Guy’s rant about the new iMac

My thoughts about the new iMac. Hmmmmm. I like the way it looks, but I have a few problems with the overall design. I’ll get to that in a moment.

Let me start by saying that I’ve been a fan of the iMac since it came out in 1998. It was an all-in-one design that made sense, took up little room on the desktop, had a powerful for its day G3 processor, and included all the hardware that most people need for day-to-day computing. Having said all that, what was its biggest selling point? It was cute. It was the little button nose on Rudolf’s face that glowed with serenity. The original design over its lifespan was upgraded with faster processors, FireWire ports, wireless networking, etc. Best of all, it sold like gangbusters. It was relatively inexpensive and it was the gateway that many new users had to bigger and greater Apple products.

Then, ol Stevie J decided that CRTs were to be history at Apple and declared with great fanfare that Apple would no longer sell computers with CRT monitors. The newly designed flat-screen G4 iMac was born. It won all kinds of spiffy design awards and it never sold in the kinds of numbers that Apple really expected. Why? It was a lamp. It looked like a lamp, it glowed like a lamp. If you had the keyboard bottom front tabs extended, the CD/DVD tray would smack it when ejecting disks. This was a design flaw that was never corrected. It was also a computer that I never would have bought for my kids, or myself nor did I recommend it to anyone else. Was it a bad computer? I mean, after all it had the same features (and then some) of earlier iMacs. In my opinion it was because it was lacking something. That panache that set it apart like the earlier iMac design. Oh sure it was different. There wasn’t anything else like it on the market from Apple or any other PC maker. It just wasn’t’¦cute. There, I said it. One other thing conspired against the new iMac. For once it wasn’t Dell or Gateway trying to copy all the innovation of the new flat screen wonder. It was Apple itself.

The new iMac was pricey. Much more expensive than the model it was replacing. This presented Apple with a problem. Schools weren’t going to pony up 1300-1900 hundred dollars to replace their now aging G3 teardrop iMacs with this new design. Apple needed a cheaper computer and with little fanfare released the CRT based eMac (eating a little crow after declaring the CRT dead at Apple) to the education market. The eMac was only supposed to only be sold to schools or students. That lasted about two weeks. People clamored for the little Mac that could and Apple seeing the demand, released it to the general public not long after its debut. There was little difference in the performance specifications of the eMac and the iMac, but there was a big difference in price. With no flat screen jacking up the price, the average consumer could get an eMac for hundreds less than a comparable iMac. Plus the eMac was the real successor to the original iMac. In shape and in spirit.

Time marches on. Apple drops Motorola as their prime chipmaker and moves on to the second triad of the PPC design team, IBM. IBM has the G5 processor ready to go and Apple uses them in their new towers. Now the iMacs and eMacs all seem second (or third) best. Even with faster SuperDrives, neither is selling in large quantities. It was only a matter of time before the iMac would include the G5 and at the Paris Expo, Apple released it to the world.

There are many things right about this computer. Starting with either a 17 or 20 inch flat-screen monitor for hundreds less that the model it replaces. Gone is the lamp look (Thank God), in is the monitor as a computer look. Does anyone else have a feeling of Déjà vu? Those of you who have been around long enough may remember the ’20th Anniversary Mac’. It too was an all in one design that incorporated the monitor, speakers, and connections (in the rear). It didn’t swivel and worst of all was too expensive for what you got. It sure looked cool in 1997 though. As does the new iMac. It looks like a modern design. Will it still look cool with external speaker, keyboard, hard drives, and USB/FireWire hub wires hanging out the back? The pictures up on Apple’s website don’t show it with anything (including AC power) connected.

What I think is wrong with the design. The CD/DVD slot is located at the top right side of this unit. Why there? Why not lower corner instead? It seems to me that reaching up high to insert disks is going to be awkward. Next up, the rear connections. They are all located center right in the back of the unit, with a rear hole in the base to route the cables through. I think this will take away from the clean lines of the unit and spoil the design. In my opinion, they could have thickened the lower part of the base and incorporated the connections on the base itself. Use a similar hinge that is used on the iBooks and PowerBooks to route the cabling between the base and the computer. All your cabling is now apart from the monitor/computer. All this could be made pointless of course by using a BlueTooth (for an additional charge) enabled mouse and keyboard and utilizing AirPort for your Networking needs. Now the only thing plugged in is the power cable. Unless you want to watch its output on a TV or external monitor. Now you need Apple’s AV cable. Need more hard drive space than the 80/160 gigs given? Whoops! Now you need either a USB 2 or FireWire port. Going to connect a scanner or printer? Same thing bubba.

Each unit as advertised has 256 megs of RAM. This is inadequate for the best use of OS/X. 512 should be standard and Apple could do it at little real cost to themselves. Same thing for the hard drive. 80 gigs of space isn’t much these days and 160-250 (though it is available for more money) is what is needed for people using these as multi-media editing machines. We pay a premium for the privilege of using Apple products (and compared to their PC brethren, it is a privilege) and deserve a little more. Would it kill Apple to do this? Last grumble, a 64 meg video card. People do look at specs and compared to the 128 meg cards almost standard in mid-range PCs it seems kind of lacking.

Obviously, I don’t have a new iMac and all my complaints might go out the window if I had one. I hope I am wrong about these little annoyances and that the new iMac sells like hotcakes. Apple needs a certifiable hit that doesn’t just play music. If you feel I’m wrong or have made incorrect assumptions about this machine, feel free to slam me unmercifully.