthetics are part of the picture, not the whole.
Your mistake here is assuming people buying a car are making a choice between "3-4 different models that all have about the same cost, reliability, fuel efficiency, and utility".
What cause do we have to think that someone*** willing to plunk down thousands of dollars on a new car is going to sign the agreement only because of a car's "cuteness"?
***By "someone" I mean a significant proportion of the car-buying public, and possibly a significant proportion of the female car-buying public.
Here's the thing: different people value things differently. There's nothing objectively wrong with valuing aesthetics over fuel efficiency, especially since everyone's circumstances are different: how do we know that the hypothetical female car-buyer isn't just in the market for a twice-a-week-jaunt-around-town vehicle instead of a daily commute car?
I see it the same way when it comes to computers. Sure, most everyone here and/or in the know about computers isn't going to like the overall iMac package. That's fine. Other people will, however, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with their logic or their value systems. You're right, aesthetics are just part of the picture and not the whole, but the relative importance of those parts varies from whole picture to whole picture.
Utility > Aesthetics.
Go back to the 50's with your capital M modernism.
Even granting that, those aren't mutually exclusive. Hell, lots of people would say aesthetics is a property of utility.
They are when utility is sacrificed for aesthetics.
The "iPhone can't use 3G because the hardware would make the phone too big." argument. Or, hell, look at the iMac. How are you supposed to open it to replace the hardware?
Because size has nothing to do with utility. Nosir.
We're not talking about carrying a UNIVAC in your pocket. A slight increase in size would not hamper the utility of the iPhone.
Which is rarely necessary, actually.
It's never necessary.
So explain Macs.
It wouldn't hamper it in integer values, sure. But it would make it slightly harder to carry every single day. It would take up a little more space in your jacket pocket, pull your pants down a little more. For a few people at the extreme end of the curve, that difference would be a dealbreaker. The lack of 3G has a similarly deleterious effect. These things can be compared as equals.
Not to say that it was, but assuming that that decision was made for that reason, well, that's why. Don't get all pretentious about function over form. In a consumer product, and especially a high-end, high-aesthetic product, form is very much a function.
For stupid people, maybe.
This? Right here? That sentence?
That's what I meant by "pretentious".
False dichotomy.
What part of the failures of Modernist design aren't you aware of? Functionality as an end in and of itself leads to disasterous results almost always and the rare exception where it does work generally is due to other factors being given equal weight. Not to mention the fact that function doesn't actually lead to a specific form anyway and that any number of geometries and styles could provide for the same effect. I mean, christ, there are libraries on this stuff.
ease of use vs. options.
there need not be arguments about this. the two sides can co exist.
it's a trade off. Everything with computers is, which is why having a lot of choices is awesome. All the fucking mac hype, bugs the piss out of me, but hardwarewise, it is just the far end of one side of the spectrum. There are all sorts of options out there in the middle.
I think this imac is slightly neat just cause it is so wee, but honestly my tower sits under my desk anyway. You don't see it. It lights up blue, and is glossy metal all over, but you don't see it. All this imac does, it get rid of 2 cords and prevent you from kicking your tower a couple times a week.
it seems kinda dumb to me.
I'm still kind of pissed how the whole AGP thing has gone, since swapping out video cards has really been the only upgrade path anyone using PCs has needed to take for a long while (though I'll admit going dual core on my laptop was actually a good move for my productivity coz the office apps were running slow).
I've never actually seen a modern Mac that looked better to me than your average modern PC.
They all remind me of something you'd see in a dentist's office. iPods included.
Even the monitors look like upright light boxes.
So, since I prefer Windows to Mac and Linux to begin with, there's no draw to buy their more expensive, slightly more limited equipment, which will last about the same amount of time, since I have no space issues to begin with.
That said, I probably would have gotten an iBook eventually if they hadn't started developing those super-cheap laptops, simply because they do perform so well.
The system bus thing is valid though - the only major gains in processor performance seem to really be between generations and no system bus survives the release of something that is actually better.
What'll be neat is when they start incorporating GPUs and other components directly into the multi-core CPU during the fab process.
Bypassing the system bus completely in favor of truly integrated graphics should provide for a significant performance increase. One would hope, at least.
AMD and ATI will probably do it first. Then Intel will buy up Nvidia and follow suit.
Intel's not buying nV anytime soon. They're planning on just going into the graphics market on their own.
Remember that 80-core prototype monster that everyone was talking about a while back? Yeah.
It's not completely outdated yet.
I bought a new PCI-E mobo for ~$40.
I think I'm getting one of these for Christmas:
Last book I'll ever need to buy.
If he has an AGP mobo, odds are upgrading to PCIE means a new processor, RAM set, and perhaps power supply. And the new graphics card, too. This is essentially an entirely new computer.